Category: Geopolitics

Geopolitical strategies, capabilities, and interactions focusing on how these dynamics influence security, relations, and Canadian interests.

UK should prepare for a “worst-case scenario” in which Europe can no longer rely on US support in a crisis, and build stronger relations with “middle powers” such as Canada

In a report published on Friday, 2026.03.27, the British parliament’s Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy (JCNSS) said the UK government should prepare for a “worst-case scenario” in which Europe could no longer rely on US support in a crisis.

The report warned, “The UK must be prepared to take on more of the cost for its and Europe’s security through investing in partnerships and multilateral dialogues with other ‘middle powers’, for example Canada, Australia and India, to avoid being squeezed by great power competition between the United States and China.”

The UK currently relies on the US in several key national security areas, including maintenance of its Trident nuclear missiles, intelligence sharing, and major projects such as the F-35 fighter jet and Aukus submarine deal with Australia.

Continue reading “UK should prepare for a “worst-case scenario” in which Europe can no longer rely on US support in a crisis, and build stronger relations with “middle powers” such as Canada”

PM Mark Carney announces Canada has achieved the NATO 2% defence spending target

The 2 percent of GDP defence spending target is a foundation for an even  stronger, more independent, more secure Canada.

Prime Minister Carney announced Thursday, 2026,03.26, more than $3 billion in infrastructure and defence-related investments across Atlantic Canada:

  • In Nova Scotia, targeted investments to modernize critical infrastructure, build new facilities to support the next generation of naval and air fleets, and expand training and operational capacity. Canada is investing:

The world’s most credible democracy watchdog reports the US is no longer a liberal democracy

Martin Gelin, writing in The Guardian:

The US is no longer a democracy. One of the most credible global sources on the health of democratic nations now says this outright. The Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Institute at Gothenburg University reaches the alarming conclusion in its annual report, that the US is hurtling towards autocracy at a faster rate than Hungary and Turkey.

“Our data on the USA goes back to 1789. What we’re seeing now is the most severe magnitude of democratic backsliding ever in the country,” says Staffan Lindberg, founder of the institute.
Continue reading “The world’s most credible democracy watchdog reports the US is no longer a liberal democracy”

US government cyber security experts thought Microsoft’s Cloud was “a pile of shit,” They still approved it.

The tech giant’s “lack of proper detailed security documentation” left reviewers with a “lack of confidence in assessing the system’s overall security posture,” according to an internal government report reviewed by ProPublica.

Or, as one member of the team put it: “The package is a pile of shit.”

Continue reading “US government cyber security experts thought Microsoft’s Cloud was “a pile of shit,” They still approved it.”

Trump’s threats to NATO reveal glaring absence of any strategy on Iran

Dan Sabbagh, the Guardian’s defence and security editor, writes:

If there was a moment when the absence of a US strategy on Iran was exposed, then this was it. Donald Trump demanded on Saturday that the UK, China, France, Japan and others participate in a naval escort for oil tankers through the strait of Hormuz.

Despite launching the attack on Iran, with Israel, the White House does not seem to have fully anticipated what was likely to follow. Iran had few good military options for fighting back, but attacking US bases, US allies and merchant shipping in the Gulf was the most obvious response – to try to impose costs on the west.

…

Trump, fixated on military power, had no particular desire to work with any country other than Israel – and none wanted to join in starting a war against Iran. As a result, naval preparation by US allies before the start of the war was nonexistent. None of Britain, France, China and Japan had warships ready to take up convoy duties.

For any escort operation to be viable, it might require eight to 10 destroyers, according to Richard Meade, the editor-in-chief of Lloyd’s List, though that would be enough to protect only “five to 10 vessels, making a transit every day and a half”. That would amount to about 10% of prewar shipping volumes.

With his war of choice on Iran, Trump continues to do lasting damage to international trust in America

Edward Luce, the US national editor and a columnist at the Financial Times, writes:

Trump chose to go to war and has taken explicit satisfaction in his power of life and death. War is a grave step after all other options have been exhausted. That Trump had other courses of action is well understood. That he preferred this one is hard to unsee.

With US’s credibility eroding, Europeans are looking for alternatives to American extended nuclear deterrence

Rafael Loss, European Council on Foreign Relations, writes:

America’s credibility is in tatters. According to ECFR’s latest public opinion poll, fewer Europeans than ever consider the United States under President Donald Trump “an ally that shares our interests and values”. This shift has been building since at least February 2024, shortly after Trump encouraged Russia to attack “delinquent” US allies on the campaign trail—an intervention that crystallized fears about Washington’s reliability and fuelled Europeans’ desire for alternative models of nuclear deterrence.

Britain and France, Europe’s two nuclear-armed NATO allies, are central in the resultant conversations. Britain’s nuclear weapons have long been committed to the defence of the alliance, whereas France’s deterrent sits outside of the NATO framework. As such, French president Emmanuel Macron’s address on nuclear deterrence, which is due to take place on March 2nd, is sure to draw particular scrutiny.

…

America’s eroding credibility means that it remains necessary for France and Britain to retain their nuclear forces, especially when considering future NATO security. However, to become instruments of non-proliferation or escalation management, they require development. To borrow from the latest US Strategic Posture Commission, French and British nuclear forces—as the core of a future European strategic deterrent—likely need to grow in size and change composition (or both) to account for structural changes in US defence strategy and Trump-specific hits to US credibility. But they would not have to replicate the US posture to achieve this.

Moreover, France, Britain and their European partners would also have to agree on joint rhetoric and actions to signal resolve and capability in European deterrence. This is not only to assure each other, but also to deter potential adversaries.

UN General Assembly resolution on Ukraine approved

The UN General Assembly, to mark the fourth year of Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, adopted a resolution calling for “a just and lasting peace” in Ukraine. But to do so, they had to reject a last-minute proposal from the US to delete two crucial paragraphs from the draft text that included references to Ukraine’s “sovereignty” and “territorial integrity.”

Continue reading “UN General Assembly resolution on Ukraine approved”

Industry Minister Mélanie Joly delivers remarks in Toronto

In the days after the unveiling of the Canada’s Defence Industrial Strategy, Industry Minister Mélanie Joly addresses the Empire Club of Canada and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.

Industry Minister Mélanie Joly delivers remarks in Toronto – February 19, 2026

Reference:

Canada’s Defence Industrial Strategy https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/industrial-strategy/security-sovereignty-prosperity.html

96% of the world’s nuclear weapons are held by states with authoritarian leaders

Russia and the United States are equally to blame for ending a process begun in the 1960s and marked by the first strategic arms limitation treaty (SALT) in 1972. The construction of over a dozen interlocking agreements over these decades worked to first limit the growth of nuclear stockpiles and then manage their reduction. We went from 70,000 nuclear bombs at the height of the Cold War to just over 12,000 today.

For authoritarian leaders like Putin and Trump, however, these treaties are a restraint on their power. Ending arms control is part of their assault on the global international order; part of the same impulse that caused Putin to invade Ukraine in violation of existing laws and Trump to rupture the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance in pursuit of territorial expansion. Although they may still agree to voluntary limitations on their weapons, these do not have the binding force of a treaty and can easily be violated. In their view, their power and wealth depend on military might, not pieces of paper.

Source:

Joseph Cirincione, Le Monde Editorial: ‘Today, 96% of the world’s nuclear weapons are held by states with authoritarian leaders’ https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2026/02/18/today-96-of-the-world-s-nuclear-weapons-are-held-by-states-with-authoritarian-leaders_6750613_23.html