The 1945 Yalta Conference is one of the most defining moments in modern geopolitics. As World War II neared its end, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin convened to divide post-war Europe into spheres of influence, effectively setting the stage for the Cold War. Today, nearly eight decades later, the world watches apprehensively as U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin appear to be negotiating over Ukraine’s future without including Kyiv or its European allies.
This potential bilateral agreement threatens to reshape global alliances, undermine NATO, and exclude key stakeholders from vital security discussions for Canada and Europe. With Trump signaling a realignment away from Europe and toward transactional diplomacy and Germany’s new leadership advocating for European security independence from the United States, Canada and its European partners must confront the possibility of a new Yalta, one where they are merely spectators rather than participants. What happens when world leaders make decisions about nations without their involvement? As tensions rise over Ukraine, the echoes of history remind us of past diplomatic miscalculations. This article unpacks the risks of a Trump-Putin deal, examines Canada’s role in the shifting geopolitical landscape, and explores what’s at stake for Europe and global security.
The Legacy of Yalta and the Danger of Bilateral Diplomacy
The Yalta Conference was a pragmatic exercise in power politics, where three superpowers decided the fate of post-war Europe. While it helped end World War II and create a new world order, it also led to decades of Cold War tensions, with Eastern Europe falling under Soviet influence. One of the main criticisms of Yalta is that it prioritised significant power interests over the sovereignty of smaller nations, a situation (mistake) that could be repeated if Trump and Putin strike a similar deal over Ukraine.
Today, the global order is at a crossroads. Trump’s rhetoric has consistently emphasised a reduced role for the United States in European security, even questioning NATO’s relevance. His administration’s recent engagement with Russia over Ukraine, without including Kyiv, mirrors Yalta’s top-down decision-making. If history teaches us anything, it is that such exclusionary diplomacy can lead to long-term instability and discontent among affected nations, and then…
The Risk of a New U.S.-Russia Agreement
Recent reports suggest that Trump’s administration is open to negotiating a ceasefire with Russia that may not align with Ukraine’s national interests. The fear among European and Canadian leaders is that a deal could involve concessions, such as recognising Russian control over occupied Ukrainian territories, reducing NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe, or limiting Western military aid to Kyiv.
Trump’s labelling of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a “dictator” and his insistence that Ukraine should “negotiate quickly” indicate a clear departure from past U.S. commitments to Ukraine. His administration’s framing of the war as an unnecessary conflict that should be resolved expediently rather than justly further compounds concerns.
Meanwhile, in Germany, Friedrich Merz has signaled a dramatic shift in transatlantic relations, stating that Europe must take rapid steps toward security independence. His stance, which includes questioning NATO’s long-term viability and suggesting a European defence strategy independent of U.S. backing, could significantly reshape the balance of power in the region.
If a Trump-Putin deal materialises, it would not only undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty but also set a dangerous precedent where authoritarian regimes can achieve strategic gains through aggression. This would have ripple effects beyond Eastern Europe, emboldening other global powers with expansionist ambitions, such as China regarding Taiwan.
Canada and Europe’s Response: A Struggle for Relevance
Faced with the possibility of being sidelined, Canada and its European allies have attempted to assert themselves in the ongoing diplomatic discussions. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been vocal about the need for Ukraine to be included in any peace negotiations, stating that “nothing about Ukraine should be decided without Ukraine”.
Canada has also positioned itself as a steadfast supporter of Ukraine, providing over $3.5 billion in military aid, including advanced weaponry, drones, and armoured vehicles. However, despite these efforts, Canada’s influence remains limited compared to the United States.
European leaders have similarly struggled to maintain a united front. While Britain and France appear willing to take a more active role, Germany is now advocating for a more independent European security framework. The lack of a coherent European security strategy could further enable Trump to unilaterally dictate terms with Russia, leaving Canada and Europe with few options but to react to decisions made in Washington and Moscow.
Geopolitical Implications: Possible Scenarios
Scenario 1: A Trump-Putin Deal Excludes Ukraine and Europe
In this scenario, the U.S. and Russia reach a bilateral agreement that acknowledges Russian territorial gains, effectively sidelining Ukraine, and its European allies. Ukraine may be forced to accept unfavourable terms without strong Western backing, leading to a weakened government and territorial concessions. This outcome would undermine NATO’s credibility, creating fractures within the alliance as member states debate the feasibility of continued collective defence efforts. Diplomatically, the EU would struggle to present a unified response, with some nations advocating stronger sanctions against Russia while others push for renewed negotiations. Countries like Poland and the Baltic states would likely call for an expanded European defence initiative, fearing further Russian aggression. At the same time, Germany and France attempt to navigate a complex diplomatic landscape to prevent further instability.
Scenario 2: Canada and Europe Secure a Role in Negotiations
In this scenario, Canada, and key European nations, including Germany and France, successfully lobby for their inclusion in diplomatic negotiations. Their presence ensures that Ukraine’s sovereignty remains a core issue in discussions. The EU pushes for a comprehensive security framework, including guarantees for Ukraine’s defence, and calls for increased military support independent of U.S. leadership. This scenario strengthens NATO’s position by proving European nations’ ability to lead in crises. Diplomatically, Canada leverages its role as a G7 member to broker support among non-European allies, reinforcing its strategic influence in global peacekeeping efforts. Meanwhile, Russia faces increased pressure from a united Western bloc, potentially altering the course of negotiations in favour of Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
Scenario 3: A Fractured West and the Rise of a (more) Multipolar Order
Under this scenario, NATO’s cohesion erodes as the U.S. reduces its military commitments to Europe, leading to an internal security crisis. European nations attempt to establish an independent defence force, but internal political divisions weaken their collective response. Russia, emboldened by NATO’s fragmentation, increases its influence over Eastern Europe, while China capitalises on the power shift to expand its geopolitical reach in the Indo-Pacific. Diplomatic repercussions include strained transatlantic relations, with Canada and the UK pushing for stronger NATO engagement while Germany and France pivot towards a European-led security strategy. Countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia observe the decline of Western unity, leading to new strategic alliances that redefine the global order in favour of emerging regional powers.
Learning from History
The current diplomatic landscape bears striking similarities to the Yalta Conference, where decisions about Europe’s future were made primarily by great powers with little regard for the agency of smaller nations. Just as Eastern Europe found itself under Soviet control following Yalta, Ukraine risks becoming a pawn in great power negotiations today. The lesson from history is clear: exclusionary diplomacy breeds long-term instability and resentment.
If Western democracies fail to act decisively, the international order could shift toward one in which authoritarian states dictate the terms of global security. The fate of Ukraine today mirrors that of post-war Eastern Europe, caught between conflicting spheres of influence. The erosion of NATO’s authority would mirror the Cold War’s early days, when divisions among allies left smaller nations vulnerable to external domination.
Canada and Europe must take a proactive role in shaping security policy rather than passively reacting to the geopolitical manoeuvres of the U.S. and Russia. Strengthening NATO, reinforcing economic sanctions against aggressors, and committing to a long-term strategy for European security will be critical. Failure to do so could result in a fractured alliance system where Western power is further diminished, and global security becomes dictated by transactional agreements among great powers rather than by the rule of law.
The stakes could not be higher, and the consequences of repeating Yalta’s mistakes could be catastrophic for global stability. This moment calls for principled diplomacy, strategic foresight, and an unwavering commitment to defending democratic values in the face of authoritarian encroachment. Only by learning from history can Canada and Europe avoid the mistakes of the past and forge a future where security and sovereignty are safeguarded for generations to come.