It’s a valid concern, and one that needs to be considered when deciding the path ahead. You’re right that appeasement won’t work, but if you’ll excuse the analogy… in chess, it’s important to anticipate how your opponent will respond to your move, so that you can consider your options for how to respond to the opponent’s likely response. It’s called “thinking several moves ahead” and it’s an absolute must. When you game the sequence out, you can see whether the initial decision will ultimately lead to good outcomes or bad outcomes. Even if a bold move is necessary, sometimes “thinking several moves ahead” will allow you to see what other pieces you might need to move into place first before making that bold move.
In Canada’s case, if it knows that becoming a beachhead for Europe in the New World will trigger a Monroe/“Donroe” Doctrine freakout from the US, the key question is: does Canada have its pieces in place to be ready for that foreseeable sequence of events? If not, then this move is premature.
It’s a valid concern, and one that needs to be considered when deciding the path ahead. You’re right that appeasement won’t work, but if you’ll excuse the analogy… in chess, it’s important to anticipate how your opponent will respond to your move, so that you can consider your options for how to respond to the opponent’s likely response. It’s called “thinking several moves ahead” and it’s an absolute must. When you game the sequence out, you can see whether the initial decision will ultimately lead to good outcomes or bad outcomes. Even if a bold move is necessary, sometimes “thinking several moves ahead” will allow you to see what other pieces you might need to move into place first before making that bold move.
In Canada’s case, if it knows that becoming a beachhead for Europe in the New World will trigger a Monroe/“Donroe” Doctrine freakout from the US, the key question is: does Canada have its pieces in place to be ready for that foreseeable sequence of events? If not, then this move is premature.