As U.S. President Donald Trump presses forward with a proposed peace plan to end the war in Ukraine, Canada is being forced to confront what a settlement would mean for its own security and alliances.
“The version [of the plan] currently being worked on doesn’t fit with Canada’s strategic goals,” said Seva Gunitsky, a political science professor at the University of Toronto.
“It threatens to legitimize land grabs, hurts Canada’s energy competitiveness by un-sanctioning Russia, and puts pressure on NATO.”
Plans under pressure
On Nov. 18, the U.S. pushed Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table with the release of a draft 28-point peace plan aimed at ending the war.
Reportedly developed with Russian input, the initial plan drew sharp criticism for proposing that Ukraine make major concessions to Moscow in exchange for a ceasefire and continued U.S. support. These included proposals for Ukraine to cede both occupied and unoccupied territory, abandon its NATO ambitions and cap the size of Ukraine’s military at 600,000 personnel in peacetime.
“This is not a plan for peace. These are basically the terms of surrender,” said Aurel Braun, a University of Toronto professor of international relations and political science.
Trump initially set an American Thanksgiving deadline for a deal, but he and his aides have since softened this stance, saying they want an agreement “as soon as possible.”
On Nov. 23, European states tabled a counter-proposal that includes many of the terms first proposed in Trump’s plan. Some key differences include commitments to cap Ukraine’s military at 800,000 personnel in peacetime and to drop the limitation on NATO’s further expansion. A revised, 19-point plan is currently in development.
The Trump administration has said its approach to the Ukraine-Russia peace talks follows the negotiating strategy it used to secure an Israel-Gaza peace agreement in October.
Multiple U.S. officials have noted the Ukraine-Russia peace framework mirrors the Gaza deal in some respects, including use of the same intermediaries — Qatar and Turkey — and personnel, including U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
But Almut Rochowanski, a fellow at the Quincy Institute, an American foreign-policy focused think tank, says comparing Gaza and Ukraine is not helpful.
“All war-ending diplomacy has similarities, but comparing Gaza and Ukraine is not especially instructive,” Rochowanski told Canadian Affairs in an email. “The Gaza settlement is simply not possible or acceptable for Ukraine, highlighting how different these conflicts are.
“Still, U.S. mediation in both cases must navigate parties with little incentive to compromise, which … can feel like whack-a-mole or juggling flaming torches to a mediator.”
Arctic threat
Braun says a requirement for Ukraine to permanently renounce NATO membership would violate a bedrock principle of NATO, that its members choose who to admit.
It would also create “a new kind of Iron Curtain,” he said, by effectively blocking NATO from positioning forces in Ukraine and allowing Russia to establish a military buffer zone on the alliance’s border.
“All these points add up to basically creating a situation where, if Russia could not outright take over Ukraine, it would allow it to take Ukraine over [incrementally],” said Braun, who is also a senior member of the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University.
For Canada, a weakened NATO would reduce the 32-member alliance’s assurance of collective defence, particularly in the Arctic, where Russian military activity is rising and deterrence depends on NATO’s credibility. Any perception of Western weakness could embolden future provocations in or near Canadian territory, Braun says.
Provocations are a real concern.
As recently as Nov. 25, a Russian drone landed unexploded on a roof in Moldova. On the same day, Romanian and German jets scrambled to respond after a Russian drone penetrated Romania more than 100 kilometres inland in broad daylight. These represent the 13th such breaches since 2022.
Experts view these provocations as probing actions and potential precursors to broader conflict.
“We need to realistically view this as if this is the start of a war,” said Braun.
“Canada needs to think of this, together with all the Europeans, as an absolute emergency,” he added.
“We need to act urgently. And you have to ask yourself, do you see that urgency in Ottawa … [or] Brussels? Are they planning for war or more meetings?”
Braun says Canada must boost its military readiness and accelerate its defence procurement. While the 2025 federal budget allocated $63 billion for defence this year — meeting the NATO target of two per cent of GDP — Braun calls it insufficient.
“We need to order the F-35s … not dilly-dally on whether we are going to buy Swedish planes or some other mix that will just create other chaos in our Armed Forces,” he said.
Even if the peace plan’s terms are rolled back, Braun says the peace process has already exposed damaging gaps in NATO’s military readiness.
“What has been revealed really is the inadequacy of Europeans and Canadians.”
Braun says Canada lacks a clear, urgent defence strategy.
“[Prime Minister Mark Carney] has shown no indication of doing that whatsoever,” he said.
“We are one of the worst laggards, with the second biggest territory in the world.”
Canada’s diplomatic dilemma
Trump’s proposal also underscores Canada’s reliance on the U.S., and could force Ottawa to balance its support for Ukraine against its economic interests.
“Opposing [the plan] too aggressively risks alienating Canada’s most important trade partner,” said Gunitsky, of the University of Toronto.
He warned that lifting sanctions and reintegrating Russia into the global economy could undercut Canadian energy competitiveness and strengthen Moscow’s global leverage.
“The Carney [government] strategy seems to be one of mitigation: critiquing the plan and trying to align with Europe to dilute the plan’s worst elements without triggering a direct confrontation with Trump,” Gunitsky said.
Braun says the problem is not limited to Canada.
“Western leaders … have so neglected the military forces over so many years … that they cannot provide a full alternative to the United States,” he said.
“Because there is a fear of Trump and his tantrums, everybody tries to become a Trump whisperer, and our prime minister has spent many months trying to become a Trump whisperer,” he added.
“Let’s not forget that he partly won the election because he was endorsed by Trump.”
The US are not looking at improving NATO readiness. It is only about increasing weapons sales. I totally agree with Canada, NATO, and all civilized countries improving their defense capabilities, but it must be done without buying U.S. armaments. They have shown us that they are faithless as allies.
Agreed. I can’t get Trump’s comments about using sub-standard materials to make the defence jets nor the comment about installing a kill switch inside the jet with him being in control of using it. Shudder.
NATO indefinite neutrality is an open invitation for Putin to accelerate his empire building fetish by absorbing Ukraine and surrounding weak countries. This would lead inevitably to further cold war conflicts the very purpose for which NATO is purposed to combat.