Does Canada need to prepare for a US attack?
Borderline frenemies meet in Quebec for the G7 as Canada begins thinking the unthinkable: how to defend against a US attack.
You know things are going badly when the first thing Secretary of State Marco Rubio has to do on his G7 visit to Canada is deny his intention to invade. “It is not a meeting about how we’re going to take over Canada,” he said, though no one believed him.
Why would they?
President Donald Trump’s mantra includes daily insults, threats, and acts of disrespect toward Canada as he launches his destructive trade war. But for a guy who’s all about high walls and protected borders, he has a very different view of it when it comes to his northern neighbo(u)r, dismissing it as an “artificial line” drawn “with a ruler.” “When you take away that,” he said this week in a moment of empire-building fantasy, “and you look at that beautiful formation of Canada and the United States, there’s no place anywhere in the world that looks like that.”
🔔 Subscribe to GZERO Media for free to get timely global analysis and news. For exclusive content and the chance to engage with a community of thinkers, consider upgrading to a paid subscription—be part of the conversation shaping our world 🔔
I have no clue what he means by that whole “beautiful formation” thing, but our hardcore GZERO trivia fans deserve a short backgrounder on the actual formation of the US-Canada border.
Since the Treaty of Ghent (oh yes, I’m going there!) ended the War of 1812, the boundary between Canada and the US has been relatively stable. Sure, some fellow history buffs will point out the border was tested in 1816 by the humiliating construction of a US military battery dubbed “Fort Blunder,” a battery mistakenly built on Canadian soil that had to be moved south, where it is now called Fort Montgomery. But we survived that tiff. Later, in 1842, the Webster-Ashburton Treaty (stay with me here) clarified the border with better surveys, and in 1909, the Boundary Waters Treaty determined how the Great Lakes would be divvied up. Since then, there have been updates and a few disputes, but prime ministers and presidents have happily memorized what might be called the Psalm of the 49th parallel, which starts with the famous line, “This is the longest undefended border in the world.”
So no, these are not artificial lines but ones mutually agreed upon in legally binding treaties. The nub is that President Trump has shown he doesn’t care about treaties, even ones he signed himself, like the USMCA back in 2020. He prefers the law of the jungle, where strong countries take what they want from weaker ones. And Trump wants Canada. He has repeatedly claimed that Canada would not be “viable as a country” without US trade, which is why his stated strategy is to annex Canada by “economic force.”
Trump’s administration regularly amplifies his imperialist sentiments. This week, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt made the case that Canada should become a state to avoid tariffs, while US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick went on TV after Ontario Premier Doug Ford threatened to slap a 25% tariff on electricity to three northern US states, saying the best way to get a good trade deal with the United States is to “consider the amazing advantages of being the 51st state.”
It’s no wonder that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who leaves office tomorrow, concluded this is about taking over Canada: “What he wants is to see a total collapse of the Canadian economy because that’ll make it easier to annex us.”
When Rubio arrived in Canada for the G7, his Canadian counterpart, Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly, was not in a joking mood. “If the US can do this to us, their closest friend, then nobody is safe,” she said. Her colleagues in the EU have already absorbed that message, which is why they are talking about a European-run nuclear shield and a massive buildup of their collective defense forces.
It was almost sad to see how the secretary of state tried to spin Trump’s agenda in a bid to lower the temperature. “He says if they became the 51st state, we wouldn’t have to worry about the border and fentanyl coming across because now we would be able to manage that,” Rubio said.
Oh, thanks a bunch.
Annexing Canada is necessary because less than 1% of the illegal fentanyl that enters the US goes across the northern border? By that logic, Canada should annex the US because of the inflow of illegal guns from the US. It is madness, of course, but it’s a madness that is now being measured.
Angus Reid recently conducted a poll on the idea of annexation, and about 60% of Americans oppose it (including 44% of Trump voters), and about 30% would be interested only if Canadians supported the idea. They don’t. In the same poll, 90% of Canadians reject the idea outright, with one interesting exception. “One-in-five would-be CPC voters say they would vote yes, compared to almost zero Liberal (2%), NDP (3%), and Bloc Québécois (1%) voters,” reports Angus Reid.
Still, all this thought about annexation has the defense department in Canada running through scenarios they never imagined possible just months ago: what to do if the US ever attacked.
Trump has questioned the border lines in the Great Lakes, so what if US Coast Guard vessels started to cross that line and test the boundary? What about around the coast or in the Arctic?
Canada suddenly realizes — far too late – that the 2% GDP goal on defense spending is no longer aspirational but urgent. But what kind of military does it need? To find out, I spoke to retired Vice Admiral Mark Norman, the former vice chief of defense staff in Canada and currently a fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
I’ve edited the conversation for this article.
📤 If this piece gave you something to think about, pass it along—let’s get more people talking.
GZERO: Some argue the US is still an ally, but others say we have to treat the US as a foe, one that could even potentially attack Canada. How would you describe the situation?
Norman: We’re outside the guardrails. To put it in nautical terms, we’re in completely uncharted territory here. What’s real and what’s not? How do you interpret what we’re hearing? How do we not overreact? There are many Canadians, both in the public domain and in the machinery of government, who I believe are banking on the faint hope clause, if I can put it that way, meaning they think that things will go back to the way they were. I think that is naive and irresponsible going forward. I don’t believe this is sort of a blip in the evolution of geostrategic affairs, specifically as it relates to the Canada-US relationship. I think we’re seeing a significant change — one could argue it’s almost a pivot.
Look at the Ukrainian situation and the public abandonment of European security. Then look at the ongoing threats of annexation as it relates to Canada.
Canadians have grown up far away from the kinds of threats to physical security and other types of security that many of our global neighbors have had to deal with. We have lived under the umbrella of the United States, and we have taken that for granted. There is some substance in the complaints that are being levied against us. The challenge is the nature of both the threats and the ongoing actions, and what that potentially means for us. I am concerned that the nature of Canada-US relations is changing fundamentally.
What could it look like?
There are two scenarios here, and there is risk in oversimplifying this ... One scenario is that this is simply transactional. This is Trump’s attempt to try and get us to do a bunch of things to up our game, our spending – to do more and contribute more. One could argue this transactional approach, this negotiating tactic, will lead to some magic tipping point at which everything falls into place, and we have some sort of agreement. That is scenario A.
Scenario B is the most threatening scenario. We’ll call it annexation. Not sure what that looks like, specifically, but we take this to mean that in some way or form, the United States is exercising a significant degree of control over what we would have traditionally seen as sovereign decisions made by Canada.
From a military perspective, much of what we would need to do is actually independent of those two scenarios. So we either have to step up and satisfy a whole series of unclear expectations on the part of the current administration, everything from border security to Arctic security to all these other things, or we’ve got to up our game, because if we don’t, then we risk the threat of some sort of loss of control.
I have difficulty imagining scenarios whereby Canada would be invaded or that Canada could respond to something like scenario B. I think there will be coercion. I think there are lots of tools left in Trump’s toolbox to coerce us and threaten us and basically put us off-balance and cause us to react. What’s interesting is we’re either on our own, at which point we need to do a hell of a lot more than we’re doing now, or we’re in the process of being shaken down, which also means we need to do a hell of a lot more. Those will be preconditions for what would be even the most benign and benevolent version of events.
So Canada has to rebuild its military one way or another?
Let’s start with national capacity, domestic capacity, and industrial capacity. One of the unintended consequences of the Ukrainian conflict has been the incredible growth in Ukrainian domestic capacity, notwithstanding the fact that they’re waging what many argued was an unwinnable war against a superpower with one of the largest armies in the world. A lot of that has to do with innovation, engineering, and agility, which has now made them a significant player in the European defense industry. It is particularly relevant to the Canadian situation, where a lot of our military capacity is tied to US technology. I think this is a huge vulnerability for us going forward, even if we were to find ourselves in scenario A. We cannot and should not rely on others for a lot of the stuff. Now, we cannot do everything, but there are enormous alternate sources of technology in our European and Asian partners. And we have to do a much better job of leveraging our own industrial capacity. What are we really good at? We’re really good at things related to AI, acoustic processing, and communications. We’re very good at things related to satellite technology. We have a number of emerging capabilities in unmanned systems, be they airborne or surface, and even underwater capabilities. We have enormous advantages in terms of understanding the technical challenges of the Arctic. It is our backyard. In military terms, we are good at combat management systems. So think of the computer architecture that allows you to do what you need to do from a command and control perspective.
Is the point that Canada will have to build a new type of military faster, cheaper, and less dependent on the US and use more innovation?
Canada will definitely need to explore alternative solutions, like drone capacity, to address the challenges of defending vast territories. But it will still need icebreakers, a navy, and tanks. It’s a new world. One other factor here. You need to be able to deploy and sustain your forces. A lot of people don’t think that’s sexy, but the reality is, this is all about logistics, and this is all about sustainment, which means you have to have an industrial base. You look at the kinds of distances that we’re dealing with in Canada — these are massive distances. These are not insignificant challenges, and we’ve never really dealt with them. You need to be able to control what’s going on. Do you just simply want to monitor what’s going on, or do you want to be able to influence what’s going on? This is where you get into the pointy ends, the more kinetic discussions around what are the hard capabilities that you need and don’t need, but you have to have all that other stuff sorted out first. The reason the Ukrainians are so effective in these asymmetric conflicts is because they figured out a lot of that back-end stuff. Canada needs to do that too.
💬 Do you think that Canada needs to prepare for a US attack? Share your perspective in the comments below—we’re curious to hear your thoughts!
I’m Canadian and have totally lost faith in the US to do the right thing. I may never travel there again, not to mention buy American goods. We need to be ready for any and everything. The US may never be trusted again around the world. This trust is broken.
I believe Canada’s greatest weapon at this time is weathering the tariffs and imposing tariffs on the US.
Developing strong relationships with other countries for global trade will also provide lasting benefits and will nullify the threat Trump is trying to impose.
Also, disrupting exports into the US and the impact on the American people will allow the American people to participate in Canada’s struggle by being loud and furious on this side of the border. I believe that Trump - for the time -being still recognizes the people’s discontent.
I personally would hate to see our countries at war!!! I also believe that preparing for the worse case scenario is always a good idea.