The End of the Liberal Order
One of the most alarming aspects of Donald Trump’s foreign policy is his open and blatant disregard for international law. Unlike his predecessors, who—even when committing questionable acts such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq—attempted to justify their actions with legal arguments and sought some measure of legitimacy from the United Nations, Donald Trump acts with complete impunity. He violates international law without any qualms, explicitly and openly, as if the norms governing relations between nations did not apply to him.
Justin Massie rightly points out that this behavior poses a direct threat to countries like Canada and European nations. International law exists precisely to protect weaker states from the arbitrary actions of superpowers, to prevent the law of the strongest from becoming the sole rule of international relations. By systematically dismantling this protective framework, Donald Trump is exposing Canada to threats against which it has no legal recourse. The expert is categorical: the entire international architecture of law and global governance standards, as established in the aftermath of World War II, is being dismantled piece by piece.
I feel as if I am helplessly watching the systematic demolition of a structure that our grandparents built with such care after the horrors of World War II. The UN, international law, the Geneva Conventions—all these mechanisms designed to prevent the return of barbarism are now being swept aside by a man who believes only in brute force and the law of the jungle. What terrifies me most is that the rest of the world seems paralyzed, unable or unwilling to oppose this destruction. Canada, which has always been a champion of multilateralism and international law, now finds itself completely at a loss in the face of this new reality. Our diplomats, trained to negotiate and build consensus, find themselves facing an interlocutor who does not understand these languages and respects no rules.
The Revived Monroe Doctrine
In a strategic document published in early December 2025, the White House revived the Monroe Doctrine, the 19th-century policy that defined the Western Hemisphere as the exclusive sphere of influence of the United States. This revival of an archaic geopolitical concept sends a clear message to Canada and all countries on the American continent: Washington considers all of the Americas to be its exclusive domain, where no other power may interfere and where the United States can intervene as it sees fit.
Stéphane Roussel, a professor at the École nationale d’administration publique (ENAP), analyzes this development with growing concern. In his view, this revival of the Monroe Doctrine calls into question the very foundation of Canadian security policy since World War II. Canada has always prioritized multilateral organizations and transatlantic relations, acting as a counterweight between Europe and the United States. This balancing act allowed Europeans to limit American unilateralist tendencies and gave Canada a certain degree of maneuvering room. Today, that room is shrinking rapidly.
The Monroe Doctrine is not a thing of the past; it is a current and concrete threat to Canada’s sovereignty. When Washington declares that the entire American continent is its exclusive sphere of influence, it is telling us in no uncertain terms: your government no longer has any autonomy in foreign policy, your economy must align with our interests, and your territory is at our disposal. This is a declaration of U.S. sovereignty over Canada, plain and simple. What revolts me is that this announcement did not trigger a major crisis in Canada. We reacted with a certain resignation, as if it were inevitable. But it is not inevitable! Canada can and must resist this erosion of its sovereignty by the United States.
Section 3: The Military and Strategic Threat
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_1230466512-optimized-madmax-mkmtv2bp.jpeg)
NATO at Risk of Collapse
Donald Trump’s stated intention to take over Greenland poses a direct threat to NATO and, consequently, to the security foundation on which Canadian defense has rested for decades. If the United States were to take military action against this Danish territory, the Atlantic Alliance would face an unprecedented existential crisis. How could NATO continue to function normally when its most powerful member attacks another member territory or ally of the Alliance?
Justin Massie warns against this worst-case scenario: if military action were taken or if the United States were to impose its will against the will of the Greenlanders, the future of NATO—and thus the Canadian security framework on which our defense has relied for several decades—could be seriously called into question. This prospect is all the more troubling given that Canada lacks the military capabilities necessary to defend itself alone against a potential U.S. aggression. Canadian defense spending has always been calculated based on the protection provided by the Atlantic Alliance—protection that could vanish overnight.
NATO has always been our collective life insurance—the promise that we would never be left alone in the face of aggression. Today, that promise is threatened by the very man who leads the Alliance itself. It is an absurd, Kafkaesque situation in which our protector has become our potential threat. I often wonder how our military personnel must feel today—trained and equipped to fight alongside the Americans, yet now aware that they might one day have to face them. This is a betrayal of everything the Alliance stood for: solidarity, mutual respect, and common defense. Donald Trump is destroying that trust, and once it’s gone, it will be impossible to rebuild.
The Arctic: A New Battleground
The Canadian Arctic is another arena where tensions with the United States are likely to escalate significantly. Sources report that in the White House, Donald Trump is concerned about Canada’s ability to defend its Arctic territory against alleged Russian and Chinese threats. This stated concern actually masks more direct territorial ambitions: the United States could demand greater access to Canadian Arctic waters, the Northwest Passage, or even part of the Great Lakes.
Several simmering territorial disputes between Canada and the United States in the region could be reignited under the Trump administration. The demarcation of the maritime border in the Beaufort Sea, north of the Yukon and Alaska, remains unresolved. The legal status of the Northwest Passage remains disputed: the United States considers it an international strait open to free navigation, while Canada regards these waters as territorial. In the past, U.S. ships have already transited this passage without seeking Canadian authorization—a practice that could become more frequent, with the consequences one can imagine.
The Arctic is our last wilderness, our last frontier, and it is now becoming a major geopolitical issue. What outrages me is this American notion that, because Canada does not spend billions on defending its Arctic, Washington has the right to intervene to “protect” it. It is the same imperialist reasoning that has been used to justify so many acts of colonial aggression throughout history: we are here for your own good, to protect you from yourselves. But the Canadian Arctic doesn’t need American protection; it needs international respect and strengthened Canadian sovereignty. What Trump forgets is that the Arctic isn’t a geopolitical vacuum—it’s our territory, with our communities, our environment, and our future.
Section 4: Economic Warfare as a Weapon of Subjugation
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_1245435894-optimized-madmax-mkmtv56o.jpeg)
Tariffs That Are Strangling the Economy
The trade war launched by Donald Trump against Canada as soon as he returned to the White House is not merely a trade dispute; it is a deliberate strategy of economic subjugation. The tariffs imposed on Canadian lumber, steel, and the automotive sector are not designed to correct trade imbalances, but to weaken the Canadian economy and make it even more dependent on decisions made in Washington. These measures are dealing a severe blow to key sectors of the Canadian economy, threatening thousands of jobs and undermining entire communities.
Even more concerning is that Donald Trump has made it clear he has no interest in negotiations to revise the free trade agreement between Canada, the United States, and Mexico. The USMCA, which was intended to ensure a certain degree of stability in North American trade, is now at risk of being outright abandoned by Washington. This attitude reveals a deliberate intent: the U.S. administration is seeking to use Canada’s economic dependence as leverage to extract political and territorial concessions.
What outrages me about this economic war is its hypocrisy. Donald Trump presents these tariffs as protective measures for American industry, but in reality, they are weapons of mass destruction against the Canadian economy. Every job lost in our steel or lumber mills, every community impoverished by these tariffs, is a victory for Washington in its strategy of subjugation. They are strangling us economically to force us to yield politically. This is a form of economic warfare that can be just as devastating as a military war, but it is being waged without most Canadians realizing what is really happening. People believe these are normal trade disputes, but it is much more than that: it is a systematic attack on our economic sovereignty.
Dependence as Vulnerability
Canada’s economic dependence on the United States, long considered a strength and a source of prosperity, is now revealing its dark side: that of critical vulnerability. Nearly 75% of Canadian exports are destined for the U.S. market, a concentration that gives Washington considerable leverage over Ottawa. When Donald Trump threatens to impose new tariffs or suspend the free trade agreement, Canada finds itself in a position of extreme weakness.
Mark Carney, who has served as Canadian Prime Minister since April 2025, has fully grasped this new reality. As soon as he took office, he declared—and has repeated at every opportunity—that the world has changed, that relations between Canada and the United States will never be the same again, and that the only leverage Canada can rely on under these circumstances is to seek out new trading partners to reduce the Canadian economy’s dependence on the United States. This diversification strategy, while necessary, will be a long and difficult process to implement.
For years, we were told that our economic dependence on the United States was our strength, that the integration of our economies made us stronger. What an illusion! Today, this dependence has become our greatest weakness—the noose around our neck that Donald Trump can tighten at will. Every time Washington threatens new tariffs, Canada trembles—not because we cannot absorb these costs, but because we realize our powerlessness in the face of this economic pressure. It is humiliating for a country like ours, proud of its independence and sovereignty, to have to come to terms with this reality. But it’s also a rude awakening: we can no longer count on American goodwill; we must build our own economic future.
Section 5: The Risk of "Finlandization"
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_767351741-optimized-madmax-mkmtv83z.jpeg)
A Disturbing Historical Parallel
In his forthcoming book titled The World in Peril: The End of the Pax Americana, Charles-Philippe David draws a troubling parallel between Canada’s current situation and that of Finland during the Cold War. The term “Finlandization” refers to a situation in which a state neighboring a superpower adopts a foreign and security policy subordinate to the superpower’s interests in order to avoid provocation or aggression. Finland, despite being a democracy, had to constantly ensure that its foreign policy did not offend the Soviet Union, thereby significantly limiting its sovereignty.
Charles-Philippe David warns of this risk for Canada: we are quietly slipping into a position where we are somewhat caught in the middle because we are next to a threatening neighbor. The fundamental question is whether Canada will succeed in avoiding “Finlandization”—that is, in maintaining an independent foreign and security policy without having to constantly accommodate U.S. interests to avoid retaliation. According to the expert, the risk that Canada will adopt a foreign policy subordinate to Washington’s wishes is real and growing.
Finlandization isn’t just an academic concept; it’s a concrete threat to our national identity as a sovereign country. Imagine a Canada that must obtain Washington’s approval before signing any trade agreement, before taking a position on any international issue, before developing any diplomatic relationship. This isn’t science fiction; it’s the direction we’re heading if we don’t resist this gradual erosion of our sovereignty. What terrifies me is that this “Finlandization” could happen without us even realizing it—gradually, through small concessions and compromises—until the day we wake up and realize that we are no longer truly an independent country.
Autonomy Reduced to a Shadow of Its Former Self
The risk of “Finlandization” is already evident in several areas of Canadian policy. When Prime Minister Mark Carney negotiates an agreement with China to export Canadian oil, he must ask himself whether the United States will accept it, given that it refuses to allow Venezuela to do so. Similarly, the development of Canada’s mineral resources or the defense of its Arctic territory must be planned with Washington’s potential reaction in mind.
Justin Massie clearly identifies this threat: the most serious but least likely threat is an attack on Canadian territory. Not in the context of a threatened invasion of our territory, but in a scenario where the United States could impose its will on our territory to force us to align with issues of American interest. The risk is that we would become a vassal state of the United States, with no independent foreign policy of our own. The same applies to the development of our mineral resources or the defense of our Arctic territory.
What revolts me is the very idea that Canada could become a vassal state without even having been conquered militarily. Not a single shot fired, not a single enemy soldier on our soil, and yet we would lose our sovereignty, reduced to the status of a satellite of the American empire. This is a form of modern colonization, more subtle than the military conquests of the past, but just as destructive to our national identity. Every time we hesitate to make an independent decision because we fear Washington’s reaction, every time we adjust our foreign policy so as not to displease our southern neighbor, we take another step toward this “Finlandization” that would condemn us to being nothing more than an empty shell of a sovereign nation.
Section 6: Canada's Response
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_1348092378-optimized-madmax-mkmtvb09.jpeg)
The Shift Toward China
Faced with this growing American threat, Prime Minister Mark Carney undertook a major reorientation of Canadian foreign policy. Against all expectations, he traveled to China in January 2026 and concluded a historic trade agreement that included a significant reduction in the tariffs that Canada and China had been imposing on each other for over a year. Tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles imported into Canada, which had been 100%, were significantly reduced: the agreement stipulates that 49,000 of these vehicles may now be sold annually in Canada. In exchange, China agreed to substantially reduce tariffs on Canadian canola and pork.
This bold initiative marks a significant break from Canada’s traditional dependence on the United States. Charles-Philippe David applauds this strategy: “The strategy is really to be as independent as possible from the United States for the coming decades.” Canada’s very close ties with the European Union should also be taken very seriously. According to the expert, the Prime Minister would be wise to pursue this alternative, even if it risks upsetting the Americans.
Frankly, Mark Carney’s trip to China impressed me. It wasn’t just a routine diplomatic visit; it was an act of genuine political courage. By signing this agreement with China, the Canadian Prime Minister sent a clear message to Washington: Canada is no longer your vassal; we have other partners, other options, and other possible futures. Of course, this is not without risk: China is not a democracy, and its respect for human rights leaves much to be desired. But in the current situation, Canada can no longer afford the luxury of choosing its allies based solely on moral criteria. We must be pragmatic—even tough—and do whatever it takes to preserve our sovereignty. If that means forging alliances with imperfect partners, so be it. The survival of our independence depends on it.
Diversification as a Survival Strategy
Canada’s strategy of economic and diplomatic diversification is not limited to China. Mark Carney has reiterated this since taking office: the world has changed, and Canada must change with it. The only lever the country can rely on under current circumstances is to seek out new trading partners to reduce the Canadian economy’s dependence on the United States. This pragmatic approach is dictated by necessity rather than ideology.
Charles-Philippe David goes even further in his recommendations: the only way out is to reassess our alliances and decide with whom we want to do business; together, we can try to salvage what remains of the democratic club, alongside countries that still believe in a certain degree of cooperation and multilateralism. He even suggests creating a G6 without the United States, bringing together democracies that still believe in an international order based on rules and institutions of cooperation.
What strikes me about this diversification strategy is that it’s coming so late. Why didn’t we start reducing our economic dependence on the United States years ago, when the first signs of rising American nationalism appeared? Why did we wait until the threat became urgent before taking action? I suppose it’s human nature: we always underestimate distant dangers until they hit us head-on. But better late than never. Diversifying our economic and diplomatic partnerships is not an option; it is a vital necessity for Canada’s survival as a sovereign nation. If we succeed, we may be able to preserve our independence. If we fail, we risk becoming what experts call a vassal state—a satellite of the American empire with no real autonomy.
Section 7: The Mission in Greenland
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_767350314-optimized-madmax-mkmtvdxt.jpeg)
Canadian Soldiers in Support of Europe
In response to Donald Trump’s threats regarding Greenland, Mark Carney has considered sending a contingent of Canadian soldiers to join European troops already stationed there. This potential decision marks a significant shift in Canada’s position: Ottawa is no longer content with merely voicing concerns; it is considering concrete action to counter U.S. expansionism. Charles-Philippe David takes this threat to Greenland very seriously and emphasizes that if Donald Trump were to carry it out, it would add yet another layer of anxiety for Canadians.
Sending Canadian troops to Greenland would not be a symbolic gesture, but a strategic response to a direct threat against Canadian interests. Justin Massie explains that Greenland is of vital interest to Canada: it represents a threat to an allied country that could cause the Atlantic Alliance to collapse and would give the United States control over the Northwest Passage. Canada frequently refuels its ships in that passage off Greenland, so it is truly a highly strategic territory for the defense of Canadian territory and its Arctic waters.
When I learned that Canada was considering sending troops to Greenland, I felt a mixture of pride and concern. Pride because, for once, our country is not standing idly by in the face of American aggression; it is considering concrete action. Concern because this action could invite retaliation from Washington. But upon reflection, I believe this is the right decision. Canada can no longer afford to remain silent while its closest ally threatens to conquer a neighboring territory. If we do not oppose this aggression against Greenland, who will stand up to an attack against us? Sending Canadian soldiers to Greenland sends a clear message: Canada will defend international law and the sovereignty of nations, even when the aggressor is our own traditional ally.
A Proposal for a Security Pact
Justin Massie believes that Canada’s caution on the Greenland issue is unwarranted and that the country, together with its European allies, must make a direct proposal to the Greenlanders for a security and economic development pact and strengthen a transatlantic presence in that territory to outmaneuver Donald Trump. This proactive approach aims to counter U.S. ambitions by offering Greenland a credible and attractive alternative to being absorbed by the United States.
This strategy is part of a broader vision for defending Canadian and European interests in the face of American expansionism. Justin Massie believes that, unfortunately, we are witnessing a restructuring of the international system, but that weaker states can attempt to limit the damage in their region. Europe has the capacity to protect the rule of law and the exercise of that law within its territory and sphere of influence. But beyond that, it will be difficult to prevent China from invading Taiwan or asserting itself in the South China Sea, the United States from intervening in Colombia, or even Russia from prolonging its war in Ukraine.
What gives me hope in this proposed security pact with Greenland is that it shows Canada and Europe can still act together to defend a rules-based international order. Even though the United States has turned its back on this system, there are still other nations that believe in its principles and are ready to defend it. Canada, the European Union, and other democracies can form a coalition to resist American expansionism and protect the sovereignty of threatened nations. It’s not easy, and it will require courage and resources, but it may be our only chance to preserve a world where international law still matters.
Conclusion: Time for Tough Choices
/https%3A%2F%2Fdoyou.obox.media%2Fapp%2Fuploads%2F2026%2F01%2FAdobeStock_210200491-optimized-madmax-mkmtvgt4.jpeg)
The End of an Era
Charles-Philippe David sums up the current situation with heart-wrenching clarity: the world order based on liberal values, cooperative institutions, multilateralism, and so on—forget it, it’s over. Now, it’s the geopolitics of the strongest—the law of the jungle. In three years, if we get that far, things will be quite different from what we’ve known. This statement marks the end of an era—that of the Pax Americana and the liberal international order that emerged after World War II.
Canada now finds itself at a historic crossroads. The country can either accept its new position as a satellite of the American empire or fight to preserve its sovereignty and autonomy. The choices made in the coming years will determine Canada’s future for generations to come. The path of resistance will be difficult, costly, and fraught with pitfalls, but the alternative—gradual submission to American will—could be even more devastating to Canada’s national identity.
I feel both terrified and galvanized by the current situation. Terrified because I am aware of the magnitude of the threat hanging over our country, because I see how the foundations of our sovereignty are being eroded from all sides. But I am also motivated because I feel this may be our last chance to preserve what Canada stands for: an independent, democratic nation capable of charting its own course in the world. The challenges ahead are enormous, and the sacrifices we will have to make are considerable, but I believe that if we remain united, if we have the courage of our convictions, we can still preserve our independence. The time for difficult choices has come, and Canada must choose its side: submission or resistance, vassalage or sovereignty. I hope we will have the wisdom to make the right choice.
A Future to Build
Despite the gravity of the situation, potential solutions exist. Diversifying economic partnerships, strengthening alliances with Europe and other democracies, and developing an independent and bold foreign policy: these are all ways for Canada to preserve its sovereignty in this new, more dangerous world. The path will be long and difficult, but it is not impossible.
Mark Carney expressed this new reality with pragmatism: we take the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. This clear-eyed acceptance of current geopolitical realities is the first step toward building an effective Canadian response. Canada can no longer afford to live under the illusion of a benevolent American-led world; it must build its own future in a world where the law of the jungle once again seems to prevail.
I firmly believe that Canada can not only survive this crisis but emerge from it stronger. This ordeal is forcing us to reexamine our priorities, strengthen our national identity, and develop new alliances and strategies. Canada has never been a country of conquest, but it has always been a country of resilience. We have survived wars, economic crises, and political tensions, and we will survive this new ordeal. Perhaps after weathering this storm, we will be stronger, more aware of our worth, and more determined to preserve our independence. Canada’s future is being decided today, and it is up to us to shape it—not Donald Trump.
Sources
Primary Sources
TV5MONDE, “The Danger Is Multifaceted and Multidimensional”: Should Canada Fear Donald Trump’s United States?, published January 20, 2026. Interviews with Charles-Philippe David (Observatoire sur les États-Unis, UQAM), Justin Massie (UQAM), and Stéphane Roussel (ENAP).
Government of Canada, Department of Global Affairs, “Preliminary Agreement-In-Principle to Address Economic and Trade Relations with China,” press release dated January 16, 2026.
White House, National Security Strategy, policy document published in December 2025.
Secondary Sources
BBC News, “Canada’s deal with China signals it is serious about shift from US,” published on January 16, 2026.
Reuters, “Canada, China Slash EV and Canola Tariffs in Reset of Ties,” published January 16, 2026.
National Post, “Trump’s Greenland threats will only make Canada’s sovereignty claims in the Arctic more vulnerable, defense analysts say,” published in January 2026.
Charles-Philippe David, “The World in Peril: The End of the Pax Americana,” forthcoming, 2026.
This content was created with the help of AI.
