U of M defence, security experts urge Canadians to watch what Trump does, not what he says

As Donald Trump continues to muse about making Canada the "51st state" and prepares to impose tariffs on Canadian goods, the U.S. president is moving Washington closer to Moscow.

If you find this topsy-turvy state of affairs bewildering, you're not alone. Trump's desire to hold talks with Vladimir Putin about ending the Russia-Ukraine war — and the U.S. vote on Monday against a United Nations resolution to blame Russia for the invasion — has shocked the director of the University of Manitoba's Centre for Defence and Security Studies.

"The Trump administration has decided that it can trust and align itself with adversaries more so than allies — and that's concerning for all allies," Andrea Charron said Tuesday in an interview.

Trump's move to thaw U.S. relations with Russia have left NATO allies in Europe considering how they can reduce their reliance on the United States for defence.

Canada, however, has fewer options, given our geography and the deeply integrated nature of North American defence.

In this regard, Charron has some advice for Canadians: Don't assume Trump's overtures to Putin will mean the worst for the future of NATO or Canada's close, 85-year-old military alliance with the United States.

At least not yet.

"One of the things we've learned from the first Trump administration is he makes a lot of pronouncements, but then we have to sort of wait and see how he follows through," Charron said.

"This might be the start of a bromance between Trump and Putin, but the proof is going to be in the pudding about, 'OK, well, what is it then that Russia can supply to the U.S.?'"

In a theoretical one-for-one swap, Russia doesn't have much to offer the United States as a strategic or economic replacement for Canada, its closest military and trading partner.

James Fergusson, a senior scholar at the U of M's Centre for Defence and Security Studies, said Trump's overtures to Moscow harken back to the periods during the Cold War, when the U.S. and Soviet Union held talks to ensure they could peacefully co-exist.

Like Charron, Fergusson said Canada-U.S. defence is too integrated to be disentangled, even when there are tensions between Ottawa and Washington.

"I don't think we're at this stage of a complete realignment. Certainly the emotional rhetoric that we've seen coming out of this government and elsewhere implies this is where we're headed down the road," Fergusson said Tuesday in an interview.

Instead, he suggested this moment in history provides Canada with the impetus to follow through on longstanding commitments to increase defence spending, particularly when it comes to surveillance of the vast Canadian Arctic.

"This is a great irony: Trump is going to be good for us. We may finally have to get our house in order," Fergusson said.

Fergusson urged Canadians to pay more attention to what Donald Trump does, compared to what the mercurial president says he will do.

"Don't be emotional, be practical and be objective as we can," he suggested, describing the rising nationalism in Canada as understandable but not useful when it comes dealing with Trump.

"The rhetoric won't help the relationship. We know how he responds to these things," he said. "We have got to try to be more mature than him."

While Canada's close military alliance with the United States dates back to the Second World War, the two nations have had disagreements about defence over the decades.

During the Cuban missile crisis, Canada initially refused to support the U.S. naval blockade of Cuba or allow the U.S. to place nuclear-armed Bombers on Canadian soil.

Canada also declined to support the Vietnam War or the U.S. invasion of Iraq during the Second Gulf War. 

In this context, Canada's full-throated support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and the potential U.S. support for a ceasefire that could allow Russia to maintain its Ukrainian holdings is only the latest difference of opinion, as disorienting as it may be.

It would be rash to assume this disagreement means the United States can no longer belong to NATO, Charron said.

"I think the allies are prepared to do a lot of bending to keep the U.S. as a member," she said, adding there have been other problematic members of the 32-member NATO alliance, most notably Hungary and Turkey.

"It's not perfect. There are certain members that do more than others. There are certain members who are more helpful than others. But together, that alliance is stronger than any one adversary out there."