This is highly unlikely. For now anyway. Denmark's US Treasury holdings are small, and have been 'sold off' gradually for the past decade.
Bessent is correct: it's fake news.
Geopolitical Analysis: A Bird's-Eye View of the Global Situation
- Thread starter Possibility of Being
- Start date
Bessent is correct: it's fake news.
Well Denmark isn't alone in Europe and if they find the balls ( European ) and working together they hold very strong card.
Chinese are dumping US bond and it look like many country as in Europe are doing it as well and investing in China.
Bond Collapse Forces U.S. REVERSAL As Investors CANCEL Treasuries For China RMB Debt
What was his opinion on the speech?
Carlos Alberto
Padawan Learner
Here's and AI-generated summary:
On the second key topics and insights of the summary it says:
fifty_five
Jedi Master
I think it's easy to miss the point. What we are seeing is the world trying to find a way out of the empire, not without clumsy and futile attempts by vassals, who are nothing more than colonists who indignantly accuse the US of colonialism. Even the emerging non-colonial powers of multipolarism, such as Russia and China, have their difficulties given the inextricable web of interdependence that actually exists. I think it is very interesting, regardless of political beliefs, which are not only current but also, at the same time, completely OBSOLETE, and not just now, But still determine the points of assemblage of reality. Infinite repetition of the pattern. How interesting.
Equinox
The Force is Strong With This One
Indeed. Charles III is the King of Canada and Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces, after all. And I'm pretty sure Mark Carney is a full on royalist.
To understand America's relationship with Canada is to also understand America's relationship with Britain and Britain's relationship with Canada. I think this 3-way relationship thing really snags on Trump.
mocachapeau
Dagobah Resident
Upon further reflexion, re-reading the Carney speech, I have concluded that it is nothing more than a large, steaming pile of horse hockey. It is dishonest, hypocritical and driven by virtue signalling that is designed to elicit the kind of approval it has received. It has actually been compared to MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech, believe it or not. Probably by a paid troll, or a bot.
First, he explains how countries like Canada benefitted from the "old order", which he compares to communism, with a straight face.
"For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, praised its principles, and benefited from its predictability. We could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection."
"We participated in the rituals. And largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality."
"Havel called this “living within a lie.” The system’s power comes not from its truth but from everyone’s willingness to perform as if it were true."
Many have interpreted this as an admission that countries were turning a blind eye to the abuses of power perpetrated around the world by the US because they were benefitting from that relationship. However, he says the following in contradiction to such an admission:
"Today, I’ll talk about the rupture in the world order, the end of a nice story, and the beginning of a brutal reality where geopolitics among the great powers is not subject to any constraints." - A nice story? But you said it was about ignoring the rhetoric and living within a lie.
"Canada was amongst the first to hear the wake-up call, leading us to fundamentally shift our strategic posture."
"Canadians know that our old, comfortable assumption that our geography and alliance memberships automatically conferred prosperity and security is no longer valid."
"And there is another truth: if great powers abandon even the pretence of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from “transactionalism” become harder to replicate. Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships."
"Every day we are reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry. That the rules-based order is fading."
He's making it sound like the great powers (the US in particular) not being subject to any constraints is something new!! Really? So leaders of western countries have been totally unaware that the US has been committing crimes around the world for at least the past 80 years, and that they've never been punished? So... we didn't know what was going on until now? (That sounds familiar... covid, anyone?)
People on this forum know full-well what's really been going on, so I'm not going to waste your time getting into that. So let's look at his proposed solutions.
"In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: to compete with each other for favour or to combine to create a third path with impact."
"As I said, such classic risk management comes at a price, but that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty, can also be shared. Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortress. Shared standards reduce fragmentation. Complementarities are positive sum."
"Middle powers must act together because if you are not at the table, you are on the menu."
All he seems to be proposing is the same globalism only without including the US and Russia. But apparently China's okay as a partner, human rights abuses and all. And the fact that China is pretty tight with Russia doesn't seem to be a problem, either.
He mentions that doing all this will come at a price - "... such classic risk management comes at a price, but that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty, can also be shared." But wait. What did he say near the beginning of his speech?
"But I also submit to you that other countries, particularly middle powers like Canada, are not powerless. They have the capacity to build a new order that embodies our values, like respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of states."
Apparently his plan has the capacity to build autonomy and sovereignty, but comes with a LOSS of autonomy and sovereignty. That doesn't sound too coherent. And that loss of autonomy and sovereignty? No problem, because we'll all suffer that loss together! Kumbaya!
Which brings me to the virtue signalling.
"Our new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb has termed “values-based realism” – or, to put it another way, we aim to be principled and pragmatic."
"Principled in our commitment to fundamental values: sovereignty and territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter, respect for human rights.
Pragmatic in recognising that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge, that not every partner shares our values."
"Canada is calibrating our relationships so their depth reflects our values."
"We are no longer relying on just the strength of our values, but also on the value of our strength." - Soundbite.
"To help solve global problems, we are pursuing variable geometry— different coalitions for different issues, based on values and interests." - Variable geometry... okay.
In my opinion, this simply translates to, "WE have decent values, the US does not. WE are virtuous, the US is not." It's the same old woke virtue signalling that will appeal to those among the masses who have allowed that mindset to creep into their thinking. As we all know, the woke mindset is all about stripping away everyone's rights in order to help the marginalized groups. At the same time, his words present nothing concrete - nothing specific, nothing defined.
I get the impression that the populations of the middle power countries that sign on to his vague plan may find themselves stripped of all their rights in order to help that coalition of countries, as a whole. This is wokeism, this is globalism, this is communism.
I think special attention should be given to the phrase, "not every partner shares our values". This seems to be the narrative that will permit partnerships with China and other abusive regimes, which really means staying with the way of the "old order" of turning a blind eye to human rights abuses simply because we are benefitting from the relationship. Although I think it will eventually be more about joining in on the abuse.
All in all, it sounds to me like Carney has no problem with the big boys bullying the little countries as long as Canada benefits, and Canada doesn't get bullied. But now it's getting bullied, and that's unacceptable. Pure hypocrisy.
First, he explains how countries like Canada benefitted from the "old order", which he compares to communism, with a straight face.
"For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, praised its principles, and benefited from its predictability. We could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection."
"We participated in the rituals. And largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality."
"Havel called this “living within a lie.” The system’s power comes not from its truth but from everyone’s willingness to perform as if it were true."
Many have interpreted this as an admission that countries were turning a blind eye to the abuses of power perpetrated around the world by the US because they were benefitting from that relationship. However, he says the following in contradiction to such an admission:
"Today, I’ll talk about the rupture in the world order, the end of a nice story, and the beginning of a brutal reality where geopolitics among the great powers is not subject to any constraints." - A nice story? But you said it was about ignoring the rhetoric and living within a lie.
"Canada was amongst the first to hear the wake-up call, leading us to fundamentally shift our strategic posture."
"Canadians know that our old, comfortable assumption that our geography and alliance memberships automatically conferred prosperity and security is no longer valid."
"And there is another truth: if great powers abandon even the pretence of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from “transactionalism” become harder to replicate. Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships."
"Every day we are reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry. That the rules-based order is fading."
He's making it sound like the great powers (the US in particular) not being subject to any constraints is something new!! Really? So leaders of western countries have been totally unaware that the US has been committing crimes around the world for at least the past 80 years, and that they've never been punished? So... we didn't know what was going on until now? (That sounds familiar... covid, anyone?)
People on this forum know full-well what's really been going on, so I'm not going to waste your time getting into that. So let's look at his proposed solutions.
"In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: to compete with each other for favour or to combine to create a third path with impact."
"As I said, such classic risk management comes at a price, but that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty, can also be shared. Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortress. Shared standards reduce fragmentation. Complementarities are positive sum."
"Middle powers must act together because if you are not at the table, you are on the menu."
All he seems to be proposing is the same globalism only without including the US and Russia. But apparently China's okay as a partner, human rights abuses and all. And the fact that China is pretty tight with Russia doesn't seem to be a problem, either.
He mentions that doing all this will come at a price - "... such classic risk management comes at a price, but that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty, can also be shared." But wait. What did he say near the beginning of his speech?
"But I also submit to you that other countries, particularly middle powers like Canada, are not powerless. They have the capacity to build a new order that embodies our values, like respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of states."
Apparently his plan has the capacity to build autonomy and sovereignty, but comes with a LOSS of autonomy and sovereignty. That doesn't sound too coherent. And that loss of autonomy and sovereignty? No problem, because we'll all suffer that loss together! Kumbaya!
Which brings me to the virtue signalling.
"Our new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb has termed “values-based realism” – or, to put it another way, we aim to be principled and pragmatic."
"Principled in our commitment to fundamental values: sovereignty and territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter, respect for human rights.
Pragmatic in recognising that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge, that not every partner shares our values."
"Canada is calibrating our relationships so their depth reflects our values."
"We are no longer relying on just the strength of our values, but also on the value of our strength." - Soundbite.
"To help solve global problems, we are pursuing variable geometry— different coalitions for different issues, based on values and interests." - Variable geometry... okay.
In my opinion, this simply translates to, "WE have decent values, the US does not. WE are virtuous, the US is not." It's the same old woke virtue signalling that will appeal to those among the masses who have allowed that mindset to creep into their thinking. As we all know, the woke mindset is all about stripping away everyone's rights in order to help the marginalized groups. At the same time, his words present nothing concrete - nothing specific, nothing defined.
I get the impression that the populations of the middle power countries that sign on to his vague plan may find themselves stripped of all their rights in order to help that coalition of countries, as a whole. This is wokeism, this is globalism, this is communism.
I think special attention should be given to the phrase, "not every partner shares our values". This seems to be the narrative that will permit partnerships with China and other abusive regimes, which really means staying with the way of the "old order" of turning a blind eye to human rights abuses simply because we are benefitting from the relationship. Although I think it will eventually be more about joining in on the abuse.
All in all, it sounds to me like Carney has no problem with the big boys bullying the little countries as long as Canada benefits, and Canada doesn't get bullied. But now it's getting bullied, and that's unacceptable. Pure hypocrisy.
Spending on NATO seems not to be a Canadian value. Has Mark Carney ever admitted that Canada hasn't honored the NATO 2% defense spending guideline for 30+ years? With that, it seems surprising that Canada was accepted as the first non-European nation to join the EU's Security Action for Europe (SAFE) initiative, unless it's considered that an awful lot of countries just want less to do with the USA.
Trending content
-
Thread 'Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?'
- wanderingthomas
Replies: 30K -
-
-
