When negotiating with a difficult partner, a shift from aggressive to conciliatory language is a substantive change, not just a stylistic one. This "delivery with a smile" is a meaningful symbolic act that acknowledges the partnership and can de-escalate tensions, even if the core demands remain the same.
Chrystia Freeland's strategy with the Trump administration rejected both appeasement and reckless escalation. The approach was to be respectful and find mutual interests, but also hold firm on core principles and retaliate proportionately to unacceptable pressure, as Canada did with steel tariffs.
Dismissing an ally's territorial claims as mere "noise" is a strategic mistake that falls into a pattern of appeasement. The only correct response is a firm, clear, and immediate rejection, exemplified by how former Canadian prime ministers from opposing parties united to condemn such rhetoric.
During NAFTA talks with the Trump administration, Canada didn't just deal with the executive branch. It actively engaged Congress, governors, unions, and businesses to build broad support for the relationship, effectively creating a network of influence around a single, powerful counterpart.
Conflating "middle powers" with "U.S. allies" is a strategic error. The two groups are a Venn diagram, not synonyms. For instance, middle powers like Canada and Iran have vastly different interests. The central strategic question is about the nature of an alliance network, not a country's relative size.
European leaders have shifted from seeing Ukraine as a moral cause to a vital strategic asset. Ukraine's battle-tested army is viewed as Europe's "shield," and its innovations in drone warfare are seen as Europe's future "arsenal," especially amid doubts about US security guarantees.