China doesn't do friends - thats for sure. However if you have a transactional trade relationship with clear boundaries that don't get undermined due to random temperaments you can build on that. The other is impossible to build on - especially threatening to own the country.

This is an eye opening event.

Yeah. Nations need reliable partners more than they need unreliable friends.

China and their famously steady temperament would never be so bold as to try to own a dependent country or strategically weaponize trade. These are real things Canadians believe - talk about eye opening!

Sure but still better than USA.

Better how?

If a country tries to strategically weaponize trade that's something you can predict. That's what makes it strategic.

A predictable relationship is preferable to one where you need to keep wondering whether this week's threat of military action that could draw you into a war, is one of the ones that might actually happen.

Not currently making "jokes" about annexing the country?

Two years ago the same party that currently holds Canadian government and just made these concessions to China completed a report [0] that found

>[China’s actions] collectively "undermine our democratic institutions, our fundamental rights and freedoms, our social cohesion and our long-term prosperity.”[343] [and] the need to consider the threats in the context of an increasingly assertive PRC. Accordingly, Minister Garneau stated that various countries, including Canada, are reassessing their relationship with the PRC in light of its authoritarian and coercive actions.

But yeah a little chirping about Canada’s own unfair trade practices must be DEFCON 3 for US-Canada relations.

[0] https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/44-1/CACN/report...

And what would such a report about the US authored today look like?

Two years ago Trump wasn’t President. The math changed, massively.

neither does America, and they're much closer and dangerous to us at this time.

The US is currently threatening multiple of its NATO partners and serious people don't expect NATO to be around by the end of 2028. I am a less serious person I guess, because I expect it to break up within a year.

I'm glad you have so many cool 80 year old anecdotes to tell yourself, but things change.

> The U.S. does NATO and foots the majority of the bill and human resources for North Atlantic defense. That includes Canada

For how much longer? NATO won't survive this administration.

> China has never done anything like that in its multi-thousand year history.

I mean, China's perspective on at least one of your examples is that it saved North Korea from decades-long rule by succession of military dictatorships that ruled in South Korea. Which isn't entirely unfair.

NATO is basically dead at this point.

The idea that any country does 'friends' is, frankly, incredibly naive. Besides, Carney doesn't want to be friends with China, he wants to open up the market between the two countries. Of course, everyone here was better off when the trade flows crossed the natural north/south border, but this dependence created a weakness in a situation where our neighbourly hegemon decided to not be so neighbourly anymore. Turns out we weren't friends either.

predictability != friendship

And America currently does neither.

Does the US “do friends?” Does France? Does any country?

Shared values do have meaning and an importance. They used to mean a fair bit especially when you needed to fight an aggressor.

Yeah, that's why we're also leaning into our relationship with Europe. We were fooled by Americans but we clearly do not in fact share values, and they're the aggressor we need to fight off here.

There's only a small subset of Americans who think this way, but they happen to be in power right now.

I would not blame people in US as I do not blame those in Russia or North Korea (or those in my country - which include myself). But unfortunately that is not relevant here.

Im not, I'm explicitly saying its the people in power who are small subset of the population.

So, out of the 2 countries situated north of Mexico, whose leader has taken a huge deviation from these "shared values"?

Is this a serious question?

Between the US and China, one is right now making active threats to invade and annex Canada, the other is not. "Who should we forge ties with" seems pretty obvious.

No one is making serious threats to invade Canada, that's ridiculous. We don't need maple syrup that badly.

> No one is making serious threats to invade Canada, that's ridiculous

Would you care to share a few actual quotes that show the obvious facetiousness of the US executive comments that have been made about invading Canada, and comparing them with the obvious seriousness of comments from the same administration about invading Venezuela?

This would be very helpful for foreigners who might have difficulties reading the difference between very public statements that seem quite similar from abroad.

Non-serious threats are just as bad.

A few weeks ago I'd have laughed at the idea of Trump stealing someone's Nobel Peace Prize. But here we are.

Geopolitical / economic activity doesn't happen on the basis of friendship.

The US has exploited Canada for decades. Sometimes it's been somewhat beneficial for some part of the Canadian working class. Other times not.

China will do the same. Just from a further distance.

Americans who like to convince themselves that the US has been doing charity work for us are delusional. They've benefited from discounted resources and cheap labour.

Now China will benefit from that instead, and the US will look internally for cheap labour of its own. American workers who think they'll get a good deal out of cutting Canada out of the equation... again, delusional. Their necks are first on the chopping block. First through paying more at the cash register because of tariffs, and next because the Trump admin will be coming after their salaries next.