A long-standing tradition of NATO has been the Harmel two-track approach, which was developed during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. On the one hand, we had a robust deterrent posture in Europe. On the other hand, we had a measure of détente and arms control negotiations. It was a way of keeping a balance between force and diplomacy. It worked quite well in NATO's interests and in Canada's interests.
In the current situation, Canada has been punching well above its weight in terms of providing not only military training to the Ukrainians but also Canadian leadership in the forward presence in Latvia, where we head up a battle group. That is part of the NATO deterrent package to defend NATO territory and at the same time strengthen Ukraine's reform measures for its own armed forces. Ukraine is not part of NATO but is a partner of NATO.
We have been extremely robust in that area. Where Canada has not played a very strong role in this particular scenario, whereas historically we're very active diplomatically as well as militarily, is that we have not stepped up very much in terms of looking for the diplomatic solutions. The French, the Germans and the Americans have been largely leading in this area. However, Canada's decision—the Prime Minister's decision—to not accede to the Ukrainian request to ship weapons to the Ukraine, and instead to reinforce our training efforts with non-lethal aid, I believe and assume, opens up the possibility that Canada may be stepping up behind the scenes to do what Canadians have historically done with quiet diplomacy. It may be working to assist the Americans and the French and the British in their efforts to try to find a diplomatic solution out of this very devastating potential war that could occur.
There is the balance. Given Canada's latest position in not granting the weapons request, I believe it's leaving itself open for quiet diplomacy behind the scenes, but because it's quiet diplomacy, I don't know about it. I can only assume that it's happening.