Canada frequently urges calm and restraint when Arctic security concerns arise, particularly when the United States focuses on Greenland.
Restraint is wise.
Avoidance is not.
In 2026, Canada remains the world’s second-largest Arctic nation, yet behaves as if Arctic security is someone else’s problem.
The Arctic is no longer a frozen buffer. Climate change has extended navigation seasons, increased foreign military presence, and intensified competition over shipping routes such as the Northwest Passage. Russia has militarized its Arctic flank. China seeks influence through investment, research, and infrastructure.
Against this backdrop, Canada’s posture is increasingly contradictory.
We assert sovereignty over Arctic waters, but lack sufficient patrol capacity.
We rely on NORAD, but delay modernization.
We urge alliance unity while underinvesting in the very capabilities that unity depends on.
Diplomacy without capability is not leadership. It is a dependency.
Canada is right to reject coercion and annexation as tools of policy. But credibility requires more than moral positioning. It requires presence, infrastructure, surveillance, and sustained investment.
If Canada truly believes Greenland can remain secure through cooperation alone, then Canada must demonstrate its own seriousness by:
-
Accelerating NORAD Arctic modernization
-
Expanding icebreaker and patrol fleets
-
Investing in northern infrastructure and domain awareness
-
Leading, not observing, NATO Arctic coordination
Failure to act shifts pressure onto allies and invites the very unilateralism Canada claims to oppose.
The Arctic does not reward denial.
It rewards preparedness.
Canada can be a stabilizing Arctic power, but only if it accepts responsibility commensurate with its geography.
Greenland Is Not the Issue — Credibility Is
Canada often frames U.S. interest in Greenland as destabilizing or excessive. What’s missing from that critique is self-reflection.
Greenland anchors the North Atlantic and Arctic security architecture, including Canada’s own defence perimeter. If Canada truly believes:
-
Ownership is unnecessary
-
Treaties suffice
-
Alliances are strong
Then Canada should be demonstrating that confidence with material investment, not op-eds.
Strategic reassurance must be earned.
Sovereignty Requires Presence, Not Press Releases
Canada insists the Northwest Passage constitutes internal waters. That claim is only as strong as Canada’s ability to:
-
Monitor
-
Patrol
-
Enforce
Right now, enforcement capacity does not match the assertion.
Sovereignty is not a legal argument alone, it is a capability statement.
If Canada does not fill that space, others will test it.
Canadian Voters
You are being told that Arctic security concerns are exaggerated, that geography no longer matters, and that alliances alone are enough.
History says otherwise.
Peace has always been preserved not by denial, but by preparedness shared among allies.
Canada can be:
-
A serious Arctic nation
-
A trusted NATO partner
-
A stabilizing force in the High North
But not while pretending capability is optional.
Source:
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-case-for-american-ownership-of-greenland-is-weak
