This reminds me of Canada's position during the interwar period.
It was often caught between a declining British Empire and an America that wasn't yet ready to lead. You ended up building our own institutions (the CBC, the Bank of Canada, the beginnings of a real foreign service) because you couldn't rely on either anchor. The difference now is that Canada is far more economically integrated with the U.S. than it ever was with Britain.
Harder to hedge indeed. Neela, that’s such a good historical parallel — and a sobering one. You’re right: the interwar years forced Canada to grow up institutionally because neither anchor was reliable. There’s a quiet confidence in that part of our history, but also a reminder of how hard it was.
What makes this moment feel heavier, as you say, is the depth of integration now. Back then, we could still step sideways. Today, our economies, supply chains, even our assumptions about normalcy are braided together in ways that are much harder to unwind or hedge against.
“Harder to hedge” is exactly the right phrase. From here, it feels less like choosing between anchors and more like learning to keep our balance on the boat while the water itself keeps shifting and swirling. Big sigh indeed — but I’m glad we’re thinking it through together, even from opposite sides of the continent. 💛
Great article! And a great introduction (for me -- I hadn't noticed it yet) to the work of Eurasia Group.
One area I don't feel on the same page with.
In my reading, NATO was created to launch and fight the Cold War, and probably should have disbanded in 1991. Instead there has been expansion efforts. Now that the USA has essentially announced it is disregarding NATO (any aggressive moves towards "acquiring" Greenland effectively ends the NATO agreement), with the USA having been the primary enforcement arm of NATO, it looks like what remains of NATO is severely overextended.
Canada will stand alone as a non-European member of NATO, depending on how you see Iceland. While I understand why Canada might want to support whatever NATO is doing in the hopes that Western European allies will protect it against the USA, I'm not as convinced that can (resource wise) or will (politically) happen. There may not be any politically viable choice for Canada to make, but I don’t think the ongoing engagement on Ukraine will end well for the remaining NATO members.
If continued NATO and Western European Union expansion eastward within Europe was off the table, would that sufficiently remove pressure that sparked the invasion of Ukraine? I know that WEOG punditry points to so many other things and away from themselves, but I seriously believe WEOG continues to have an Imperialist mindset that is going to continue to harm the future of those member states.
When I watch the following video that is focused on the USA, I can't help but feel it applies to all WEOG member states who are going through various stages of the same process.
The "Zombie USMCA" framing aligns perfectly with the mood in the House of Commons right now. If you look at recent transcripts from the Standing Committee on International Trade (CIIT), the focus has completely shifted from 'growth' to 'mitigation.' We saw this cemented in the *Canada Strong Budget Act* late last year—Ottawa effectively stopped planning for free trade and started budgeting for a permanent defensive crouch. When the government has to allocate billions just to absorb unpredictable steel and aluminum tariffs, the "rules-based order" is already gone.
That’s a sharp observation — and it aligns closely with what’s coming out of Ottawa as well. The shift from “growth” to “mitigation” is subtle but profound. Once a government starts budgeting for shock absorption rather than expansion, it’s an admission that predictability has already been lost.
I think you’re right that the Canada Strong Budget Act marks a turning point. When billions are set aside not to build capacity but to buffer against unilateral tariffs, the rules-based order isn’t just under strain — it’s being treated as functionally absent.
What worries me most is how quietly this normalization happens. Defence budgeting becomes routine, contingency planning replaces strategy, and we tell ourselves this is temporary. But as you note, once mitigation becomes the baseline, something fundamental has already shifted.
This reminds me of Canada's position during the interwar period.
It was often caught between a declining British Empire and an America that wasn't yet ready to lead. You ended up building our own institutions (the CBC, the Bank of Canada, the beginnings of a real foreign service) because you couldn't rely on either anchor. The difference now is that Canada is far more economically integrated with the U.S. than it ever was with Britain.
Big sigh!
Harder to hedge Leni.
Harder to hedge indeed. Neela, that’s such a good historical parallel — and a sobering one. You’re right: the interwar years forced Canada to grow up institutionally because neither anchor was reliable. There’s a quiet confidence in that part of our history, but also a reminder of how hard it was.
What makes this moment feel heavier, as you say, is the depth of integration now. Back then, we could still step sideways. Today, our economies, supply chains, even our assumptions about normalcy are braided together in ways that are much harder to unwind or hedge against.
“Harder to hedge” is exactly the right phrase. From here, it feels less like choosing between anchors and more like learning to keep our balance on the boat while the water itself keeps shifting and swirling. Big sigh indeed — but I’m glad we’re thinking it through together, even from opposite sides of the continent. 💛
But don’t worry, Leni - maybe we'll take the house and the Senate in November, and we won’t need you to “hedge” anything lol.
A girl can dream.
Great article! And a great introduction (for me -- I hadn't noticed it yet) to the work of Eurasia Group.
One area I don't feel on the same page with.
In my reading, NATO was created to launch and fight the Cold War, and probably should have disbanded in 1991. Instead there has been expansion efforts. Now that the USA has essentially announced it is disregarding NATO (any aggressive moves towards "acquiring" Greenland effectively ends the NATO agreement), with the USA having been the primary enforcement arm of NATO, it looks like what remains of NATO is severely overextended.
Canada will stand alone as a non-European member of NATO, depending on how you see Iceland. While I understand why Canada might want to support whatever NATO is doing in the hopes that Western European allies will protect it against the USA, I'm not as convinced that can (resource wise) or will (politically) happen. There may not be any politically viable choice for Canada to make, but I don’t think the ongoing engagement on Ukraine will end well for the remaining NATO members.
If continued NATO and Western European Union expansion eastward within Europe was off the table, would that sufficiently remove pressure that sparked the invasion of Ukraine? I know that WEOG punditry points to so many other things and away from themselves, but I seriously believe WEOG continues to have an Imperialist mindset that is going to continue to harm the future of those member states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_and_Others_Group
When I watch the following video that is focused on the USA, I can't help but feel it applies to all WEOG member states who are going through various stages of the same process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs2nBl43hhs
The "Zombie USMCA" framing aligns perfectly with the mood in the House of Commons right now. If you look at recent transcripts from the Standing Committee on International Trade (CIIT), the focus has completely shifted from 'growth' to 'mitigation.' We saw this cemented in the *Canada Strong Budget Act* late last year—Ottawa effectively stopped planning for free trade and started budgeting for a permanent defensive crouch. When the government has to allocate billions just to absorb unpredictable steel and aluminum tariffs, the "rules-based order" is already gone.
That’s a sharp observation — and it aligns closely with what’s coming out of Ottawa as well. The shift from “growth” to “mitigation” is subtle but profound. Once a government starts budgeting for shock absorption rather than expansion, it’s an admission that predictability has already been lost.
I think you’re right that the Canada Strong Budget Act marks a turning point. When billions are set aside not to build capacity but to buffer against unilateral tariffs, the rules-based order isn’t just under strain — it’s being treated as functionally absent.
What worries me most is how quietly this normalization happens. Defence budgeting becomes routine, contingency planning replaces strategy, and we tell ourselves this is temporary. But as you note, once mitigation becomes the baseline, something fundamental has already shifted.