Troops from Canada, Latvia, Italy and Spain take part in the exercise Resolute Warrior of the NATO Multinational Brigade in the Adazi Military Base in Adazi, Latvia, on Nov. 14, 2024.GINTS IVUSKANS/AFP/Getty Images
In the alternative history of The Plot Against America, Republican President Charles A. Lindbergh executes an astonishing foreign policy U-turn, erasing the efforts of the Democrat he defeated, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to fight Nazi Germany.
That fictional Lindbergh ends a budding alliance with Britain, signs a friendship pact with Adolf Hitler and even proclaims he is “grateful” for the Nazi attack on the Soviet Union. When Philip Roth’s novel was published in 2004, its dystopia was a fascinating exercise in what-if, its characters an interesting rumination on how Americans might react to an authoritarian-hued president who sided with dictators against democracy.
In 2025, Mr. Roth’s plotline hits a little too close to home, with U.S. President Donald Trump cozying up to Russia’s Vladimir Putin, falsely stating that Ukraine launched the war between the two countries and calling the democratically elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – not Mr. Putin – a dictator.
Mr. Trump has executed his own foreign policy pivot, ending Russia’s diplomatic isolation by opening “peace” talks in Saudi Arabia, and praising Mr. Putin even as he parrots Kremlin propaganda about Ukraine. In a similar vein, the United States reportedly demanded this week that any condemnation of Russian aggression to be deleted from a G-7 joint communiqué on the third anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine.
All of this is a great comfort to Mr. Putin, who welcomed Mr. Trump’s volte-face. It is less so to America’s putative NATO allies, including Canada, who met this week at the behest of French President Emmanuel Macron.
None of this should be a surprise. Mr. Trump has never been a fan of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, part of his universal disdain for international institutions. Mr. Trump made that clear in his first term, in which he said that the United States might not protect NATO members that refused to increase their defence spending.
Last decade, such talk could be viewed as bluster from a president looking to strong-arm countries that had been reluctant to match U.S. levels of military outlays. That view is no longer sustainable, given Mr. Trump’s embrace of Russia.
His administration is hinting that it may withdraw large numbers of U.S. troops from Europe. Vice-President JD Vance chose to lecture NATO allies about cancel culture rather than discuss the largest land war in Europe since 1945.
The collective security at the heart of NATO requires that possible enemies believe absolutely that the United States would respond to an attack on any member. That idea is codified in Article 5 of the treaty. It has been invoked just once, by the United States after the 2001 terrorist attacks. Then, Canada and other NATO allies honoured that call, with 158 Canadian soldiers laying down their lives in Afghanistan.
Would the United States under Donald Trump’s leadership reciprocate? It’s impossible to be certain; that uncertainty means that NATO is effectively dead. (Mr. Trump’s tariff threats have created the same uncertainty over free trade; more on that tomorrow.)
The end of a security guarantee points to hard choices for Canada. For decades, this country has had the luxury of spending a pittance on defence and relying on geography, and the indulgence of the United States, for protection.
For a start, Canada needs to rebuild its military immediately. Not in 2032, not in 2030. Now. The United States is not our adversary, but Mr. Trump’s rhetoric and actions make it clear that it would be foolhardy for Ottawa to depend upon U.S. troops to secure Canadian sovereignty. Only the Canadian military can defend Canada’s interests.
As for allies, Mr. Trump’s evisceration of NATO does not mean that Canada must act alone. This country has longstanding ties to Britain and France, and a long and proud history of standing with Europe against aggressor states. That history can and should continue.
A new era – with dangers but also opportunities – is emerging for Canada. We can choose to ignore those dangers, and suffer the consequences. Or we can choose the harder path of renewing this country, and safeguarding the promise of Canada, strong and free.
What do you see as Canada’s biggest challenges? The editorial board will return to that question in the coming weeks. Share your thoughts at tgam.ca/canada-challenges