Canada, Usually the Voice of Moderation, is Playing the Cowboy on Ukraine Crisis

Rhetorically, Canada is taking a harder line in defence of Ukraine than even the U.S. Is this where we really want to be?

Certainly, it’s a strange place. Canada is usually the voice of moderation when international crises flare up. But not this time. This time, Canada is firmly on side with Ukraine in its dispute with Russia.

Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly is striking an unusually hawkish tone in her comments about the standoff. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has not ruled out the idea of selling arms to Ukraine.

By contrast, U.S. President Joe Biden is a classic peacenik. He has ruled out going to war with Russia over Ukraine.

While he has agreed to provide Kyiv with military aid, the amount involved — some $650 million (U.S.) this year — is in relative terms a pittance.

Indeed, Biden has signalled he will do almost anything to avoid all-out war with Russia. He has said, for instance, that he won’t necessarily retaliate all-out if Russia launches a cyberattack against Ukraine. Rather, his response would be carefully calibrated.

In normal times, this kind of calibration would typify Canada’s response. In normal times, the U.S. would play the role of impetuous cowboy to a stodgily careful Canada.

This time, however, it’s cowboy Canada that is garnering international attention. Joly reprised that role Thursday after meeting Ukrainian and European officials.

She referred to Canada’s traditional role as peacemaker, but noted that in this case, only one side — the Ukrainian side — is right.

The reasons for Canada’s new aggressiveness are starkly political. The Ukrainian-Canadian lobby is politically powerful, and anyone who wants to mobilize that lobby had best be prepared to oppose Russia all-out in this confrontation. There is no room for subtlety.

Is this the best path for Canada? That’s a different question. An argument can be made for recognizing spheres of influence. The Americans have laid claim to such spheres of influence in most of the Caribbean and South and Central America since their so-called Monroe Doctrine was articulated in 1823.

The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 occurred when Soviet Russia defied the Monroe Doctrine by placing nuclear weapons in Cuba, even though under international law it had every right to do so.

In the end, the doctrine of spheres of influence won out. The Soviet Union backed down and removed its missiles from Cuba. A few months later, the U.S. quietly reciprocated by withdrawing nuclear missiles based in Turkey that were aimed at the Soviet Union.

The process wasn’t particularly democratic. But it worked. Most important, it kept the peace. Moscow’s belated recognition that the U.S. had legitimate interests at play encouraged it to back down, even though it was legally in the right when it based nuclear missiles in Cuba.

Russia is making the same argument today. Sure, any sovereign nation, including Ukraine, has the right to join NATO. But that right should be seen in the context of the real world. And the real world is one in which Russia has legitimate interests.

Put it this way: Theoretically, Russia could legally base missiles in Venezuela that are aimed at Washington. But would it be seen as acceptable by Americans? I doubt it.

In the same way, many Russians, I suspect, would oppose Ukraine joining an unfriendly alliance like NATO. Too close. Too dangerous.