“I Did Apologise to President Trump” Says Canadian PM Mark Carney After Ontario’s Anti-Tariff Ad Sparks Trade Fallout
Carney says he privately apologised to Trump in South Korea after Ontario Premier Doug Ford ignored his advice and aired a Reagan-inspired anti-tariff advert.
The political world has been buzzing after Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney confirmed that he personally apologised to US President Donald Trump following a heated dispute triggered by an anti-tariff advertisement run by Ontario Premier Doug Ford.
According to sources within Carney’s office, the prime minister made the apology during a private dinner in South Korea, where both leaders had attended an Asia-Pacific economic meeting hosted by South Korea’s president.
Speaking to reporters shortly after the event, Carney said he felt it was important to ease the growing diplomatic tension caused by the advert that had angered Washington.
“I did apologise to the president,” Carney told journalists. “It was a private and respectful conversation.”
The advertisement in question was commissioned by Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who is known for his strong conservative views and fiery political style often compared to Trump’s. The ad featured a clip of former US President Ronald Reagan warning that tariffs lead to trade wars and economic disaster — a message that many interpreted as a direct criticism of Trump’s current trade policy.
Carney revealed that he had seen the advert before it aired and had clearly told Ford not to go ahead with it, fearing it would strain relations between Ottawa and Washington.
“I reviewed it before it was broadcast,” he explained. “I told Ford I did not support it and did not want to go forward with the ad.”
However, Ford ignored Carney’s warning and went ahead with the campaign, which aired on major Canadian TV networks last week.
Trump Reacts with New Tariffs
The fallout was swift. President Trump, visibly irritated by the message, announced fresh tariffs on Canadian goods and ordered a pause on ongoing trade negotiations between the two countries.
Trump later confirmed to American reporters that Carney had apologised to him during their meeting in Seoul, describing their exchange as “very nice.” However, he also made it clear that trade talks would not resume anytime soon.
The US and Canada have shared one of the world’s strongest trading partnerships for decades, but the two nations have clashed in recent years over tariffs and manufacturing subsidies. Carney’s government has been trying to protect Canada’s exporters, who fear losing billions if trade barriers continue to rise.
Mending Ties with China
While in Asia, Carney also met with Chinese President Xi Jinping, marking the first high-level Canada–China meeting since 2017. Relations between the two countries had been tense for years due to issues such as foreign interference and the detention of Canadian citizens in China.
Carney described his talks with Xi as a turning point, saying they discussed fair trade, cybersecurity, and future diplomatic cooperation.
“The meeting with President Xi was honest and productive,” Carney said. “We both agreed that stability between our nations benefits everyone.”
For years, Canada has accused China of interfering in its elections and targeting its citizens abroad. However, Carney signaled that his government is ready to reset the relationship under clear rules and mutual respect.
Reducing Dependence on the US
Carney’s Asian visit is part of a broader plan to diversify Canada’s global partnerships, reducing heavy reliance on the United States. Currently, almost 75% of Canadian exports go to the US, a situation experts say leaves Ottawa vulnerable whenever Washington changes its trade policy.
“It can’t happen overnight, but we’re moving fast,” Carney said when asked about his long-term trade strategy.
The prime minister has been actively pushing for stronger links with Asian and European economies. By deepening ties with China, South Korea, and other APEC nations, Carney hopes to give Canadian businesses new markets and more security amid the unpredictable policies coming from Washington.
Domestic Pressure on Ford
Back home, Premier Doug Ford is facing backlash from both national and provincial politicians. Critics accuse him of damaging the country’s economic interests for the sake of political showmanship.
Opposition MPs in Ottawa have demanded an official explanation, saying Ford’s move has hurt Canadian exporters at a time when inflation and high living costs are already squeezing citizens.
About the Creator
Keep reading
More stories from writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Russian Court Demands $29 Million from Ukrainian Navy Officer for Sinking of Moskva Missile Cruiser
A Russian court has ordered a Ukrainian navy officer to pay $29 million in damages over the sinking of the Moskva, Russia’s flagship missile cruiser in the Black Sea. The ruling has drawn international attention, reopening debates about war accountability, international law, and the symbolic loss of one of Russia’s most powerful naval vessels. The decision comes nearly two years after the Moskva sank during the early months of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, an event that marked a major turning point in the war at sea. The Sinking of the Moskva: A Brief Overview The Moskva was the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and a symbol of Moscow’s naval strength. In April 2022, the warship sank after sustaining severe damage during combat operations. Ukraine claimed responsibility, stating that its forces struck the cruiser with anti-ship missiles, while Russia initially said the ship was damaged by a fire that caused ammunition to explode. Despite conflicting narratives, the sinking shocked military analysts worldwide and dealt a significant blow to Russian naval prestige. The loss of the Moskva also had strategic consequences, limiting Russia’s naval operations in parts of the Black Sea. The Court Ruling Explained According to Russian state media, a court has ruled that a Ukrainian naval officer, identified as being involved in the operation that led to the sinking, is financially liable for the loss of the warship. The court assessed damages at approximately $29 million, citing the cost of the vessel and related losses. Russian authorities argue that the officer’s actions constituted criminal destruction of military property, even though the incident occurred during active warfare. Legal experts say the ruling is largely symbolic, as enforcing such a judgment against a foreign military officer remains highly unlikely. Legal and International Law Questions The ruling has raised serious questions about international law and wartime conduct. Under international humanitarian law, attacks on military targets during armed conflict are generally considered lawful. Many analysts argue that the Moskva was a legitimate military target, making the court’s decision controversial. Critics say the ruling blurs the line between combat actions and criminal liability, potentially setting a dangerous precedent. Supporters of Ukraine maintain that the court decision has no legal standing internationally, especially given the absence of Ukrainian representation or recognition of Russian jurisdiction in the case. Ukraine’s Response Ukrainian officials have dismissed the ruling, calling it politically motivated and legally meaningless. They argue that Ukraine was exercising its right to self-defense and targeting a warship actively involved in military operations. Ukrainian military analysts also note that similar rulings have no enforcement power outside Russia and are unlikely to impact the ongoing conflict. The Ukrainian government has not acknowledged any obligation to comply with the court’s demands. Political and Symbolic Motivations Many observers view the ruling as a political move rather than a legal one. The sinking of the Moskva was a major embarrassment for Russia, both domestically and internationally. By assigning blame and demanding compensation, analysts say Russian authorities may be attempting to: Reframe the narrative around the Moskva’s loss Reinforce domestic messaging about accountability Signal resolve amid ongoing military challenges The ruling may also serve as a warning to Ukrainian military personnel, even if it lacks real-world impact. Military Significance of the Moskva Beyond its symbolic value, the Moskva played a key role in air defense and command operations in the Black Sea. Its loss reduced Russia’s ability to project power along Ukraine’s southern coast. Military experts say the incident forced Russia to reposition naval assets and rely more heavily on long-range missile strikes rather than surface vessels. The sinking also demonstrated the growing effectiveness of modern missile systems against large naval ships, influencing naval strategies worldwide. International Reaction International response to the court ruling has been muted but skeptical. Legal scholars and defense experts have questioned the legitimacy of assigning financial liability for actions taken during wartime. Some analysts warn that if widely accepted, such rulings could criminalize standard military operations, undermining established rules of armed conflict. Western governments have not officially commented on the case, though many continue to support Ukraine’s right to defend itself. Broader Implications While the ruling is unlikely to result in any payment, it highlights the legal battles running parallel to the military conflict. Courts, sanctions, and claims for damages have become tools in the wider geopolitical struggle. The case also reflects how both sides are using legal mechanisms to shape narratives and assert moral authority, even as the war continues on the battlefield. Conclusion The Russian court’s demand that a Ukrainian navy officer pay $29 million for the sinking of the Moskva missile cruiser is a striking development, blending law, politics, and warfare. While the ruling is unlikely to have practical consequences, it underscores the deep divisions and unresolved tensions surrounding the conflict. As the war continues, cases like this show how legal actions are being used alongside military force to pursue accountability, influence public opinion, and redefine responsibility in modern warfare. Whether such rulings carry weight beyond national borders remains highly uncertain, but their symbolic impact is undeniable.
By Fiaz Ahmed 7 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.