site banner
PaperclipPerfector  20hr ago (text post)   190 thread views

Transnational Thursday for September 17, 2026

Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Following up on last's weeks topic of the US/Trump administration's trade war on Canada:

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on Thursday embraced the prospect of his country becoming the European Union’s first associate member, saying closer ties with the continent would ensure no country could control Canada’s markets or undermine its sovereignty.

European Parliament President Roberta Metsola has told Euronews that countries including Australia and New Zealand could follow Canada in becoming “associate members” of the European Union as like-minded nations seek closer ties.

One of the more baffling aspects of Trump's foreign policy (in both terms, but especially in his second) is how he's made a point of being hostile towards long-time US allies. The US has historically led a coalition of developed nations that was fairly biased towards US interests, with the implicit tradeoff that the US was also footing the lion's share of the costs. The integration of democratic middle powers into an American-led world order both gave the US leverage over its members (see, for example, the arrest of Meng Wangzhou or leaning on ASML to freeze out China) and discouraged the emergence of a rival power center.

Of late, however, it seems that the American Right has shifted to a model that assumes that US allies have no leverage and thus have no choice but to accept wildly unfavorable terms. There's a element of truth to the idea that US could push its allies harder and that the US was not getting the most favorable possible arrangement out of its alliances. However, the maximalism of the current administration seems to be underestimating the possibility that alienated allies may simply look for ways to work around the US, and undermining US hegemony in a bid for marginal revisions in an already highly favorable status quo is a questionable strategy. What's more, it comes across as a highly emotional approach, driven more by dominance seeking and sense of grievance than material benefit.

The US has historically led a coalition of developed nations that was fairly biased towards US interests

Historically, yes. But is it still the case? Europe is increasingly being taken over by the green-red alliance, and it's not entirely clear why the US should keep financing Europe's security while Europe is rebuilding itself as a woke socialist caliphate. It'd be nice to get the old, Western-civilization-aligned Europe back, but the US can not enact this change. Only Europeans can. And they do not seem to be able or willing to.

I am not a huge fan of Trump's "bull in a china shop" diplomatic style, and it does not seem to be practically effective that much - at least, I am not seeing a huge improvement in the terms of improving US standing and achieving US goals by diplomatic means. His only major success so far that I can identify is freeing the Israeli hostages from Hamas (which is extremely close to my heart personally but I suspect is not super high on the US priority scale) and some advancement on the Abraham accords (even though it is compensated for by increasing radicalization of Turkey). Beyond that, I can hardly name any diplomatic win attributable to him. Stuff like getting rid of Maduro sound a big win to me (at least so far) but there was not a lot of diplomacy involved there.

But while I am skeptical about his methods, I recognize that his approach of trying to get more favorable arrangements makes sense. If EU or Canada put tariffs on US goods, why the US should be fine with it? I think it makes sense to act towards achieving more friendly arrangements. The problem is it seems like Trump is very good in getting into the fight, but less good in figuring out how to end the fight in a way that achieves the goals that the entire fight was about.

undermining US hegemony in a bid for marginal revisions in an already highly favorable status quo is a questionable strategy

Unfortunately, the hegemony is coming into question whether we want it or not, for the reasons I named above. When the fundamental values of the countries are misaligned, the alliance can be maintained either by the US spending huge piles of money - pecunia non olet - or by US aligning more with the woke green-red alliance. The Left has no problem with either part of this, but the Right does. So the realignment is inevitable as long as the US does not succumb to the same alliance. The question is what form that realignment would take.

What's more, it comes across as a highly emotional approach, driven more by dominance seeking and sense of grievance than material benefit.

Yes, that's exactly how said allies are behaving. I honestly don't get this impression from the US, but then again, I'm the one who has to pay the bill for Boomer cultural posturing and said Boomers have made me poorer in the first place because of that posturing, so my perspective is slanted in that way.

There isn't a damn thing Commonwealth countries are going to get from Europe outside of "more resource extraction from an even less competent ally". Canada pretends it'll just make gear for war to maintain its industrial supply chain, but it has no need for it and Germans would quite rather those jobs be made in Germany (to preserve its industrial supply chain). These deals are merely cope.

German industry is already idle, so agreements these countries make will be contingent on their winding down their own manufacturing capacity to keep European capacity (and hence political power) alive. The same wouldn't be true for Britain, but their supply chains packed it in in the Thatcher years, so they have no use for any former imperial possessions.

What now remains is the resolution of the teething pains of countries that permitted themselves to be hollowed out (and sold their ability to maintain a national identity to keep their real estate prices high) collapsing under the weight of their own bureaucratic-welfare complex. If Canada can't resist economic destruction on its own, and realistically it can't, the others have no hope either.

Text of von der Leyen's speech

Honourable Members,

These partnerships are a strategic choice for Europe. But they also respond to the fracture in the international rules-based system.

For some, the answer is to go it alone. But this is not an option for us. Europe will always lead when it comes to defending the rules-based system. But we can no longer rely on it as the only way to secure our interests. Or assume that its rules will shelter us from the complex threats that we face.

In this new world, we must urgently reimagine our partnerships. And build global coalitions for our resilience and democracies.

And here too only Europe—with its size and power—can take the lead.

And this is why I have invited Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada to be here today.

Mark, your presence here is a symbol of the enduring friendship between our people. Our cultural, historical and personal links run deep within the fabric of our societies.

And thanks to CETA, our trade in goods has grown by 75 % in less than a decade.

This shows the power of our trade agreements. We see the world with the same eyes: from AI to climate change, from the Arctic to geopolitics. And we have stood together: on Ukraine, on defence, on raw materials and on supply chains.

But above all, dear Mark, Europe and Canada believe in democracy.

We believe that power does not belong to the strongest, the richest or the loudest—but to all of us. That democracies have the freedom to choose with whom to work.

So, we are joining forces voluntarily. We will move from CETA to an Alliance for the Future to create a common prosperity and economic security space. We will work on intelligent manufacturing. We will create a tech alliance. We will integrate defence industrial bases. We will make the Arctic a flagship joint project. We will work on energy, critical minerals and batteries. On AI, quantum, cyber and economic security.

This is a partnership not against anyone else, but for our common strength.

In short, we want to bring the relationship with Canada to the highest level possible.

Dear Mark,

I said we must urgently reimagine our partnerships. So, I would like to work with you on opening the door for Canada to be the first associate member of the EU.

We share one ocean, one set of values, one way of seeing the world. And we will now build our shared future as well—thank you for being here.

Of course the remorseless globalists like Canada. That standout state of de-nationification.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats