Mark Carney, the Canadian Prime Minister, has been making astute remarks and taking bold actions since assuming office in 2025. He scoffed at Trump’s repeated suggestion that Canada become the 51st state of the United States and imposed counter-tariffs in response to Trump’s tariff policies. Canada, usually known as a staunch supporter of Western values and alliances, suddenly had to alter its positions and adopt a more measured role to navigate Trump’s ever-changing foreign policies. Additionally, what other Western leaders failed to articulate, Carney delivered. His speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January prodded them to wake up from their ‘pleasant fiction’ and accept the harsh reality: the current world order is in a state of rupture.
This rupture is evident in the US’s actions to advance its interests worldwide; Trump’s unilateralism neither recognises the rules-based order nor distinguishes between allies and adversaries. Take the war between Ukraine and Russia, for example; it is the result of US foreign policy. The US, under the Biden administration, wanted to prolong the war and make it a war of attrition, turning Russia into a weak state. It was a long shot and ill-conceived from the start. By contrast, Trump wanted to end it yesterday, even if that meant Ukraine would cede territory and not be admitted to NATO. Accordingly, Trump halted financial and military assistance to Ukraine unless Europe buys and pays for US hardware to sustain the war. Desperate European leaders want the US to remain involved in Europe; hence, they agreed to do so. Thus, any transaction that yields the greatest benefit to the US matters most, regardless of whether it bends the rules-based order or scuttles the sanctity of the long-held transatlantic special relations.
Carney reasoned that the US could continue to dominate Europe because Europe is too timid to protest US actions; he suggested that Europeans move beyond the conventional ‘going along to get along’ attitude toward the US and instead ally with other middle-power countries. Moreover, in his latest speech at the European Political Community in Yerevan, Armenia, he was even blunter in rejecting the US’s hegemonic attitude, “we don’t think that we’re destined to submit to a more transactional, insular and brutal world…that integration is being used as a weapon by some and the rules are not constraining the hegemons.”
Carney’s observations and prescriptions might sway some pundits because they are brazening and persuasive. However, Carney himself knows the difference between giving a convincing speech and getting people to act on what it highlights. Therefore, a realist would find Carney’s recommendations unrealistic. For example, Europe has internal tensions. Not all European countries think or act the same way, or can afford the same things. Their political differences and security capabilities also vary. The latest US-Iran conflict shows how Europe behaves, aside from Spain, which explicitly opposed the US war against Iran and barred US operations from its soil. The others were busy finding the least offensive words to describe the US actions. And the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, was almost apologetic about Europeans not fully rallying around the US.
Furthermore, when German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Iran ‘humiliated’ the US in the ongoing war, Trump berated him and ordered the withdrawal of 5000 US troops from Germany. Hardly any European country reacted to Trump’s decision, as they prioritised their own interests. Consequently, this internal fissure is likely to fester until Europeans build their own security system, at which point they can afford to assert themselves; absent that, Europe is likely to continue with its ‘going along is the way to get along’ attitude and allow the US to exert its dominance on the continent unabashedly.
Europe’s primary fear is Russia’s expansionist movement. One may wonder: if Russia were that powerful, how has Ukraine managed to survive the war for four years? It is US intelligence and military hardware that keep Ukraine fighting. Therefore, if the US takes a back seat instead of leading NATO, Europeans will be in big trouble. The announcement of US troop withdrawals has already silenced many European leaders, preventing them from speaking out. They certainly are aware of what is at stake here.
Carney’s proposal to ally with middle-power countries, including Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Brazil, India, ASEAN, and the Nordic-Baltic states, is difficult to imagine coming to fruition. These countries, in various ways, are heavily reliant on the US. For example, the US, Australia, Japan, and India are members of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD); Australia, the UK, and the US are members of AUKUS, a security arrangement that allows Australia to acquire nuclear-powered submarines. It is inconceivable that Australia would forgo its nuclear submarine capabilities in exchange for membership in an alliance of middle-power countries. Similarly, India is deeply entrenched in US military and economic cooperation. The US is the primary security guarantor for Korea against North Korea. The Nordic-Baltic states are part of NATO’s collective Arctic security system, supported by the US, and the ASEAN states are strategic economic partners of the US. These factors prevent middle-power countries from antagonizing the US.
Carney’s main point is that ‘the rules do not constrain the hegemon.’ He is correct, as Trump’s ‘peace through strength’ doctrine is designed to break rules; hence, Maduro can be snatched from his home and thrown into jail, Iran can be attacked amid negotiations, and an energy blockade can strangle Cuba. Under the iron laws of the world, as Stephen Miller proclaimed, “The world is governed by strength, that is, governed by force, that is, governed by power.” Therefore, Europe must decide where it fits: ‘be on the menu or at the table.’ Alternatively, it can endure the tumult of the Trump administration for the next three years and hope for a revival of US foreign policy that has traditionally maintained good transatlantic relations. If Europe adopts hope as a strategy, it is indeed in dire straits.
The writer is a Doctoral Researcher, International Relations, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM)
