For example Canadian tariffs increase prices and their retaliatory tariffs also reduce demand for Canadian products leading to job losses.
It's really a singular achievement to piss off such a good neighbor so badly.
Other administrations will not be able to repair the damage, because what was exposed really is that the US system allows for each administration to destroy and 180 whatever the previous one did.
But we've had challenges and issues before. The US has tried to obtain Greenland in the past. There are plenty of examples of such things throughout history ranging from the Suez Crises, to French withdrawal from NATO, to, well, 2 World Wars caused by Europe, and more and all was forgiven, if not forgotten.
We sometimes think that things in the moment are perhaps more important than they are. The news wants us to believe the world is ending to get clicks. Europe still lets Russian tourists in and houses Russian billionaires and their families despite this existential threat from Russia, as an example.
In any case, they cannot be repaired without a change in the US political system to a representative and stable (in foreign policy) democracy.
As long as the system allows for complete 180 degree turns every 4 years making any arrangement bears little value.
Business and friendship is built on long term horizons of stability. If that's not possible, we can only adapt.
No but they're getting you to click on every article where Trump is SLAMMED and Marcon is TOASTED and Canada RETALIATES or whatever.
> As long as the system allows for complete 180 degree turns every 4 years making any arrangement bears little value.
That's not true and nobody has ever really treated it as such. The entire history of the United States has pretty much operated by making changes every 4 years. I'm not sure the US has really executed 180 degree turns, but even so sometimes it's necessary to make abrupt changes because acting too slowly could be very dangerous. For whatever it's worth I'd hate to see Donald Trump elected to, idk, some 20-year term as president in the name of not making changes every 4 years.
Aside from that, this cuts both ways. You can't throw everything away after decades of helpful, and peaceful cooperation just because of 8 out of 12 years being annoying. There is no stability in that - it's just "agree with me or I go away" which isn't good for long-term relationships.
> In any case, they cannot be repaired without a change in the US political system to a representative and stable (in foreign policy) democracy.
To be clear we operate a representative and stable democracy in the United States. Other countries may not like our actions, but suggesting that US action == destabilization implies that any action that any entity takes is also destabilizing. Things don't happen in a vacuum.
We most certainly do not, the system is just nicely setup to make us believe that this is the case. In 2020 for instance, we were given an amazing choice to choose between a senile grandpa and the most vile and corrupt human being ever to walk the earth. all us elections boil down to this, the establishment decides who their 'best one' is at any given time and you get to choose A vs. B. there isn't a single other country on the planet where this is the case that calls itself a democracy. it is one step removed from china and russia, we just get one more choice than they do :)
We have only 720 members of the EU parliament representing over 600 million people. In the US we have more people representing fewer people, ergo we are more representative.
How is the president of the EU chosen? Is it a direct election across all citizens of the EU?
Don’t mistake gigantic bureaucracies for representative democracy.
> We have only 720 members of the EU parliament representing over 600 million people. In the US we have more people representing fewer people, ergo we are more representative.
> How is the president of the EU chosen? Is it a direct election across all citizens of the EU?
It's not a representative democracy.
A representative democracy is one where all voters are represented in a branch of government.
The US system is exactly the opposite. It's a winner-takes-all democracy. At all levels. And worse, the executive represents only the half that voted him, the other half don't exist.
There's many other flaws in presidential and semi presidential republics but they are beyond the topic of representative democracies.
And no, the US is clearly not stable on foreign politics.
> You can't throw everything away after decades of helpful, and peaceful cooperation just because of 8 out of 12 years being annoying.
It's a decision that's been made in Washington to revert decades of successful cooperation. We're merely reacting to the new reality.
> That's not true and nobody has ever really treated it as such.
That's a very US-centric way of looking at this. American exceptionalism is cultural, it's not tied to a specific administration.
> I'm not sure the US has really executed 180 degree turns, but even so sometimes it's necessary to make abrupt changes because acting too slowly could be very dangerous.
You don't build international and economic relations with abrupt changes.
Business and diplomatic relations require predictability, stability, trust.
Also, be careful thinking that "acting slowly" is the worst that can happen in a mature democracy.
Giving individuals the capability of acting fast and with little limits might be the most dangerous one. Each presidential republic is merely waiting for the right Erdogan, Trump or Putin to break it.
I'd rather keep our slow and inefficient European democracies where prime ministers have to win the trust of the parliament and their own party every single day with all the bad that comes with it, if the alternatives are what I see around the world.
The US is literally a representative democracy as a matter of fact and definition. Winner-take-all in contested elections does not make the US not a representative democracy.
> And no, the US is clearly not stable on foreign politics
No country is then.
> It's a decision that's been made in Washington to revert decades of successful cooperation. We're merely reacting to the reality.
Ok then we should just do whatever we want and who cares about alliances or whatever. Withdraw troops, normalize trade relations with Russia, take over Greenland, whatever. All the decades of successful cooperation are nearby reverted and so we can now take different actions with that in mind.
> That's not how you build stable relations, trust and business.
In that case any time a country or bloc takers abruptly actions they now no longer are building stable relations, trust, and business. For example if the EU takes an abrupt action we can make this same claim.
> Also, I really don't agree with your view of the "acting slowly".
What is my view that you disagree with?
> We don't need big changes, but small compounding ones.
Maybe. Sometimes you need big changes. Like climate change. We need to make big changes (at least in my view) to address it because small changes won’t save us in time.
That is a very black and white view of the world. There is actually a very large area between acting as a close ally and acting as an imperialistic adversary.
GP is saying that the close ally bit is out the door. I think we can become close allies again if the situation requires it, but definitely won't if it does not. The USA has proven to be highly volatile, highly unreliable, and highly unreasonable.
> 2 World Wars caused by Europe, and more and all was forgiven, if not forgotten.
With all due respect, but claiming USA victimhood in the World Wars at the hands of "Europe" is a pretty fucked up and incorrect way of framing this bit of history. Pearl Harbor wasn't exactly the doing of the Belgians.
> The USA has proven to be highly volatile, highly unreliable, and highly unreasonable.
Right, black and white haha. Well if we are highly volatile, highly unreliable, and highly unreasonable why would we do anything besides whatever we decide to do? Can’t trust us, can’t reason with us, and can’t rely on us. In that case, who gives a shit about alliances with Europe?
> With all due respect, but claiming USA victimhood in the World Wars at the hands of "Europe" is a pretty fucked up and incorrect way of framing this bit of history. Pearl Harbor wasn't exactly the doing of the Belgians.
European wars started by Europeans. The Japanese may well have bombed Pearl Harbor anyway (don’t forget, the US alongside anglosphere allies liberated Western Europe at the same time Japan was being fought) but that war takes on a whole different character if simultaneously all the European powers weren’t initiating another round of their petulant and childish wars.
Let's not forget the Soviet Union, who did most of the actual heavy lifting of liberating Western Europe. If D-Day had never happened, the Soviets would have rolled right through Germany and then occupied France and the low countries. The Nazis would still have lost, but all of continental Europe would have been behind the iron curtain for the Cold War.
The anglosphere allies didn't defeat Germany so much as stop the Soviets from occupying Western Europe.
> - Nikita Khrushchev, political commissar overseeing Red Army generals during the Battle of Stalingrad and later the leader of the Soviet Union, as written in his memoirs.
> "People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own."
> - Georgy Zhukov, Marshal of the Soviet Union and the Conqueror of Berlin (AKA the guy who got Hitler to blow his final thoughts out all over a wall), as overheard by a KGB monitoring device in 1963.
@Sensei_of_Philosophy, Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryWhatIf/s/z7gcaTaxy9
World War Two: Russian medals for last Arctic Convoys veterans - https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-51726647
With that being said, the Soviets allied with Germany to help kick this whole thing off, so while yea maybe they get credit for not losing to Germany they also reaped what they sowed.
So, what's the plan? The USA imperialistically conquers land of former allies and rules the world forever with force? All countries are forced to trade with the USA? Or will the USA just operate as an island? How is this gonna work?
I don't think you realize how bad things have already gotten. We're not at the level of Europeans or Canadians burning American flags and chanting "death to America" in the street yet, but we are definitely speedrunning towards that. According to polling a large majority of the countries in the world now see the USA as the biggest threat to world peace [0]. A lot of people have also come to simply really, really hate (most) Americans. The complacency and impotence in stopping the utter madness and stupidity (or worse, doubling down on it) are damning. I wish it were different.
[0] https://www.niradata.com/global-pulse-2026 ("Global threat" section)
If people feel that way then there’s no reason to do anything besides whatever we want. We are untrustworthy, unreliable, highly volatile (anything else we should add?) and every Canadian/European is proudly chanting death to America. At that point, who cares?
It reminds me of those abusive relationships where some girl (EU/Canada) hates the boyfriend (America) but keeps coming back to him despite all these flaws. You’re untrustworthy! You’re bad! And then you just keep hanging around because deep down you know you need us. That’s why you have to keep saying the same thing over and over again - you need us and want us to act in a way that best suits your interests.
"Sure, I am an abusive asshole. But you need me, so I'm going to continue to be an abusive asshole. Why wouldn't I? You need me."
At this point I'm just going to assume you're trolling. Well done, I guess.
Every accusation is a confession.
> "Sure, I am an abusive asshole. But you need me, so I'm going to continue to be an abusive asshole. Why wouldn't I? You need me."
Well, then why are, idk what to call some folks, I guess anti-American pro-EU? still trying to convince us of anything?
It's like you keep repeating "we don't trust you", "we don't like this or that", "the relationship will never be the same"! Ok got it, we've moved on and we're flying solo now, why haven't you moved on?
That doesn't make sense. Are you accusing me of trolling? Based on what?
> Well, then why are, idk what to call some folks, I guess anti-American pro-EU? still trying to convince us of anything?
The option "the USA stops being an abusive asshole" is really not on your radar, is it?
Because that would be the obvious and best way out of the current situation, like in the abusive relationship analogy you so aptly described. You do realize in that scenario the boyfriend is unequivocally the bad guy, right?
> Ok got it, we've moved on and we're flying solo now
The USA hasn't "moved on" and is not "flying solo". It is being petty, reneging on previously made agreements and actively significantly hurting and threatening to hurt the other parties in their (ex-)relationships constantly. It's like a couple with kids where one of the parents suddenly starts behaving like the biggest piece of shit on earth. Even after the divorce that is going to be a massive shit show for all parties involved.
If the USA wouldn't be dragging the rest of the world down with it, we wouldn't care. But you are. Spectacularly and moronically badly.
I'm not accusing you of anything, but if you are going to accuse me of trolling then I'll assume you are admitting to trolling instead.
> The option "the USA stops being an abusive asshole" is really not on your radar, is it?
It's not - that's why my analogy made sense. We're abusive, relationships unrepairable, never to be trusted again, highly volatile, you name it. You implicitly or explicitly (and others) have made these claims, not me. I think we can absolutely still work together, and there is a lot of room to repair things and frankly they're not as bad as the internet people make them out to be.
But if all you are going to do is sit there and repeat these feel-good phrases: "can't trust, can't redeem, highly volatile, &c" then ok sure yea we're all those things and there's no interest in talking or trying to repair anything because you've already declared it's over.
If the USA wouldn't be dragging the rest of the world down with it, we wouldn't care. But you are. Spectacularly and moronically badly.
If someone said all of those things to you, allegedly wanted nothing to do with you, can't trust you, you're horrible, you're a destabilizing force - what exactly would you think the relationship is like? It's impossible to suggest that we haven't moved on unless you're suggesting Europe hasn't moved on and that these allegations of irreparability are just sensationalized bullshit (they are).
Don't feign innocence. You're not fooling anybody. It is so very obviously not "just lil guy USA chillin' in the corner minding their business and not bothering anybody".
But either way, the relationship is irreparable, it's all over, all that stuff so the EU and the online EU folks should just accept the new status quo and stop complaining.
I think this comparison has run its course anyway. At the end of the day these relationships are repairable and will be repaired and changed if we all decide to, and no amount of sensationalized doomsaying from people on the Internet will affect that. Trump will be gone, we'll elect some Democrat, they'll do some things, France might elect Marine LePenn, the'll do something, and on and on it goes.
When something needed killing--and sometimes when it didn't--your ex was always there to do the dirty work. You weren't always happy with what he got up to, but you were always happy to have a seat at the table and a free lunch.
Now that he's your ex you suddenly realize: Ain't nobody innocent in the jungle and your ex is a predator, too. If you aren't at the table you're on the menu.
I hope that you and epolanski are wrong and ericmay is right. The relationship was better for both of you; I hope it can be repaired. But if it can't, don't expect anything but self-interest maximization.
"Dirty" is exactly the right adjective here. Former allies and their peoples now see exactly what the USA has been up to for all these decades, perpetually shit-stirring far away from home, securing access to resources, projecting military power and keeping regional powers from sorting themselves out. Looking back at the last century and the current state of the world, an awful lot of theaters and countries would very probably be more stable today if the USA had not spent decades financing factions, propping up regimes and otherwise meddling from the other side of the planet.
As for free lunches: the USA military industrial complex has profited heavily off allied countries. Also, the only country ever to invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty was the USA. Many allied soldiers fought and died in ridiculous, extremely counterproductive US-led wars. I'm so very, very happy that we mostly decided to say fuck you to the USA when they tried that bullshit again with Iran.
Besides, plenty of theaters and countries are absolutely more stable today thanks to US efforts. I'm pretty sure Europeans are largely pleased with the results of a certain American meddling in European affairs a bit over 80 years ago. And I'm personally quite pleased with the results of French meddling in American affairs some 250 years ago. Welcome to the game.
> the only country ever to invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty was the USA
Totally false. It was in fact certain European NATO members and staff who were pushing to invoke Article 5 while US military leaders were dismissive of the idea. The relevant Wikipedia article lays it out pretty well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_NATO_Article_5_contingenc...
"I don't have the time to become an expert on the Danish Air Force". -Gen. Tommy Franks
"I think it's safe to say that we won't be asking SACEUR to put together a battle plan for Afghanistan". -Anonymous 'Senior Official'
> Many allied soldiers fought and died in ridiculous, extremely counterproductive US-led wars.
Well, more than one soldier died, I suppose. But not really that many. Counterinsurgency in the sandbox isn't exactly high-intensity peer-on-peer combat. In any case the contribution was more symbolic than anything; allied forces were not determinative of any outcome.
> I'm so very, very happy that we mostly decided to say fuck you to the USA when they tried that bullshit again with Iran.
I'll be happy when USA rescinds export licenses this winter for LNG and refined fuels to countries that gave USA the finger but still expect USA to protect their supply lines and sell them the energy they need to survive the winter. Fuck you right back.
It also makes sense that you compare the USA with North Korea and Russia (whom your dear leader clearly loves). You're partially right: those are terrible regimes as well and they are widely and vocally hated in Europe. To think that Russia who is actively waging war on us isn't just shows your utter typically American self-centered myopic ignorance.
Refusing to sell its energy to rich allies who consistently refuse to secure their own energy supplies, and who got themselves in this predicament despite the US's admonitions--that's just reciprocity, not acting like an abusive asshole. You won't help the world with their energy problem; why should the US help you? Especially when you wouldn't have an energy problem at all if you'd listened to the US in the past?
But if you want to see an abusive asshole, keep up the good work alienating the US. The Russians love their "We can do it again" bumper stickers. Pray that mentality does not rise in the US. Or else with a Europe openly antagonistic to both the US and Russia, they just might do it again...
> Our previous deaths and support don't matter
Nor, apparently, do USA's matter to you.
USA WWI combat deaths: 53,402
USA All-cause WWII military deaths in European theater: 250,000
European NATO member (excluding Turkey) soldiers killed in Afghanistan: 897
European NATO member (excl. Turkey & UK) soldiers killed in Afghanistan: 440
Now tell me again who's ungrateful for blood shed in defense of whom.
> you'll fuck over your own economy just to hurt us
No, selling oil and refined fuels to Europe raises prices in the US. Stopping those sales would bring prices down and help the US economy. Shareholders in O&G companies might miss out on a windfall, but every molecule will still find a willing Asian buyer.
Considering that gas prices and affordability are probably the most salient topic for the upcoming US midterm elections, you're incredibly lucky that this administration is generous enough to allow you to buy their energy. That can change.
> because we didn't want to help you in yet another retarded (unilaterally started!) war.
No, because you didn't want to lift a finger to defend your own energy supplies. Instead you angrily demand that Uncle Sam ensure your energy security for you while heaping on the opprobrium.
Typical European self-centered entitlement.
> To think that Russia who is actively waging war on us isn't [...]
I never said Russia wasn't a target of European vitriol. Just that the US is but DPRK is barely even mentioned while their troops are fighting and ballistic missiles are raining down right next door.
It's true that the news can overstate just how much things have changed. The US and Canada remain major trade partners and strong allies, with NORAD currently in the middle of a week-long joint exercise, and it's unlikely that's going to change. But you should not expect a return to friendly trade relations in 2029.
> Other administrations will not be able to repair the damage
So if you disagree with them you should reply to them and let them know the damage can be repaired.
> and countries in general being a lot less willing to negotiate for trade agreements the Americans can't credibly promise to keep.
We have a lot of trade deals and have created new ones while Trump has been in office. Countries have willingly negotiated with us and us with them. What you are writing is ideological wishful thinking, not what is reflected in reality.
Those trade deals aren't worth the paper they're written on while Trump is around. Everybody is aware of this, the only difference is that Trump seems to think he's the only one who knows.
But they are still real trade deals, the rules are still followed, &c.
Your personal distaste for Donald Trump (I believe he belongs in jail and didn't vote for him either time) doesn't change that fact.
No, that's the point, they're not.
> Your personal distaste for Donald Trump (I believe he belongs in jail and didn't vote for him either time) doesn't change that fact.
Same in reverse. He could be everyone's favourite uncle and it would still be rendering the US's word worthless.
Me, I'm not eligible to vote for him, what with having repeatedly turned down opportunities to move to the USA, the most recent occasion of which having been in 2016 specifically due to him having won.
Do you want me to quote formal trade agreements that were made or are you able to just do a Google search yourself and see?
> Same in reverse. He could be everyone's favourite uncle and it would still be rendering the US's word worthless.
Ok our word is worthless and all that stuff so who cares then what anyone in Europe or whatever thinks.
Oh well so sad we should withdraw from NATO immediately, send troops back to the US, and remove sanctions on Russia so we can bring down gas prices - who cares what Europe thinks since our word is worthless and all.
Guess we'll just have to keep doing whatever we're doing.
I wrote "Those trade deals aren't worth the paper they're written on", you seem to be responding as if I wrote "nonexistent".
> Oh well so sad we should withdraw from NATO immediately, send troops back to the US, and remove sanctions on Russia so we can bring down gas prices - who cares what Europe thinks since our word is worthless and all.
Those troops are in Europe for your benefit, more than ours. Those bases are a big part of how the USA gets to do force projection.
Can you really not see the cost to yourself? Your reaction is like committing suicide after getting caught cheating. You're not coming back from cheating, but if you really, genuinely, seriously, cannot see how much worse it can get… wow, things are going to get so much worse.
That's just your opinion though. I say they're worth the paper they're written on, and other countries have agreed to them and are following them. That's my opinion, and the opinion of the countries who have signed and are following trade deals.
So it's like, me, America, the countries we've done trade deals with
and then there's you who disagree with all of us.
> Those troops are in Europe for your benefit, more than ours. Those bases are how you get to do force projection.
This is cope. Certainly those bases do benefit the United States, but it's not as lopsided as you are making it out to be. If the US turned to be more isolationist (not something I advocate really) we wouldn't need those bases to, say, project power in the Middle East or provide a backstop to Europe due to Russia. And we know this is true because when the United States under Trump has threatened or started to remove troops, the NATO alliance and European leaders either treaded carefully, or made overtures to keep the troops/bases operational in Europe. I don't know why people keep parroting these talking points - they really don't make a lot of sense.
Like if you are going to claim those bases are just there for our benefit, then why do you care if we remove them? Leave us alone and let us make our own choices.
> Can you really not see the cost to yourself? Your reaction is like committing suicide after getting caught cheating. You're not coming back from cheating, but if you really, genuinely, seriously, cannot see how much worse it can get… wow.
Sure, I see the cost. The degradation of these relationships is not something I advocate for. But if you're saying everything is done and over, untrustworthy, &c. then sure it's over - it's just like you said and want. So why do you keep trying?
Are there any actual formal trade agreements, ratified by Congress (like CUSMA)?
Most of them seem to be hand-wavy executive actions, full of caveats and outs, sitting upon the unstable legal foundation of illegal tariffs, dubious legal theories, and front-running the courts. Signed by an executive with a long history of dishonesty, reneging on deals, and criminality.
Fair but then that criticism goes back pretty far and is bipartisan. I don't think it's fair to single Trump out for this. Congress (Republicans and Democrats both) have been abdicating their responsibility and deferring to the courts or the Executive for over 20 years and it gets worse every year.
They didn't implement illegal tariffs, make up fake emergencies (eg fentanyl across the northern border), and do the 51st state/Governor Trudeau stuff.
More broadly, the "he is just doing what his predecessors did" argument that Trump water carriers like to make is a Lake Ontario-sized false equivalence.
> In the case of Canada, there was the original free trade agreement (Reagan), NAFTA (Bush I/Clinton), and even CUSMA (Trump I). All approved by Congress.
Why bother asking me questions like this if you know the answer?
The legality of the tariffs is questionable but just calling them illegal as though it's a moral judgement I cast out as nonsense and not worthy of discussion.
None of these points detract from what I wrote which is that Congress under both Republicans and Democrats have continued to be dysfunctional and delegate more and more of their responsibility to the Executive and Judicial branches.
I know the history of the Canadian treaties. I don't know the status of all the other various frameworks and intents and executive orders with other countries that have been tweeted about, agreed to and then un-agreed to, etc. Maybe I missed some that Congress approved, but they mostly seem to be like peace agreements with Iran.
> The legality of the tariffs is questionable but just calling them illegal as though it's a moral judgement I cast out as nonsense and not worthy of discussion.
The more recent ones are questionable. The Supreme Court ruled the "liberation day" tariffs illegal. That's why they're being refunded.
> None of these points detract from what I wrote which is that Congress under both Republicans and Democrats have continued to be dysfunctional and delegate more and more of their responsibility to the Executive and Judicial branches.
Under this administration, it is a LOT more. A LOT LOT more.
Then why did you assert claims without knowledge about the underlying facts? Delete Twitter, get off social media, and you'll be much better informed.
> They seem to be like peace agreements with Iran.
I'm not sure that's a good comparison because the Iranians never had any intention of an agreement. Even today hardliners and the IRGC have internal fighting with other members of the Iranian government as to what to do about the US closing the Strait on them. Hard to negotiate when the party you are negotiating with either doesn't want to negotiate or can't agree on whatever their talking points are.
> Under this administration, it is a LOT more. A LOT LOT more.
Maybe but I don't think the volume makes a significant difference. It's just further evidence of the dysfunction of Congress and it'll just get worse once the Republicans deservedly get blown out in the midterm elections.
Don't take the comparison with Iran too literally; it was a gibe about yet another in an endless line of Trump deals (political, business, personal) that didn't stick.
Sure but you used the comparison so I did want to make sure that if we were taking a serious tone we have to realize they aren't honest negotiators anyway and there's a lot of in-fighting.
> I know a lot of the deals are vague/incomplete executive directives; not treaties ratified by congress.
How do you know that? What do you mean by an incomplete executive directive? Are you sure that all trade deals or modifications of such deals must go through Congress? How familiar are you with the US legislative system?
> So I asked you a question (which you didn't answer).
Was it a rhetorical question or are you genuinely asking? You already answered your question by pointing out a few different deals. That's why I'm a little confused. I addressed your question, even if I didn't answer it... because you answered it!! lol
Separately does it matter? My point was that Congress has abdicated this responsibility to the Executive and Judicial branches and this has gone on for decades and only gotten worse over time. The lack of Congressional approval for trade deals would just reinforce the point I am making.
CUSMA was approved by Congress in the middle of Trump's second term. In this area at least, they haven't been abdicating for decades.
Also, seems primary blame for Trump's illegal tariffs should lie with... Trump?
Irreparable doesn't make it a good idea to increase the damage, in much the same way that a company losing their trademark ("irreparable harm") can have an even worse time if all their banks suddenly refuse to do business with them.
The US taking Greenland by force means either NATO ends, or it collectively is at war with the USA, either outcome within a week or less. Similar but with different timelines for the entire EU due to Article 42(7), even though not all EU member states are in NATO and vice versa. It means maximally escalating trade prohibition (which doesn't mean everything from day 0) rather than simply the absence of deals leading to tariffs.
I will note with Suez, the British and French were humiliated, and by some the crisis is considered to be the end of the British empire. The British are not exactly beloved world-wide, despite what British newspapers will write about all the asylum seekers.
And the French didn't fully withdraw from NATO, but from the US-led unified command and the control of NATO's nuclear arsenal, to approximately quote the Wikipedia page.
Neither world war worked out well for those involved; for the British it was two Pyrrhic victories in a lifetime, for Germany it was humiliation and hyperinflation the first time around and getting quartered the second time around with active economic suppression only ending because of a proxy conflict of brain drain across what became the Iron Curtain. In both wars, Germany was seen as villainous for the next generation. The relative economic damage in Europe is what allowed the USA to become a superpower, and it only really supported Europe as a foil against Communism.
Or just look at how much the borders changed going from pre-WW1 to post-WW2.
Correct. But Canada didn't start this trade war, all it can do is respond to it.
And the correct way to respond to a bully, fraud, and liar is tit-for-tat. Tax his exports, tax your irreplaceable exports. Tax and block his digital and media services.
Not only for foreign goods. If there's a tax on imported X, domestic X producers can now charge more because the foreign producers must raise their prices to pay for the tax.
Another way to look at it is that any tariff reduces foreign competition, with all the knock-on effects that implies.