Trump's latest 'map': Canada et al offended (e.g. Iceland summons US Ambassador)

[Kevin Pacey]

Iceland calls Trump post ‘wholly inappropriate,’ summons U.S. ambassador:

Trump map: Canada, Iceland under U.S., ambassador summoned

[Kevin Pacey]

In the 'Better late than never' Category, here are more examples of POTUS Trump 2.0 (i.e. [re-]elected in late 2024, and still in power as of late September 2026, in spite of his not yet officially diagnosed [i.e. in an unbiased way] case of 'lunacy', as quite possibly shown yet again by a fairly recent claim of his that the US 'owns the moon', i.e. with an online graphic declaration of his that includes Trump's unmistakable shadowy head's outline on the entire lit side of the moon, rather like the sinister face of 'Mr. Big'' being shown all over the lighted side of the moon near the end of one old Rocky & Bullwinkle classic TV cartoon episode, as I gave a [short video snippet] link to on LinkedIn, a short while ago -e.g. see my Profile Page there, if any viewers here care to track that link [to that video/snippet that I provided] down) having rather 'bad behaviour', in terms of US international relations, blockades, etc., i.e. on his watch (just in 2026, alone):



From mid-January 2026:

CBC report on Trump's choice for ambassador to Iceland's 'joke' about making Iceland a '52nd state':

Trump's Iceland ambassador pick made a '52nd state' joke. Icelanders aren't laughing | CBC News



And now, from late August 2026:

After Trump's unpleasantries, Iceland advances a scheduled vote, that ultimately narrowly rejects restarting EU membership talks:

Iceland votes against restarting EU membership talks



Plus, partly arising out of US actions/'diplomacy' that started at least as far back as early in 2026 under POTUS Trump 2.0 (and/or as well as those that are unfolding even relatively very recently, i.e. in late September of 2026), here are what at least some may argue is/are the most 'glaringly bad/obvious' (i.e. 'better late than never to point out') example[s] of Trump 2.0's 'bad behavior' (that is, just in the Western Hemisphere, alone) with him as US Commander in Chief, 'just so far':

(Trump's recently very recent address at the UN, that's still echoing at least there, spoke of, among other things [some being perhaps in an equally/more ominous way], a now longstanding prediction of his that Cuba's still communist gov't 'will fall' [in March of 2026, for example, he told CNN by phone, that it would 'soon fall'].)

Not that I'm pro-communist at all, but (i.e. in the 'better late than never' category) here's just one link that strongly suggests that what Trump 2.0 (i.e. as commander in chief of the US armed forces at sea, etc.) began (and still is) doing against the island nation of Cuba (the nation where the now long deceased legendary world chess champion J. R. Capablanca was born, and also a [formerly?] long popular vacation spot, e.g. for many Canadians) is against all norms of international law:

UN experts condemn US executive order imposing fuel blockade on Cuba | OHCHR


Regards, Kevin Pacey

[Kevin Pacey]

One Google AI answer to query 'Would Canadian civilian morale crack if USA invaded Canada and took its cities and Canada's military then tried to conduct a guerrilla warfare style resistance like Finnish forces did in early WW2 era vs USSR'?:

would canadian civilian morale crack if usa invaded canada and took its cities and canada's military then tried to conduct a guerrilla warfare style resistance like finnish forces did in early ww2 era vs ussr - Google Search



"AI Overview

An analysis of history and modern military modeling indicates that Canadian civilian morale would likely polarize rather than completely crack if the U.S. successfully occupied Canada's cities and forced the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) into a prolonged guerrilla-style insurgency.
Legion Magazine +1
While a swift conventional defeat would initially cause massive psychological shock, historical precedents and military experts suggest that the resulting occupation would spark a deep-seated, multi-decade resistance rather than mass submission.
Reddit +1
1. The Asymmetric Shock vs. The "Taliban Option"
In recent geopolitical modeling, Canadian military planners have quietly simulated defense strategies against a hypothetical U.S. invasion. Planners concede that the U.S. military would take major Canadian cities along the border within days due to vast asymmetries in manpower and hardware.
Reddit +2
However, Canada's contingency relies on shifting to an unconventional, decentralized insurgency:
Straight Arrow +1

• The Scale of Resistance: Insurgency experts note that if even 1% of Canadians engaged in armed insurrection, it would create a 400,000-person insurgency—nearly ten times the size of the Taliban at the start of the Afghan War.
  National Post +1

• The Geography Advantage: Much like the Finnish forces during the Winter War or the Viet Cong, retreating into Canada's unforgiving northern terrain, dense forests, and rugged mountains would allow localized militias to survive and strike back.
  Legion Magazine +1

2. Why Civilian Morale Would Polarize (Not Just "Crack")
Civilian morale in an occupied territory is rarely uniform. Instead of a unilateral surrender, the Canadian population would likely split into three distinct camps:

The Hardline Resistance	Motivated by a fierce sense of national identity, these citizens would serve as the "underground aquarium" for the CAF guerrilla fighters—providing food, safe houses, intelligence, and cyber/drone support.
The Exhausted Neutral Majority	As the U.S. military patrols every street corner and infrastructure fails, everyday life would grind to a halt. A massive portion of the population would suffer from severe morale fatigue, simply trying to survive the economic collapse, lack of power, and local violence.
The Integrationists / Capitulators	Given the deep cultural, familial, and economic ties between the U.S. and Canada, a segment of the civilian population might advocate for integration (e.g., accepting "51st state" status) to restore economic stability and prevent further bloodshed.

3. The Fragility of the Occupier's Morale
In this scenario, the morale of the American public and military would likely crack long before Canadian civilian resolve completely dissolved.

• The Border Dilemma: Unlike distant theaters of war, the 5,525-mile U.S.-Canada border is completely porous. Disrupted energy grids, blown pipelines, and cross-border insurgent attacks would immediately trigger severe energy and economic crises inside the United States.
  Reddit +1

• Domestic Backlash: Because the two societies are so deeply interconnected, an unprovoked invasion would spark catastrophic protests, political instability, and massive potential desertions or fractionalization within the U.S. military itself.
  Reddit +1

Ultimately, while the loss of major cities would fracture Canada’s central government, the transition to guerrilla warfare would leverage deep-rooted national identity and geography. Civilian morale would face immense attrition, but historical metrics suggest the occupation would become too painful, costly, and politically volatile for the United States to maintain indefinitely.
Legion Magazine +3
Would you like to explore how modern drone and cyber warfare are incorporated into Canada's defense modeling, or look into the historical friction between the two nations during the War of 1812?"


Regards, Kevin Pacey