In recent weeks, U.S. President Donald Trump has been pressuring Ukraine to pull its punches toward Russia — a country that has waged a brutal, unjust and senseless war on the Ukrainian people for more than four years.
Trump’s reason for confronting Ukraine with this demand? To drive down diesel prices ahead of the forthcoming midterms — prices that are elevated due to Trump’s own war in Iran.
Understandably, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky refused to halt strikes on Russian oil refineries while Russia kept hitting Ukraine’s grid. So Washington then reportedly carried through on its threats to cut off intelligence to Ukraine, at least temporarily.
This series of dastardly acts will stain America’s reputation as a leader of the free world.
They also have implications for Europe and Canada.
Already last week, Zelensky called on EU leaders to drum up an additional €70 billion in aid for Ukraine. Canada — which has committed more than $25 billion to Ukraine since 2022 — should be prepared to further increase its support as well.
The Russian threat may seem distant to Canadians. But the truth is it is on our doorstep as much as it is on Romania’s or Poland’s — both NATO countries that have faced suspected Russian incursions in recent months.
If Russia does move ahead with an outright attack, NATO’s collective defence clause would obligate Canada to come to its allies’ defence. This clause, known as Article 5, says that an armed attack against one NATO member will be treated as an attack against all of them.
But even if Article 5 is never invoked, the case for aiding Ukraine is clear.
Ukraine is a sovereign and democratic nation caught in an unprovoked war. If Canadians believe in a world order governed by more than “might equals right,” they must be prepared to step up for a fellow democracy.
Against this backdrop, Canada’s massive increase in defence spending is necessary and right.
In Budget 2025, Ottawa pledged nearly $82 billion in new defence spending over five years. And in February, Prime Minister Mark Carney launched the Defence Industrial Strategy, which anticipates $180 billion in defence procurement over the next decade.
Critics question this spending; they would prefer to see dollars funneled to other causes, or worry that a military-industrial complex only fuels more conflict.
While we are sympathetic to their concerns, we think these arguments underestimate the major threats now upon us. The federal government’s first responsibility is the defence of Canada and its allies.
What does have us concerned, however, is how all these defence dollars will be spent.
With so much money going out the door, there is a real risk that spending will escape scrutiny, and that funds will go to systems best suited to fighting yesterday’s wars.
The wars in Ukraine and Iran show how quickly warfare is changing. Today’s conflicts are fought with drones, robots and hypersonic weapons. Is Canada spending its money in the right places?
For example, is spending up to $100 billion to purchase and service 12 submarines money well spent? Similarly, is Canada underinvesting in drones, having committed just $50 million to drone production so far?
We lack the expertise to answer these questions. But someone should. We would like to see a dedicated defence spending watchdog created to scrutinize defence outlays and hold Ottawa to account. Canadian media is too anemic, and public interest in defence too thin, to do the job alone.
Equally worrisome is the risk that a temporary rupture in Canada-U.S. relations will lead to poor long-term decisions.
In a recent interview, retired American general and former NORAD commander Glen VanHerck noted that Canada and the United States’ defence relationship remains strong, despite the heated rhetoric on both sides.
“Militarily, I think the trust is still really good,” VanHerck told the National Post.
“And this is from talking to both U.S. and Canadian senior leadership. There is absolute trust and respect, and they continue doing the NORAD mission — that’s defence of North America, both Canada and the U.S., and they do it side-by-side.”
But VanHerck said he worried about Carney making decisions “based on emotion, not based on fact and long-term national security,” including “buying inferior, less operable equipment.”
This comment calls to mind the matter of Canada’s fighter jet purchase.
The American-made F-35s are the best fighter jets in the world, and Canada is already committed to purchasing 16 of them. Now, Carney is considering supplementing that fleet with Swedish-made Gripen E jets.
Doing so would ignore the recommendations of Canadian defence experts, undercut interoperability with U.S. forces in NORAD, and strain the capabilities of Canada’s own forces.
Some Canadians will say diversification is only prudent, given Trump’s charged rhetoric. But Canada is dealing with an unreliable president for the next two years. It will be living with the consequences of its procurement decisions for decades.
If Canada wants to be an effective ally on the world stage — to be a country capable of supporting beleaguered nations like Ukraine — it must spend aggressively but wisely. That means buying top-notch equipment built for the wars of this century, not the last.
