I agree there are suspect aspects to the speech. I watched it the other day and it definitely had some bobbing and weaving going on, for lack of a better way to put it. Token dipping into one concept or another, without really committing to it concretely.

My read of it goes something like this and am open to alternate views on it: Carney’s take is a result of him being an extension of domestic capital in Canada and he is speaking primarily for their interests. By Trump laying bare the vassal relationship and talking of absorbing Canada, the implication is that Canada won’t necessarily get to have its own, neatly delineated spoils of imperialism anymore. So Carney, as Canadian capital, is saying, “We have to diversify in what we invest in, as capital and power. A little bit into still-existing imperialism here, a little bit into trade with China there, so that we’re not dependent on any one global power.” Though he speaks of being a middling power and the dangers of being under control of big powers, the broad mentions of ties (such as including Ukraine, IIRC, in the same speech as mentioning China) sounds like he’s aiming for a kind of scattershot strategy rather than wanting to be part of an anti-imperialist coalition. Something like, “Let the big players fight each other and have enough different ties that Canada will be able to benefit, no matter who comes out on top.”

Capital is, after all, very opportunistic and not necessarily bothered by conflict if it can sweep in after to rebuild, getting its tendrils in on a ground level. The vague recognition of imperialism is probably meant to be just enough appeasement to help smooth over relations with China and signal openness to a mutually-beneficial relationship, without actually doing a substantive critique of imperialism that could undermine relationships with European imperialists. Instead, as the author of this article touches on, it’s kind of like when liberals say things started getting bad with Trump. The vassal states can act like embarrassed victims who were coerced into being stooges of imperialism, even as they continue to jockey for ways to keep it going by trying to have a renewed economic and military power base of their own.

It’s just detente because their hands were forced; it will be made clear with countries who do make better trade relations with China but will double down on fascism domestically.

Ultimately Canada is no where near powerful enough to act on any of the grievances posed in the speech. The ending comes across as “we’re a weak nation prepared to work with other weak nations”. No actual alternative is put forward, because Canada simply cannot do so. Hard power realities exist. Canda has little hard power in geopolitics.

At the end of the day, the “rules based order/international law” is/was undersigned by the United States’ 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers, nuclear armed stealth bombers, massive military budget, etc. US hard power. As much as Craney says that smaller nations went along with the charade of the rules based order for their benefit, the United States also went along with the fiction of it because it benefited the United States. However, if the United States decides going along with the rules based order charade no longer benefits itself in great power competition with China, which we are beginning to see, then “international law” in this respect no longer exists as the US controls the hard power that ultimately undersigns it, and Europe and their allies are decades away from building anything resembling that hard power. This is the ultimate bargain, and why Europe is kind of stuck with the US for now.

The “pivot to Asia” is also a structural shift that will last long after Trump is gone. China is the United States principal adversary now, not Russia. The Ukraine war has cemented that. In a way, Ukraine lasting so long and holding Russia off has been the worst thing for Europe, because it has exposed Russia’s weaknesses in a neer peer conventional only conflict. Russia has been fighting Ukraine now for longer than the Soviet Union fought Nazi Germany during WW2, and longer than the US fought Japan during WW2, and parts of Donetsk are still Ukrainian. The US is going to ask Europe to deal with this themselves while they attempt to contain China in the Pacific, which the Europeans are going to hate and lash out towards the US in response. Some of that has already happened. If Russia had instead blitzed through Ukraine, the US would’ve had to provide more security support to Europe.

I wouldn’t say it’s a revolt, more bitterness and resentment as Canada has little leverage to actually revolt with. Also a denial of reality, Canada is not going to lead the middle powers anywhere. Quoting words to men with guns is not productive.