Hosted by Christina Ruffini and Sir Richard Dearlove
Guests
Mélanie Joly
Mélanie Joly is Canada's Foreign Minister and discusses how the United States' recent tariff threats are shaping relations between the two countries and the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO.
Bill Blair
Bill Blair is Canada's Defence Minister and discusses working with U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, the future of the war in Ukraine, and fortifying Canada's internal defense strategy.
Episode Summary
In this special episode, One Decision’s host Christina Ruffini takes us behind the scenes at the 2025 Munich Security Conference where she sits down with Canadian leaders to discuss the how the United States’ recent tariff threats are shaping the relationship between the two countries, and the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO. She speaks with Canadian Foreign Minister, Mélanie Joly, to unpack US Vice President JD Vance’s remarks at the conference and Canada’s important relationship with the Nordic and Arctic nations. Later in the episode, Christina sits down with Canadian Defence Minister, Bill Blair, to discuss working with U.S. Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, the future of the war in Ukraine, and fortifying Canada’s internal defense strategy.
Episode produced by Situation Room Studios. Original music composed and produced by Leo Sidran.
Listen & Subscribe
- Watch on YouTube
- Listen on Apple Podcasts
- Listen on Spotify
Transcript
COLD OPEN
Jolie: It is a moment where there is a fear, there is anxiety. I feel it in my own country, and we feel it definitely here. In that sense, I think, it is important more than ever that we talk to each other, that we exchange notes, that diplomacy actually happens.
Blair: I think there was some challenging parts of the conversation that we've had over the last two days of NATO. And I think there's a growing realization in Europe that they're going to have to step up and take even more responsibility for their security in Europe.
Raffini: That was Canadian Foreign Minister Melanie Jolie and Defense Minister Bill Blair speaking with us at the Munich Security Conference, where US VP J.D. Vance told some of America's strongest allies that the biggest threat to their security wasn't China or Russia but from within.
Vance: But when we see European courts canceling elections and senior officials threatening to cancel others, we ought to ask whether we're holding ourselves to an appropriately high standard. And I say ourselves because I fundamentally believe that we are on the same team.
INTRODUCTION
Raffini: We must do more than talk about democratic values. We must live them. The remarks sending shock waves through the conference and dominating the topic of conversation over the next two days from inside the hotel where the high profile conference is being held to the bars and even taxicabs around the city. I'm Christina Raffini. And on this week's episode of One Decision, we sat down with top officials from another key American ally, Canada, to ask their reaction to the speech, as well as their thoughts on the future of a possible settlement for the war in Ukraine, how they're handling the lingering threat of a massive American tariff, and if the US is still a reliable ally. So let's get right to it. Up first, Canadian foreign minister Melanie Jolie.
INTERVIEW: FOREIGN MINISTER MELANIE JOLIE
Raffini: Thank you so much for joining us. How has the conference been overall?
Jolie: Good, listen, it's my fourth conference. So you're pro, you know how this goes. Well, you know, I've learned through the years. I remember still the first one when the war in Ukraine was about to start, we were all here. I was here for that one as well. Yes, you remember the mood and many of the Five Eyes, including Canada, saying there are 100,000 troops at the border, the war will be launched, and we were trying to still convince European allies. They didn't believe you, the Ukrainians didn't believe you. No. No. And to be fair, we in the press didn't really believe you either. But at the time I was working with Tony Blinken and Liz Truss, who is the British Foreign Minister, trying to convince all of them, and so I feel now that it is also an important moment to be here at the MSC to talk about what's going on, yes of course in Ukraine, but also what's going on in general in the world because there are more geopolitical tensions than before.
Raffini: That's what I was gonna ask you because in my mind, I don't know how you feel about it, but since that summit we were just talking about, this was probably the most dramatic one that I can remember between J.D. Vance's remarks and then Zelensky's speech. What were your biggest takeaways from those two very divergent remarks from those two leaders?
Jolie: It is a moment where there is a fear, there is anxiety. I feel it in my own country and we feel it definitely here. In that sense, I think it is important more than ever that we talk to each other, that we exchange notes, that diplomacy actually happens, and that's my job.
Raffini: American Vice President made it clear, decades of a close relationship between the Americans and Europe are ending. Do you agree with that assessment?
Jolie: Well, when it comes to what Vice President Vance mentioned, I didn't agree with everything he mentioned, particularly on freedom of expression, freedom of speech.
Raffini: Right, he said kind of almost maligned misinformation and said that labeling things propaganda is a way to label opinions you don't particularly like.
Jolie: Well, he was also referring to the fact of the importance of social media. I profoundly believe that freedom of expression is fundamental to democracy. I want this to be clear. But it cannot go just unchecked. Of course, hate speech has always been something that all democracies were going after and making sure that we could protect our citizens from. And we're in Germany right now. There are clear laws about this issue. Yes, and they're very strict about it here. They're strict about it for good reasons. And we need to make sure also that on social media our children are well protected. So you know there is always a social contract to that and I don't think that you can weaponize the question of freedom of expression, freedom of speech. And I think there's no freedom of speech, Christina, for bots. At the same time, when you look at it, algorithms of social media platforms need to be neutral. If they're rigged, there's no real freedom. Yeah, whose feature you're protecting isn't even a human speech. So that's it, so I thought you know I didn't agree with that part. When it comes to talking for our own people and being in connection with our own people, I'm an elected official. I'm very proud of representing a Montreal constituency for now ten years. I'm very close to my people, I don't need to have any form of scolding regarding how I represent our people. Did it feel like scolding? There was definitely a preoccupation of how the speech was addressed, but fundamentally I think that the point is we need to be able to have frank conversations, to be able, yes, to do more on defense, and I was referring to that, and we will do more, we will invest more, we hear the Americans on this, we do it for ourselves because of course it's our own sovereignty at risk and we need to invest in our people and in our equipment. We will continue to protect North America, particularly in the Arctic, we're an Arctic nation, we know China and Russia are working together against NATO allies. We will work with Nordic states that are all now part of NATO, and we will continue to protect Europe and we're leading a battle group right now, a brigade actually, in Latvia at the eastern flank of NATO. And meanwhile, we understand the US when they say China is a threat. Europe needs to increase its protection and invest in protecting themselves. And meanwhile, we have to look at China and the Indo-Pacific. We get it. I've been saying that for now more than three years to our NATO partners in Europe because what is happening in Europe is linked to what is happening in the Indo-Pacific in Asia. One will impact the other. Of course. So I think there are ways of saying that. I think that Europeans are ready to hear that, but I think ultimately we need to make sure that we build bridges rather than get rid of some that have been built over the past eighty years.
Raffini: Based on what you've heard, not just here but from the administration so far, do you think Europe can rely on the US to defend it if Article Five is triggered under NATO?
Jolie: NATO is strong for Europe, but NATO is also essential for the US. And more than ever, you're seeing the different theaters of conflict being interlinked. Today, at the G7 foreign minister meeting, we said that clearly we needed to offer security guarantees for Ukraine because if we don't, Russia can always leave, rearm, and reinvade. So that would not... Right. A ceasefire could almost benefit Russia. Exactly. And we don't want that to happen. And clearly, Secretary Rubio also was clear on that. We need to make sure that we call out the DPRK that is providing soldiers and supporting Russia. We need to call out Iran who is selling military equipment to Russia, and we need to make clear that China, through sanctions circumvention, is actually supporting Russia, and we need to call out all these countries. And when I tell you that everything is linked, so Euro-Atlantic security is linked to the Indo-Pacific security, this is just the best example I can give you. And so I think that in that sense, what I'm concerned when we talk about NATO is that there's no security architecture in the Indo-Pacific. So we have NATO for Europe and Transatlantic. We have NORAD, Americans and Canadians together, and we need to make sure that NATO is allowed to be in the Arctic along with NORAD, but to our western flank, we have nothing.
Raffini: When it comes to Canada, where do you see yourselves in this contentious battle right now between the US and Europe? Right? Because a lot of this from the administration is focused specifically at Europe. You are allies with Europe, you have connections with Europe, but economically you're so tied to the United States. Does that put you in a hard position?
Jolie: No, I think it actually gives us options. I think that we need to protect North America and we're increasing defense spending and investments, particularly in the Arctic, because the US expects us to do that. 40% of all our territory is in the Arctic, so we'll do that and I've had really positive conversations with many Trump administration leaders and also senators. So I think this is not a partisan issue. At the same time we're doing our part when it comes to NATO and Europe. You know Canada has been blessed by geography for a long, long time. A lot of the defense spending we were doing was not linked to the protection of our own sovereignty. Now things are changing. And for a long time Canadians didn't necessarily always value the importance of investing in defense. After the Second World War, we were benefiting from our geography and also the fact that we were a very peaceful nation. It's very cold and you're very nice. Well, we're isolated. I think that now Canadians are reckoning that it is about us, it is about the world and in that sense it's not a question of values or principles, it's about being pragmatic doing the right thing based on the threats we have. And so we will have a closer cooperation for example with Arctic European states. So we will be closer than ever to the Nordic five, so Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. And of course, we will continue to work with NORAD. And of course, we have a free trade agreement with Europe and we have a free trade agreement with the US. So on economic diversification we'll continue to do that for sure.
Raffini: Do you think the US should take possession of Greenland? And should they rename it Red, White and Blueland? I think at this point this is not a joke anymore, Christina. Well, it's not actually. And I am curious what your take on that is. And given how important Nordic security is and Arctic security is, is it making those alliances you just talked about harder when one party is threatening to take over a strategic part of that agreement?
Jolie: Well, it's definitely not conducive to great partnerships. So that's why right now we will continue to defend Denmark and Greenland's sovereignty and territorial integrity. You know, coming from Canada, I am very much aware that we are not talking only about a map and we are not only talking about a big piece of land that is frozen, we are talking about people. We're talking of people that have been living there and have traditions that are spread out through centuries. And already have a complicated history of trying to keep their own identity with the anti-colonial forces. And that's why, you know, in Canada, we've used Inuit people as flagpoles a lot in the past, during the second world war, during the cold war. We just came up with a new Arctic foreign policy which changes that, which puts them at the core of how we will deal with the Arctic. We are putting also our relationship not only North-South, but also East-West, how they see their own territory, so we have to be closer to the US on the Alaska side, we need to be closer to Greenland also and all the other Nordic five on the much more Eastern side. So I think things are in constant evolution, but we need to adapt very quickly and we've been clear, I've had many conversations with the Foreign Minister from Denmark, we've talked also with the Prime Minister of Denmark, we met with the Foreign Minister of Greenland because there was an Arctic panel and I think that we are reckoning the fact that we have to do more in the Arctic, but also that we have to be respectful of people living there.
Raffini: You said when it comes to tariffs, Canada is the canary in the coal mine. Is that a warning to your European allies? And do you think they could be seeing something similar as well?
Jolie: Yes, of course. We are, because we are the biggest trading partner to the US, we are the biggest client of American business. We buy more from the US than China, than Japan, than the UK and France. Why do you think this policy happened? Do you think the administration understands what a tariff is? Well, I can't talk for them, I know that American people are the only ones that will be able to convince their administration that it's bad. Why? Because it's bad for them. Americans watching us right now should know that imposing tariffs on Canada is ultimately going to have an impact on how much it will cost at the pump when they go and fill their tanks. And at the same time, it will cost more at the grocery store. So why would they want that? We don't want that. We don't want tariffs. We don't believe in them. But of course, if we're imposed tariffs, we will have to retaliate. That's what I was going to ask is, should Canada respond in kind? Well, of course, and that's why we said when we were under threat that we would do so, and we already published what would be targeted. But ultimately, I think we can find a way to be all rational and ultimately good leaders and protect our people and that comes with the fact that we can make sure that they can afford a good life, a good way of living, and that is through actually cooperation rather than economic tensions.
Raffini: But is the US administration, are they communicating with you about these actions? Did they communicate with you in advance of imposing them the first time around? Do you feel like you know what they want in order for them to not go into place? Or is that still kind of a little murky?
Jolie: There's a level of unpredictability when it comes to President Trump, and we have to be able to compose with that unpredictability. That's part of my job as foreign minister, and that's the part of the job of anybody that will be in charge either of the Canadian government or any other countries on earth.
Raffini: But talk to me about that unpredictability. I mean, you know, I covered the last administration as well, and I covered the first Trump administration. And given the constant whiplash from one to the other, you know, politics in the US used to be on either side, but closer to the center. And now they're so far that from one administration to the other, they can change so much, and that has to put a lot of pressure on America's allies to scramble and respond. Is America a good ally?
Jolie: Well, America can be a very good ally. But I think that on the question of tariffs, what I've seen on my part, meeting with US officials on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, a lot of them understood the impacts and were against any form of tariffs. We have a lot of allies within the US and, you know, Congress. I've been five times to DC and I've been to Mar-a-Lago.
Raffini: You came to meet with Rubio almost as soon as he got the job, right? I remember you all were in DC.
Jolie: Yes, very, and I had even a private meeting with him in December. And, you know, I think at the end of the day, the more we're able to convince American people that this is bad for them, the more we'll be able to prevail because I've been saying that to Canadians and I've been saying that to Europeans, the only people that will have the Trump administration change course on tariffs are American people themselves. And they're bright, they have a very good judgment, a very good common sense. What's in it for them if ultimately they pay for all that is being imposed on Canada. This is not a burden that they should be bearing, and we will make sure that we make that case clearly.
Raffini: What is worrying you and what are the things you're really concerned about as you look at the global landscape, either in the US or across the world?
Jolie: Well, I think that Canadians obviously are preoccupied about their jobs. The threat of tariffs have had really an impact on Canadians being very together and around the flag. I've never seen a level of national unity like I've seen recently.
Raffini: It was so interesting because like I don't think of Canadians as vehemently patriotic, and even online, to your point, I've never seen a reaction like that. But like what's prompting that, and what do you do about it?
Jolie: Well, I think we have to continue to make sure that ultimately we fight back, that we're united. We've said to Canadians, you have a power on this. When you go to the grocery store, you buy Canadian, when you decide where to go in the world you don't go to the US. We've seen 5% of decrease of tickets being bought on airlines in Canada going to the US. Wow. So Canadian consumers have real leverage, so that's important. And also meanwhile Canada was created out of the fact of fearing of being invaded by the US. And we created this federation where provinces have a lot of autonomy but ultimately over time there are still lots of commercial barriers between them and so right now we are recreating that federation even more strongly and making sure that there are no commercial barriers and that can really offset a lot of the economic uncertainty but also any tariffs that could be imposed on us. So I think it's an existential moment in my country's history, I think we'll be reading about it in history books and I'm happy to be able to talk to people watching us right now about what's going on in our country but also the fact that this should be a clear message to other countries that it could happen to them. Thank you so much for making the time. Thank you. I really appreciate it. Thank you.
INTERVIEW: DEFENSE MINISTER BILL BLAIR
Raffini: Canadian defense minister Bill Blair came to Munich from the NATO meeting in Brussels, where another member of president Trump's cabinet made his own headlines. We're, of course, talking about US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who said publicly that NATO membership for Ukraine is unrealistic and that it will have to likely give up territory to stop the war with Russia, two major concessions before negotiations have even started.
Hegseth: Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering. A durable peace for Ukraine must include robust security guarantees to ensure that the war will not begin again.
Raffini: This must not be Minsk 3.0. Hegseth later had to walk back those remarks, saying instead, all options are on the table.
Raffini: Thank you so much for taking time. I know you've got a packed schedule here. One of the things that's a bit odd is, the US secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, is not here, but you did meet with him.
Blair: Yeah. No. He's been with us for the last two days in Brussels. We were at the defense minister's meeting, and prior to that, we had the twenty-sixth meeting of the Ukraine defense contact group, and Secretary Hegseth was with us. It was, I think, a little bit challenging for the members of the Ukraine defense contact group and the NATO defense ministers. I've been part of that for the last couple of years, and over the last two years, we've seen real strength and resolve. I've been very impressed. We've added new members. Finland and Sweden have joined us. I think there was a growing sense of the alliance and the power of the alliance. And people were making really big sacrifices in their defense expenditure, but also in their support of Ukraine. And then the discussion for the twenty-sixth meeting was a little bit more challenging. Obviously, the United States is taking a different position with respect to its support of Ukraine. And the discussion that took place yesterday regarding the beginning of a negotiation and real questions, I think important questions, being asked about whether or not a just and sustainable peace for Ukraine involving the people of Ukraine that was acceptable to them was kind of on the line in what was being proposed. And I know for so many of the Europeans, they've been remarkable in their support of Ukraine and its defense against the illegal invasion by Russia.
Raffini: And not feeling included in that discussion or even their concerns being addressed, I think, was a significant challenge to them. Can you just kind of walk us through how that went? Because, you know, we have these quotes from Hegseth, which he's now walked back a little, but we'll go back to that, saying basically that Ukraine is never gonna be a member of NATO, and they're not gonna go back to their preexisting borders, and the US is not gonna put troops on the ground. Is that something that was said immediately upon coming into the meeting? Is that something that had been messaged to the group before the meeting? No. We got it on the first day of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in the opening remarks in front of the press. And so it was made public at the same time we were hearing it. So we knew at the same time you knew it.
Blair: Yeah. And, you know, that's fine as a position, but I think there was legitimate and real concern expressed by many of us around the table that first of all, just to be clear, in any negotiation, the aggressor here is Russia. The victim of that aggression was Ukraine. We have all worked hard over the last almost three years now, three years next week, in order to support Ukraine and its defense against that aggressor. And in negotiation, if you're gonna achieve a just and sustainable peace for the people of Ukraine, which is what we've all been working for for nearly three years, then first of all it has to involve the people of Ukraine. And secondly, there was, it seemed like all the concessions to Russia were put on the table before the negotiation began.
Raffini: We did an interview at the UN with the Czech foreign minister who told us Ukraine needs to be at the table, not on the table, and this kind of seemed like they were just serving them on a platter.
Blair: Ukraine's interest, the people of Ukraine, its long term security, safety, prosperity, were things that we've all been working hard on for the last three years, and it did not seem to be the focus of a negotiated settlement.
Raffini: So what is your impression of Hegseth? Is this your first time meeting him? You know, is he competent? And what do you think made him walk back these remarks? Was it stuff that he got from you guys in the room? Do you think it was pressure from the White House? Do you have any thoughts on that? It was very clear that the secretary of defense was delivering a message. He had brought a message from his president. Okay. He even characterized it this way. The president says this. The president wants that.
Blair: I had a one on one with him. And it was, frankly, it was a great conversation. We didn't talk necessarily about that. We talked about our shared responsibility for North American security, some of the work that we're doing at NORAD, some of the things we do together in the Indo-Pacific. And they've got a real and necessary focus on the challenge that China represents. And we talked a little bit about that and all the work that we're going to do together. It was quite positive, but I would characterize his remarks at the Ukraine defense contact group and then at the NATO meeting yesterday as he was delivering a message that had been given to him.
Raffini: Can you remind us and possibly the administration all of the things that Canada and the US do together when it comes to air defense, when it comes to military? I'm an army brat. I grew up in Colorado Springs, Colorado. My dad worked at NORAD. All our neighbors were Canadians.
Blair: Well, all your neighbors are Canadians. I have over a thousand Canadian Armed Forces members who are deployed around the United States on US bases. Realize that Canadian officers serve on US Military bases quite frequently. All over the place. The second in command in Colorado Springs is a Canadian three star. In so many of our missions, the person in charge of the training coordination is one of my generals. We work very closely. We always have. NORAD, I think, we often talk about NATO. And everybody understands what NATO is, and only people reasonably well informed know what NORAD is. But NORAD is an alliance between Canada and the United States that's gone on for seventy-five years. And it's how we together have kept North America safe from, you know, you used to watch the movies Fail Safe and Doctor Strangelove. Or Chinese weather balloons. Chinese weather balloons. Most recently, Chinese weather balloons. But we also, notwithstanding all of that work that we have done in the past, it is desperately in need of an upgrade and modernization. And so we've undertaken together to do an upgrade and modernization of NORAD. And so a big part of the work, I spent most of last week in Washington, I was meeting with the military, but also big US industries because that's also an important partnership about what we're going to be doing with over the horizon radar, just as an example, to maintain awareness in the Far North. The radar systems and the DEW line we used to have in place just isn't up to the job anymore. You know, with ballistic missiles and cruise missiles and intercontinental and hypersonic missiles, we really need to up our game, and we've gotta make big investments. And we do that together as well. As part of that commitment, I'm in the process right now of announcing and investing in infrastructure in our Far North so that we can operate there, the Canadian Armed Forces, but we'll do it in partnership with the United States. They'll be on our bases. They'll be with us as we are with them. Are you sure about that? Are you confident? I remain confident. And again I keep on falling back. We hear the rhetoric and some of it is challenging but at the same time we've got seventy-five years of history together. Actually, a century and a half of history together. We fought side by side. Our militaries have fought and bled and died side by side. You know, the third largest contingent on the invasion of Normandy, it was the Americans, the Brits, and then the Canadians. After 9/11 when Article Five was invoked, we sent 40,000 Canadians to Afghanistan. Hundreds of our people were killed, thousands were injured. We went there in defense of America. That's the thing that makes me confident. That's the thing that I have my faith in. I have faith in the US institutions. I have faith in the American military. General Guillot, who is the commanding officer of NORAD, he gets the relationship. And he testified yesterday in front of the Armed Services Committee. And I think he spoke exceptionally well about that relationship. That's the thing I have faith in.
Raffini: But speaking of that Article Five commitment, there seems to be, I don't think anyone will say it out loud quite yet, but there seems to be a little bit of a tremor in the confidence amongst some Europeans that were that to really be triggered and necessary that the US would be all in in defense of its European allies under this administration. Do you have any doubts about the durability of Article Five in the next coming years?
Blair: I think there were some challenging parts of the conversation that we've had over the last two days at NATO. And I think there's a growing realization in Europe that they're going to have to step up and take even more responsibility for their security in Europe. That I think some of the partnerships that they have relied on and perhaps over relied on, may not be available to them in the future. And so they've got to look more to their own security because things are changing. Is that true for Canada as well? Most of my European allies, they're building up their militaries but they're in Europe. The capability requirements for me are in Europe and I'm in North America. And I've got responsibilities in defense of my own country and the resources that I put in place in Canada through NORAD, through building up my own northern operational support hubs, and building capacity and training and deployments in Canada, they don't count towards my obligation. And I've tried to explain that, but at the same time, I'm not backing away from Canada's responsibility to NATO. And, you know, we've always answered the call throughout our entire history. We've never had to defend ourselves. Nobody's been trying to attack us. But every time somebody else needed us, we were among the first to go.
Raffini: I think that was the really remarkable part of the speech Trudeau gave after the tariff threat. And he started that speech by doing what you just did, listing off all the times Canada has gone to the defense of the US, been there for its allies. Do things like tariff threats or, you know, shifting sands on their policy for Ukraine, does that make securing Canada more difficult? Does that make meeting these other obligations that they're asking from you with NATO, with defense capability, does that make any of that more difficult because the focus shifts and you have to put out another fire rather than focusing on the thing that you've been working at?
Blair: You gotta deal with things and compartmentalize it and do your job. I will say that for Canada, I think it's really important for us to acknowledge that over the past three or four decades, we have not made sufficient investment in our own defense. Why do you think that was? I think cashing in at the peace dividend, you know, the end of the Cold War was maybe the end of conflict. Governments right across the world started doing a lot less in their defense. And including us. So we've allowed our edge. We've gotta reconstitute. I'm short of about 30,000 people for what I need to do. And our big platforms, our ships and our planes are thirty-five and forty years old. Really big investment that needs to be done. I acknowledge that to our allies. Like, we recognize. When I first got this job, you know, it's kind of funny for me. I was going to give my first public speech and as they always do with politicians, they give me the speech that said everything was awesome. I look at it, I can't give the speech because it's not true. I can't stand in front of people. The military knows it's not true. Our allies know it's not true. And so instead I said, we haven't done enough. We have to do a lot more. We're gonna spend more money. We've gotta make big investments. And I think people were a little uncomfortable. But it was also interesting at the time in Canada. There was really no real push to spend more on defense when they polled on it. Some 30% of Canadians thought that was a thing to spend money on. We didn't hit the top 20 list. But we've had a difficult but an important conversation in Canada that we've got responsibilities here, not just to our allies, everything expeditionary, but at home, in our own country. And it's an opportunity to do a little bit of nation building too in our far north. I've been having pretty frank conversations with not just my colleagues, but with Canadians. And Canadians figured this one out. They got it. And they're telling us, do more. Let's go. And so support for the investments that we have to make, and they're sacrificing investment. If you spend it on that, you can't spend it on something else. But Canadians get it, and they're telling us, okay. We got it and do it. And I'm kind of encouraged. Like, we're going through some political processes right now. Everybody who wants to be the next prime minister of Canada has acknowledged we better do that. And they're not doing it because I told them. So across the parties, they're all saying that they're acknowledging it is something that everybody acknowledges. We have to do this. That seems like a change. Of course, it is. But it's not in response to anything I've said. It's in response to what Canadians want. Any politician, they better be listening to their citizens if they wanna be elected. And the citizens are telling them, we have to do this. But then my job is to make sure, okay. The trouble with 2%, 3%, 5%, anything that people talk about in defense spending, that's how much you have to spend. But it never tells you the what and the why, and how to do it. And what I mean by that is, oh, you gotta get your numbers up to here, but what are you spending it on? You gotta spend this much money, but how are you gonna spend it? What are you gonna spend it on? And so characterizing that as investment in our workers, our industry, our own economy, building infrastructure that benefits not only the military, but the communities in which the military operate, lives up to our international obligations, but fulfills our responsibilities for our national defense. That's the case we've got to make. It's one thing to say we have to spend this much money. It's a different and a more important conversation, in my opinion, about how to spend it and what we're going to spend it on. And the other thing, there's a certain amount of urgency. The world's changing pretty rapidly. The United States is shifting a position. That's one that we have perhaps over relied on in the past, but we're not going to be able to rely on it in the future. And so there's an urgency, we gotta move, but we gotta move fast. Is the US an unreliable ally? I'm not gonna characterize it that way because like I said, you know, there's growing concern about the reliability. But at the same time, I know the US military. I work with NORAD. I have my troops deployed on their bases. I know that the strength of that relationship, I still trust it. I still have great faith in it. I know that that military, one of the best in the world, working beside my best, is the key to our future security. So I don't despair about, you know, I think we go through different political processes and rhetoric and some of it can be really challenging. And then you go back to the things that really are important and it's those relationships, and the faith that I have in that institution and other institutions in America that keep me on track.
Raffini: Outside the military, I'm wondering if you are concerned, if your government is concerned about the durability of American democracy given what's going on in Washington right now.
Blair: I'm a graduate of the FBI Academy. I've worked side by side in organized crime, national security matters, issues around the border, homeland security, US customs, ATF. These are all friends and partners and trusted partners. I still consider them friends. I still trust them. That relationship has been important to me throughout my entire life. But then when I see some of those institutions being challenged at the FBI, at the CIA, at the Justice Department, I haven't worked personally closely with USAID, but I saw the impact. I was in Washington last week, the impact. It's been massive. You can see that they're reeling a bit and hoping that we'll return to those powerful institutions that aren't just important to America. And that's one of the messages I would send to Americans. The world relies on that. Canada certainly relies on that. We'll do our part. We'll hold up our end. Frankly, we always have. But we also have great faith in those relationships and that partnership. We're concerned. But I'm not despairing.
Raffini: Alright. We're gonna have to leave it there. Thank you so much for taking your time. It was really nice speaking with you.
CLOSING
Raffini: Thanks for listening. We'll be dropping another episode in the feed tomorrow from our time in Munich with the presidents of two Central European nations and the first female defense minister of Luxembourg, who had her own response to Pete Hegseth's remarks about women in the military. Plus, Sir Richard is gonna give you a preview of the upcoming German elections where the country's far right could take more seats than ever before. Thanks for sticking with us. Of course, we're gonna have a lot more in the feed throughout the week. Stay tuned. This is One Decision. For more exclusive content and up to date interviews, go to 1decision.com. I'm Christina Raffini. From all of us, the team here in Munich, thanks for listening.
