351–360 of 528 posts
I feel a deep sense of pride and hope, palpably in my chest, when I get a week of news about how we're developing much closer ties with our European allies and divesting ourselves of the abusive American relationship. Carney's Davos speech was powerful, but those words needed to be followed by actions, which I think we are seeing. I'm used to being so disappointed by politicians.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do we need to actually go to war with Russia? Yes. That's what everyone signed up to [0] when Ukraine gave up its Soviet-era nukes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
Great, more dead boys for nothing. As a Canadian, I think we've sacrificed enough generations for European brother wars. Given retrospect, wouldn't a land deal have been better than half a million dead? Wouldn't walking away from your house, maybe with a reparations package, be better than it being blown up by drones and your family killed? I don't think we need to go to war. We need to find a way to deal with Russia…
No? Don’t want to trade land suddenly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
As someone unfamiliar with the US-Canada trade relationship, it would be helpful if you developed this argument instead of stating it as a fact. I'm not well-placed to know whether your belief that Canada has bilked the US out of 46 billion dollars is well-founded or not.
This is actually more likely a non-political procurement decision that looks like a political one. This is the 'right size' for Canada and other nations - the US doesn't offer a true comparable, and, looks like the US balked at buying the 'kind of comparable' Boeing E7 putting it in jeopardy. With European military renaissance and the SAAB gear proving itself in Ukraine ... well, you see the shift. This is the shift…
How can this be true - the only reason humans still need military equipment of any sort is politics.
We are not fighting aliens, just stupid politicians that suddenly choose to throw people at a problem instead of using words.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a very practical PoV, the only military threat to Canada is from the U.S. Even if the U.S. and Canada are enemies, if Canada is being attacked by a country that is not the U.S., then the U.S. will come to its defense because they don’t want another nation with the capability to attack Canada to have a North American presence. So given that the U.S. is the only possible military threat to the U.S., and now that t…
If the US decided to attack Canada then having Swedish 4th generation fighters instead of US 5th generation fighters will make literally no difference in the outcome. This isn't a serious calculus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
New Ukraine aid effectively ended with the current administration, if you were unaware
It did not, but the implicit U.S. policy is to help Ukraine just enough to maintain a stalemate and to keep Russia busy and unable to assist other countries like Cuba and Iran.
Intel probaly, but we don't know the exact arrangements there. And nothing like before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody is buying this narrative of Israel being provoked, because the reaction to the provocation, if there ever was one, is completely disproportional. Israel had settlements in Palestine way before the conflict outbreak, and nothing explains the systematic targeting of civilian infrastructure on Lebanon but for Israel just going supernova, like Germany and Japan back then.
Israel's faults do not mean they were not provoked. Iran has been sending everything they can to anyone who wants to harm Israel. What Israel has done is a completely irrelevant to what Iran has been doing.
It's certainly easy to say "X provoked Y, ignore what Y did first to provoke X".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does with Volvo, although I couldn't say how big it is relative to global industry. Within Europe it's a large player
Volvo is complicated. Basically a lot of these smaller companies and countries realized there was no way they could make the economics work with the cost of electronics and software-related R&D being what they are. So they sold to larger players. But design and final assembly still happens in Gothenburg for high-end models that are typically destined for the EU market. The US now manufactures the SUVs.
Saab uses the Bombardier Global 6500 here. Which is entirely manufactured in Canada. This is less politics and more about economics
Boeing and Airbus have tremendous backlogs... >As of March 31st, 2026, Airbus reported a commercial aircraft backlog of 9,031 aircraft. Based on the company’s 2026 delivery target of 870 aircraft, this represents approximately 10.4 years of production coverage. >Boeing’s commercial backlog stood at approximately 6,719 aircraft at the end of March. Using Forecast International’s production estimates, Boeing’s backlog…
> 10.4 years of production coverage
Kinda true, airlines and manufacturers like to do big order announcements/deals for their future needs of few years all upfront. If Airbus suddenly delivered all 9k aircraft most airlines simply cannot afford it, or take possession and use them even.
For example Indigo is Airbus only operator with a fleet of 450 today and has around 920 more Airbus aircraft (10% of the book) on order. Neither Indigo or Indian aviation sector( of which Indigo is 60%) can triple the capacity today . India need serious upgrades (Terminals, Runways, Gates, new airports) coming online and also demand maturing, i.e. more people can afford to fly for that kind of volume to make sense which even the best scenario will happen over the next decade.
For more mature/slow growing airlines it is function of existing fleet age and the optimal point each aircraft is retired/sold , doing it too early will make them unprofitable .
It is a less a backlog and more their next 10 years of committed sales.
P.S. There is whole other industry aspect around Buy-Sell-and-leaseback financial engineering that can drive order volumes a bit. The backlog/order book also have commodity futures aspects.