EventDocument
DARC post 'Our Canadian Problem' says the US 'could support the Alberta and Quebec separatist movements'
A post by John Waterman dated 12 August 2025 on the site of the private US think tank DARC argues that "in a strategy of the retrenchment, the dismemberment of Canada becomes a wise decision" and that "the United States could support the Alberta and Quebec separatist movements". It ends by calling for "targeted intelligence operations, diplomatic pressure, structural revisions, and possibly support for regional separatism". A public document that proposes; no link to the US government is shown.
- Date
- Kind
- Statement
- Where
- United States
- Evidence
- Document: An official document: a bill, a filing, an agreement text. How evidence is weighed
- Who
- Defense Analyses and Research Corporation (DARC) (acted)
When people heard about it
The public does not always learn of an event when it happens: some come out later, and old ones can become news again because of something newer.
- Happened
- First public
- (same day), in Defense Analyses and Research Corporation (DARC)
Articles that cite this record
Sources
- Defense Analyses and Research Corporation (DARC), “Our Canadian Problem” (external site), . source record
Claims that rest on this event
- Fragmentation is a live rival. One act counts toward it under our test, and none weakens Ottawa's ability to legislate. The act: three State Department meetings in 2025 with the Alberta Prosperity Project, a separatist group, which the US government has confirmed. It says they were staff-level, with no senior officials and no commitments, and that there will be no further meeting. Our test counts any confirmed US contact with separatists, so these count, although nothing in the record shows US support behind them. One approach is logged but not counted: in spring 2026 Quebec was approached from the US side for a separate deal on USMCA-linked sectors, which Radio-Canada described as an attempt to go around trade talks with Ottawa. Premier Christine Fréchette confirmed the approach in September 2026 and said she refused at once, without saying who made it. Québecor media, citing two Quebec government sources, said the US embassy in Ottawa made it, and CP24 reported that it touched tariffs including aluminum; neither detail is confirmed. The test counts such an offer only once we know who made it and on whose behalf.
The 2025 DARC post behind the 2026 interference scare: a private think tank's proposal, not a US government act, so it adds no matching act to the fragmentation reading.
Tested hypotheses: a thought experiment
Suppose Washington foresaw and wanted this. Would this event look any different than under the rival readings? This is a deliberately contrarian test, explained here, not the author’s belief. Judgments, not measurements.
Non-discriminating: this event fits the plain self-interest reading and the foresight reading equally. It does not tell them apart. What this means
| Reading | Fit | Why |
|---|---|---|
| I0a Accident Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | A private think tank's essay with no shown tie to the US government says nothing about what drives US policy; it fits equally under every intent reading. |
| I0b Plain self-interest; Canada's response not considered Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | A private think tank's essay with no shown tie to the US government says nothing about whether Canada's response was considered; it fits equally under every intent reading. |
| I1 Foreseen and welcomed, not the reason Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | A private think tank's essay with no shown tie to the US government carries no evidence of foresight of Canada's response; it fits equally under every intent reading. |
| I2 Foreseen and wanted (this level or higher) Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | The essay argues for dismemberment rather than a Canadian build-out, but it is a private proposal with no shown government tie, so it cannot tell this reading apart from the others. |
| I3 Worked-out plan with specific targets Tested hypothesis (intent) | Neutral weak | No named projects or timeline for a Canadian build-out appear, and the author is a private think tank; the event says nothing about a worked-out plan. |
| R-annex Annexation Rival reading | Neutral weak | The essay argues for dismemberment and support for separatists, not absorption; as a private proposal with no shown government tie, it carries little for annexation. |
| R-frag Fragmentation Rival reading | Fits weak | Calling for US support of Alberta and Quebec separatism is consistent with a fragmentation reading, but it is a private think tank's proposal with no shown link to US policy, so it stays weak. |
| R-weaken Weaken-Canada rivals (annexation or fragmentation) Rival reading | Fits weak | An argument that dismembering Canada is wise is consistent with a weaken-Canada reading, but it comes from a private think tank with no shown government tie. |
Logged against predictions
- P10: Fragmentation watch (logged 8 October 2026, logged only)