Comment by echelon

Are you an American? Because this feels like a very US-centric view. I know you're not advocating for this, but it feels like the predictions you've set out for Canada are hitting this intrinsic bias that people who are really into geopolitics always have - they always think about the world as a fully-informed chess game where everyone always makes optimal moves, and they're biased towards predicting sweeping world-changing events that rarely happen due to a multitude of issues. The few major events that do happen often end up unraveling in completely different ways than the internet had predicted.

The Albertan separatism thing is largely drummed-up due to American aggression towards Canada, it slots right into the news cycle alongside threats of annexation that Canada was getting not that long ago. That being said, even in a province as conservative as Alberta, it remains a fringe view, even though some politicians are now willing to say the quiet part out loud. Consider how hard Quebec had tried to secede on multiple occasions, and yet despite having a far stronger case and far more supporters, still failed every time. Talking about Saskatchewan is just trying to lump them in with the Albertans, where in reality that group is even more niche.

But then talking about Yukon and the Northwest Territories just makes this look like enthusiastic map-painting. The reality is, both of these places are overwhelmingly indigenous, and they'd have no reason to ever want to not be part of Canada. Also, they're both territories, which in many ways means they're ruled directly by the federal government, a.k.a. you won't be getting those short of a military invasion or completely ruining the rest of the country to the point where they can just cut it all up.

I kinda agree with you. The US policy won't change much. It is a set policy but not very well executed, simply because such a policy is not in the interest of existing power base, so someone new but crude has to be elected, and that's why he got elected not once, but TWICE.

My understanding is that US is going to shrink back a bit, takes care of its neighbours first, but keep its probing bases intact, so that it can slash some costs and be more flexible in next decades. China is going to reluctantly expand its power base gradually -- but I think it's going to be a slow expansion because any rapid one would either fail, or create a new power group within China, that may threaten the existing players.

Not sure about EU though, it better gear up quickly.

It's not bad analysis, I upvoted you, but what you're forgetting is that nothing ever happens. Venezuela was just typical American meddling, Cuba might happen (I'd bet against it) but neither the Canada nor Greenland thing is going to happen because it would be too dramatic for narrative continuity.

>There is already partisan support within those provinces, and Trump is going to offer money to push it. If that happens, Yukon and the Northwest Territories are next. (Side note: these are Republican voters, which gives Republicans the Senate for years to come.)

Disagree.

1. If any Canadian province becomes an American state (with electoral votes), the Republicans won't win an election for the next 100 years. Even if it's Alberta.

2. Alberta likely won't secede unless they get full statehood. Nobody wants to be another Puerto Rico.

3. I think if you did a referendum in Alberta today (even with full US statehood on offer), the votes to secede would number over 10%.

Remember, Quebec in 1995: 50.58% voted to stay, with a turnout of 93.52%. And they were all but ready to leave to the point of engaging in IRA-style terrorism.

Also, the famous failure of Brexit all but precludes any such referendums from getting serious wind in our lifetimes.

I think it's not majorly the DoD's push though (they aren't all that powerful, they are grifters), there are stronger geo-financial interests behind this.

im in alberta currently.

there's less talk about separation here than there is in Washington for splitting out to form cascadia.

I agree with your assessment. But I think the leaders pulling these strings are not fully appreciating the costs of this security.

Controlling all of these foreign lands is pointless if the country collapses then Balkanizes. The past decade has brought so many events that nobody thought could ever happen that we need to be rearrange our beliefs. It's very possible that those of us around in 10 years will see this time period as being part of the Second American Civil war.

The only thing keeping people almost pacified is the economy is not total dogshit yet. But that's tenuous at best.

There's going to be a post-trump power vacuum. It will likely be much more bloody than our current situation.

> The next salvo is going to be US statehood for Alberta and Saskatchewan. There is already partisan support within those provinces, and Trump is going to offer money to push it.

The polling puts it at 20% support and 80% opposed. This is not going to happen. As a Canadian who was born in Alberta and has lived in Alberta all my life, I will be remaining in Canada.

There is some small amount partisan support but not public support, massive difference. It might cost them the next election.

They aren't republican voters - there is sizable difference between the Canadian right and the US right. I think many Americans make this mistake (and Canadians too) - the republican positions on many things aren't that tenable to center of right (Canadian spectrum).

Also - There aren't many more things that are more toxic in Canada politics than Trump and Annexation. He single handedly handed the Federal election to the Liberals - it was the Conservatives who were going to win until he but his thumb on the scale.

I would love to hear how you think Trump will manage to get Alberta and Saskatchewan to become US states within this century.

Well, I downvoted because I think your views are ill-informed and stupid, not because I think you're advocating for this. You fundamentally don't understand Trump and his ilk - he's petty, vindictive, vain, greedy and a bully. Everything runs on narrative and personal dealings, NOT any sort of rational goals or strategy. Ascribing these things to him is like pretending my cat is scheming about something when it jumps on a window. No bud, they're much simpler creatures.

Venezuela happened because it makes him look good on TV, that's it. There's no grand strategizing, it's a petty, vain person doing shitty things to make himself look great. He believes he is entitled to rule as an absolute monarch and acquiring territory (Greenland, Canada, etc) is just a way for himself to make himself more grand. Sorry, no grand strategy there either. I'll go further and say that part of what makes him so successful is that there's a large contingent of people that can't see him as he is and instead engage in this strategy larp like your various theories.