Skip to main content

Featured

Premiers Split on Using Potash as a Trade Weapon — What It Means for Your Grocery Bill

  Published August 31, 2026 Canada's premiers can't agree on how far to take the trade war with the United States — and this week, the fight is over a grey mineral mined almost 2,000 kilometres from Ottawa: potash. The disagreement matters well beyond provincial politics. Potash is the "P" and "K" of fertilizer economics — a key ingredient in the blends that grow the wheat, canola, and corn that eventually show up as bread, canola oil, and everything fed to livestock. Canada supplies about 85% of the potash the U.S. uses, which is exactly why some premiers see it as leverage — and why others are warning that pulling that lever could backfire on the very provinces pushing for it. Ford wants to pull the lever. Moe and Smith are warning not to. Ontario Premier Doug Ford is pushing for the toughest response available, including resource-based leverage. Saskatchewan's Scott Moe and Alberta's Danielle Smith are pumping the brakes, warning that squeezing po...

article

New Diplomacy on the Horizon: U.S. and Russia Push Ahead Without Ukraine

 

In a bold shift from previous diplomatic efforts, top U.S. and Russian officials have agreed to advance negotiations aimed at ending the war in Ukraine—even as Ukrainian representatives remain notably absent. High-level talks held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, saw U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discussing the framework for future peace negotiations and steps toward restoring bilateral relations.

The Trump administration’s approach, which prioritizes direct engagement with Moscow, marks a departure from longstanding principles that insisted on “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.” Critics in Kyiv have voiced strong opposition. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy warned that any agreement reached without Ukraine’s participation would be unacceptable and would undermine the nation’s sovereignty. European leaders echoed these concerns, with several officials labeling the move as a dangerous precedent that could lead to a “dirty deal” and embolden further Russian demands.

Analysts note that the absence of Ukraine from the negotiation table reflects a transactional mindset, one that appears to value immediate economic and strategic concessions over the long-term security guarantees essential for lasting peace. While U.S. officials are optimistic—citing the talks as a “highly productive” first step—the outcome remains uncertain. Critics argue that sidelining Ukraine could ultimately sacrifice key security interests and further destabilize an already volatile region.

For now, the dialogue is only the opening chapter in what promises to be a complex and protracted negotiation process. As both sides prepare for further discussions, the international community watches closely, aware that the stakes extend far beyond bilateral U.S.–Russia relations and into the broader security architecture of Europe.


Comments