Canada’s Prime Minister (PM) Mark Carney has often vociferously and unequivocally voiced Canada’s support for Ukraine in their war with Russia: “Canada’s support for Ukraine is unwavering”; “We are with you every step of the way”; “Your fight is our fight”. In chorus, other prominent Canadian politicians (e.g., Anita Anand, Lloyd Axworthy, Donna Dasko) have echoed these sentiments. Furthermore, to make our support seem inevitable, almost daily, Canadian news gives us detailed updates on the war, showcasing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speeches, the successes of the Ukrainian army, as well as personal stories of ordinary Ukrainians’ suffering and valor, both in Ukraine and Canada.

And to prove that it’s not merely in words but in deeds, “Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, Canada has committed nearly $22 billion in multifaceted assistance for Ukraine, including over $12.4 billion in direct financial support — the largest per capita financial contribution among G7 countries.”

On the one hand, all this giving presents as heroic and heartwarming, particularly to Canadians themselves. On the other hand, it begs the question: why are we — a North American country — financially and militarily supporting Ukraine — an eastern European country — in a war that is happening far from our shores?

Possible reasons

Is it because many Ukrainians are living in Canada? They constitute the second-largest Ukrainian diaspora in the world, with the largest Ukrainian diaspora being in Russia. By helping Ukraine, perhaps Canadian politicians hope to gain the goodwill of its Ukrainian-origin population — and that will certainly be there. Interestingly, Canada’s contribution or involvement is barely acknowledged by the foreign press; the talk is all about the US and Europe.

Yet they number only 1.4 million among a total of some 36 million Canadians; they constitute just 4% of Canada’s total population. Those of Scottish origin constitute 12% and yet we don’t openly support the Scottish independence movement. There are also nearly 1.5% people of Russian origin living in Canada, and yet we are not supporting — or even accepting — Russia’s security concerns as NATO marches ever closer towards their borders. 

Is it because Ukrainians are nice people, and they are suffering? But so are the Palestinians, and yet, we are not supplying arms to them; ironically, we are supplying arms to Israel. The Sudanese are a nice bunch, too, and in the midst of a civil war and suffering a famine to boot, and yet, we give them only some 50 million Canadian dollars of aid annually.

Is it because we are morally outraged that one country dares to violate the sovereign rights of another? However, we seem to have managed our moral outrage well when Palestine was invaded in the 1940s and indeed, with the situation continuing for decades. We did not feel too morally conflicted when we joined the US-led coalition to invade Afghanistan in 2001. While we did not join the formal coalition to invade Iraq in 2003, we felt relaxed enough to provide indirect support.

We choose to be blissfully ignorant of the more than 70 attempts by the US to facilitate regime change in various parts of the world since the end of World War II (WWII). And now we are mute while the US has positioned its aircraft carrier threateningly close to the coast of Venezuela. It seems Canada’s moral outrage is not dependent on the act, but rather on who the perpetrator is.

Is it because Ukraine is a strong democracy and shares our values? PM Carney told the Ukrainians, “You should have no doubts about the commitments of Canadians to your cause. Because your cause — freedom, democracy, sovereignty — is our cause.” In reality, Ukraine ranks low on the democracy scales. The Economist Group’s Democracy Index rated Ukraine as roughly five out of ten and called it a “hybrid regime” — both in 2024 during the war and in 2021 before the official war with Russia. In 2021 — before the war began — Freedom House said this about Ukraine: “corruption remains endemic, and the government’s initiatives to combat it have met resistance and experienced setbacks. Attacks against journalists, civil society activists, and members of minority groups are frequent, and police responses are often inadequate”.

Just recently, a corruption scandal was exposed, leading to the resignation of Ukraine’s energy and justice ministers as well as Zelensky’s Chief of Staff. And regarding values, one of the statements in US President Donald Trump’s recent 28-point peace plan stipulates: “Ukraine will adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and the protection of linguistic minorities.” 

Is it because Canada sees itself in Ukraine? Because we are both a smaller, less powerful country, living next to a hegemonic neighbor, we may feel a special empathy for Ukraine. But it’s precisely because we are in a similar situation that we should learn some lessons and realize the importance of being strong ourselves. And to do so, we’ll need every resource available to us — resources we cannot afford to give away to another country.

Is it because “The West” (a.k.a. NATO) is helping Ukraine? And since we are part of the West — and desperately want to show ourselves as a significant member of “The Club” — we should also be helping Ukraine? It has been labeled as the “Russia–Ukraine War”, but it may be more accurate to call it the “Russia–NATO War”. No doubt, we feel good and strong standing arm-in-arm with our brothers in NATO. But we should be cautious on three accounts.

First, we should be wary of groupthink and being carried along on a wave of emotion promoted by our European allies, painting Russia as the eternal enemy — a boogeyman just waiting to attack at any moment and for no reason. American general George Patton said, “When everyone is thinking the same, no one is thinking”.

Second, we should be wary of the unspoken hope that, if in the future we are invaded, NATO will come to our rescue. This seems highly unlikely, for three reasons: our most imminent threat comes from the hegemon and our sole neighbor, the US; the US is the most dominant member of NATO; and Europe has already bent the knee to America.

Third, it may help us remember that NATO was meant to be a temporary alliance until Europe could defend itself. US President and decorated general Dwight Eisenhower believed that if NATO (created in 1949) was still around after 10 years, it meant we had failed.

Is it because the US is helping Ukraine? Since we have let the US define our foreign policy for so long, we may feel that any enemy of the US is our enemy too. After all, we made an enemy out of a burgeoning superpower, China, and put ourselves sacrificially in the firing line by detaining a Huawei executive and putting a 100% tax on Chinese e-vehicles — all at the behest of America. Unfortunately, such sacrifices don’t seem to be remembered by the current American administration.

Furthermore, America itself has stopped its support of Ukraine, is trying to reclaim what it has given over the past three years by demanding access to Ukraine’s rare earths resources and has stated that all futures transactions will be sales — not gifts — of arms. With American foreign policy now dependent on the personal friendships, animosities and economic gain of one mercurial man, it would not be surprising if next month America befriends Russia and ostracizes Ukraine. 

Is it because of the power of Chrystia Freeland? She is of Ukrainian origin, has a strong anti-Russia perspective, happened to be the Deputy PM of Canada when Russia attacked Ukraine in the spring of 2022 and was recently appointed by Carney as the “Special Representative for the Reconstruction of Ukraine”. It seems the Canadian government is already looking beyond the end of this war, to the time when it can pour yet more money, this time into rebuilding Ukraine. But surely, the origin, passion and power of one person — however honorable and admirable — should not shape the foreign policy of an entire nation.

Is it because Canada is in imminent danger of being invaded by Russia? Europe has been ardently pushing the notion that Russia has an insatiable appetite for expansion. Once Russia gets control of Ukraine, it will soon be knocking on the doors of Berlin, Amsterdam and London. And then, with a quick hop, skip and jump over the Atlantic, the Russians will be in St. John’s, Newfoundland. This sounds unbelievable. As the crow flies, Ottawa and Kyiv are over 7000 kilometers apart, and an ocean separates us.

After three years of this war, Russia has not acquired more than the eastern-most provinces of Ukraine. And Russia has made no statements about invading Canada or even desiring Canada in any way — such statements have only been made by our neighbor, America. 

Is it because Canada wants a weakened Russia to reduce competition and threats from it in the Arctic? Canada and Russia are indeed major competitors in the Arctic — in terms of resources, trade routes and even military presence. But surely our $22 billion contribution to Ukraine for its fight against Russia could have been more directly used to shore up our own presence and strength in the Arctic. And that would also have helped us better stand our ground against other major players in the Arctic, like China and the US.

Is it because Canada fears a multipolar world? We have all lived in a unipolar world since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1990. In fact, the West — including Canada — has lived under the protection of the US since the end of WWII. Despite our squabbles with the US, it’s natural that Canada wants to preserve the world order that it has long been used to and has deeply benefited from. The US may be a hegemon, but it is our hegemon.

However, the advent of a multipolar world may be unstoppable — and possibly beneficial to Canada in its own way. It could be an opportunity to widen our horizons and gain new partners in trade, security and battling genuine global challenges, such as climate change, pandemics and the massive changes caused by the advent of AI. And seeing that Canada has other options, the US may appreciate Canada’s friendship more.

Is it because we still cling to the old, simplistic, black-and-white Cold War narrative? We continue to see ourselves, i.e., the West, as the good guys and the Russians as the bad guys. We seem unable or unwilling to accept that — just like we have our security concerns — Russia may also have theirs, especially as NATO marches ever closer to their borders. This unwillingness to consider changing our perspective to a more mature and nuanced one with shades of gray has already led to some one million casualties in this war to date — and many more may die before it’s all over. 

The endgame

Carney said, “Canada will always stand in solidarity with Ukraine”. Always is a long time. Let’s assume that means until Ukraine wins the war. But what does winning the war mean? The answer to that seems to differ widely for each of the stakeholders.

The current US administration’s goal in this war now seems to be to keep Ukraine as a customer and feed the American military establishment. While President Trump may be keen to negotiate with Russia and indeed has put a peace plan on the table, the many hawks in the upper American echelons of power want the war to continue.

Europe does not seem to be looking to reach a peace agreement with Russia either. They don’t talk of negotiation. They talk of ways to intensify and extend the war, with the objective of — not just getting back the Donbas and Crimea — but a full defeat of Russia. The reasoning for this pro-war stance appears to be threefold.

One is that Europe badly needs “an enemy” to keep its peoples’ attention off the real economic issues facing its continent, retain voters’ support and feed its military sectors. Second is that Europe means to use Ukraine as a spearhead, extend the war for years to come, and thereby weaken Russia — all with the hope of becoming the world’s third power, behind the US and China. In fact, there are allegations and denials that Boris Johnson, then PM of the UK, made a secretive visit to Ukraine in April 2022, when just two months into the war Zelensky was on the verge of making a peace deal (the Istanbul Communique) with Putin; Johnson apparently told Zelensky not to take the deal but to fight on to defeat Russia, in exchange for Europe’s support.

Third, Europe wants to keep the US engaged in the region and its security, so it wishes to continue portraying Russia as a perpetual danger. However, as China grows in power, the US is pivoting away from Europe and towards the East to address its main competitor. All in all, Europe does not seem to be looking for a fast resolution — or indeed, any resolution. They may wish to paraphrase a famous song, “All we are saying is give war a chance.”

Russia’s stated goals of this war are clear, consistent and only two. One is to occupy Ukraine’s eastern provinces and to retain Crimea, all to create a physical barrier between themselves and NATO’s eastward advancement. Russia has nearly accomplished this objective; it has held on to Crimea and now controls much of the Donbas. Its second goal, and indeed one that Russia has reiterated over the years, is that, to protect its own security, Ukraine should not be part of NATO; only the US, as the “Daddy” of NATO, can offer this guarantee. Interestingly, Ukraine itself, in its 1990 Declaration of Sovereignty, stated that it would be a neutral state — only to reverse that in its 1996 constitution, and then revert to a nonaligned position in its 2014 constitutional amendment.

Ukraine’s stated objectives in this war are to take the country back to its 1991 borders: to reclaim its eastern provinces as well as Crimea. As of now, it’s nowhere close to doing so. If Ukraine intends to fight on until it reaches these objectives, it may be fighting for many years to come. 

While the rest of the players are benefitting from this war in some way, Canada is not. Furthermore, for Russia, Ukraine is an existential issue; it will not give up until it achieves its security aims. For the West — and certainly for Canada sitting over 7000 kilometers away — it is not. Former US President Barack Obama said, when talking about foreign policy, “we have to be very clear about what our core interests are”. If Canada sticks to its perspective of unconditional support for Ukraine forever, it will continue pouring billions of precious Canadian taxpayers’ dollars into what is turning out to be a long, futile, unnecessary and very deadly venture. 

Love hurts

Continuing our wholehearted military and diplomatic support of Ukraine has hurt Canada in several ways. 

First, it’s contrary to our self-image. Canada sees itself as a peacekeeper. But by solely supporting Ukraine to continue fighting, we are irrationally and irresponsibly participating in increasing the number of casualties and destruction on both sides. It also lessens our image of “peacekeeper” on the global stage and definitely among the Global South. As the philosophical heirs of Lester B. Pearson (diplomat and cofounder of the UN) and General Romeo Dallaire (commander of the peacekeeping mission in Rwanda during the Genocide), we should be seeking diplomatic solutions.

Second, in our eagerness to help Ukraine, we’ve depleted our own already-low arms inventory.  This has left us exposed security-wise — good thing no one is threatening to invade us. And to add insult to injury, recently we’ve allocated 500 million Canadian dollars to purchase weapons for Ukraine …  from the US.

Third, as a percentage of GDP, we are contributing more than the US and more than even several of the major European countries — including Germany, France and Italy — to Ukraine’s fight. This is precious tax-payers money that could be spent on improving Canada’s creaking healthcare system, solving our housing crisis, supporting our teachers and postal workers and who knows how many others who will be left behind by AI, sharpening our education system and encouraging leading-edge research, facilitating cross-provincial trade, combating the effects of climate change, providing essential services to our indigenous peoples and building critical infrastructure to make our economy more independent from the US and more competitive on the global stage.

For Ukraine, our $22 billion is a small number; to continue for another year, they need $120 billion. For Canada, our $22 billion is a big number; it can have a significant impact on our well-being.

Finally, with our unconditional support, we have hurt Ukraine itself. We have been an irresponsible partner in not advising Ukraine to negotiate an agreement with its hegemonic neighbor to avoid further bloodshed and destruction. Instead, we’re encouraging them to continue a futile fight. Even now, after more than three years of war and casualties of over a million, when a US-proposed peace plan is on the table, Europe and Canada have chosen to reject it. Given Europe’s agenda, it’s easily understandable that they’re rejecting this peace deal; why Canada is rejecting it is incomprehensible.

Canada seems to have wholeheartedly swallowed the two conflicting narratives offered by Europe: on the one hand, Russia is weak and on the verge of collapse and so Ukraine needs to fight on just a bit longer to fully defeat Russia; on the other, Russia is strong and therefore a massive, looming threat not only to Ukraine, but to all of Europe and beyond.

Ultimately, Canada first

Ian Proud, ex-British Ambassador to Russia and fellow at the Quincy Institute, said it very succinctly: “Foreign policy begins and ends at home” — meaning that every country’s foreign policy should and usually does ultimately benefit itself. Every country helping Ukraine in this war is doing so for its own benefit. Why Canada is helping Ukraine remains vague and perplexing. Ukraine is not of strategic interest to Canada.

Granted, there may be costs to Canada’s extrication from this coalition now — like losing the EU’s friendship, being ousted from NATO and the Five Eyes intelligence network, and perhaps even angering the US, depending on its stance at the moment. And so perhaps Canada has no other option but to continue supporting Ukraine. But then, its level of support can be tempered; we should not contribute to the Ukrainian cause at the detriment of the Canadian cause. 

While some say Trump’s recent peace initiatives are close to bringing this conflict to an end, others say the positions of the two warring parties are too far apart. Even if a plan is settled on, it will be an uneasy peace, likely requiring a long-term peace-keeping force.

John Mersheimer, eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, says we’re “going to end up with a frozen conflict”. And once the war ends, there must be rebuilding, which Russia won’t pay for. In its current frame of mind, Canada appears ready to contribute to both: the continuation of the war and the rebuilding. Whatever Canada ultimately decides to do, it should do so with its eyes wide open and with Canada’s own current needs and future welfare in mind.

As a country that is first and foremost responsible for the welfare of its own people, it behooves Canada in its foreign relations to be compassionate in its perspective, but also rational in its decision-making, pragmatic in its actions and realistic in accepting limitations and outcomes.

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger suggested in a 2016 speech that Ukraine should serve “as a bridge between Russia and the West, rather than as an outpost of either side.” Given the security concerns of both the West and Russia, that seems to be wise counsel. As a peace-loving country, perhaps this is what Canada should fight for in Ukraine. In this conflict — where the US is providing the money and military might and Europe is providing the urgency and political machinations — the one thing Canada can provide is a much-needed, sane and balanced voice from an entity with no vested interests and nothing to gain — except for that one elusive thing: peace.

[Kaitlyn Diana edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.