February 20, 2024 - 1:00pm
As the two-year anniversary of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine approaches, public support for the Western-backed Ukrainian war effort is showing signs of fracturing. This is happening visibly in the US but also now, notably, in Canada as well, where Conservative Party voters are beginning to sound the same isolationist notes as their Republican counterparts south of the border. The Canadian Tories have historically shown robust support for the transatlantic alliance and have argued for the need to “respond with strength” against Vladimir Putin’s regime. At least, that is what party leader Pierre Poilievre sounded like at the onset of the invasion; today, he appears much less certain about the case for aiding Kyiv.
This shift is likely a reflection of the still small but growing (and increasingly vocal) minority within his own ranks who feel that the war is none of Canada’s business. According to the Angus Reid Institute, the percentage of Conservative voters from the last election “who now say Canada is doing too much to assist Ukraine, has more than doubled — from 19% […] to 43%” since May 2022. The pollster describes this as “a massive jump” in favour of a new kind of “’Canada First’ mentality”.
Indeed, the convergence between Canadian conservatism and MAGA-ism has been building for some time now. Last month, Tucker Carlson made a pit stop in the Conservative heartland province of Alberta, met with the premier (another conservative heavyweight), before jetting off later to Moscow to meet Putin. The spread of Trumpian isolationist foreign policy sentiment, however, is a newer story.
The signs came out late last year: Poilievre raised eyebrows when he led his party in voting against a Ukraine trade deal, drifting from the multi-party consensus. The Canadian Tories claimed that their vote was against a provision imposing a carbon tax, opposition to which is the key plank of their domestic policy. However, the clause he was referring to is a non-binding one, while Ukraine has had a carbon tax since 2011. In other words, Poilievre seemed to be stretching to justify his stance.
As if intending to counter growing suspicions of isolationism, Poilievre recently announced that the Conservatives would work toward meeting the 2% defence spending target that has eluded Canadian governments for many years. Then, last week, after the death of Alexei Navalny, Poilievre took to social media to condemn Moscow. But for a politician who has never shied away from rhetorical invective, that statement was seen by some as strangely muted: “so dishwater grey…so thin and colourless…that it stood out” (his own MPs seemed to have more to say on the significance of the matter). Exactly what message Poilievre is trying to send out to his base and to the wider world is anything but clear — and that may just be the point.
The polls indicate that Poilievre’s Tories will form a government after the next election. Much is at stake for Ukraine and the cohesion of the Western alliance, since Ottawa has hitherto been a keystone of support for Kyiv, owing to the special relationship between the two countries.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIt’s not MAGA love driving this, it’s poverty concerns. Canadian housing costs are the worst in the G7. Our medical system is in collapse and that is not hyperbole. Our economy is stagnating. Costs for our Boomers are rising. Conservatives know we need to redirect our money to our own people. This is just a hit piece. Conservatives who love MAGA joined the People’s Party who get 2% of the vote at most.
I wish our conservative politicians would learn from Pierre Poilievre and stop grovelling to the liberal media.
They will learn. Poilievre understands that much of the press is not interested in truth, so why talk to them except to score points. What is most amusing is their continued belief that they are somehow entitled to access to leaders.
The spread of Trumpian isolationist foreign policy sentiment, however, is a newer story. — What is this isolationism talking point? Trump had a term; the US hardly isolated itself from the world. He’s the guy who told Germany that it might want to consider having options for its energy sources. And he suggested that the Europeans live up to their NATO commitments.
Is not starting new wars the new definition of isolationist sentiment? Canadians are right in recognizing that what happens in Ukraine is not their business, not when their own govt is busy trying to become a cheap imitation of the authoritarian leadership it claims to oppose.
Bro- Do you not understand “Democracy.” Democracy means when the “International Community” decides a certain government needs to fork out vast sums of “emergency money” than that money needs to be released without stipulations.
Emergency funding can not be subject to the whims of a voting public that isn’t on board with having their tax dollars used to fund wars. If the International Community demands Emergency funding to “Protect Democracy” than the International Community is Democracy. Why do you hate Democracy?
Please dial down your sarcasm.
Why do you assume it was sarcasm?
Sometimes truth is stranger then fiction.
No, all that’s happening is that the governing class in the West is slowly beginning to learn that you can’t change the world just by lying about it: women don’t have pen1ses, Islam is not a religion of peace and Russia can’t be defeated in a conventional war. Sorry, but there it is.
You spend too much time online.
Someone states cold hard reality and they are told to get out in the real world. The irony and comedy is off the charts.
While I agree with two of your list of lies I think the claim that Russia can’t be defeated in a conventional war is far too sweeping.
Ukraine with a population of about 36 million and limited industrial capital certainly can’t defeat Russia population about 144,000 million if it is confined simply to attacking Russian occupying forces. There was a brief hope that Ukraine might roll back more of Russian gains than they have done but Western support has drained away.
Whether a United US/European alliance could defeat Russia in a conventional war is untested. Certainly no partial European alliance has succeeded in the past but if there was sufficiently United and focused US/European effort it is hard to believe the US with a population of about 340 million and Europe (excluding Russia) with a population of over 500 million and both with much greater industrial capacity would not be able to defeat Russia in a conventional war.
However, it is hard to imagine an alliance for such a war in the face of potential nuclear annihilation. Those supporting Ukraine have been very careful to avoid any suggestion that they are preparing for such a conflict precisely for that reason. Of course the threat of China taking advantage of such a war is an extra restraint on the US.
Russia has indeed been defeated in a conventional war by a European alliance, namely the Crimean war in the 1850s. The crucial factor in that war was that our armies could be easily supplied by sea, whereas the Russian army was at the end of a very long supply line of very bad roads.
Another factor was the geography of the Crimea – a small, compact peninsula within which the war could be contained instead of withdrawing into the endless wastes of Russia.
How much any of that is relevant to the present conflict in Ukraine- if any – I’m not sure, apart from indicating that Russia can be beaten as, of course, she was in older wars against Sweden and Poland.
You just have to pay the price. Currently Ukraine is doing that.
You are right that Russia has been defeated in war before but I had in mind the more comprehensive defeat that Napoleon and Hitler sought to impose that turned into costly defeats for the invaders. To suggest Russia can’t be defeated in respect of limited objectives is indeed far too pessimistic. United US and European forces could undoubtedly defeat Russia in a limited conventional war to drive Russia out of Ukraine for example but no one wants to risk escalating the conflict to a nuclear level so the bald statement that Russia can’t be defeated in a conventional war was too sweeping.
Very unserious essay. Poilievre Is nothing like Trump, for good and bad, and the Conservatives are anything but MAGA. But ya, keep chattering about the drift. Meanwhile, Trudeau continues to waffle on Israel. I guess there is only one valuable war.
I wonder if they get kickbacks for writing hit pieces. If not, they score status points with their fellow dirtmongers
Poilievre eating an apple as he answered gotcha questions from a typical journalist wanting to lure him into controversy was the best political theatre I have seen in ages. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-apple-video-1.7003024
That video is priceless. There’s an interesting follow-up point. The bumbling “journalist” went back to the office and wrote a column about the interview that in no way reflected what actually occurred. PP was described as being acerbic and combative. All part of the “he’s another media-hating Trump” narrative. Hilarious.
It is a classic.
The article sounds like a scare piece on behalf of the Liberals whose fortunes are sinking like a stone into the abyss. Having literally no successes in any major portfolio the Liberals have been crafting an image of Poilievre as a MAGA Trumper in nerdy clothing for months. Their campaign slogan is currently “If you think we’re bad, this guy will be worse”. Hardly inspirational and the polls are showing that no one is buying it.
The truth is that after eight years of Trudeau, Canada’s international reputation is nothing but a soiled heap of of socks lying on the floor. Throwing money at Ukraine was a lame attempt to address that awkward problem but even more so, a deflection from domestic policy disaster. It was interesting that the author linked a CBC article about Conservative opposition to the Ukraine trade deal. Aside from the fact that the terminally woke CBC is vigorously anti Poilievre (he’ll chop their funding for sure), it’s no surprise that they tried a little gas-lighting on the ‘non binding’ climate tax clause for the simple reason that Trudeau has yet to meet a climate tax he doesn’t like.
As for Pierre Poilievre – PP – he’s pounding the pavement from coast to coast talking to Canadians about what Canadians want to talk about – and it ain’t Ukraine. Sympathy is one thing, but throwing good money after bad is another which is a sentiment also gaining traction in the US and the EU. There was lots of cheerleading early on when the “experts” claimed Putin was going to get his butt kicked but now? Is there any credible evidence to suggest that Putin will not win this war of attrition and end up signing the same or even better deal that we’re told Ukraine was prepared to sign two years ago?
And BTW, it wasn’t Poilievre that sent out parliamentary invitations for “Bring a Natsee to Work Day”. That honour goes to the Liberals who are apparently in tune with Canada’s ‘special relationship’ with Ukraine.
Neither Trump nor the MAGA crowd are “isolationist” unless “isolationist” means not sending troops in everywhere and arms all around the globe at enormous cost.
MAGA is not isolationist unless you think that demanding that your alliance partners meet their obligations to provide resources for their own defense is “isolationist”.
It is not “isolationist” to decide that outsourcing your manufacturing capability and its associated jobs is just dumb and that doing so while enriching your biggest geopolitical competitor and providing the competitor with IP and technology that empowers their military is bordering on treason.
It is NOT isolationist to conclude that having an open border that floods the country with cheap labor that competes with the poorest in your country is a really bad idea for your society.
The PC’s are the only friends to maintaining NATO. And that’s because for the progressive parties international commitments are only a wedge issue to get the votes they need. If you don’t believe me, listen to one “at issue” on the cbc.