The Canadian Political Crisis and Foreign Policy Developments

By Wayne Allensworth

Something of great importance is taking place in the Great White North — something important not just for Canada but for the American Remnant. The “prairie provinces,” Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, plus British Columbia, are distancing themselves from Ottawa, perhaps even contemplating secession. There has even been talk of Alberta seeking admittance to the United States. That the provinces loaded with natural resources, especially energy resources, are upset with being ripped off by leftist governments in the capital has been gestating for some time. British Columbia’s possibly joining them in a West vs. East revolt is apparently something of a surprise. As I understand it, the cowboys and oil wells provinces are more conservative, a reputation that does not extend to BC. 

Be that as it may, this is an important story. President Donald Trump’s trolling of Ottawa with talk of Canada becoming the 51st state might or might not have anything to do with the recent Canadian election results. But perhaps it did encourage secessionists in the West. And the U.S. has reportedly been quietly talking to the Western Canadian provinces about direct dealings, bypassing Ottawa’s restrictions vis-a-vis access to energy resources. In the eyes of the West, federal restrictions have stifled the development of oil, natural gas, and agriculture there. What’s more, the Western provinces might develop their own immigration policy and military.

A Trump Effect, independent of the man, has spurred what could be seismic cultural and political shifts in America. “Trump” as a social phenomenon has made possible what may have been previously unthinkable. Your observer has many times noted “the end of politics” in America. A point of no return has been reached in the U.S. that might prepare the ground for political realignment among the states. For instance, inland California and the Eastern portions of Washington and Oregon perhaps separating from the leftist coastal areas, which could eventually lead to political separation of the Red states from the Blue.

Ottawa might panic about the prairie revolt, and no doubt doomsayers here would denounce any adjustment of state borders as an attack on “our democracy.” But border shifts need not lead to an apocalypse. As I wrote earlier:

“Countries do not last forever. Like people, nations have lifespans. They are born, they live, and they die. In the past 35 years alone, we have witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall, the reunification of Germany, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the creation of numerous new states. Czechoslovakia split into Czech and Slovak republics. History does not stand still, and neither should we.”

Many of the same people in the trans-national globalist elite who have sanctimoniously declared that “change” is always a positive thing have tried to convince us that the political status quo is sacrosanct. It’s not, of course, and perhaps it is they are living in the past and not us. Populist movements in Europe, the fierce Brexit effort, and the election of Trump signaled the ground shifting beneath the feet of the globalists who had declared that history had ended. Now, it is they who look like the reactionaries, clinging to an era that has had its day.

Meanwhile, some reports suggest significant developments regarding the Middle East and the Russo-Ukrainian war.

Most notably, Trump is not inclined to go to war with Iran, and is “not in a rush,” as he put it, to green light an Israeli strike on nuclear facilities in Iran. Importantly for opponents of U.S. involvement in any Middle Eastern war, Trump removed Mike Walz as national security advisor. He reportedly removed him not only for the embarrassing Signal social media leak, but also more importantly, for Walz’s “intense coordination” behind the scenes with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to militarily strike Iran.

Trump continues to pursue Omani-mediated talks with Tehran. Vice President J.D. Vance and Trump Special Envoy Steve Witkoff reportedly favor diplomacy over military action regarding Iran’s nuclear program, as do Donald Trump, Jr. and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. They face off against Iran hawk Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the likes of Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton. As noted by Gleen Greenwald on his System Update podcast, Trump wants to be the president who ends wars and does not want war with Iran. Netanyahu desires regime change in Tehran, and, reports have it, a rift has opened between Netanyahu and Trump. Trump has previously threatened Iran with military action if no nuclear deal is concluded, and the war party will use that to pressure the president. Trump supporters Charlie Kirk and Tucker Carlson have warned the president that a war would severely undermine his efforts to carry out his MAGA program. Frankly, I think it could well be the end of it. It would revitalize the forever-war elements in the Swamp and Deep State that most oppose Trump.

Greenwald has claimed that Netanyahu is “enraged” with Trump. Trump officials, for example, arranged the release of “American” Edan Alexander (a dual citizen who had served the Israeli army) without going through the Israelis. American officials are doing things, Greenwald notes, heretofore unheard of, telling the Israelis the U. S. does not need Israel’s permission to act. The administration’s putting distance between itself and the Israelis is another good sign for non-interventionists. 

Meanwhile, Israeli relatives of hostages held by Hamas have complained that Netanyahu is in no hurry to free them because that would encourage those who favor ending the war in Gaza. Netanyahu’s Israeli critics say he wants the war to continue. Greenwald states that Witkoff has made similar comments. Trump has repeatedly said he wants the war to end, and that he thinks the Israelis should negotiate with Hamas. What’s more, Greenwald reports that Trump called off air strikes against the Houthis after they promised not to attack American ships. Nothing was said about other shipping, including Israeli vessels. The Trump administration acted without Israel’s participation, another “unheard of” move, as Greenwald commented. American foreign policy should, in fact, put America first. But American troops in the region are a tripwire for war in the event of a wider conflict. Mr. President, bring them home.

Greenwald subsequently reported on American Israeli Firsters melting down over Trump’s “de-prioritizing Israel;” that is, not placing Israeli interests at the same level, or above, American interests. That’s another good sign. Trump is not going to cut off aid to Israel, but he is asserting American interests in a way that distances them from Israel’s. That’s all to the good. Now, if only he would back off his administration’s insistence that criticism of Israel is tantamount to “anti-Semitism.” It isn’t, and as I’ve written previously, MAGA can’t complain about the suppression of free speech by its opponents, then do the same thing.

Regarding the Russo-Ukraine war, for background on recent developments, see my Chronicles article The Ukraine War and the End of the American Superpower, along with Trump’s False Assumptions About Russia (Incentives to Negotiate), and Trump the Disrupter (Some Advice for the New Administration). Judging from recent reporting on the direct Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul and the positions of Trump peace envoy Steve Witkoff and U.S. Special Envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, Kellogg is a favorite of those who would “freeze” the conflict along the current line of contact with no pre-conditions attached. Agreeing to that, of course, would allow for the Ukrainian side to rearm and resume fighting, still seek NATO membership, and push for more Western aid, which is all unacceptable to Russia.  

As I wrote in Chronicles, the Russians are calling for many things they demanded during peace negotiations back in April of 2022. If the West in the person of then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson hadn’t told the Ukrainians not to make the deal, the war could possibly have ended on better terms for Ukraine. But that time has passed. What’s different today is the situation on the battlefield, with Russia steadily advancing, and the annexation of four regions plus Crimea by Russia. That acquisition is non-negotiable in Moscow’s eyes. Russia could accept a ceasefire prior to a comprehensive peace settlement if Ukraine withdrew from the contested regions, a gesture that would suggest the Ukrainians are serious about a long-term deal. But inducing such a step would probably require ending U.S. aid. True, the Europeans might still send aid, but it would not be enough to replace the US support.

I suggest a few steps that could be a basis for negotiation:

• Cut off U.S. aid to Ukraine.

• The Ukrainians withdraw from the contested regions, leaving them fully under Russian control. A ceasefire would follow. That could prevent the Russians taking any more territory, leaving Odessa a Ukrainian port, for example.

Previously, we had read that Moscow, as well as some European states, are amenable to releasing frozen Russian assets in Europe and using them to rebuild Ukraine, with two thirds of the funds going to Kyiv, and one third to the Russian-held regions. Achieving that would be an important step in the talks.

• No new U.S. sanctions on Russia, with a pledge to remove current sanctions, either when a peace deal is signed, or in stages as they progress.

• Ukraine would pass legislation protecting the rights of ethnic Russians and Russian speakers there.

• NATO membership for Ukraine is off the table.

• To “demilitarize” Ukraine, as Russia demands, the U.S. must stop sending advanced weapons systems to Ukraine, especially missiles that threaten the Russian heartland. The Europeans must be involved, too, of course, and the question of sending “peacekeepers” to Ukraine would be closed as well.

• The U.S. should push for some long-term goals beyond the current negotiations, including engaging in talks of interest to both the U.S. and Russia, on limiting strategic arms, for instance, as well as joint economic development projects. Eventually, the Europeans should negotiate with Russia regarding a new European security arrangement that would account for Russian interests.

This is just an outline of an approach that might bear results by satisfying a number of Russia’s demands, while stopping the war and using Russian assets to assist in rebuilding Ukraine. Many details would have to be resolved. In all the involved countries, the doves must prevail over hawks to make this a reality, which is a tall order. Zelensky’s position is quite tenuous, for example, and a hardline coup in Kyiv might derail any chance for a peace agreement. Without an agreement, Moscow will impose its will on the battlefield, the outcome would be worse for Kyiv, and a Cold War between Russia and much of the West would leave open the possibility of renewed hostilities.

In any case, extricating the United States from this war and re-establishing normal ties with Russia are of paramount importance. Both are possible regardless of what happens otherwise. 

Chronicles contributor Wayne Allensworth is the author of  The Russian Question: Nationalism, Modernization, and Post-Communist Russia, and a novel, Field of Blood.

Please consider supporting American Remnant: A green “Donate Today” button has been added at the end of each article (see below) appearing on the website. If you value what AR is doing, please consider supporting the website financially. $5, $10, or any amount that you can afford. Regular donations would especially be appreciated. Thank you!