His naïve and resentful “Principled and Pragmatic: Canada’s Path” address isn’t a viable path for Canada — not even in theory. It’s a textbook beginner’s error in power dynamics, corporate or geopolitical; the logic is identical.
The speech is useful, however — as a case study in how not to position yourself when facing a far more powerful player.
So What If Carney Correctly Identified the Collapse of the Old Order?
Yes—the old world order is not coming back. This is a rupture.
Yes—economic integration has long been used as a tool of coercion by great powers.
And yes—implicitly but clearly—Canada benefited from that system while it lasted.
None of this is new. And none of it will change anything.
We already knew about Western economic coercion, regime-change operations, and unjustified wars. Naming fragments of that reality on a Davos stage does not reform the system, restrain the bully, or rebalance power.
But it does weaken his — and thus Canada’s — negotiating leverage.
Exposing moral optics without altering material strategy does not produce leverage—it spends it. In power politics, truth without strategy is not clarity. It is a cost.
But that cost is his—and Canada’s.
Here is the cost to you and me.
What Carney Got Wrong About the Order
Carney speaks of ruptured order using the old moral language. By adding “Russian aggression” in Ukraine to his critical repertoire, he frames the system’s breakdown as the result of rogue actors—implicitly Vladimir Putin, and now Donald Trump—rather than as the predictable outcome of Western strategy.
That framing preserves a comforting implication for the Western establishment: remove Trump, isolate Putin, and the West returns to “normal”—unified, principled, and morally intact.
That is neither an honest nor a correct account of the rupture.
It is the old world optics, lightly refreshed.
An honest speech would not moralize the collapse of the order. It would acknowledge that the war in Ukraine was provoked by NATO’s eastward expansion to Russia’s borders — despite explicit written and verbal assurances by entire West to Mikhail Gorbachev, as documented by the US National Security Archive. Combined with Carney’s other observations, that acknowledgment would have marked a genuine break with the Old Narrative Order.
It would have been a step toward strategic honesty.
Instead, he preserved the old optics—and received the ovation anyway.
No Reckoning, Only Repositioning
Also missing, however, is anything resembling real remorse. Resentment is not constructive reflection.
There is no real reckoning with decades of participation in a system that enabled wars, regime change, and coercion. Carney’s broad, abstract acknowledgment of responsibility implicates everyone — and therefore no one. Clever rhetoric: it conveniently eliminates the need to do the hard thing, which would be to apologize and ask for forgiveness for the devastation inflicted elsewhere while Canada benefited.
The issue becomes worthy of Davos-stage concern only now — when the coercive wind turns northward.
That is not “values-based,” nor is it principled foreign policy.
It is a loud junior-level adjustment wrapped in retroactive moral positioning.
Just imagine how much this now-glaring inconsistency agitates the challenged powerful actor – who has already warned Carney, “You should be more careful.”
Indeed.
Values That Appear Only After Power Shifts
A principled stance opposes coercion regardless of the target.
Values do not suddenly emerge out of frustration when power shifts out of one’s favor.
Real-world leaders notice the difference—even when breaking hegemon’s optics is rewarded with a standing ovation.
The “Middle Powers” Illusion
The proposed “Middle Powers Unite” solution is naïve, unprincipled, and unpragmatic.
First. Carney’s aspirational New World Optics Order of so-called “values-based partnerships” among middle powers has little to do with principles and much to do with opportunism. If there is any theoretical chance that Canada would be accepted into such arrangements despite its unprincipled past, it would be out of raw interest—not shared ethics. Interests govern states. Values talk — like in corporations — are marketing.
Second—and far more important.
Middle powers do not shape world order. Nor do they define its optics.
They adapt to it—or they are pushed back into junior status.
Institutions are created by truly great powers. Always have been. Always will be.
Geography Beats Rhetoric
Canada lives next to an 800-kilo gorilla — Mearsheimer’s metaphor. That leaves little space for Carney’s New World Optics Order rhetoric.
The United States is not a distant hegemon. It is Canada’s neighbor, security umbrella, primary market, and core strategic constraint.
Public moral signaling, alliance shopping, and flirtation with alternative power blocs may sound bold and appear statesmanlike — but they’re strategically unsound when practiced next door to a short-tempered superpower.
Was anyone really surprised by Trump’s hostile response?
This was predictable. It was avoidable.
And it was a junior mistake in statecraft—akin to the EU sending twenty soldiers to Greenland and calling it deterrence.
Short-term ovations in exchange for long term consequences is a really bad trade-off.
When you’re in a hole – stop digging.
Carney’s Beginner Power-Politics Mistake
When a vastly stronger partner applies pressure, the smart response is neither public confrontation nor duplicitous virtue signaling.
- Be loud on win–win areas.
- Be quiet about asymmetric leverage – and deploy it discreetly.
- Keep arm’s-length when the bully goes on rampage.
- Be patient. Exercise restraint.
This requires both emotional and strategic discipline: accepting the stronger actor as fallible, transactional, and imperfect—rather than moralizing their behavior.
This is long-game diplomacy—not applause-line politics.
Conclusion
By publicly naming the elephant in the world’s room, Carney devalued the position and leverage of the very people he claims to represent: Canadians. In power politics, destroying the hegemon’s optics is never smart. Such ‘crime’ damages the one relationship the weaker side can’t afford to lose.
Survival, not moral exhibition, is the first duty of statecraft—because survival is owed to the people you represent.
I explore these dynamics—acceptance, assertion, and influence—in more detail here:
The Power Sequence™ → https://accept2lead.com/power-sequence-course/
A brief refresher on Plan B might have helped — where the “B” stands for Otto von Bismarck.
********************
Don’t make Carney’s mistake in your organization.
He had the analysis right but the strategy wrong. Most professionals make similar errors—not from lack of principles, but from misunderstanding how power actually works.
If you’re capable, principled, and overlooked, you don’t need therapy. You need strategy.
I help professionals like you master power dynamics, set boundaries under pressure, and influence with or without authority—without compromising your integrity.
Book a 30-minute strategy session to discuss your specific situation: gordan@accept2lead.com
About Gordan Dzadzic
I’m the founder of Accept2Lead, specializing in power dynamics, assertiveness, and strategic influence. I’ve served on executive boards, developed the Power Sequence™ framework (Accept, Assert, Influence), and trained professionals in navigating workplace politics.
My approach: acceptance-based (REBT-inspired), tactically sharp (negotiation frameworks), and grounded in real-world power dynamics—corporate and geopolitical.
Get weekly insights – subscribe to my mailing list.
