Last weekend, Russian President Vladimir Putin delayed European-led sanctions against his regime by proposing that Kyiv and Moscow engage in direct peace talks in Istanbul, Turkey, this Thursday. While Putin appears to act in bad faith by

stalling for time

, his gambit backfired thanks to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s shrewd maneuvering.

Putin’s Istanbul proposal emerged in the immediate aftermath of Moscow’s annual May 9 “Victory Day” military parade, which traditionally commemorates the 1945 defeat of Nazi Germany but has recently transformed into a

jingoistic propaganda exercise

.

This year, the Kremlin unilaterally announced a

three-day ceasefire

coinciding with the parade, but Zelenskyy understandably rejected the arrangement and counter-proposed a more equitable 30-day ceasefire instead, which Russia declined.

The 30-day ceasefire proposal

found support

, though among the leaders of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Poland, who

visited Kyiv

the day after Victory Day for a meeting of the “coalition of the willing.” After securing the approval of US President Donald Trump over the phone, they published a

joint statement

with Ukraine calling for an “unconditional” and “comprehensive” ceasefire, lasting at least 30 days, which was supposed to begin this Monday.

The statement argued that such a ceasefire could “create room for diplomacy” and help negotiators outline “foundations of peace.” It further asserted that Ukraine’s military, as the primary guarantor of Ukrainian sovereignty, should be strengthened and that a “reassurance force” of foreign troops should be stationed in the country to provide further security.

“[We] agreed that if Russia refuses a full and unconditional ceasefire, stronger sanctions should be applied to its banking and energy sectors, targeting fossil fuels, oil and the shadow fleet,” read the statement.

Tighter sanctions could prove devastating to the Russian economy, which is

already sputtering

under high inflation and elevated interest rates. There is also reportedly

broad congressional support

within the United States to implement comprehensive sanctions alongside Ukraine’s European partners, which could include a

500 per cent tariff

on imports from countries that purchase Russian oil and gas.

However reasonable and proportionate these terms might have been, they were obviously unpalatable for Russia. Not only has Putin

vehemently opposed

the stationing of Western troops in Ukraine, he has insisted that long-term ceasefires should only be implemented after the conclusion of peace negotiations, not as a precondition for talks, presumably because this would allow him to

press his military advantages

and extract greater concessions from Kyiv.

This is precisely why the proposal was an excellent maneuver. Putin has long insisted that Kyiv, not Moscow, has been the real obstacle to peace —  so why not call his bluff?

Unfortunately, Putin was too clever to take the bait. Rather than explicitly reject the Western-backed ceasefire, he simply

ignored it

and proposed direct peace talks in Istanbul instead. Crucially, he framed these talks as a continuation of earlier Istanbul-based negotiations that occurred in the spring of 2022 and insisted that they follow the same principles.

Yet, in those first rounds of negotiations, Moscow had

sought not peace, but surrender

. Its original proposals included limiting Ukraine’s forces to 85,000 troops, 342 tanks and 519 artillery pieces, accounting to roughly a 60-70 per cent reduction of the country’s prewar military power. Furthermore, Kyiv would have been banned from joining any military alliances, or hosting any foreign soldiers or bases, and would have had to rely on “security guarantees” from a handful of unspecified countries whose protection would’ve been subject to a Russian veto.

Such restrictions would’ve left Ukraine utterly defenseless against further Russian invasions, guaranteeing eventual vassalization. They were entertained largely because Ukraine was negotiating from a position of weakness, but talks collapsed after the discovery of Russia’s

Bucha massacre

made continuation politically and ethically impossible.

Three years later, little has changed. Putin maintains that peace can only be achieved if the war’s “

root causes

” are addressed, which is code for the installation of a puppet regime in Kyiv. He also

wants Ukraine to abandon

the four provinces Russia “annexed” in late 2022, even though Russian troops only partially occupy these lands. In other words: Russia’s notions of “peace” remain indistinguishable from Ukraine’s subjugation.

In light of these facts, Ukraine and its European allies initially rejected the renewed Istanbul talks and prepared to move forward with harsher sanctions. Then Trump

blindsided everyone

by posting on Truth Social that he supported Putin’s solution and that peace talks should begin “

immediately

.” Amid the uncertainty, the much-hyped sanctions

were postponed

.

Zelenskyy quickly turned the situation back to his advantage by

publicly challenging

Putin to a one-on-one meeting in Turkey. “There is no point in prolonging the killings. And I will be waiting for Putin in (Turkey) on Thursday. Personally. I hope that this time the Russians will not look for excuses,” he wrote

on X

on Sunday.

This

created a dilemma

for Putin: either skip the Istanbul talks and risk appearing weak and uncommitted to peace, or attend and legitimize an

archnemesis

.

After dithering for several days, the Russians announced at the last minute that they would send a

low-level delegation

to Istanbul and that Putin would not attend the talks that he himself proposed. This was enough to expose the Istanbul process as a farce and to reportedly place the imperiled sanctions plan

back on course

for American and European lawmakers.

Putin made his play, and he failed — all because Zelenskyy told him to put his money where his mouth is.

National Post

• Russian drones attack Ukraine after the Kremlin turns down a ceasefire proposal
• Adam Zivo: Ukraine is raining on Putin’s Victory Day parade

B.C.’s New Democratic premier and minister of health think that they can solve the province’s nursing shortage by enticing U.S. nurses to cross the border. The idea is laughable.
 

This week, Premier David Eby and his minister, Josie Osborne, announced that they had streamlined licensing applications for U.S. nurses, and approved a whopping — wait for it — 113 nurses to practice in B.C. This was following an online campaign with unknown costs,
as per a statement Osborne
provided to media.
 

For context, the province currently has
approximately 6,000
vacant nursing positions. Those 113 American nurses represent a fraction of the shortage — a mere 1.8 per cent of the nurses required to make our system whole. Eby and Osborne both bragged of a 127 per cent increase in applications, to 177. Based on their numbers, if all American license applicants went on to get hired and work in B.C., this sudden increase would represent an additional 1.65 per cent of the 6,000 missing nurses. That is their best case scenario, and it’s not much to brag about.

There’s more: in addition to the unknown costs of the B.C. government’s recruitment campaign, Osborne told media this week that it’s also unknown how many of the 113 nurses will go on to accept a job offer. How many of those few, I wonder, are aware of the current USD to CAD exchange rate?
 

American nurses
typically earn more than their Canadian counterparts
, and in a currency that is worth substantially more. To boot, B.C.’s annual nurse licensing fee is the highest in the country — and is astronomical compared to what American nurses pay. For instance, B.C. registered nurses paid over $800 after tax in 2025, while Washington nurses paid
less than $150
. So why, pray tell, would anyone choose to uproot their life and move countries, to a province with a high cost of living and lower salary? To B.C.’s ruling NDP, it’s about social justice, of course.

“American health-care professionals are increasingly drawn to B.C. as a place that supports science, protects reproductive rights and takes care of people no matter how much money they have in their bank account,”
Eby said
in a media release on Monday.

Allow me to read between the lines of Eby’s statement: he believes that he can take advantage of Democratic American nurses and health care workers, who, he hopes, might see Canada as a socialized-medicine paradise and haven for diversity, equity, and inclusion, “gender affirming care,” punch-card abortion access, and any other activist cause du jour. In essence, he hopes to attract nurses who dislike President Trump so much that they would be willing to take a pay cut. Indeed, Eby and Osborne are targeting their recruitment campaign in blue states.
 

“In early June, the Province will be launching a targeted U.S. marketing campaign in parts of the country with the highest interest in moving to B.C., including the states of Washington and Oregon, and select cities in California,” reads their release. 
 

On their
recruitment website
, they brag of a “universal health care system that puts patients before profits,” and of “safe, diverse, and inclusive communities.”
 

If only reality were as pretty as the NDP’s portrayed vision of our health-care system.
 

What B.C. nurses are actually facing is this: burnout; mandatory overtime;
increasing and unacceptable violence
on the job; unmanageable workload; nearly one third of
young nurses quitting the profession
because they cannot tolerate the work, or work-life balance; and — 
speaking from personal experience
— a cult-like atmosphere where dissent from the government’s social justice orthodoxy is severely punished. Nor can we forget that B.C. fired approximately 1,800 health care workers in 2022 over their refusal to take the COVID vaccine. We don’t how many of those were nurses, but we do know that
nurses make up the bulk of health care workers
. Our province’s nursing schools, once highly competitive and with waitlists,
now
have
difficulty
filling their seats.
 

On top of all this, nowhere in Eby’s recruitment campaign does he reconcile his cheery view of our health-care system with the fact that
our government
,
health care institutions
, and nursing academics are all of the opinion that the
entire system is steeped in racism
. Our national broadcaster
referred to the alleged racism in B.C.’s health-care system
in 2021 as “widespread and potentially deadly,” with little progress being made to change it. 
 

A perusal of the Canadian Journal of Nursing Research reveals
dozens of articles
or studies on the topic of racism in our health-care system published over the past decade.
One such study concludes
that “(e)veryone in nursing needs to challenge the culture of silence regarding racism. White nurses in particular need to welcome discomfort, listen and learn about racism, then speak out to help disrupt its normative status.”
 

Eby and Osborne cannot have it both ways: either our health-care system is so
illustrious and patient-centred
that American nurses should happily take a pay cut to live and work here — or, it is infected by a seriouqs case of systemic racism and needs to be overhauled for the safety of patients and nurses alike

Eby’s government must take meaningful action on our nursing shortage. That they’ve possibly contributed to garnering license applications from 1.65 per cent of the total nurses we desperately need in B.C. over the last month is, by contrast, meaningless.

National Post

Imagine this scenario. High-ranking officials make a decision about an important and potentially controversial matter. It was made with the best of intentions, and would hopefully ensure the entire process evolved in a proper and co-ordinated manner.

Yet low-ranking officials disagree with the decision and arbitrarily ignore the directive and head in a completely different direction. In spite of this arrogant and rather devious manoeuvre, this strategy somehow moves forward without any discussion or fear of repercussions.

Believe it or not, this scenario is was just played out in real time in Toronto. Jennifer Dundas, a lawyer and former CBC political affairs reporter,

revealed

on Tuesday that Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) “staff have defied the will of the Board of Commissioners in recommending renaming of Dundas Station.”

According to her post on X, “Last year, the Board, led by chairperson Jamaal Myers, ordered staff to recommend a process for public consultation. Staff, however, defied the motion. They have brought forward a recommendation to rename the subway stop ‘TMU Station’ with no advance warning, and no public consultations.”

This, in effect, means City of Toronto staff “completely ignored this February 2024 order,” Dundas wrote in

a separate post

, “which specifically directed them to recommend a process for public and stakeholder consultation.”

She’s right. The TTC board adopted a motion in February 2024 that clearly directed staff to create a “framework for considering the naming of Dundas Station and Dundas West Station … with a recommended process for public and stakeholder engagement.”

This was supposed to include “background on any requests or discussion with non-profit third parties.” Yet low-level city staffers ignored what the board specifically wrote and went on their merry way with a new, unauthorized agenda.

This is part of a long-standing woke agenda in the city that’s largely supported by left-wing radicals and other fringe rabble-rousers. Toronto city council has spent a not-so-insignificant amount of time, energy and resources the past few years on renaming “

Dundas-linked city assets

.” This refers to anything in the city named after Henry Dundas (1742-1811), a trusted ally of British Prime Minister William Pitt.

A 

2020 petition

calling for the name of Dundas Street to be changed amassed around 14,000 signatures. That’s all left-wing Toronto city councillors needed to enthusiastically

pursue the matter

.

Dundas’s critics feel he was an awful person whose mere presence has hurt the reputation of “Toronto the Good.” A

2021 report

from the city’s executive committee sided with “many scholars” who believed had a “controversial legacy.”

In the committee’s less-than-humble opinion, “The continued commemoration of Henry Dundas — who is described in peer-reviewed academic research as having played an instrumental role in delaying the abolition of the slave trade — is in direct conflict with the values of equity and inclusion that the City of Toronto upholds.”

Yet this assessment is inaccurate. Dundas was an abolitionist who was opposed to slavery. He spoke in favour of well-known abolitionist William Wilberforce’s motion to abolish the British slave trade. “I am of opinion with him that the African trade is not founded in policy,”

Dundas said

in the House of Commons in 1792.

“I am of opinion with him that the continuation of it is not essential to the preservation and continuance of our trade with the West India Islands. I am of opinion that there is no mortality in that quarter that is incurable, and that the human race may not only be maintained, but increased in the West India Islands.

“In all these great leading questions I concur with my honourable friend. It may then be asked, ‘Do you not agree then, to the abolition of the trade?’ I answer that neither do I differ in this opinion.”

Dundas also proposed an important amendment to Wilberforce’s motion: “That the slave trade ought gradually to be abolished.” He took this middle-of-the-road stance because he believed immediate abolition could lead to “other nations tak(ing) up the trade” and an illegal slave market.

He hoped his “moderate measures” would prevent these scenarios from occurring. The British Parliament agreed and adopted Dundas’s amendment by a vote of 230-85.

The evidence seems clear that Dundas supported abolitionism and opposed slavery, so why is this being ignored?

Dundas’s critics, along with many low-level Toronto city staffers, were furious that he didn’t move to end the British slave trade as quickly as they felt he should have. Hence, they want to remove his name from Dundas Station and replace it with the name of Toronto Metropolitan University.

This is the same post-secondary institution where Jewish students reportedly feel harassed and say that, “You can’t be openly Jewish at TMU,” according to a recent report in the

National Post

. I guess we know where Toronto’s anti-racist priorities truly lie.

National Post

• Anthony Furey: Broke Toronto looks to strip Dundas name from even more landmarks
• Lynn McDonald: Toronto should reverse its botched decision to rename Dundas Street

“We risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.”

These are not the words of a populist firebrand or a conservative hardliner. They were spoken by Sir Keir Starmer, leader of the Britain’s Labour Party and, since July 2024, prime minister of the United Kingdom.

In one of the most consequential political shifts in recent memory, Starmer has charted a new and unapologetically realist course on immigration. It is a striking departure not only from his party’s past rhetoric, but from the dominant dogma that has guided western policy-making for the better part of three decades: that mass immigration is always an economic benefit, a social good, and a moral imperative.

Today, Starmer is dismantling that orthodoxy piece by piece. He speaks plainly of ending what he calls Britain’s “open borders experiment.” He has acknowledged the structural imbalance that developed when immigration was used as a shortcut to economic growth without the corresponding investment in workforce development. “For too long, businesses were actively encouraged to bring in lower paid workers, rather than invest in our own people,”

he said on Monday.

His government now aims to reduce net migration from its record high of 745,000 in 2022, overhaul the visa regime, and reassert democratic control over the immigration system.

And in a statement that would have been politically unthinkable for a Labour leader just a few short years ago, he

declared

, “If you want to live in the UK, you should speak English. That’s common sense.”

Starmer

has gone even further,

directly confronting the social consequences of uncontrolled immigration: “The current system is contributing to forces that are slowly pulling our country apart. I believe we need to reduce immigration, significantly.”

It is common sense, but in Canada, it still isn’t common currency.

Even as we face the unmistakable consequences of population-driven pressure on housing, health care, and wages, immigration remains a third rail in Canadian politics. Raising concerns, no matter how grounded in data or lived experience, is still treated as impolite at best and inflammatory at worst.

As recently as 2022,

Canada was adding more than a million people per year through a combination of permanent immigration, international student intake, temporary worker programs, and asylum claims. This is not coordinated nation-building, it is unmanaged growth. And the consequences are everywhere: runaway housing costs, collapsing affordability, overstretched hospitals, stagnant productivity, and a generation of young Canadians priced out of the future.

But the effects are not merely economic. They are social, cultural, and civil as well. On the streets of Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal, diaspora groups now square off over foreign conflicts with disturbing frequency. Protests turn into brawls. Schools become battlegrounds. Religious institutions face threats and vandalism not for what they preach here in Canada, but for the politics of distant homelands. From Middle Eastern tensions to South Asian rivalries, we are importing divisions faster than we can build cohesion. Multiculturalism without integration has mutated into parallel societies — and at times, outright hostility between them.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has indicated an interest in adjusting course. There is growing recognition of the strain posed by ballooning temporary programs. But Liberal changes have been reactive and piecemeal, too little, too late to undo the distortions already set in motion.

Despite a decade of record population growth, Canada’s real GDP per capita has stagnated. Productivity is declining. Infrastructure lags far behind need. The promise of a growing economy has not translated into growing prosperity for the average Canadian.

And yet the dominant vision remains one of constant expansion. Though Carney has not explicitly endorsed the goals of the Century Initiative, it is noteworthy that his inner circle includes senior figures tied to the group, an organization whose central premise is that bigger is always better, and that Canada should aim to reach 100 million people by 2100.

The New Democratic Party offers no meaningful dissent, still clinging to the romanticism of borderless globalism. And the Conservative party, though beginning to voice legitimate concerns about housing supply and integration, has yet to present a coherent and politically confident plan to reform the immigration system.

If even Britain’s Labour government, long a standard-bearer of liberal cosmopolitanism, can shift course, what’s stopping Canada’s political class?

The issue is not immigration itself. It is the scale, speed, and lack of planning. A responsible immigration system should align with national capacity, reflect labour market needs, and foster real integration. It should aim to grow not just the size of our population, but the quality of life for those who already live here, and for those we welcome.

Prime Minister Starmer has shown that rejecting false binaries, between openness and order, growth and cohesion, is not only possible, but necessary. As he warned, a country that loses its sense of shared identity risks becoming “an island of strangers.” That warning should resonate deeply in Canada, where faith in institutions is eroding, trust in government is weakening, and a growing number of Canadians feel left behind.

The reckoning is coming. If Britain can face it head-on, surely we can too. Better to shape the future on our own terms than to be overwhelmed by its arrival.

Anthony Koch is the managing principal at AK Strategies, a bilingual public affairs firm specializing in political communications, public affairs and campaign strategy.