With the United States acting more like an economic foe than an ally under the presidency of Donald Trump, Prime Minister Mark Carney said Canada’s former strength, built on our bond with America, has become a “weakness” that must be corrected.

In a pre-recorded address released Sunday morning, Carney said his intention was to talk “directly and regularly” about his plan for Canada and promised he would “never sugarcoat our challenges.”

The main point of this message, according to a source, was that during a time of disruption he wanted a venue where he could talk directly to Canadians, and in an extended format.

The world, he said, has become more “dangerous and divided,” and Canada must re-evaluate its most critical international relationships and undergo a shift in national strategy.

“The U.S. has fundamentally changed its approach to trade, raising its tariffs to levels last seen during the Great Depression,” said Carney in the nearly 10-minute-long address that was recorded in a home in Ottawa. “Many of our former strengths, based on our close ties to America, have become our weaknesses; weaknesses that we must correct.”

Workers in the auto, steel and lumber industries are “under threat” because of U.S. tariffs, he said, and businesses are holding back investments because of the “pall of uncertainty that’s hanging over all of us.”

“The U.S. has changed and we must respond,” said Carney, before launching into his Liberal government’s record and achievements, and invoking the “Canada Strong” plan he announced during the 2025 election campaign; a plan that was meant to Trump-proof the nation.

The new reality

Without naming the opposition Conservatives, Carney seemed to allude to them when he said there are “some who say there’s no need for a comprehensive plan” –- that Canadians should “wait it out” in the hope that U.S. relations will go back to how they were in the “good old days.”

He pointed out that young Canadians have experienced no such good days -- their entire lives having been impacted by the shocks and crises of global wars, financial strife and COVID-19.

He admitted his plans that include building new trade and energy corridors, doubling the size of clean energy capacity and creating “one Canadian economy out of 13” are ambitious. “But in a crisis, fortune favours the bold,” he said.

The prime minister then showed a small statue of Maj.-Gen. Sir Isaac Brock, the British army officer known as the “Hero of Upper Canada” for his role during the War of 1812. He said the statue, a gift from comedian Mike Myers, reminds him “that when we’re united as Canadians, we can withstand anything.”

“Before Canada even existed, it had a shape in Brock’s imagination,” said Carney. “Faced with the threat of an American invasion, Brock built alliances across our land and inspired what would eventually become Canada.”

Carney continued referencing history, saying it was an “ambitious” and “determined” Canada that built big things like the St. Lawrence Seaway, the CN Tower and the Trans-Canada Highway after the Second World War. He said his government is making big structural changes now, too, to “make us stronger at home and less reliant on the United States.”

He closed his message with a sentiment meant to instill confidence, invoking a practice called “forward guidance” that he developed during the financial crisis when he was governor of the Bank of Canada – a practice that involved using “overwhelming force against our problems until they were solved.”

“There’s much forward guidance to be found in our shared history. We will get through this because of who we have always been,” he said. “It’s our country. It’s our future. We are taking back control, to build Canada strong.”

Hey everyone, I’ll be interviewing the Ambassador of the Philippines to India soon. I’ll be focusing on defence cooperation, Indo-Pacific strategy, China’s role in the region, and India-Philippines ties.

Will also talk on defence exports including BrahMos missiles.

If you’ve got any strong or relevant questions, drop them below. I’ll try to take the best ones into the interview.

Please keep the language civil. 🇮🇳🇵🇭

Hey everyone,

I’m pivoting from another field and will be starting a Master’s program in international affairs soon. I’m currently updating my LinkedIn and had a quick question about profile photos.

For men in international affairs, what’s the general norm? I often see suits, but I’m unsure whether a tie is expected or not. Is a full suit and tie standard, or is a suit without a tie, or even business casual, acceptable? I personally would like a suit with no tie, but I am not sure what the standard/norm is here.

Just trying to get a sense of what’s typical in the field, especially for students or early-career folks. Thanks in advance!

Hi I have a degree in IR and am soon going to finish my second degree in medical science.

I would really like to just live in China for a bit but don't know if there are any jobs for Canadians there.

I don't speak mandarin but have started to learn. I want to move there because I took a China relations course and thought it would be cool to learn more about China.

edit: I am from Canada btw, is this possible?

The geography vs technology debate misses something more fundamental, the inputs that neither geography nor technology can easily replace.

Right now semiconductor manufacturing is running on helium. Not metaphorically. Literally. Cooling, photolithography, vacuum processes, none of it works without continuous helium supply. Qatar was providing roughly a third of global semiconductor-grade helium before the Hormuz situation tightened.

Micron already told investors in Q1 2026 that DRAM and NAND supply-demand conditions will stay tight beyond this year. The household level effect is already visible — delivery dates shifting, cheaper variants disappearing, promotions quietly pulled before prices formally rise.

The middle-link countries question is real. But the undervalued geography isn't necessarily where the trade routes run. It's where the invisible industrial inputs come from. Helium. Rare earths. Specific port infrastructure for LNG carriers.

Most IR analysis tracks visible chokepoints. The dangerous ones are the inputs nobody tracks until the system stops being generous.

Dr. Gregory Moore, eminent authority on Chinese politics and foreign policy, examines one of the most serious geopolitical questions of our time: Is Xi Jinping preparing to move on Taiwan before 2027?
Dr. Moore lays out Xi’s strategic “dashboard,” 13 key indicators that could shape Beijing’s decision timeline, and explains why most of those windows are closing, not opening. We discuss Taiwan’s shifting national identity and what that means for Beijing, China’s hypersonic advantage, the semiconductor choke point and global economic leverage, and whether deterrence is strong enough right now.
If Xi believes time is no longer on his side, the next two years become critical, and global stability may hinge on what happens between now and then.

We often talk about the big players like the US, China, and the EU, but I’ve been thinking a lot about the "middle-link" countries. With new trade routes opening up and the digital transformation of supply chains (especially in major transit hubs), are we looking at a future where geography matters less than technology?

I’d love to hear some insights on which regions you think are currently "undervalued" in terms of their future geopolitical importance. Is it Central Asia, parts of Eastern Europe, or maybe the North African coast?

Let’s discuss!

just wondering which yall think is a better school for an MSc in IR between the uni of edinburgh and leiden uni

Estoy cursando la carrera, sin embargo, quiero especializarme y tener un master en algo relacionado a lo ambiental, crisis climática, animales, etc. También estoy cursando complementarios de sostenibilidad, geografía, etc. Podrían comentarse si es que hay alguna salida en ese aspecto, puesto que, todavía no sé si hay. Gracias

1. Both enshrine Islamic law (Sharia) as the primary foundation of their legal and judicial systems.
2. Both lack multi‑party parliamentary democracy and restrict political pluralism.
3. Both centralize high‑level authority in a small leadership elite (guardian‑jurists and Supreme Leader in Iran; royal family in Saudi Arabia).
4. Both tightly control key institutions such as the judiciary, security forces, and religious establishments.
5. Both instrumentalize religious identity and clerical bodies to legitimize state rule.
6. Both heavily restrict civil‑political freedoms (speech, assembly, press).
7. Both are rentier states heavily dependent on oil and gas revenues to fund government and social subsidies.
8. Both use state‑controlled media and education systems to promote regime‑approved narratives of national and religious identity.
9. Both maintain strong security and intelligence apparatuses to monitor and suppress perceived domestic dissent.
10. Both practice a high degree of centralized decision‑making, with major policy choices concentrated in a narrow circle of leaders.
11. Both tolerate or sponsor loyal religious authorities while marginalizing or repressing independent clerics and religious critics.
12. Both place significant limits on opposition parties, independent civil‑society organizations, and non‑governmental political activity.
13. Both frame regional foreign policy in part through a self‑perceived Islamic leadership role (e.g., Saudi custodianship of holy sites, Iranian "Islamic resistance" axis).
14. Both combine formal institutions (councils, parliament, courts) with parallel informal structures that hold de‑facto power behind the scenes.

So basically, in terms of political system and governance and even societal structure, they are similar.

YET! One is a very peaceful society with a population that is seemingly content with their government, while the other is in the midst of a brutal revolution.

The only variable and distinguishing factor that I can perceive is the US's relationship with them; favorable with one and not with the other.

Therefore, would it be accurate it presume that had the US's relationship with Iran been as good as it is with the GCC countries, Iran's society would be just as prosperous and harmonious with the same current regime (given the regime isn't more extractive and predatory)?