The Maple Monitor 5: Canada–US Relations, Five Eyes, and UN Diplomacy
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/04
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York and Connecticut. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in National and Intercultural Studies and Middle East Studies from Fordham University in 2006, followed by a Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2009. She operates a boutique national security law practice. She serves as President of Scarab Rising, Inc., a media and security strategic advisory firm. Additionally, she is the Editor-in-Chief of The Washington Outsider, which focuses on foreign policy, geopolitics, security, and human rights. She is actively involved in several professional organizations, including the American Bar Association’s Energy, Environment, and Science and Technology Sections, where she serves as Program Vice Chair in the Oil and Gas Committee. She is also a member of the New York City Bar Association. She serves on the Middle East and North Africa Affairs Committee and affiliates with the Foreign and Comparative Law Committee.
In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Tsukerman discusses Prime Minister Mark Carney’s upcoming White House meeting with President Trump, focusing on tariffs, the Five Eyes alliance, and Ukraine. Tsukerman warns of weakening U.S. intelligence-sharing and the risk of Canada tightening its own controls against foreign disinformation. At the UN, Canada reaffirmed its commitment to multilateralism, but Tsukerman cautions against lofty rhetoric that is undermined by authoritarian powers like Russia and China. Cabinet reshuffles, economic strain, and the realities of global interdependence remain central challenges for Carney’s government.
Interview conducted on October 3, 2025, in the afternoon Pacific Time.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s pivot to Canadian politics. These tend to be less dramatic than U.S. politics, though Canada does produce some strange stories—long isolation in rural areas sometimes leads to bizarre situations, such as the polygamist cult compounds in British Columbia.
Irina Tsukerman: Did you see the cult story out of California?
Jacobsen: Which one?
Tsukerman: California has a larger population, so such groups tend to be noticed more.
Jacobsen: But Canada’s size and sparsity mean isolation can create these dynamics earlier and more frequently. People often talk about a “male loneliness epidemic,” sometimes with exaggeration, but isolation has long been a Canadian reality.
Let’s move to something more standard: there is a scheduled meeting, confirmed by Reuters and AP, between Prime Minister Mark Carney and President Trump at the White House on October 7. The agenda is expected to include tariffs, groundwork for the USMCA review, and security issues.
I am less interested in tariffs, which will likely play out predictably, and more focused on the security aspects. This involves the Five Eyes alliance and current wars of mutual concern. Canada, per capita, likely contributes more aid to Ukraine than any other country. What is your professional assessment of this meeting?
Tsukerman: From Trump’s perspective, this is a political gift to Carney: handing him a high-profile meeting and platform just before an election. Carney can showcase this as a victory and leverage it for his term. The concern is whether Trump will derail the optics with threats or offhanded remarks, as he did in past meetings—such as his notorious comments to Zelenskyy. Trump tends to mix unrelated disputes, even joking about invasions or fishing rights in Venezuela, and that unpredictability could reappear. Hopefully, that element has been buried and will not resurface.
The deeper issue is the Five Eyes intelligence alliance. The United States has already begun curtailing cooperation in certain areas, especially with European partners. Civilian security agencies have limited intelligence-sharing on Russia–Ukraine diplomacy and restricted cybersecurity coordination.
In Europe, including the United Kingdom, those channels have largely been cut. It is unclear whether Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are still receiving full cooperation, but signs point to reductions. The latest reports indicate that the Pentagon is winding down its anti-disinformation programs directed at Russia, China, and Iran. That shift raises serious questions about the future of Five Eyes coordination.
This trend leaves less room for cooperation and makes the U.S. a less reliable partner in the Five Eyes alliance. It is not only that Washington is withholding intelligence—it is that the U.S. is choosing not to act against Russian, Chinese, and Iranian propaganda. The justification is framed as respecting “freedom of speech,” even when these adversaries use that space to recruit, spread disinformation, sow division, and undermine the rule of law inside the United States.
That is an exceptionally concerning development. Canada, unlike the U.S., has more restrictions on speech, particularly in areas involving hate speech and disinformation. Suppose the U.S. retreats from countering propaganda, Ottawa may feel compelled to act independently—by tightening regulations on social media and limiting the flow of disinformation, including content originating from the United States. Such moves would inevitably reduce the exposure of Canadians and Americans to each other’s media, perspectives, and news. Over time, that would erode people-to-people understanding and drive relations downward, regardless of what the leaders say at the top level.
On tariffs, there will undoubtedly be a battle. But the fact that both governments remain open to negotiations is at least a modestly positive sign. Still, the current situation is already damaging both economies—jobs are being lost, prices are rising, and supply chains are disrupted. None of this is sustainable or beneficial for either country.
Regarding Ukraine, I do not anticipate that Trump will change his position. His policy so far has been to allow Western allies to donate or sell weapons to Ukraine, but not to provide direct U.S. support. The unresolved question is whether he will lift restrictions on Ukraine’s use of American long-range weapons for strikes inside Russia. Trump himself has admitted that such weapons are necessary for Ukraine to secure victories, yet his officials—such as Elbridge Colby—imposed bans, and Trump has not overturned them.
Ukraine does have some domestic long-range weapons, but American systems remain the industry standard. The challenge for Canada is practical: should it purchase weapons that Ukraine is barred from using effectively? No one wants to spend heavily on equipment that Kyiv cannot utilize to its full potential, mainly if cheaper alternatives might serve a similar purpose. That dilemma will continue to complicate Western military support.
Jacobsen: At the UN General Assembly, which has now concluded, Canada’s Foreign Minister Anita Anand emphasized support for Ukraine and multilateralism in a moderated session. Her statement was, “Multilateralism remains our best hope to address global challenges rather than rejecting international norms.”
Daniel Béland, political science professor at McGill University in Montreal, observed: “The emphasis on both resilience and multilateralism can be understood as a response to the Trump White House’s current trade and foreign policies… The growing level of uncertainty on the global stage is triggering a rethinking of the country’s global role in the era of Trump 2.0.”
For those unfamiliar with UN rhetoric, the language is often characterized by loftiness, universality, and idealism. So what are the strengths and weaknesses of that posture?
Tsukerman: On the positive side, affirming universal rights and responsibilities is essential. It reminds states of a shared framework of human dignity, the rule of law, and peaceful coexistence. However, the reality is that many UN member states have authoritarian tendencies or are outright authoritarian. These governments do not genuinely uphold the principles they publicly endorse.
The risk is that idealism without enforcement undermines the mission itself. Take the Security Council: Russia, a warmonger, retains veto power, using it to block accountability or sabotage constructive initiatives. Smaller states, in turn, are pressured into compliance or silence. China offers another example—using lofty rhetoric about “one world” and “one family” while operating mass internment and re-education programs for Uyghurs, suppressing dissent, and cynically weaponizing religion for state purposes.
When such states lead international initiatives, it creates a kind of Orwellian doublespeak: universalist language masking repressive agendas. The result is cynicism, distrust, and a loss of faith in the very institutions meant to safeguard human rights. Lofty ideals then become poisoned by their misuse, undermining efforts that could genuinely benefit people.
Jacobsen: According to iPolitics, the Liberal cabinet could undergo a major reset in the coming months. Party insiders expect Prime Minister Mark Carney to shuffle his ministerial team ahead of high-stakes negotiations with the U.S., which are likely to begin in early 2026. Any key points there?
Steve V. O’Brien, a former Liberal chief of staff, stated: “I anticipate there will be a significant shuffle as we go into what could be another election year, especially now that the prime minister has a better sense of his caucus and the strengths and weaknesses of his cabinet.”
Tsukerman: The takeaway is that Carney appears to be structuring the government around the coming negotiations. That signals how central the economic and security agenda is—and how the United States, even when trying to turn inward, still has a massive impact on its neighbours and the global system. The U.S. cannot simply extract itself from the world economy without severe consequences. Unless it intends to become a micro-economy—growing vegetables in the backyard and returning to the Iron Age—true isolation is not sustainable and would eventually trigger major economic shocks.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Irina.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 