TrueValueMetrics ... Impact Accounting for the 21st Century

Date: 2026-03-03 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00029345

CANADA CANADA CANCELS F-35 ... Tariff Point \| Jimmy Kimmel Trump COLLAPSES When Canada CANCELS The $12 Billion F-35 Fighter Jet Deal PLAY YOUTUBE VIDEO Original article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Prpht1UbgmY
1 MIN AGO: Trump COLLAPSES When Canada CANCELS The $12 Billion F-35 Fighter Jet Deal \| Jimmy Kimmel Tariff Point 1.32K subscribers Dec 21, 2025 HOA KỲ 1 MIN AGO: Trump COLLAPSES When Canada CANCELS The $12 Billion F-35 Fighter Jet Deal \| Jimmy Kimmel Just moments ago, the political and economic balance shifted when Canada signaled the cancellation of its $12 billion F-35 fighter jet deal with the United States. In this calm, analytical breakdown, Jimmy Kimmel walks you through why this decision matters far beyond military hardware. From trade leverage and sovereignty to supply chains and everyday economic pressure, Jimmy Kimmel explains how power is quietly exercised between allies. This isn’t about jets—it’s about dependence, control, and consequences. Watch as Jimmy Kimmel connects policy to real life, helping you slow down and see what headlines miss. If you value clarity over noise, this conversation with Jimmy Kimmel is for you. Stay thoughtful with Jimmy Kimmel. 00:00 — Opening: A Quiet Christmas Warning 02:35 — Trump Calls Canada the “51st State” 05:50 — The U.S. Economic Shock: 290,000 Jobs at Risk 10:45 — Canada Turns to Sweden & the Gripen E 13:55 — Denmark’s Precedent & Canada’s Historic Choice #jimmykimmel#jimmykimmellive#presidenttrump #donaldtrump #economy More video: • Trump Faces COLLAPSE as U.S. Tomatoes ROT ... Popular videos: • Trump Faces COLLAPSE as U.S. Tomatoes ROT ... Contact Email:soljad123@gmail.com Peter Burgess COMMENTARY Peter Burgess Transcript 0:15 Locked in a trade fight with Donald Trump, you may have heard that the Carne government is reconsidering its multi-billion dollar purchase of American F-35 fighter jets. The F-35 acquisition project continues. Canada had agreed to buy 88 of these fighter jets from the US to replace its aging CF-18 fleet. Merry Christmas. I hope you're spending this moment in peace. I'm Jimmy Kimmel and before we move forward, I want you to pause with me and take a closer look at what's really happening beneath the headlines. Before we go any further, if this channel helps you slow down, think more clearly, and see what's shaping everyday life beneath the noise, I invite you to support it. Like the video, share it with someone who values calm analysis over headlines, and subscribe so you don't miss the next 1:01 chapter of what's quietly unfolding around us. Donald Trump has not treated Canada as an equal partner. On numerous occasions, he has spoken of Canada as if it were the 51st state of the United States. Frankly, Canada should be the 51st state. Okay? It really should because uh Canada relies entirely on the United States. We don't rely on Canada. These were not mere slips of the tongue. They were statements that revealed his perception of power and who he believed should hold it. For years, Canada has been heavily dependent on the United States. Trade, security, defense technology, supply chains. That dependence created a sense of comfort, but it also created vulnerability. And vulnerability invites pressure. Now, Canada is signaling that it may pause or even cancel part of its F-35 fighter jet contract. This is no small agreement. Valued at approximately 12 billion. It is Canada's largest defense contract in decades. Under normal circumstances, this would be a routine sovereign decision. Countries regularly review and 2:01 reassess major defense procurements. But under Trump, it was never treated that way. Instead of negotiation, Canada faced threats. Instead of mutual respect, it faced leverage. Because in Trump's worldview, dependence is not something to be protected. It is something to be exploited. Canada is a very tough country to deal with. I will say that. And I love Canada. You have the USMCA in place. I know, but you'll have to deal with USMCA is no good if they cheat. This is not simply a dispute over aircraft. It is a test of whether Canada is recognized as a nation with the right to choose or treated as a territory expected to comply. And that is why this moment matters. Which country are you watching this video from? Is your country currently signed into a major agreement with the United States? Let me know in the comments below. I'd like to hear your perspective. At first glance, this appears to be a typical defense debate. Canada is considering options to replace its aging fighter jets. That's what sovereign nations do. They compare costs and assess long-term needs. They ask themselves what will best protect their people and territory. But then something unusual happened. At an 3:01 international security conference, the US ambassador to Canada delivered a public message that went far beyond advice or coordination. The warning was blunt. If Canada did not proceed with its purchase of F-35 fighter jets, it should not expect a future trade deal with the United States. This was no private conversation between allies. This was a public ultimatum. In an instant, military procurement decisions became directly linked to economic consequences. Defense was no longer simply about aircraft. It became leverage. Trade became pressure. For many Canadians, this raised an uncomfortable question. When an ally links market access to arms purchases, where is the line between cooperation and coercion? Canada had ordered its first batch of F-35s. But Prime Minister Mark Carney signaled a pause, saying Ottawa needed to ensure it was making the best long-term choice for the country. The response from Washington wasn't negotiation, but escalation. And that's where this story really begins. Do you think Canada's decision to consider cancelling the contract is the 4:00 right move? Comment yes or no below and let me know what you think. At first glance, many people may assume this is simply a tactic by the United States to pressure Canada. But if Canada were to truly pause or end its cooperation, the consequences would not fall on Canada alone. They would also come back to the United States and to ordinary Americans. If Canada decides not to move forward with the F-35 purchase, the impact would extend far beyond diplomatic discomfort. The F-35 program is no longer just a military project. It has become one of the largest economic pillars of the US defense industry. Today, the program supports nearly 290,000 American jobs across dozens of states and contributes roughly 72 billion a year to the US economy. This includes manufacturing, long-term maintenance, and a supply chain made up of nearly 2,000 domestic suppliers, many of them small and medium-sized businesses that depend on stable export contracts. If Canada and other partners begin stepping away, analysts estimate that the program could 5:00 lose as much as $19 billion in export orders. More importantly, it would weaken the long-term maintenance and support agreements that provide financial stability for decades, not just years. As international participation shrinks, companies like Loheed Martin face growing financial pressure. Warning signs have already appeared. In 2025, Loheed Martin reported a pre-tax loss of $1.6 billion, and its share price fell by 18%, reflecting broader instability within the defense sector. Reduced foreign demand also pushes costs higher at home. The global scale of the F-35 program helps keep production costs per aircraft down. When fewer countries share that burden, the cost per jet rises, placing additional strain on the US defense budget and ultimately on taxpayers. These pressures are not abstract. Facilities producing aircraft components in Texas, Florida, Connecticut, and Georgia could face reduced output or layoffs if orders decline further. For communities that rely on advanced manufacturing, this means lost jobs, shrinking local economies, and growing 6:01 uncertainty for families. Job losses in aerospace rarely stop at the factory gate. They ripple outward, affecting suppliers, transport companies, local services, and municipal budgets. When defense contracts weaken, the result is not only fewer aircraft, but wider economic stress. And when federal budgets tighten, cuts usually do not start with weapon systems. They show up elsewhere. Delayed infrastructure repairs, reduced public programs, and pressure on healthcare and education. Most Americans may never see an F-35 in the sky, but they will feel its absence through job insecurity, slower local growth, and the quiet strain placed on everyday public services. If you believe this could cause serious harm to the United States, please share this video with your friends so they can understand what's at stake. Once Canada began questioning the F-35 contract, a new question naturally followed. If not this system, then what? The answer did not come from Washington. It came from Northern Europe. Canada began looking seriously at cooperation with Sweden through the defense company Saab and its Grapen E fighter jet. This was not 7:01 simply about replacing one aircraft with another. It was about changing the relationship behind the purchase. Under Saab's proposal, Canada would not just buy planes. Sweden offered technology transfer, local assembly, and long-term industrial cooperation. The aircraft would be built and maintained in Canada, not abroad. This would allow Canada to operate, repair, and upgrade its own fleet without needing permission from another country. There was also a clear economic difference. Saab estimated that this approach could create up to 10,000 jobs in Canada's aerospace sector. Defense spending would circulate inside the country, supporting workers, engineers, and local supply chains. Costs mattered as well. While the F-35 is often listed at around $85 million per aircraft, its long-term expenses are far higher. Canada's own estimates suggest that operating 88 F-35s over 30 years could cost around $50 billion with flight costs of $35,000 to $47,000 per hour. By comparison, countries using the Gripen report operating costs of roughly 8:02 $8,000 per flight hour. Finally, there was geography. Sweden designed the Gripen to operate in cold climates from short runways and with minimal infrastructure conditions Canada understands well. For Canada, Sweden's offer represented more than a different jet. It represented a different balance of cost, control, and long-term independence. If this part helped you see why the choice isn't just about aircraft, but about cost, control, and long-term independence, please give the video a like so more people can understand the difference. For a long time, the debate around control sounded abstract. Questions about software access, logistics systems, and supply chains felt technical, important, but distant from real world consequences. Then Denmark happened. Denmark is not a marginal partner. It is a long-standing NATO ally, a stable democracy, and a country that followed the rules. Copenhagen joined the F-35 program, believing it was purchasing advanced aircraft to defend its own territory under its own political authority. What 9:00 Denmark learned instead was something far more unsettling. In 2024, the United States removed critical F-35 components from Denmark's inventory and transferred them to Israel. There was no request for approval, no prior consultation with Danish authorities, no parliamentary vote in Copenhagen. The decision was made unilaterally and Denmark could not intervene. This was not a diplomatic dispute that could be negotiated away. It was the result of how the F-35 system is designed. The United States controls the aircraft's global supply chain, spare parts distribution, and logistics platform. Ownership of the airframe does not include ownership of the system that keeps it operational. In that moment, Denmark discovered that possession did not equal control. The consequences went beyond embarrassment. The transfer directly conflicted with Denmark's foreign policy stance in the Middle East. Yet, Danish lawmakers had no mechanism to block the action. The jets were physically Danish, but the authority governing their sustainment 10:00 was not. A Danish member of Parliament who had supported the F-35 purchase later admitted his regret. He described the realization in stark terms. Denmark had believed it was buying fighter jets. Instead, it was effectively leasing them while another country held the keys. This is what makes the Danish case so important. It was not about punishment. It was not retaliation. It was not even political hostility. The system functioned exactly as intended. In moments of strategic urgency, control flows to the center. Smaller partners adjust. That is the precedent. If components can be removed from one allies aircraft to serve another conflict, then control over those aircraft is conditional. It depends not on ownership but on alignment with priorities set elsewhere. For countries watching closely, the implication is unavoidable. A defense platform that can be redirected without consent is not fully sovereign. It operates under an invisible hierarchy that only becomes visible when it matters most. This is 11:00 why the Danish experience resonates far beyond Scandinavia. It shows that sovereignty does not disappear with an announcement. It erodess quietly through systems that bypass national decision-making. By the time a country realizes what it has lost, the decision has already been made somewhere else. Denmark did not lose its alliance, but it did lose control in a moment when control was essential. And once that line is crossed, it cannot be uncrossed. Because the lesson of Denmark is not about one transfer of parts. It is about a structural reality. When critical defense systems are controlled externally, sovereignty exists only as long as it is convenient. If stories like Denmarks help you see how power really works behind modern defense systems, consider subscribing to the channel so you don't miss the next chapter of what Quietly Shapes National Sovereignty. Canada has reached a moment it cannot delay or disguise. This is no longer a routine defense procurement and it is no longer a debate about aircraft performance. It is a structural choice about the future of Canadian sovereignty. And like most historic 12:01 decisions, it does not arrive with ceremony. It arrives quietly, wrapped in contracts and timelines that stretch decades into the future. The choice facing Canada is stark. One path is familiar. Accept the pressure, proceed with the F-35, and trust that relations with the United States will remain stable for the next 30 years. It is the path of continuity. The path that avoids immediate friction. The path that assumes tomorrow will resemble yesterday. The other path is more uncertain. It requires Canada to build independent defense capacity, to accept short-term trade tension, and to protect long-term control over its own security. It carries risk, but it also carries clarity. This crossroads would already be serious on its own. What makes it historic is who has spoken up. Lieutenant General Andre Dashamp, retired, was not a critic from the outside. He was the architect. He was the senior commander who first proposed that Canada should join the F-35 program. For years, he was one of its strongest advocates, publicly defending 13:01 the aircraft and the partnership it represented. When someone like that changes position, it matters. Desamps did not reverse course because the F-35 failed to fly. He did not point to speed, stealth, or weapon systems. His concern was not technical. It was structural. He acknowledged that the United States controls too much of the system. The software, the spare parts, the upgrades, the logistics pipeline, every critical function that determines whether the aircraft can operate effectively sits outside Canadian authority. In practical terms, Canada would not truly operate the F-35 on its own terms. It would require continuous approval from Washington, not just during crisis, but throughout the aircraft's entire lifespan. That realization changed everything because a defense system that cannot be maintained, upgraded, or sustained independently is not just a military tool. It is a point of leverage. And leverage does not need to be used loudly to be effective. It only needs to exist. 14:01 Damps understood what this meant in a world where political stability can no longer be assumed. Governments change, priorities shift, alliances harden and soften. What looks cooperative today can become conditional tomorrow. Once control is surrendered, it cannot be reclaimed by goodwill. This is why Canada's choice is no longer about avoiding short-term discomfort. It is about preventing long-term vulnerability. Trade friction can be negotiated. Tariffs can be revisited. Diplomatic tension rises and falls. But dependence embedded in critical systems endures. Canada now must decide what kind of country it intends to be over the next generation. One that accepts external control in exchange for convenience or one that absorbs short-term pressure to preserve long-term autonomy. History rarely announces itself. It waits for moments like this when a nation must choose between comfort and control. And once the choice is made, it shapes everything that follows. If you believe this choice matters, not just for Canada, but for 15:00 how sovereignty is shaped in the modern world, please share this video so others can see what's quietly at stake. This story was never really about fighter jets. Aircraft are just hardware. They age, they are replaced, and eventually they disappear from service. What lasts much longer are the structures built around them, the contracts, the dependencies, the assumptions about who decides and who follows. Canada now stands at a moment that will not feel dramatic to most people. There will be no sirens, no immediate disruption to daily life. Grocery stores will open, streets will look the same. But beneath that normal surface, a long-term direction is being set. If Canada accepts external pressure today, it sends a quiet signal about how future decisions will be made, not just in defense, but in trade, technology, and national planning. Each choice becomes easier to influence once the precedent is set. If Canada chooses independence, the cost will not be zero. There may be trade tension. There may be economic discomfort. There may be 16:00 criticism from allies who prefer predictability over autonomy. But those costs are visible. They can be debated, negotiated, and eventually resolved. What cannot be easily resolved is dependence built into critical systems. When a country does not control the software that runs its defenses, the parts that keep them operational or the upgrades that determine their future capability, sovereignty becomes conditional. It exists only as long as it aligns with someone else's priorities. And that condition does not just affect governments. It affects workers whose jobs depend on domestic industry. It affects taxpayers whose money flows abroad instead of circulating at home. It affects families who rely on public services shaped by long-term budget choices. and it affects the quiet sense of security people carry when they believe their country can stand on its own. History often looks dramatic in hindsight. In reality, it unfolds through moments that feel technical and procedural. A contract signed, a review delayed, a choice framed as temporary, but temporary 17:00 decisions have a way of becoming permanent. Canada still has a choice, not an easy one, not a comfortable one, but a clear one. Because in the end, the question is not whether Canada can afford independence. It is whether Canada can afford to lose it slowly, without noticing, without debate, and without the chance to turn back. And once that line is crossed, the future is no longer chosen. It is inherited. If this channel helps you slow down, think more clearly, and understand how decisions made far from everyday life eventually shape it. I invite you to support the work, subscribe, share, or simply stay with us for the next chapter of stories that are rarely told, but quietly matter.

SITE COUNT