Mark Carney has done nothing to be eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize

The Nobel Peace Prize is meant to reward those who defend human rights or build peace. Carney’s record on Palestine and the Gaza genocide alone should immediately disqualify him.  

By Fareed Khan

A version of this article is available on Substack.  

In recent months, a curious narrative has taken shape in international media. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is being promoted as a plausible contender for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize. His name has appeared in speculative lists, with prediction markets briefly pushing him into the top tier of likely recipients, and commentators have framed him as a stabilizing force in a world destabilized by Donald Trump’s destructive foreign and economic policies. Carney’s January speech at Davos, where he urged “middle powers” to defend multilateralism and resist Trump’s coercive tactics, was widely praised in Western policy circles. But praise for a speech, no matter how consequential, has nothing to do with building peace. And the idea that Carney should be considered for the world’s most prestigious peace award is not merely misguided—it is symptomatic of a Nobel Committee that has lost its sense of purpose.

The Nobel Peace Prize was once reserved for individuals whose actions demonstrably prevented war, protected vulnerable populations, reshaped the moral landscape of global politics, or achieved real peace. Lester Pearson’s 1957 award—earned for creating the UN peacekeeping force that defused the Suez Crisis and prevented a potential nuclear confrontation between the United States and Soviet Union is the archetype of who should be awarded the prize. Pearson’s achievement was concrete, measurable, and historically consequential. Carney’s record, by contrast, is a patchwork of speeches, diplomatic positioning, meetings with leaders at international forums, and political theatrics that have produced no meaningful contribution to peace.

The Nobel Peace Prize’s drift into symbolism

To understand why Carney’s consideration for the prize is so troubling, one must first acknowledge the long‑running crisis of credibility facing the Nobel Committee. Over the past quarter century, the award has increasingly been given not for results achieved, but for aspirations. Barack Obama’s 2009 prize remains the most notorious example, awarded less than a year into his presidency, before he had achieved anything of substance in the realm of peace or diplomacy. Obama himself admitted he did not deserve it. Yet the Nobel Committee insisted on rewarding “hope,” “promise,” and “potential”—concepts that have no place in a prize meant to honour concrete achievements.

This drift did not begin with Obama, nor did it end with him. The United Nations received the prize in 2001 for “building a more peaceful world,” despite its inability to prevent dozens of wars since its creation which have destabilized regions around the world. The International Atomic Energy Agency won in 2005 for preventing nuclear proliferation, even though France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and South Africa all developed nuclear arsenals under its watch (with South Africa giving up theirs in 1991). The European Union received the prize in 2012 for advancing peace and reconciliation, despite its role in imposing austerity policies that destabilized Southern Europe and fuelled political extremism. Other awards—to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (2017), the 2018 laureates fighting sexual violence, and the World Food Programme (2020)—were given not for ending war, but for trying hard. But trying hard is not peace.

The Nobel Committee has increasingly treated the Peace Prize like a participation trophy, rewarding effort, symbolism, and political messaging rather than measurable outcomes. If Carney receives the 2026 prize, it will be yet another confirmation that the award has become detached from the realities of global conflict and human suffering.

Carney’s “achievements” are optics without substance

Carney’s supporters argue that he has become a global voice for stability, multilateralism, and resistance to Donald Trump’s destabilizing policies. They point to his Davos speech, his rising popularity in Europe, and his role in pushing Canada toward becoming the EU’s first “associate member.” They highlight his inclusion on Time’s list of the 100 most influential people of 2026 and his reputation as a “middle‑power leader” who did not blink in the face of American pressure.  But none of this constitutes peacebuilding.

Carney’s Davos speech was an appeal for economic cooperation and trade and political stability. It was not a call for demilitarization, conflict resolution, or protecting human rights. It was a speech about economies and markets, not morality. Canada’s trade war with the United States is not peace work, it is economic brinkmanship Carney was forced to deal with in response to Trump’s trade war. His efforts to build alliances with Europe and other nations around the world are not peace initiatives, they are geopolitical positioning. His rising profile is the result of political theatre amplified by media outlets hungry for a Western leader who can stand up to Trump.

Prediction markets reflect this reality. They are driven by a gambling mindset, media buzz, and political narratives—not insider knowledge of the Nobel Committee’s deliberations. Carney’s brief appearance at the top of the odds board was a reflection of public fascination, not any substantive achievements on his part.

Carney’s record on Palestine is a moral failure

If the Nobel Peace Prize is meant to reward those who defend human rights or build peace, Carney’s record on Palestine and the Gaza genocide alone should immediately disqualify him.

Throughout Israel’s ongoing assault on Gaza—which numerous human rights organizations and legal scholars have described as genocide—Carney has consistently refused to condemn Israel’s actions. Like Justin Trudeau before him, he will not even utter the word “genocide” to describe the scale of Israeli atrocities. At the same time, his government has continued exporting Canadian‑made weapons to Israel despite a House of Commons resolution passed in March 2024 calling for an immediate halt to arms sales. Under Carney’s leadership, Canada has also maintained full trade relations with Israel and provided diplomatic cover for policies that plainly violate international law. These are not the actions of a peacebuilder. They are the choices of a leader who places geopolitical alliances above human life.

Additionally, in a 2025 interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Carney stated that Palestinians could have a state only if it were a “Zionist Palestinian State”—a phrase that effectively demands that Palestinians adopt the ideology of their oppressor as a condition for sovereignty. These are words that send a message of moral capitulation not diplomacy.

In September 2025, Carney announced that Canada would recognize a Palestinian state, but only under conditions that mirrored Israeli demands. His recognition was not an act of support for Palestinian statehood but rather a mostly meaningless act designed to address public criticism at home and appease Western allies while avoiding any meaningful confrontation with Israel over the atrocities it has been committing for three years.

A man who refuses to condemn genocide, who continues to arm a genocidal state, and who demands that an oppressed people adopt the ideology of their oppressor in order to gain support for their sovereign ambitions has no business even being considered for a peace prize.

The Nobel Committee’s irrelevance

If the Nobel Committee awards Carney the 2026 Peace Prize, it will confirm what critics have argued for years—that the prize has become detached from the realities of global conflict and human suffering. It has become a tool for Western political messaging, a way to reward those who maintain the global status quo rather than those who challenge it.

Carney’s nomination if it exists at all, since the Nobel shortlist is secret and prediction markets are purely speculative, is rooted in optics, not substance. He is potentially being rewarded for standing up to Trump, not for advancing peace, celebrated for speeches not for actions. He is being elevated by Western elites who mistake efforts towards political and economic stability for moral leadership.

The Nobel Peace Prize should honour those who confront injustice, defend human rights, and prevent violence. Carney has done none of these things.

The fact is that Carney has no business receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, let alone being nominated for it. He has done nothing of substance to advance peace, protect vulnerable populations, or confront global injustices. His record with regard to the oppression and suffering of Palestinians is a moral stain, his rise in prediction markets is a media phenomenon, and his Davos speech, while notable, was political posturing.

If he has been nominated and the Nobel Committee awards him the prize, it will be yet another sign that the Peace Prize has lost its meaning. It will confirm that the award has become a symbol of Western self‑congratulation rather than a recognition of genuine moral courage.

The Nobel Peace Prize should honor those who change the world. Carney has been around long enough to initiate changes to the global order and encourage other middle powers to do the same. But none of them have anything to do with building peace or defending the rights of the persecuted or oppressed.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

War to hit US soil next year claims China’s Nostradamus . . . here are his five terrifying 2027 predictions

Trump, Jiang Xueqin claims, believes God gave him a mission to save America. Winning a war in Iran is optional. The real goal would be to keep power and secure a third presidential term in 2028.

By Fareed Khan

A version of this article can be found on Substack.

I only occasionally repost the work of others. The article below this introduction was published yesterday (September 4, 2026) in the Daily Mail deserves wide circulation. It profiles Jiang Xueqin, a Chinese‑Canadian educator and political commentator popularly dubbed “China’s Nostradamus,” who has issued five stark predictions for 2027—warnings that, if realized, would plunge the world into economic and political turmoil not seen since the 1930s.

Jiang foresees a severe global downturn, rising international conflict, large‑scale natural disasters, and political instability across major powers in the coming year. The article notes that several of his earlier prophecies came true, giving his new predictions heightened attention online. More importantly, his warnings do not exist in a vacuum—they mirror the assessments of economists, security analysts, climate researchers, and sociologists who have been sounding alarms about systemic political and econoimic fragility for years. Jiang’s predictions resonate precisely because they articulate what many experts have been too cautious to say plainly: the world is entering a period of profound instability, where multiple crises can collide and magnify one another. Economic anxiety, geopolitical fragmentation, and rapid technological disruption have already weakened social cohesion and eroded trust in political and media institutions in Western democracies. In such an environment, even a single shock can cascade across borders. Jiang’s message is not simply speculation; it is a reflection of structural vulnerabilities that are visible to anyone willing to look honestly at the state of the world.

The truth is that our leaders would rather stick their heads in the sand and pretend none of Jiang’s predictions could materialize rather than prepare for what is to come. But the 2020s have already shown how quickly the unimaginable becomes reality. We have lived through a global pandemic that crippled economies and exposed the fragility of supply chains. We have witnessed a mad man leading the most powerful nation in the world sowing political and economic chaos. We have observed democratic backsliding in powerful nations, watched unprovoked wars destabilize energy and food supplies, and seen inflation, debt, and economic turmoil, push the global economy closer and closer towards a deep recession. These events are linked, and are symptoms of deeper systemic political and economic decay. The decade has felt like a historical echo of the 1930s, one where political extremism is rising, global institutions are faltering, and international norms are eroding. It is not alarmist to say that the world is drifting toward a dangerous inflection point, it is simply acknowledging what is already unfolding.

This is why Jiang’s warnings should not be ignored. They are not predictions of an alternate reality—they are extrapolations of the one we are already living in. The pandemic revealed how unprepared governments were for a foreseeable crisis. The wars of the 2020s showed how quickly regional conflicts can disrupt global trade and push millions into poverty. Climate‑driven disasters have become more frequent and more destructive, overwhelming emergency systems and displacing entire communities. Meanwhile, technological change—AI, automation, cyber warfare—has created new vulnerabilities that governments are barely coping with. Jiang’s prophecies, dramatic as they may sound, are aligned with the trajectory of a world that has ignored warning signs for too long.

The deeper danger is complacency. When leaders dismiss credible warnings, societies lose the opportunity to prepare, adapt, and mitigate harm, and its the bottom 99% who are most profoundly affected. History shows that crises do not become catastrophic because they are inevitable—they become catastrophic because those in power refuse to act until it is too late. 

Jiang’s predictions should not be treated as fringe speculation but as a wake‑up call. They highlight the urgent need for political courage, international cooperation, and long‑term thinking—qualities that have been in short supply throughout the 2020s. If governments continue to ignore the structural risks Jiang identifies, they will not just fail to prevent the turmoil he describes, they will accelerate it, and there will be global consequences.

The world is standing on the edge of an era that could define the next century, the same way that the Great Depression and World War II defined the last 90 years. Jiang’s warnings, whether prophetic or analytical, demand attention because they force us to confront uncomfortable truths—our political, economic, and social infrastructures are brittle, our leaders are reactive rather than proactive, and our societies are more polarized and vulnerable than at any time since the 1930s. To dismiss these warnings is to gamble with the future. To heed them is to acknowledge that the world still has time—barely—to change course and build towards a more optimistic future.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

John Turner was right in 1988. Canada-US free trade has become a threat to our sovereignty

Turner understood that Canada’s infrastructure—its east-west trading routes, its regulatory systems, its resource management—had been deliberately designed to resist US continental pressure.

By Fareed Khan 
A version of this article can be found on Substack.

In 1988, during what became known as Canada’s “free trade election,” Liberal Leader and former Prime Minister John Turner issued a warning that was dismissed by many at the time as alarmist, emotional, or simply outdated. Turner argued that binding Canada’s economy to that of the United States through a free trade agreement would, over time, erode Canadian sovereignty, undermine economic independence, and place the country at the mercy of American political whims. His words—delivered with unusual moral force during the English-language leaders’ debate—were not merely campaign rhetoric. They were a diagnosis of structural vulnerability.

Today, nearly four decades later, Turner’s warning has been vindicated with almost eerie precision. Canada now finds itself in the crosshairs of a trade war launched by US President Donald Trump, whose administration has imposed 50% tariffs on roughly $20 billion worth of goods and openly mused about absorbing Canada as the “51st state.” The very interdependence and market access that free trade advocates celebrated as a triumph of globalization has today become a weapon of coercion. Prime Minister Mark Carney is now confronting the consequences of a political decision made long before his time—an error Turner tried to warn Canadians about.

But Turner’s warning should not only be seen as one for Canada, but also as a warning that America’s friends and allies across Europe and Asia should have heeded. The political and economic instability now radiating from Washington demonstrates that globalization, when built around a single dominant power, can be a conduit for coercion and economic blackmail rather than cooperation. The world is learning that lesson the hard way.

Sovereignty lost by degrees

During the 1988 election debate, Turner delivered one of the most memorable rebukes in Canadian political history. He accused Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of reversing 120 years of nation-building “with one signature of a pen,” warning that once Canada surrendered control over its economic levers through an all encompassing trade deal, then “political independence is sure to follow.”

Turner’s critique was not abstract. He understood that Canada’s infrastructure—its east-west trading routes, its regulatory systems, its resource management—had been deliberately designed to resist US continental pressure. Free trade, he argued, would undo that architecture and replace it with a north-south dependency that would eventually leave Canada exposed.

Mulroney dismissed Turner’s concerns as overwrought, calling the agreement “a commercial document.” But Turner insisted: “That document relates to every facet of our life.”

He was right.

The Canada-US Free Trade Agreement of 1989, followed by NAFTA in 1994, created one of the largest integrated economies in the world. By 2000, the NAFTA economy reached US$11.7 trillion—far surpassing the European Union’s US$7.8 trillion. By 2025, the Canada-US-Mexico GDP had grown to US$32.9 trillion, compared to the EU’s US$21.24 trillion.

Canada prospered—but at a cost. Today, nearly three‑quarters of its exports flow south to a US economy ten times its size. Over time, supply chains fused, investment patterns aligned, and regulatory systems converged. For years, this tight integration looked like a triumph of modern globalization. But Turner saw what others missed. Interdependence is not equality. It is exposure. And the recent eruption of tariffs and trade threats by Trump has confirmed just how accurate his warning was.

Turner’s prophecy comes true

The first tremors appeared during Trump’s initial presidency (2016–2020), when Canada was sidelined in trade negotiations in favour of a US-Mexico bilateral deal. But the real earthquake struck after Trump’s return to office in 2025.

In August 2026, the United States imposed sweeping 50% tariffs on Canadian steel, autos, lumber, honey, dairy, and other goods—tariffs that even members of his own party at the federal and state levels admitted they had not requested. The Trump administration then introduced language in trade negotiations that would have required US approval for any future Canadian trade deals—a condition that would have effectively placed Canadian trade policy under Washington’s control.

Carney walked away from the talks, calling the demand “a question of sovereignty.”

British Columbia Premier David Eby was more blunt: accepting such terms would have reduced Canada “to the economic equivalent of the 51st state.”

Turner’s warning had come full circle.

Economic interdependence as a weapon

Economic interdependence has become the defining fault line of the current crisis between Canada and the United States. What Prime Minister Mark Carney is confronting today is not simply a trade dispute or a clash of personalities with Donald Trump. It is the culmination of a structural imbalance that has been building for decades—an imbalance rooted in America’s dominance over the global financial system, technological infrastructure, and supply chains. The Trump administration’s coercive tactics against Canada are not an aberration. They are part of a broader pattern of American behaviour toward allies and adversaries alike, enabled by the extraordinary reach of US economic power. What Turner feared in 1988—that Canada would one day be unable to chart its own course because its economic lifelines ran through Washington—has now become a lived reality, that Canada is quickly trying to reverse.

Washington’s ability to weaponize financial networks is perhaps the most potent example. American Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s threat to exclude foreign partners from the American financial system if they maintain ties with Iran was not merely diplomatic pressure, it was a demonstration of how deeply global commerce depends on US dollar infrastructure. Because most international trade, debt settlement, and cross-border banking rely on dollar clearing, the United States can freeze assets, block transactions, and cripple national economies with administrative decisions that require no multilateral approval. The European Policy Centre has warned that this creates “single points of failure” across Western economies—points controlled entirely by Washington. In effect, the US dollar has become a geopolitical lever, one that can be pulled at any moment to discipline allies or punish adversaries.

Secondary sanctions amplify this vulnerability. Even companies based in allied nations can be penalized for trading with states targeted by US sanctions regimes, because the transactions inevitably pass through American-controlled systems such as SWIFT or US correspondent banks. European governments have spent years attempting to build alternative payment channels—most notably INSTEX—to allow them to conduct independent foreign policy without risking American retaliation. Yet these efforts have largely failed, demonstrating how deeply entrenched US financial dominance remains. As one senior EU official put it, Europe has discovered their vulnerability—that “sovereignty without financial autonomy is an illusion.”

The same dynamic exists in global supply chains. The United States can disrupt critical manufacturing inputs, energy exports, and technological components through abrupt export controls or regulatory delays. The Small Wars Journal notes that this leverage is particularly acute in sectors where the US dominates upstream production, such as advanced semiconductors, aerospace components, and specialized industrial machinery. When Washington tightens access, entire industries in partner nations can be thrown into crisis overnight. The Biden administration used similar tactics against China, and Trump has now turned them against Canada and Europe. The message is unmistakable—supply chains are not neutral economic structures—they are instruments of state power.

American tech dominance weaponized

Technological dependence adds another layer of vulnerability. American firms command a massive share of global tech profits, cloud infrastructure, and artificial intelligence capacity. This gives Washington indirect control over digital services, data flows, and cybersecurity frameworks worldwide. European governments have grown increasingly anxious about this imbalance, prompting efforts to develop local cloud systems, digital currencies, and anti-coercion mechanisms designed to reduce exposure to US pressure. The New York Times has reported that European leaders now openly discuss “digital sovereignty” as a strategic priority—a term that would have been unthinkable two decades ago. The EU’s push for GAIA‑X, a federated cloud system designed to reduce reliance on American tech giants, is a direct response to fears that Washington could one day weaponize digital infrastructure the same way it has weaponized financial networks.

Canada’s confrontation with Washington is unfolding against this backdrop. Carney has framed the crisis as a test of whether middle powers can preserve sovereignty in a world where economic integration has become a tool of coercion. His warning that “America is trying to break us so that they can own us” was not hyperbole but a recognition of the structural reality Canada faces. Scholars such as University of Toronto professor Nelson Wiseman argue that Canada is providing “the biggest test yet” of whether middle powers can resist great‑power economic pressure—and whether others will follow. The Atlantic Council has similarly cautioned that US coercive behaviour is straining alliances and accelerating global efforts to diversify away from American systems. Canada, in other words, has become the proving ground for a new era in international relations—one in which nations must decide whether they will remain dependent on American systems or build the capacity to stand apart from them.

What Canada is experiencing is not merely a bilateral dispute. It is a structural crisis in the global order—one that exposes the illusion at the heart of post–Cold War globalization. Policy makers believed that economic interdependence would create stability, prosperity, and shared interests. But Turner understood something they did not—globalization built around a single dominant power is not interdependence. It is asymmetric dependence. And the United States has now demonstrated that it is willing to weaponize that dependence even against its closest allies.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Donald Trump — the greatest threat to Canada since Hitler (Part III): Fighting for our future

Trump has declared an economic war on Canada . . . It is part of a strategy to weaken Canada’s sovereignty and absorb it into the US.

By Fareed Khan

A version of this article can found on Substack.

This is part III of a three part series on the existential danger the United States under Donald Trump poses to Canada.

Canada finds itself at a historic crossroads — a moment of profound consequence not only for its own future, but also for the stability of the democratic world. For decades, Canadians have viewed the United States as a close ally, and a neighbour bound by shared values and intertwined economies. Today, that assumption is collapsing in the face of Donald Trump’s trade and tariff war against Canada and his expansionist political agenda. Canada is now the front line in the global fight for an international economic and political order that has created prosperity, and maintained eight decades of peace. If this country falls, others will fall behind us. Under the circumstances the stakes could not be higher.]

Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025 transformed a once‑predictable bilateral relationship into a volatile confrontation. His economic war, his threats of annexation, and his openly authoritarian instincts represent the greatest danger Canada has faced since Adolf Hitler. That comparison may sound extreme, but many Canadians now believe it is warranted. Trump’s actions — sweeping tariffs, political interference, and rhetoric that frames Canada as a subordinate territory — have forced Canadians to confront a reality that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago.

Canada must begin by acknowledging the truth: Trump has declared an economic war on Canada. His tariffs, threats, and interference are not isolated incidents or negotiating tactics. They are part of a coordinated strategy to weaken Canada’s sovereignty and absorb it into a US-dominated sphere of influence. This is not speculation. It is the conclusion Canadians themselves are drawing.

Recent polling shows that 55% of Canadians now view the United States as the greatest threat to national security — more than China or Russia. Another poll found that 58% believe a US military invasion is plausible in the near term. These numbers represent a profound shift in public consciousness. Canadians are not reacting to abstract theories or distant hypotheticals. They are responding to Trump’s explicit statements, his aggressive policies, and the unmistakable trajectory of his administration.

The fear is not irrational. Trump has repeatedly mused about annexing Canada as the “51st state.” He has threatened to “cripple” Canada’s economy if Ottawa does not comply with his demands. His administration has imposed tariffs designed not merely to extract concessions, but to destabilize Canada’s economic foundations. And his political allies have openly encouraged separatist movements within Canada as a means of fracturing the country from within.

In this context, Canada must respond with unity, courage, and decisive action. The time for polite diplomacy and cautious statements has long passed. The threat is real, immediate, and unprecedented. Canada must adopt a national strategy equal to the scale of the danger.

One of Canada’s most potent tools lies not in the size of its military, but in the collective purchasing power of its people. Canadians buy hundreds of billions of dollars in American goods every year, a flow of commerce that has long benefited US industries. But that advantage can be turned into leverage. A coordinated boycott — already emerging organically across the country — has cost American businesses billions. This pressure is not merely a gesture of disapproval, it is a strategic act of self‑defence. By reducing demand for US products, Canadians can impose real economic consequences on American industries, particularly those in politically sensitive regions where Trump’s support is strongest. Economic pressure applied consistently and deliberately can force political recalculations in Washington in ways that diplomatic statements alone cannot.

Canada also holds decisive advantages in resources the United States cannot easily replace. Potash, energy, and critical minerals form the backbone of US agriculture, manufacturing, and technology. These are not commodities that can be sourced overnight from alternative suppliers. By adjusting export levels, pricing, or supply routes, Canada can raise costs for US consumers and industries — especially in red‑state farm regions already weakened by Trump’s own tariff policies. This is not retaliation for its own sake, it is a necessary defensive measure to counter Trump’s economic aggression and to remind Americans that Canada is not a passive actor in this conflict. Strategic use of these resources can shift the economic balance and force Americans to confront the consequences of Trump’s destabilizing agenda.

Canada’s vulnerabilities extend well beyond economics. Our military dependence on the United States has become a strategic liability — one Donald Trump has already demonstrated he is willing to exploit. The planned purchase of 88 F‑35 fighter jets, a $19‑billion acquisition with a lifetime cost of $74 billion, would effectively place Canada’s air‑defence capabilities under U.S. control. Canadians understand this risk with polls showing that more than 70% percent favour Canada buying Sweden’s Saab Gripen rather than the F‑35.

The problem is structural. The F‑35’s software architecture, mission data files, and maintenance systems are all controlled by the American defence contractor Lockheed Martin. In any crisis, Canada could find itself unable to obtain spare parts, essential maintenance, or the technical support required to operate its own aircraft independently. Defence experts warn that the US could disable Canada’s fleet simply by withholding software updates or restricting access to critical systems.  This danger is not theoretical. Denmark and Germany have already raised similar concerns about their own F‑35 programs, underscoring that the vulnerability is baked into the platform itself — and shared by every nation that relies on it.

Canada must therefore pursue defence autonomy, which means cancelling the F‑35 program beyond the initial jet purchase and exploring the alternative that ensures operational independence. It means investing in domestic defence production, strengthening the Canadian components of NORAD, and expanding partnerships with European, Japanese and South Korean defence contractors. Sovereignty cannot be defended if the tools of defence are controlled by a foreign power — especially one whose leader has openly threatened Canada’s territorial integrity.

But Canada cannot confront Trump’s authoritarian project alone. The US under Trump has placed targets on the backs of Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and other democratic nations. These countries have faced tariffs, diplomatic pressure, and threats designed to force compliance with Washington’s agenda. Canada must work closely with these allies to coordinate economic, diplomatic, and technological resistance. A unified democratic front can counterbalance US pressure and prevent Trump from isolating Canada. The world is watching how Canada responds, and many nations would very likely stand with us if we lead with conviction.

Internal unity is equally essential. Canada’s domestic divisions — particularly Alberta separatism — are vulnerabilities Trump seeks to exploit, and has already tried to. Regional polarization and political fragmentation weaken national cohesion and amplify foreign interference. Canada must confront these internal threats with honesty and resolve. National unity is not merely a political slogan. It is a strategic necessity.

Canadians themselves must also take an active role in defending the country. The public must speak out, organize, and demand decisive action from their leaders — similar to the sort of action Mark Carney took when he rejected the US attempt to pressure Canada into a coercive trade deal. Civic mobilization can shape policy, stiffen political resolve, and counter disinformation. The defence of democracy is not the responsibility of governments alone. It rests with citizens who refuse to allow their country to be intimidated, destabilized, or undermined by foreign aggression.

Canada’s future depends on our willingness to defend our sovereignty, our values, and our democracy. Trump’s authoritarian project threatens not only Canada, but the entire post World War II order that has prevented another global war for eight decades. His ideology — rooted in nationalism, exclusion, and unchecked power — is incompatible with the principles that define Canada and other democratic nations. If Canada stands firm, we can help lead the world in resisting this rising tide of authoritarianism. Canada has done it before. During World War II, Canada played a critical role in defending democracy against fascism. Today, the threat is different but no less dangerous. The battleground is economic, political, and informational — but the stakes are the same — freedom, sovereignty, and the future of democratic governance.

If Canada falters, the consequences could very well be catastrophic. A weakened or destabilized Canada would embolden Trump’s authoritarian agenda, undermine the alliance of global democracies, and reshape the geopolitical landscape in ways that threaten peace and stability. The world cannot afford a Canada that is intimidated, divided, or subdued.

The time to defend our country — its sovereignty, its values, and its future — is now. Canada must rise to meet this moment with clarity, courage, and unwavering resolve. History will judge how we respond.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Donald Trump — the greatest threat to Canada since Hitler (Part II): The economic war and the crisis upon us

Trump’s “51st state” fixation, colluding with Alberta separatists, and his portrayal of the Canada-US border as “artificial” all point to a deeper strategic danger for Canada.

By Fareed Khan 

A version of this article can be found on Substack.

This is part II of a three part series on the existential danger the United States under Donald Trump poses to Canada.

Donald Trump’s economic war against Canada is not an isolated conflict. It is part of a broader project aimed at reshaping the global order so that other nations are subordinate to the United States. His tariffs on Canada, Mexico, China, Europe, and other nations have destabilized global markets, disrupted supply chains, and pushed the world toward recession. Economists warn that Trump’s policies could trigger a global downturn comparable to the Great Depression — a crisis that historically fuelled nationalism, extremism, and war. The pattern is unmistakable: Trump’s economic aggression is designed not only to punish individual countries, but to fracture alliances, weaken democratic institutions, and create the conditions for a new geopolitical hierarchy dominated by the United States.

Canada cannot simply match the United States tariff for tariff since their economic size gives them an overwhelming advantage. Instead, Canada must act strategically. Our greatest economic power lies in our purchasing power — and Canadians must use it. We must boycott American goods wherever alternatives exist. Consumers must demand that retailers reduce reliance on US products and prioritize Canadian goods or imports from nations not aligned with Trump’s agenda. This is not a symbolic gesture. It is a form of economic self‑defence.

This is not theoretical. Canadians have already begun boycotting American products in response to Trump’s tariffs. Surveys show that 71% of Canadians have pledged to buy fewer American goods, and provincial alcohol retailers across the country have removed US booze from their shelves with the exception of
Alberta and Saskatchewan. Tourism from Canada — worth over $20 billion annually to the US economy — has plummeted, costing American businesses billions. These actions demonstrate that Canadians are willing to endure economic hardship to defend their sovereignty. They also reveal a deeper truth — Canadians understand that Trump’s aggression is not a temporary dispute, but a structural threat to the country’s future.

Canada must also leverage the sectors where we hold decisive advantages: potash, energy (oil, gas, hydro), and critical minerals that the US cannot easily source elsewhere. These resources give Canada the ability to impose targeted pressure on the US economy — especially in red‑state farm regions already weakened by Trump’s own tariffs. Potash, for example, is essential to global agriculture, and Canada controls more than 30% of the world’s supply. By raising costs on potash‑based fertilizers and energy exports, Canada can drive up US inflation at a politically sensitive moment, forcing Americans to confront the consequences of Trump’s reckless policies as they head into the fall midterm elections.

But Canada’s vulnerabilities extend beyond economics. Trump’s threats to annex Canada, his coordination with Alberta separatist groups, and his portrayal of the Canada-US border as an “artificial line” on the map all point to a deeper strategic danger. Trump’s administration has held covert meetings with Alberta separatist leaders, discussing currency changes, border realignment, and even a $500 billion credit line to support Alberta’s independence. These actions constitute foreign interference in Canadian affairs — interference designed to fracture Canada internally and weaken its ability to resist external pressure.

Foreign interference of this nature is not unprecedented. Russia used similar tactics in Crimea, supporting separatist groups, spreading disinformation, and offering financial incentives to destabilize Ukraine before annexation. While China has used economic leverage and political influence campaigns to weaken democratic institutions in Taiwan. Trump’s engagement with Alberta separatists fits this global pattern, one where authoritarian leaders exploit regional grievances to undermine national unity and create openings for political or territorial expansion.

The danger to Canada is amplified by its military dependence on the United States. Canada’s planned purchase of 88 F‑35 fighter jets from American defence contractor Lockheed — a $19 billion program with a $74 billion lifetime cost — would give the US effective control over Canada’s air defence capabilities. The F‑35’s software, mission data files, and maintenance systems are controlled entirely by the US, meaning Canada could not operate its own aircraft independently in a crisis. Defence experts warn that the US could disable Canada’s F‑35 fleet by withholding updates or restricting access to critical systems — a vulnerability that could leave Canada defenceless in the event of a military confrontation.

This is not speculation. Denmark has already expressed regret over its F‑35 purchase, fearing the US could disable its jets to coerce concessions over Greenland. Germany’s F‑35 program is under review for similar reasons, with defence analysts warning that the aircraft’s dependence on US software creates “strategic vulnerability.” In light of this, Canada must not place its air defence in the hands of a country whose leader has openly threatened its sovereignty.

Canada must instead pursue strategic autonomy — diversifying its defence procurement, strengthening alliances with Europe and Asia, and investing in domestic military capabilities. The Saab Gripen, which offers full operational independence and domestic assembly, is a viable alternative that would create thousands of Canadian jobs while reducing reliance on the United States. Sweden’s Gripen program has been praised for its transparency, cost‑effectiveness, and independence from foreign control. For Canada, choosing the Gripen would be more than a procurement decision; it would be a declaration of military aviation sovereignty.

Strengthening Canada’s alliances with Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and other democracies that have faced similar pressure from Trump’s administration must also be a priority, and Prime Minister Carney is well on his way to achieving that, taking 23 international trips to 29 countries since taking office on March 2025, and taking multiple side meetings with foreign leaders at international gatherings.  The nations with which Canada is shoring up relations understand the stakes as Trump has threatened tariffs on European steel, demanded concessions from Japan, and pressured South Korea to renegotiate defence agreements under threat of troop withdrawal. Canada must work with these allies to coordinate economic, diplomatic, and technological resistance to Trump’s authoritarian agenda. A unified democratic front can counterbalance US pressure and prevent Trump from isolating Canada.

Domestic unity is equally essential. Canada’s internal divisions — particularly Alberta separatism — are vulnerabilities Trump seeks to exploit. Ottawa must confront these internal threats with honesty and resolve. National unity is a strategic necessity, because a divided Canada is a vulnerable Canada, and a united Canada is a formidable one.

Finally, Canadians themselves must play an active role in defending the country. Public mobilization — through protests, boycotts, political engagement, and civic activism — is essential. Silence is complicity. Canadians must speak out, organize, and demand decisive action from their leaders. The defence of democracy is not solely the responsibility of governments. It is the responsibility of citizens.

Canada’s future depends on our willingness to defend our sovereignty, our values, and our democracy against Trump’s authoritarian project, which threatens not only Canada, but the entire global order that has preserved peace for eight decades. If Canada stands firm, we can help lead the world in resisting this rising tide of authoritarianism. If we falter, the consequences will be catastrophic.

Part III will look at Canada’s economic and military vulnerabilities, which are very real — but they are not insurmountable.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.