By Cesar Jaramillo
Donald Trump’s foreign policy, past and present, is built on a belief in peace through strength. From his administration’s emphasis on military dominance to his recent announcement of an “Iron Dome for America” missile defence system, Trump promotes the idea that U.S. security is best achieved through overwhelming military superiority.
Trump’s first term as President saw the dismantling of key arms-control agreements and U.S. withdrawal from multilateral institutions. His new administration has already moved to pause foreign aid, pressure allies to dramatically increase military spending, and further militarize U.S. domestic security.
Rather than passively following Washington’s militarized approach to security, Canada must assert an independent foreign policy rooted in diplomacy, arms control, and multilateral cooperation. As Trump doubles down on coercive diplomacy and military escalation, Canada has an opportunity to lead by reinforcing international norms.
The peace-through-strength view is based on the assumption that military might deters adversaries and ensures stability. However, history has shown that military buildups rarely deter conflict; instead, they provoke countermeasures, intensifying arms races and deepening instability.
The Cold War demonstrated this dynamic vividly. Superpowers amassed unprecedented stockpiles of nuclear weapons under the banner of deterrence, repeatedly bringing the world to the brink of catastrophe. While direct conflict between the superpowers was avoided, the Cold War fueled dozens of proxy wars across Asia, Africa, and Latin America—conflicts that continue to shape today’s security landscape.
The peace-through-strength view is based on the assumption that military might deters adversaries and ensures stability. However, history has shown that military buildups rarely deter conflict; instead, they provoke countermeasures, intensifying arms races and deepening instability.
Now experts warn of escalating danger. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists recently set the Doomsday Clock at 89 seconds to midnight, the closest the Clock has been to catastrophe. Its 2025 statement warns that the world faces an unprecedented convergence of threats, including nuclear risks, emerging military technologies such as AI-driven weapons, climate instability, and the weaponization of mis- and disinformation.
At the same time, military expenditures continue to soar. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), global military spending reached an all-time high of $2.44 trillion in 2023—a staggering 6.8% increase from the previous year. The United States alone accounted for $916 billion, a figure that exceeded the combined spending of the next 10 highest-spending countries—including Russia and China.
If peace through strength were truly effective, such astronomical spending would surely have delivered stability by now. Instead, we see new arms races, diplomacy undermined, and trust in multilateral institutions eroded—precisely the conditions that bring the world closer to disaster.
The new proposal for an Iron Dome over the United States—at a cost of billions or even trillions of dollars—will divert resources from pressing global needs like climate action, healthcare, and poverty reduction. Such a system, already challenged on technical grounds, will certainly lead to the development of more sophisticated offensive capabilities by adversaries. For every shield, a sharper spear.
The push to further increase NATO’s military spending underscores a fundamental flaw in the peace-through-strength doctrine. The 2% GDP spending target, set at the 2014 NATO summit in response to Russia’s invasion of Crimea, was meant to deter future aggression. Yet, despite increased military spending among NATO members, the very threat it sought to counter materialized again in 2022 when Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
Now, Trump is calling for NATO members to raise their military expenditures to at least 5% of GDP. This dramatic demand ignores the fundamental reality that increasing military budgets does not guarantee security and can even undermine it by diverting resources from diplomatic, economic, and political tools that create long-term stability.
Moreover, the notion that the United States can singlehandedly enforce security through overwhelming military strength is increasingly detached from reality. Other superpowers are on the ascendancy.
China’s rise as an economic, military, political, and technological superpower is already reshaping global security. Russia, despite economic and demographic limitations, remains a formidable nuclear power that is willing to challenge Western influence. Emerging regional powers, including India and Brazil, are asserting their interests in ways that no longer conform to Washington’s strategic preferences.
The United States, NATO, and Canada must contend with this new geopolitical landscape, in which power is more diffuse, and military primacy can no longer be achieved. Simply outspending adversaries on defence will not secure stability. The real question now becomes not whether the West can maintain perpetual dominance—it cannot—but whether it will adapt to this multipolar reality in a way that fosters common security, or cling to outdated paradigms that accelerate instability.
Members of the international community—including Canada—are now at a crossroads. As Trump renews his call for military buildup and coercive diplomacy, governments must decide whether to strengthen the multilateral system or contribute to its decay. With leaders like Trump, as with all who govern by intimidation, there comes a moment when nations must choose between appeasement and standing fast to core principles.
Trump’s vision of security is based on military superiority, deterrence, and unilateralism. But the world does not need another arms race, another escalation, or another doctrine that mistakes force for stability. It needs a renewed commitment to diplomacy, cooperation, and the recognition that security is not a zero-sum game.
A truly stable world is one in which security is mutual, not imposed at gunpoint.
