The United States has gone from supposed guardian to destroyer of the post-World War Two international order

The old world order is gone . . . Nostalgia won’t save us, but honesty and strength at home, and collective action abroad can forge a better future.

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

In what has been called an era-defining speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 21, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney laid bare the “rupture” in the global order that has sustained relative peace and prosperity globally since the end of World War Two. Drawing on Václav Havel’s parable of the greengrocer who props up a false system by displaying a sign he doesn’t believe in, Carney urged middle powers to stop “living within the lie” of a rules-based international system that no longer exists. The great powers, he argued—with a clear reference to the United States—now pursue naked self-interest, weaponizing economic integration and abandoning multilateral institutions.

For Canada, this means confronting a brutal reality where our largest trading partner, the US, is no longer an ally but an active enemy of the world order that has kept global peace for eight decades. It’s time for Canadians to remove our own signs of compliance, recognize the US as a clear threat to our sovereignty, and forge new alliances with nations that still uphold values like territorial integrity, multilateralism, and solidarity.

The post-World War Two order, built on institutions like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, was imperfect but effective in preventing large-scale conflicts and promoting collective security and prosperity. The US, as its chief architect, provided benefits such as guaranteeing open sea lanes and supporting dispute resolution mechanisms. But under Donald Trump’s second presidency, America has morphed into a rogue actor, dismantling these very foundations through unilateral aggression and imperial overreach.

Consider the US military incursion into Venezuela on January 3, 2026, where special forces captured President Nicolás Maduro in a raid involving airstrikes on military installations and the temporary blackout of parts of Caracas. Trump brazenly declared that the US would “run the country” until a transition to a new regime suited American interests, echoing colonial-era interventions and violating the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force except in self-defence or with Security Council approval. This operation, planned for months without congressional authorization, underscores how the US now flouts international law, treating sovereign nations as extensions of American interests or as vassal states.

Trump’s threats against Iran further illustrate this erosion. Amid widespread protests in Iran, Trump has repeatedly warned of “very strong action,” including military strikes, if the regime executes demonstrators. He has gone so far as to vow that Iran would be “wiped off the face of this earth“ if it acts on assassination threats against him or harms protesters. While he dialed back immediate action after reports of declining violence, the sabre-rattling persists, with options like cyberattacks and airstrikes on the table. Such rhetoric not only destabilizes the Middle East but revives the spectre of pre-emptive wars, reminiscent of the 2003 Iraq invasion that shattered global trust in US leadership.

Even more insidious is Trump’s effort to “own” Gaza through his so-called “Board of Peace.” Ostensibly created to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction following Israel’s genocide of Palestinians, under a 20-point ceasefire plan endorsed by the UN Security Council, this body has ballooned into a pay-to-play imperial council with Trump appointing himself as chairman. Nations can buy permanent seats for $1 billion, with funds supposedly for rebuilding, but the charter omits any specific mention of Gaza, instead positioning the board as a “bold new approach to resolving global conflict” that could supplant the UN. This includes an executive committee controlling Gaza’s demilitarization and governance, effectively placing the territory under US-led oversight and sidelining Palestinian self-determination. By commodifying international diplomacy and bypassing established institutions, Trump is not building peace but entrenching US hegemony, turning the post-war order into a marketplace for those who can afford to pay his price.

For Canada, the implications are dire. Despite being our largest trading partner and neighbour, the US under Trump is no longer a friend or ally. Trump’s fixation on territorial expansion directly threatens our sovereignty as well as Greenland’s, Mexico’s and that of other nations. He has repeatedly floated annexing Canada as the 51st state since he was re-elected, citing our vast natural resources as motivations. In a September 2025 speech, he claimed Canadian leaders wanted to join his “Golden Dome” missile defense system “for free,” retorting, “Why don’t you just join our country? You become the 51st state.” Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau warned that these threats stem from the US coveting Canadian resources, noting, “They’re very aware of our resources, of what we have, and they very much want to be able to benefit from those.”

This ambition extends to the Arctic, where Trump’s wants the US to seize Greenland, and has threatened to impose tariffs on Denmark and allies like Norway, Sweden, France and the UK if they oppose his efforts. He has announced that tariffs of 10% on those supporting Denmark will begin on February 1, 2026, rising to 25% by June if no deal is reached to purchase or cede Greenland for reasons of America’s “national security.”

Trump frames this as benefiting Canada by countering Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic, but it is nothing less than a thinly veiled land grab. He has also criticized Canada’s defense spending as inadequate, pushing for joint military operations, updated warning systems, and US patrols in Canadian waters—steps that could erode Canadian control over the Northwest Passage, which Canada considers internal territorial waters. American insiders reveal a “secret plot” for larger takeovers, with aides noting Trump’s view that “the status quo is not enough” for Canada’s Arctic capabilities.

Canadian leaders have urged standing up to these threats, warning that if Canada fails to stand up for Greenland today, then can it can’t expect anybody aid Canada when we need it. Trump’s history of threats, including economic force during his first term, makes clear that military options aren’t off the table, though he deems them “highly unlikely. Yet, his invasion of Venezuela shows how quickly rhetoric can be turned into reality.

Canadians need to realize that this nation’s territory and sovereignty are now under threat from the United States—the world’s biggest economic and military power. As Carney noted in his speech, our geography and alliances no longer guarantee security. We face an era of economic and political instability, with the world’s three major powers vying for dominance.

However, in light of developments over the past year since Trump returned to the White House, the greatest threat to world peace today is not China or Russia, whose aggressions are predictable and often contained. It’s the United States, whose erratic, unilateral actions—fuelled by Trump’s irrationality and demagoguery—undermine the very alliances that once restrained such powers. In some very disturbing ways the US has become a modern-day incarnation of Nazi Germany, not through ideology alone but through its expansionist impulses, disregard for borders and international law, and willingness to coerce or invade other weaker nations under pretexts of security or access to resources.

To survive, Canada must heed Carney’s call for “values-based realism.” We need to depend on alliances with nations that share our commitments to sovereignty, international law, and sustainable development—partners like the European Union, with whom we’ve deepened strategic ties, or emerging coalitions in Asia and Latin America. Carney’s government has already pivoted by cutting taxes to boost the domestic economy, doubling defence spending by 2030, and signing trade agreements with China, Qatar, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates. We are championing multilateral initiatives, like bridging the Trans-Pacific Partnership with the EU to create a 1.5-billion-person trading bloc, and forming buyer’s clubs for critical minerals to reduce dependence on any single power.

But policy alone isn’t enough. Canadians also must rise up to express our outrage and opposition to this American betrayal. Protests, boycotts, and public campaigns can signal our refusal to “go along to get along.” As Havel taught, one act of truth can crack the illusion. By naming the US as the dangerous adversary it has become, we reclaim our power and invite other middle powers to join us in building a new order—one free from the fortresses of isolation and the coercion of hegemonic powers.

The old world order is gone, as Carney said. Nostalgia won’t save us. But honesty and strength at home, and collective action abroad can forge a better future. For Canada, that starts with turning our backs on a former ally turned enemy, and facing the world with open eyes and unyielding resolve.

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

The US annexing Greenland would result in catastrophe for North America and Europe

Economically, the fallout would devastate the US as the European Union and NATO nations retaliate in response to American aggression . . . including dumping holdings of US debt . . .

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

As Canadians, deeply invested in the stability of our continent and the alliances that have protected it for generations, we should view the escalating American rhetoric around annexing Greenland with profound alarm. In early 2026, President Donald Trump’s repeated assertions that the United States must control this Danish territory “one way or another” for national security reasons have pushed transatlantic relations to a breaking point. If the US were to proceed with forceful annexation, whether through military action or overwhelming economic coercion, it would constitute an unprecedented act of aggression against a fellow NATO member. Rather than strengthening the United States it would represent geopolitical suicide, dismantling the post-World War Two international order that has prevented major wars among major global powers and ensured relative global peace.

The bedrock of this order is NATO, founded in 1949 on the principle of collective defence. Article 5 declares that an armed attack against one ally is considered an attack against all. By moving against Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark fully covered by NATO’s guarantees, the US would trigger this clause against itself. Such a betrayal would render the alliance untenable overnight. European leaders, including Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, have explicitly warned that an attack on Greenland would spell the end of NATO. The organization that has deterred Soviet and then Russian aggression for 75 years would collapse, forcing Europe to accelerate independent rearmament and seek new security arrangements that exclude the former guarantor. This fracture would not only embolden adversaries like Russia and China in the Arctic but also leave North America more vulnerable, as shared defense structures collapse.

Militarily, the consequences for the United States would be swift and severe. Europe currently hosts numerous key US installations—over 30 military bases and additional sites—essential for projecting power into Eurasia, the Middle East, and Africa. Facilities like Ramstein Air Base in Germany, Aviano in Italy, and RAF Lakenheath in the UK form the backbone of American forward presence. In retaliation for an attack on a NATO partner, European governments would demand—and likely enforce—the closure of these bases, evicting US forces from soil they helped defend since 1945. The US would retreat to a more isolated posture, losing critical logistical advantages and diminishing its global reach. Recent European deployments of small contingents to Greenland for joint exercises with Denmark already signal a shift toward bolstering Arctic defences without heavy US reliance.

Economically, the fallout would devastate the US as the European Union and NATO nations retaliate in response to American aggression and restrict American products entering the European market. The EU could impose comprehensive sanctions, including dumping holdings of US debt, divesting from dollar reserves, and targeting American corporations operating on the continent. This would undermine the dollar’s status as the global reserve currency, sparking a severe devaluation, rampant US inflation, and a potential stock market collapse far exceeding more recent crises. American companies—tech giants, automakers, and consumer brands—could face asset seizures, market bans, or forced divestitures, erasing trillions in value. Aviation restrictions might ground Boeing aircraft and bar US carriers from European airspace, severing transatlantic supply chains. The result would be a rapid de-globalization that isolates the American economy from its wealthiest trading partners and severely weakens it, contrary to the promises Donald Trump made to American voters. 

Diplomatic and cultural isolation would compound the damage. International sporting bodies, drawing parallels to Russia’s exclusion following its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, would likely suspend the US from events like the Olympics and FIFA World Cup competitions. Team USA would be absent from global stages, treated as a pariah akin to Russia. Visa-free travel to Europe would end abruptly, complicating movement for Americans and turning the US passport into a barrier rather than an asset. This ostracism would be long-term because trust, once shattered by invading a democratic ally, does not easily recover. Europe would pivot to independent defence architectures, alternative financial systems, and alliances that sideline the US, preserving the broader Western framework without American leadership.

The consequences for Canada would be devastating, given our deep and longstanding economic entanglement with the United States. Bilateral trade between the two countries routinely surpasses a trillion dollars annually (combining goods and services), with the US serving as the destination for the overwhelming majority of Canadian exports. These exports account for a substantial portion of our economy—often estimated at around 17-20% of GDP in recent years. If the US economy were to collapse under the weight of severe European sanctions and diplomatic isolation, the fallout for Canada would be swift and severe with widespread job losses across interconnected industries, fractured supply chains that have evolved over decades, and intensified recessionary forces rippling through every region of the country.

In this scenario Canada would suddenly find itself caught in an excruciating dilemma—torn between our largest and most vital trading partner on one side, and our longstanding European allies on the other. In a world order turned upside down by such a crisis, Ottawa would face an unavoidable choice of allegiances. In all likelihood, Canada would ultimately side with Europe, this alignment reflecting a commitment to upholding international law and norms, as well as a strategic imperative to preserve credibility within the remnants of NATO and the broader network of global institutions. Standing firmly against any illegal annexation would help safeguard Canada’s reputation as a principled middle power, even in the face of short-term economic pain.

However, this choice carries grave risks. Canada’s Arctic expanse holds vast energy reserves and critical minerals essential for green technologies. In addition, this country holds approximately 20% of the world’s freshwater reserves—a resource increasingly coveted by the US as the American US southwest continues to grapple with a megadrought ongoing since 2000, the worst in over a millennium. If the US justifies seizing Greenland for strategic and resource needs, similar logic could cause Trump to say that the US needs Canada’s north for its strategic and economic importance as well.

To protect Canadian sovereignty in the face of such uncertainties, Canada could seek enhanced European military support—including troop deployments or joint Arctic patrols on Canadian territory. Europe, recognizing Canada as a key partner in preventing a broader transatlantic fracture, would likely respond with firm commitment by deepening security ties through established frameworks, investing in shared infrastructure, diversifying trade to lessen reliance on the US, and extending defensive assurances via EU mutual assistance mechanisms beyond NATO. Recent European troop deployments to Greenland already signal a readiness to act decisively in the Arctic, and extending comparable solidarity to Canada would strengthen collective resilience across the region.

In the end, any US annexation of Greenland would sacrifice an eight-decade alliance and the shared economic prosperity forged through cooperation, all for short-term territorial advantage. From Canada’s vantage point, this course promises not greater strength but mutual decline, where a once-dominant superpower drifts into isolation, while its former allies realign to sustain patterns of economic partnership and collective defence without American involvement. To avoid being caught in the crossfire, Canada must forge closer coordination with Europe and secure robust allied backing. The survival of the post-war international order ultimately hinges on firmly rejecting aggression—even from the US—before it becomes irreversible.

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