[wyldberry]

"ending last November" - Is the implication that a Trump presidency implies a risk of invasion from the South?

Canada has relied greatly on the United States providing a blanket defense guarantee of the continent. The Canadian military is currently operationally worthless across the board, save the cyber domain. There are many reasons for it that I'm not here to list out. However, that does come with grave consequences geopolitically and the Canadian government has been living in the 1900s.

The USA, via Alaska, provides Canada against Russian provocation on the West Coast[0]. This is similar to the near constant probing of NATO states airspace, especially countries near Ukraine [1][2]

The Canadian Navy is severely underfunded (along with the rest of the Canadian Armed forces)[3] with not enough ships to actively patrol and protect it's waters, especially in the North.

The North passages are incredibly important, and will become more important as trade routes. The entirety of the US wanting to buy Greenland is as a part of having an Atlantic outpost to control those shipping lanes. Those trade lanes can be significantly shorter than routes using Suez or Panama canals.

In addition to the trade routes, the US fears a Russian and Chinese alliance because of the access that grants to the North Atlantic. Point blank: Nato cannot build ships anymore, and the PLAN capacity is staggering. This is already independent of CN and RU intelligence probing of the entirety of the west coast.

The world has changed dramatically, and the only thing that really changed in November is that the USA is no longer pretending it can defend the mainland, defend NATO countries, and police shipping lanes on their own. The USA doesn't have the capacity to replace ships, nor do they have the knowledge anymore to do so.

[0] - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-planes-alaska-us-fighter...

[1]- https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_237721.htm

[2]- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Russian_drone_incursion_i...

[3] - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-greenland-panama-canal-wh...

[AnotherGoodName]

There were literal statements of annexation. Brushed off by some "that was a joke" but they were made.

Lets not downplay that fact.

[wyldberry]

I personally can downplay them as a joke because it is a joke. The mostly likely path forward for anything like that would instead a certain oil rich province voting themselves independent and then asking the US for aid or to join.

And, if it wasn't a joke, then that's even more of a reason to consider meeting your 2% NATO agreement instead of just phoning it in.

[watwut]

They were not joke and no one laughed at them either. They were posturing and trying to be threatening. They were coupled with start of actual trade war and intentional attempts to weaken Canada.

Calling them jokes is just a lie, retroactively trying to make it better.

[mensetmanusman]

They were an objective joke/troll, but multiple psychological studies on certain mindset patterns under stress show that some are intellectually unable to get certain types of jokes.

[wyldberry]

You really can't weaken Canada much more than it is.

[watwut]

It is irrelevant. It was not a joke and it was coupled with hostile actions. Calling it a joke is massively dishonest and no one laughed or considered it funny at the time

[mensetmanusman]

Millions laughed, ergo joke.

[cmrdporcupine]

The only country to have ever invaded us is the USA.

Their national anthem is about a battle in that war.

[raydev]

It's downplayable because Trump isn't actually serious about it. He's serious about something until he learns what's possible. Some things are possible (absurd tariffs), other things are not (declaring war on a bordering country).

[mensetmanusman]

Let’s not downplay jokes. Lol

[asacrowflies]

I can't take anything you say that serious because of the rather extreme bias. 'buy Greenland" I think seize is a better word if your avoiding the term invade.