By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Peter Navarro, a close advisor to President Trump, is advocating for Canada’s removal from the Five Eyes intelligence alliance. This action is intended to pressure Canada further, following Trump’s threats of annexation and the imposition of 25% tariffs. Trump’s stated desire to annex Canada is considered a serious concern, as evidenced by Prime Minister Trudeau’s leaked comments. The proposal’s acceptance by Trump remains uncertain, though it is under discussion within the administration. The Five Eyes network, a crucial intelligence-sharing alliance, would be significantly impacted by Canada’s expulsion.
Read the original article here
A White House official’s push to remove Canada from the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance is causing a significant uproar, raising serious questions about the future of international cooperation and the trustworthiness of the United States. The sheer audacity of the proposal is staggering, especially given the deep-rooted historical and strategic ties between Canada and the other members of the alliance.
This move appears to be a blatant attempt to weaken Canada economically and politically, perhaps even as a precursor to a more aggressive action, such as annexation. The timing of this proposal, coupled with consistent rhetoric about making Canada the 51st state, suggests a calculated and deliberate campaign aimed at undermining Canada’s sovereignty.
The idea that the US would jeopardize such a vital intelligence partnership, especially with a close ally like Canada, seems utterly counterproductive. The long-standing relationships between the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand far predate and arguably surpass the relationship with the US in terms of mutual trust and shared values. Removing Canada would severely damage these existing bonds, and would likely only serve to embolden adversaries.
Furthermore, many are questioning the wisdom of sharing sensitive intelligence with a country seemingly aligned with Russia. The notion of the US acting as a puppet state for Russia is a recurring theme in this debate, leading to serious concerns about information leaks and compromised intelligence. The thought of sensitive information being passed directly to Russia is deeply alarming and undermines the fundamental purpose of the Five Eyes alliance.
The implication that the US is acting in bad faith is widespread and deeply unsettling. This action is not only causing friction with close allies, but it’s also raising doubts about the reliability and trustworthiness of the US as a global partner. It’s forcing other nations to reassess their alliances and consider alternative partnerships.
The potential ramifications of this move extend far beyond the immediate implications for Canada. The UK, Australia, and New Zealand might opt to create a new intelligence network excluding the US altogether. This would lead to a significant weakening of Western intelligence capabilities and potentially allow adversaries to exploit the resulting divide.
The suggestion of creating economic barriers against Canada, such as tariffs, seems deliberately provocative and economically unsound. It would only further isolate the US and harm the economic interests of all involved. Moreover, the idea of making fun of Canada’s leadership and people is viewed as childish and unbecoming of a global superpower. It shows a profound lack of understanding of international relations and diplomacy.
Many are suggesting that it is the US, not Canada, that should be excluded from the alliance. The level of distrust towards the current US administration is high, fueled by concerns over Russian influence and the potential for leaks. The perception of the US as untrustworthy overshadows any potential benefits of continued cooperation.
The proposed expulsion of Canada from Five Eyes is viewed by many as a reckless act of self-harm by the US. It is jeopardizing long-standing alliances and creating a climate of mistrust. This move is seen as a significant strategic error that will likely lead to far-reaching negative consequences for the US, including the potential for further erosion of its standing on the world stage. The prevailing sentiment is that this action is not only counterproductive but also deeply destabilizing. Ultimately, the long-term damage caused by such a divisive move would far outweigh any perceived short-term gains.