That was the first thought that I had when US Ambassador Pete Hoekstra opened his mouth again. Then again, his lifetime service ends in 1089 days, so Canada survive his term for another three years? So what brought this about? Well, CBC gives us (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norad-canada-us-f35-9.7059800) ‘NORAD pact would change if Canada pulls back from F-35 order, warns U.S. ambassador’ where we see “and would fly them more often into Canadian airspace to address threats approaching the U.S.” what does that flagrantly inappropriate piece of (whatever he is) think he is by violating Canadian airspace without consent of the Canadian government? A case might be made on Changing NORAD, they are usually too busy tracking Santa Claus with their systems, making these systems active one day a year. But to give Canada the setting that we are given that “Ambassador Hoekstra describes the current defence relationship as “awesome,” but says such interventions by the U.S. military over Canada would increase if Canada does not increase its purchase of F-35s beyond the 16 currently on order.” And the setting that America has any input in HOW MANY and which airplanes come the Seraglio of the United States (their new nickname) is beyond his seat and beyond his entitlement (as I personally see it). So when I see “U.S. President Donald Trump’s ambassador to Canada is warning of consequences to the continental defence pact if Canada does not move forward with the purchase of 88 F-35 fighter jets.” I feel entitled to loosely lose it. Canada is making his requirement known and it is THEIR opinion that the Saab JAS 39 Gripen can do the job as the choice for Canadian defence, that is up to the people who are empowered (in Canada) to do so, not for the White House, or are the losses that the White House enacted over themselves no longer paying for the electricity bill? You know that stuff that is coming from Canada and now comes with a 100% tariff?
In this light I would personally offer the setting that the 88 F-35’s are an option when it comes with a 63.4% discount, but then it would still be up for Minister Mélanie Joly and Minister David McGuinty to give that go ahead, but in no way is there any acceptance that this is up to American Ambassador Pete Hoekstra, or to even suggest that USA planes fly into Canada (without permission) and take optionally seen as hostile actions. And as NORAD is also in Alaska, there is enough time for the Canadian air force to take positive actions before there is an actual issue on United States soil.
So even as the article in CBC ends with ““That’s crazy. We’re not a threat,” said Hoekstra.” I would like to add “Not we, you are the threat Ambassador Hoekstra” and you better realise that really soon before you run your mouth again in anti-Canadian outbursts, as the selling through threats of buying airlines to counter invasion tactics, it shows the ‘craft’ level of a lousy second hand car salesman and Canada made its choice when it selected the Saab to do the job at 25% of the cost and perhaps it was partially selected because your boss ran his mouth with those ‘51st state’ remarks. So at present there are concerns that the United States needs to sell at least 105 F-35 airplanes to counter the setting of “US Treasury bonds experienced a significant sell-off, with yields on 10-year notes reaching 4.3% and 30-year yields touching 4.9%. This surge in yields, the highest since September 2025, was driven by concerns over potential trade wars with Europe and geopolitical tensions. Foreign investors hold roughly 31% ($9.4 trillion) of US debt, and some European entities have signaled a re-evaluation of their holdings.” It comes with the unconfirmed information from a source that Goldman Sachs had sold over 800 billion in bonds. I only had one source and no validation of this, not with the SEC (who had over 4200 documents of actions by Goldman Sachs), but it might not be easy to find as 800 billion+ implies that the United States and its dollar are pretty much done for, not something you want to herald to the media. And I was ready to reject it, but in comes Ambassador Pete Hoekstra making demands that Canada takes a 100% of the 88 Lockheed Martin dinky toys (could be corgi toys), now that lose statement of sold bonds seems a little too ‘conveniently’ out there. But there is another setting, since when does any government bully its way to the purchase line with an overpriced drone that requires a pilot? So, are you feeling the animosity yet Ambassador Hoekstra? And I am a mere Australian, but that makes me a Commonwealthian and one that stands with its Canadian brothers (sisters too). You seemingly forgot that you are merely boasting towards Canadians, but as it stands you are offending Australians (aka Aussies), New Zealanders (aka Kiwi’s) and the United Kingdom (aka Britons) as well. As such you might want to pick up your book ‘101 ways for being clever in diplomacy’ up again, you might have looked into that in your first year in addressing negotiation, international relations, and conflict resolution. Optionally books given to you by UNITAR, but that is mere speculation by me.
And perhaps you want to point pout where you can do such a thing as the 11 principles that govern NORAD include (as 6th principle) “No permanent change of station for forces under NORAD control can occur without national authority approval.” Or even principle 11 which gives us “The agreement includes provisions for review or renewal (originally set for 10 years).” When exactly is that renewal due? I might be foggy on this part. So exactly who is in charge of NORAD? We are given “The Commander and Deputy Commander will not be from the same country; appointments require approval from both nations.” So when did you discuss this matter with General Gregory Guillot of the United States Air Force? Or perhaps his deputy (which I personally doubt) which is General Iain S. Huddleston of the Royal Canadian Air Force. And perhaps you might want to refresh my mind on where it stands what flying materials each player brings to the NORAD table. As I stated, I might be foggy on that part and in this the media is no help at all.
But I reckon you know all this because you opened your mouth and as such you would have reviewed the materials before speaking. It might be an incorrect view on the matter but don’t several diplomacy books tell the diplomat to any table prepared for what is to come? Sun Tzu (not a diplomat) tells us that victory is secured through meticulous preparation and strategic calculation before a battle begins. And as you entered that field speaking, I gathered that you would have been prepared for that and as such you would have familiarised yourself with the doctrine of NORAD. Was I right?
So you all have a great day and as I stood up for my Canadian brethren (sisters too) I feel great and I am now 150 minutes from breakfast, so I feel good. Especially as I feel the urgent urge for coffee at this time.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 