Before coming to live in Canada after being offered a job at the University of Calgary in 2004 I didn’t have all that many ideas about what it means to be Canadian. Although it was a struggle to tell the difference between a Canadian and east coast American accent (and still is), one thing that did seem to be very different was the fact that Canada had a reputation for staying out of US-led wars and for its United Nations peacekeeping missions. Although Canada had been involved in the Korean War, it didn’t commit troops to either Vietnam or George W. Bush and Tony Blair’s crusade against Saddam Hussein in 2003 that resulted in attempts to shape Iraq in a Western image (although Canada did provide material support to the US invasion). Canada’s foreign policy was in many ways in tune with it being a Western nation, but not sending troops into these wars was crucial for maintaining an image that it was not anything like as ideologically driven as its close peers. Numerous Canadians stated with pride how a Canadian passport and Canadians were accepted in so many countries around the world—in a manner similar to those of Norwegians or Swedes.

When some representatives from Global Affairs Canada came to the University of Calgary recently, a colleague of mine who shall remain nameless but is well known in the right-wing press for such opinions, harked back to some sort of golden age for Canada during the late Cold War period when the Canadian Armed Forces were larger and militarily more capable compared to their peers. What he was essentially suggesting is that Canada needs those sorts of capabilities now so that it can more fully participate in US-led initiatives such as the current crusade against Russia. Of course, for most of his golden age Canada didn’t use those armed forces in retaliation—allowing Canada to maintain the sort of image that I had of Canadian blue helmets. For my colleague, Canada doesn’t matter enough in the world as it stands—and a stronger Canadian military that can more fully participate in US-led attempts to impose a Western model of existence on the world will apparently give it the credibility it lacks. He is not alone in holding such views.

I would argue otherwise. Canada has a relatively small population, and despite its strong economy is unlikely to be in a position to play a major military role in the world as part of a ‘first division’ of military powers—unless it makes considerable sacrifices. A significant increase in defence spending to put Canada into the first division would undoubtedly come at the expense of other priorities such as social programmes and fighting climate change. Canada could increase its defence spending a little—not to be able to chase after the supposedly cool kids (the US and Britain) on their crusading escapades but to have a greater capacity for independent action in a humanitarian role. However very few politicians talk about that.

Having a stronger military with a view to more fully participating in US-led initiatives around the world would not only be expensive, but also undermine one of those Canadian strengths that has stood it in good stead in the world for more than 70 years. That strength has been being able to stand back from highly ideological crusading while still remaining a member of NATO. Doing so allowed Canada to create the stereotype of the Canadian ‘Blue Beret’ that I held when I came to Canada. However, that stereotype has not only been damaged in recent years, but it is in danger of being destroyed.

Canada’s participation in NATO’s Afghan mission may be held in high regard within NATO, but some of the Islamic world doesn’t necessarily see it that way. The NATO mission in Afghanistan was yet another Western attempt (in many ways not dissimilar to the Soviet one) to impose a Western model on Afghan society. At least compared to the 2003 Anglo-US invasion of Iraq the Afghan mission could claim to have some sort of defensive motivation—or at least at the beginning. The same is not true of how Canada today, like so many NATO members (and indeed would be NATO members if we include Finland and Sweden) is bending over backwards to provide arms for Ukraine in a conflict in which neither side is likely to gain the upper hand. For much of the world NATO’s commitment to Ukraine and condemnation of Russia is hypocritical in the light of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent operations in Afghanistan—and an example of yet another attempt to assert Western domination over some corner of the globe. NATO is also widely seen as having contributed to the circumstances that led to Russia’s decision to invade.

If Canada’s Afghan mission caused a wound to Canada’s wider credibility, then its enthusiastic participation in fuelling the war in Ukraine may very well be the death knell to its credibility in much of the non-Western world. Canada will clearly be associated with team America and team Western economic imperialism—a label that may take years to shed.

Instead of simply stoking conflict in Ukraine Canada could stick its neck out and start talking about the sort of diplomacy that will be needed to bring an end to the bloodshed. It won’t—because it is led by a prime minister who to paraphrase his former finance minister doesn’t have “focus on policy details,” and whose deputy prime minister has ties to Ukrainian ultranationalists. Even the NDP seem to be on the same bandwagon as both the Liberals and Conservatives, meaning there isn’t a meaningful voice in Ottawa against prolonging the conflict to ensure Ukraine’s military victory (a highly elusive goal).

Canada is rapidly losing any hope of being able to claim that it is an honest international broker and a peacemaker. The international niche that Canada had carved out for itself twenty or more years ago is a thing of the past and the world will not be a better place for it. These are sad days for Canada and its reputation in the world beyond its Western backyard.

Professor Alexander Hill teaches at the University of Calgary, and is a leading expert on the military and political history of Russia and the Soviet Union since 1917.