I’d be interested in knowing what in the article sounds like an “American media perspective” (especially given the The Economist is British).
It seems fairly measured for an article written before the Liberals had confirmed Carney as the new leader. It agrees with you that the Liberals were starting to recover after Trudeau’s resignation, before the trade war started, and that’s it not just Trump helping them come back but Carney’s bona fides as a proven economic handler.
I’m not seeing anything too off-base.
This only works when everybody else acts in good faith and shares your world-view. Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for Russian and American guarantees for protection. Russia annexed Crimea, now wants to take the entire country, and the U.S. is walking away from Ukraine.
Arguing Trump would leave us alone if we just spent a little more on foreign aid and social programs or international working groups is naive idealism. Not that those things aren’t important and worth doing, but they don’t obviate the need for the ability to defend ourselves. Just having impeccable social support programs wouldn’t mean there’s no need for law enforcement, even though poverty is the major driver of crime.
The U.S., China, and Russia are all looking to secure their interest in the arctic militarily. If we refuse to spend on our own defence capabilities, then we leave ourselves entirely at their mercy – ceding the arctic without a fight to anyone willing to sail a few warships into our territory.
I’ve no love for the Irvings, but I don’t know of many companies capable of building warships in Canada. In a perfect world we’d have the time and money to build up a less controversial option, but we may not be in great supply of either.