President Trump, demolition man.

From here in Munich, an influential report accuses America's commander-in-chief of damaging the global order and establishing an era of wrecking ball politics where sweeping destruction is the order of the day.

We speak to European and Canadian leaders about their relationship with the president and the United States.

Tonight on a special edition of Compass Points.

Support for Compass Points has been provided by the Judy and Peter Bloom Coobler Foundation, Camila and George Smith, the Dorny Coppell Foundation, the Gruber Family Foundation, and Cap and Margaret Anne Echenroer.

Additional support is provided by friends of the NewsHour.

This program was made possible by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.

Thank you once again.

Moderator Nick Shiffron.

Hello and welcome to a very special edition of Compass Points from the Munich Security Conference, one of the world's annual diplomatic gatherings.

There is a serious almost shocking question being asked across Europe today.

Is the United States a reliable ally?

The answer to that question is being fiercely debated here and I spoke to three key NATO leaders who are helping chart new futures for their countries and institutions.

NATO secretary general Mark Ruta, Finland's President Alexander Stub.

But we begin with my conversation with Canada's foreign minister Anita Nat.

Vad foreign minister.

Thanks very much.

Good to see you again.

I want to start with an excerpt from the Munich Security uh conference report that was released ahead of uh the conference beginning.

Quote, "The world has entered a period of wrecking ball politics.

US-led post 1945 international order is now under destruction and the most powerful of those who take the axe to existing rules and institutions is US President Donald Trump."

Is that a fair characterization?

The speech that Prime Minister Carney gave in Davos uh represents Canadian foreign policy and that it a rupture.

Exactly.

Not a transition, a rupture and middle powers need to work together in order to ensure that we are advancing our own sovereign interests but also our collective interests.

And that's exactly what Canada is doing.

Whether you look at Ukraine, whether you look at Arctic security and sovereignty and numerous other examples, we work with other countries and we ensure that the interests of the Canadian public from economic resilience to domestic uh defense and security are always front and center.

Is the source of the rupture though a lack of faith in the United States whether on a leaderto leader level or among the public?

I mean, a new Politico poll out this week says 57% of Canadians do not see the US as reliable out.

We are looking to double non US trade over the next 10 years.

The United States is making decisions that are in its sovereign interests and capacity to do so.

And we as a country need to do the same.

advancing our economic interests by signing 12 trade agreements over the last 6 months across four continents.

That's the type of leadership that the Carney government is exemplifying.

I mean, what's fascinating about your answers is you're looking beyond the United States and I keep asking about the United States, which of course is, you know, historically Canada's uh most important ally, let alone neighbor.

The prime minister's speech, right?

You know, he said, "We're in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.

and the middle powers must act together.

If we're not at the table, we're on the menu.

After that speech, President Trump said this.

Canada lives because of the United States.

Remember that mark the next time you make your statements a remarkably personal statement by the president of United States.

There's been lot said since, but given now that we have pressure over a bridge between Canada and Michigan, what is the state of US Canada?

the prime minister and the president spoke and are working to resolve uh the issues that have been raised.

But I want to go back to your point that the United States and Canada have been integral trading and defense and security partners for decades upon decades upon decades and we will continue to work closely with them.

I just returned from Nuke, Greenland, where we opened a Canadian consulate and I will say that the United States work in terms of defense and security with Canada and with other Arctic allies is extremely important.

We have to work together to confront the actual threat emerging on the other side of the Arctic Circle as Russian infrastructure moves further and further north.

That's values-based realism.

That's middle power cooperation that Canada's continuing to do with other Arctic allies.

On the bridge, I mentioned the Gordy Halp International Bridge that connects Canada and Michigan named after a hockey player.

Absolutely.

The president uh and the prime minister, as you said, spoke about that.

Did the president indicate that he understood that the bridge will be co-owned by Canada and Michigan and that Canada actually paid for the construction uh despite the president's claims, false claims otherwise?

I know that the prime minister was clarifying some of the points you mentioned, but let's take a step back and think of the broader relationship from an economic standpoint.

We are looking forward to a review of the USMCA, which is the free trade agreement.

There was a report that President Trump had already decided to pull out.

Have you been told that at all?

I have not and certainly uh we are looking to cooperate with the United States on a number of fronts.

The point that I am making is that domestic economic resilience will be advanced not only through negotiations with the United States but by doubling non US trade over the next 10 years by seeking free trade agreements.

Part of the reach out to you, if you will, beyond the United States, of course, was to Beij and that's where the prime minister went before that speech in Davos.

Uh, and Carney's, you know, almost battle cry, you know, going to the barricades for the for middle powers to unite against those rupturing the global order.

Isn't that the opposite of going to Beijing, which itself is trying to rupture the global order?

There is an element of pragmatism in our foreign policy and part of the approach with Beijing was to ensure that we are resolving specific trade frictions.

So you're defining that narrowly.

China defines itself as a more stable possible partner to the rest of the world.

Do you think China is a more stable partner than the United States?

I think that we as a country, as a middle power, as Prime Minister Carney mentioned in his Davos speech, will be looking to ensure that we're advancing the interests of the Canadian economy and Canadian defense and security relationships.

That means ensuring that we have existing multilateral alliances that work for Canada, but that we are also taking the time to form new relationships where that is in the interest of our country.

But is there a reliability question or not?

We are working very well with the United States.

I'll say I have a close relationship with Secretary Rubio and the work continues to ensure cooperation around the globe.

Canada is a country that is rules-based and advances rules-based multilateralism.

We are also a country that is pragmatic and principled in this everchanging geopolitical environment.

Anita Nan, Foreign Minister of Canada.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next up, Secretary General Mark Ruta, who perhaps more than any one person has worked with President Trump to keep the transatlantic alliance as strong as possible.

Secretary General Mark Rutter, good to see you again.

Thank you very much.

Um, the written report that launched the Munich Security Conference concludes this quote, "The world has entered a period of wrecking ball politics, and the most powerful of those who take the axe to existing rules and institutions is US President Donald Trump."

It's a sentiment I'm hearing a lot here that even though president the president's Greenland threats are off the table, there's been damage done.

How much damage do you think has been done?

Well, I I'm much more positive.

I would even say that NATO, the organization which I'm representing here, is stronger than ever and largely thanks to President Trump.

I'm not sure we would ever have reached this famous 2% defense spending in the end of last year without him.

Big nations like Italy, Spain, Canada, Belgium, far below.

and now getting on these 2% and then we had the summit in the H where we reached a 5% defense spending target um which is staggering uh and we did it as NATO as a whole and this is important because it equalizes the spending in Europe and Canada with the United States taking away a big airrit this this week the Pentagon's top policy official Elbridge Kovi uh visited Brussels spoke to NATO and laid out a kind of division between the United States and Europe he said the US would provide nuclear deterrence and the US general would be NATO's Supreme Allied Commander while Europe eventually would provide its own conventional defense uh and the regional operational commands.

Have you discussed with the US the timeline on that when the US wants to start drawing down the conventional forces?

This will take time because what for the US is crucial important is that they see the seriousness.

They see a Europe take Germany it is now spending over 150 billion euros in 2029 twice as much as in 2021 is an an enormous amount of money.

Um it is already today they are spending three times what they were spending in 2014.

So they are seeing not only Germany but also other countries.

Uh most of the European nations now really ramping up defense spending taking it serious.

Um and yes it is true the US wants to pivot more towards Asia but also Blitz Colby in the speech yesterday said we know that longer term there is a threat not only in the Pacific but also the threat that if in in the Pacific the Chinese would move against Tarbon or whatever that Russia would keep us busy here.

Although, forgive me, but Kobe, at least in the release that we got, did not mention the word Russia in his speech.

Well, he mentioned at least that there might be something happening here.

I'm I'm not sure that I heard Russia, but he was very clear.

It might be.

Is there a concern though that the Trump administration does not see Russia as a long-term threat?

We had the Hake Summer Declaration where Russia was again by all allies, including the American president, acknowledged to be the long-term threat to NATO.

Let's go to uh the idea of conventional defense.

As you put it yourself recently, quote, "If anyone thinks that the European or Europe as a whole can defend itself without the US, keep on dreaming.

You can't."

So, is this idea of Europe defending itself conventionally today just aspirational?

No.

What it means is that within NATO, where we stick together, the US and Europe, that the Europeans will take more of a leadership role.

That's happening as we speak.

that the Europeans will take more care of their own defense happening as we speak together with the Canadians.

Um, but nobody in Europe I speak with wants to separate the US from NATO.

NATO is crucial for the US itself for your security because you need to secure Europe, Atlantic and Arctic to keep the e the the United States safe and we need NATO here in Europe and in Canada to keep ourselves collectively safe.

So there's nobody who wants to split, but people want to make sure that Europe is taking this leadership role more upon ourel than we did in the past here in Europe.

You're right.

Nobody I talked to wants to split certainly and Europe is taking that leadership role, but there are European officials who are telling me and telling you no doubt that they are worried about the US commitment and I had a a European foreign minister today uh at this conference uh say that Europe cannot defend itself conventionally at least not fast enough as this person said.

uh so that this minister is going to raise the idea of more European countries getting nuclear weapons beyond France and beyond the United Kingdom.

Is that a good idea?

Well, there is of course crucial umbrella from the United States, the long-term guarant umbrella, the nuclear umbrella which is the ultimate guaranter of freedom here in Europe.

Uh and then obviously we have others also having nuclear arms like the French and the Brits and you can have always how to splice and share that whatever.

But nobody doubts in Europe that that's that that's that that's that's great.

But the ultimate guaranter is the nuclear umbrella from the United States.

It has to do with the with the size of that nuclear uh deterrent.

That's not quite what I asked.

Are there European officials who are acknowledging to you that they are considering or talking about the idea of European nuclear weapons beyond the French?

But you see many discussions you will always have discussions about everything.

Um um there is of course uh the non-stategic uh nuclear um capabilities in Europe from the United States and there is the nuclear umbrella itself but for me important is that's there but going forth longer term there will always be a strong US presence also conventional in Europe.

Oh so you you you have gotten guaranteed from the United States.

There's no doubt and the US can never you cannot because otherwise there is no escalation possible.

you would have go from nothing to nuclear.

So for many but but it will be different from now there will be more pivot towards Asia over time the Europeans taking even more command of their own security and safety.

One more question on nuclear though uh German chancellor Frederick Mertz said at this conference that he and French president uh were having quote nuclear deterrence discussions today France does not promise it will use its nuclear weapons to protect all of Europe.

Should it?

Well, again, the French are uh in total control of their own nuclear deterrence and we have the Brits, they share that within NATO.

Uh, as you know, the French are outside the NATO nuclear talks and and structures.

And of course we have but but for me and for everybody it's clear that if you want to defend this part of Europe against the might and power of the Russians and then by the way the build up of the might and power by the Chinese who will have a thousand nuclear warheads by 2030 that it's good to have these debates in Europe but there is no alternative uh than to have this ultimate guaranter of our freedom which is this massive and mighty US nuclear deterrence.

Finally let's switch to Ukraine.

Um, President Zalinski recently said that he had zero zero air defense missiles and had to watch some Russian missiles hit Kev the other night.

First of all, do do you know if that's accurate?

And is the West fundamentally able to provide Ukraine the weapons, especially air defense?

Well, again, here the US is critical.

Uh, the US has said we are willing to deliver and they are doing it.

A massive stream of blocks, no pauses, no pauses, no blocks, nothing.

They're delivering at the tune of a billion euros a month.

Uh so that will be about 15 billion again for this year in dollars and 12 billion euros critical lethal and non-lethal including the interceptors to take out Russian missiles as you've discussed.

Yeah.

Paid for by by European and Canadian allies.

The truth is also that the Russians have a lot of these missiles and that of course the Europeans also are looking what they can do still to deliver from their own stockpile.

So, but are there enough?

I mean, can can the collective Ukraine to be sure we can help Ukraine to defend itself?

Ukraine's by the way also developing its own capability to produce more of this themselves.

Air defense is the hardest.

But this this this so-called pearl initiative where the Americans deliver the prioritization of American going bought by Europe going to Ukraine.

Exactly.

Both by the Europeans and the Canadians, but crucial for Ukraine.

Okay.

Secretary General Mark Rut, thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Now Finland's president Alexander Stub who like Rut has been instrumental in Europe's efforts to communicate with President Trump.

President Sub, thanks very much.

Good to see you.

The German Chancellor Frederick Merk Merks opened this conference saying the current world order as we know it is over and the written report that was published ahead of this conference blamed President Trump for quote taking the axe to the system that has ensured European security for decades.

Do you agree with those statements?

No, I've just written a book saying that the world order is actually in transition.

So, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

World orders change.

After World War I, it lasted for two decades.

After World War II for four decades, and after the Cold War for three decades, now we're looking for something new.

And for me, it's very important that the transatlantic partnership still stands uh in the middle of it.

There is enormous angst among some of the Europeans I speak to and I acknowledge it's divisions within Europe but still enormous angst.

Uh and I had a European foreign minister at this conference tell me that Europe cannot defend itself conventionally lack of a trust in the United States or losing trust.

This minister is going to raise the idea of more European countries getting nuclear weapons beyond France and the United Kingdom.

Is that a a conversation that's actually being happening?

Is that a good idea?

Well, first I'd, you know, disagree with the minister in question.

I mean the full Finnish defense composure with 830 mi of border with Russia is based on our capability to defend ourselves conventionally.

Conventionally, the reason we have 1 million men and women who've been trained in Arctic conditions, we have 62 F-18s.

We just bought 64 F-35s.

We have longrange missiles, air, land, and sea.

And we have the biggest artillery in Europe together with Poland.

So I don't want to hear anyone telling me that we can't defend ourselves.

Um then as far as nuclear weapons are concerned, I think we still need the US nuclear umbrella.

Uh NATO is based on three deterrent pillars and nuclear is one of them.

Of course we have some nuclear weapons in uh the UK obviously in France but the key umbrella comes from the United States and it is in the interest of the United States to have a country like Finland defending themselves conventionally close to Mormons close to the Koala Peninsula where Russia holds their nuclear weapons.

So I I don't see that in the cars.

Chancellor Merch said today uh that he was speaking to Emanuel Mcronone of France uh the idea of France providing protection to Europe with its own nuclear weapons.

Something that France decision that France has not made yet.

Is that a sign you think that there is some doubt in the US nuclear umbrella?

No, I don't think there should be any doubt in that.

I think the whole nuclear posture of the world is changing in the sense that previously you had two big players uh Russia and the US.

Now you have a third one.

In other words, China with 600 uh nuclear warheads going to 1,500.

So this sort of changes the landscape.

And of course, Europe has to look at its own protection, but at the end of the day, it is in the vested interest of the United States to give the nuclear umbrella to Europe and for Europe to accept that as well.

Um, you have close relationship of course with President Trump as many have pointed out.

uh and some of your European counterparts, I think, have taken a lesson from the Greenland crisis and why President Trump uh chose to diffuse that or take the offramp that was offered him by the secretary general.

Uh and that is that strength, European strength, pushing back against President Trump rather than giving in somehow is a better way to deal with President Trump.

Is that how you see it?

Well, I mean, always in diplomacy, you can either deescalate or then you can escalate to deescalate.

I think that it's always best to do uh the deescalation publicly and the escalation privately.

So when it's understood that you know Europe has an instrument like the ACI or that Europe holds 15% of US bonds or ACI is is the ability for Europe to be able to have imposed economic pain on the United States.

Uh well on anyone we've never used that instrument before.

uh but we are a substantive player in this and of course we also hold about 15% of the US stock market.

So my argument is that we are interdependent and that means that we should cooperate uh not quarrel.

So is that how Greenland got solved publicly you reassured the president but actually privately you said hey this is a little bit threatening.

No I think what we had were three scenarios the good, bad and the ugly.

So the good was to deescalate, find an off-ramp and focus on Arctic security.

uh a bad one was a trade war and increase of tariffs and the ugly one was uh the continued threat of a military threat.

So we we sort of played two and three out and now we're working on on number one.

Uh and I think these kinds of offramps and processes are important.

Again, a lot of people under for understandable reasons get upset, but I think it's always good to be cool, calm, and collected when it comes to transatlantic relations.

And I say this as someone who is pro- European, pro-American, and therefore by default pro- transatlanticism.

Let's talk about Russia a little bit.

Um, of course, as you mentioned, uh, the longest border with Russia and NATO.

Uh, Russian forces are building up or have been building up military bases on the other side uh, of Finland, infrastructure as well.

What do you think Russia's after?

And how concerning have Russian moves been in your opinion?

Well, you know, again, we're not concerned.

Uh and we also accept the fact that there have always been uh Russian troops or Soviet troops by our border and when the war ends there will be more.

Uh I actually think that uh Russia is losing this war.

Uh I think starting the whole war with Ukraine was a strategic mistake of Putin.

He wanted to rify Ukraine.

It's becoming European.

He wanted to prevent the enlargement of NATO.

He got Finland and Sweden.

Uh and he wanted to keep European defense expenditure down.

and we're going to 5%.

So, I'm not excessively worried and I don't like this rhetoric that, you know, uh, the Nordics are next or the Baltics are next.

No, no, they're not.

I mean, Russia is not going to test Article 5.

Uh, but does that mean that Russia is not the long-term threat?

That it is a long-term threat.

There's no question about that because in its DNA is imperialism and expansion.

It's done that throughout uh its history.

And to be honest, it hasn't been able to cope with its own history in an honest kind of way, Soviet era or otherwise.

I think what we need to do in the future is to make sure that those imperialistic threats don't move over to the southern caucuses or to central Asia.

Do you think Putin do you think Russia is serious uh in the conversations about ending the war?

Uh I hope they are.

But uh you know some people are saying that Russia is not ending this war because they want to continue to acquire territory.

I don't believe in that at all because if you look at what happened 12 years ago when the war started they got 12% of territory.

But you're talking about Crimea when invaded and annexed and now in 12 years 8% in the past two years 1% of territory and Russia lost 34,000 soldiers uh in December, 30,000 in January.

They're not able to recruit as many as they're losing.

So I think Russia is not able to end this war because the social and political cost for Putin not being able to pay the soldiers when they go back is too high.

So that's why I'm skeptical about Putin's intentions.

And and do you share your skepticism with President Trump?

Is that I do?

I do think that President Trump and his negotiating team, Steve Witco and Jared Kushner are doing a really good job.

They're trying to maximize being very practical, but I think we still need to increase the pressure on Russia in terms of uh allowing them to use whatever uh weapons necessary and then increasing uh the economic pressure on Russia through sanctions because that's the only language that Putin understands.

That pressure, that sanctions is something that a lot of people have been asking the US to do more of.

I mean, at this point, we've got a 20point plan.

We've got, you know, a pledge to exceed to immediate ceasefire.

You've got a coalition of the will willing.

You got a program to send American weapons to Ukraine.

There's a minerals deal.

All of these steps have been taken and yet it does seem that there isn't the pressure from the United States on Russia to actually get them to make concessions and end the war.

Yeah, I think at the end of the day it will have to come down to what are the concessions from Russia and the only way in which you can get them to concede is to increase sanctions.

That's what we saw with Ross Neft and Lucille.

Uh and they had a big impact.

The second thing we need to have a maritime ban on the Russian shadow fleet which is distributing oil all all around the world uh at at high risk.

So if America puts more pressure on Russia then we will be able to solve this.

And do you see a willingness for the United States?

I hope so.

I mean you know again diplomacy is is is sometimes a slog.

You know you work with with different colleagues and and and and try to convince them.

But remember that the United States is the most powerful nation in the world.

The president of the United States does what he wants.

He wants to end this war.

My only humble recommendation is if that's the case, put more pressure on Russia.

Finland President Alex Tub, thank you very much.

And that is all the time we have on Compass Points.

We'll see you again here next week.

Support for Compass Points has been provided by the Judy and Peter Bloom Coobler Foundation, Camila and George Smith, the Dorny Coppell Foundation, the Gruber Family Foundation, and Cap and Margaret Anne Eshinroer.

Additional support is provided by friends of the NewsHour.

This program was made possible by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.

Thank you.

You're watching PBS.

Yes.