Sari Arho Havrén
There's a temptation to look at the collapse of the US-Canada talks through a great-power/realpolitik lens. As for the short term, a less dramatic angle will likely prevail. The word “sovereignty” that Carney used in the mix is important, and it connects directly to what I argued earlier: the US’ tiered framework where autocrat strongmen are Trump’s equals, and allies occupy the second tier. As Trump posted on his Truth Social: “Canada wants the benefits of being a State, without being one!!!” The US is not really negotiating only a trade agreement with Canada; it’s negotiating the terms of Canada’s alignment. My prediction is that neither side “wins” this round. The pattern of the past 18 months; escalation, pause, partial deal, rupture, will repeat. Sort of frozen conflict can be expected: tariffs stay, Canada matches, both sides quietly carve out sectoral exemptions where the pain is mutual (autos, energy inputs), and re-engagement comes after the midterms or the Supreme Court rules shift to Trump’s legal footing. My take is that Canada will not yield on the sovereignty/China dimension (for national security, it should distance itself from China but won't). Carney’s domestic coalition effect makes firmness politically costless. The US will not give in either; it will simply reprice.
Kirk Lubimov
This is why the US-Canada trade negotiations collapsed. The US wanted to have control over the trade deals Canada was making around the world. Furthermore, they wanted to use Canada (Canada's resources) as a leverage for their own deal and diplomatic activities around the world. All while still restricting and tariffing Canada's access to the US economy. If this was the case as Mark Carney claims, I fully support walking away from these negotiations. It's completely ludicrous and irrational. I put together the key moments he explains it.