Canada is preparing to resist Trump’s threats of a U.S. invasion

An Analysis of Canada’s Capabilities

Military experts and officials at the Canadian Department of Defense are in no doubt: in a conventional conflict, Canada would stand no chance against U.S. military might. The United States has the world’s largest defense budget, a state-of-the-art military, unmatched force projection capabilities, and technological superiority in virtually every field. Canada, for its part, has suffered for decades from chronic underinvestment in its armed forces. Canada’s military is understaffed, its equipment is aging in many areas, and its ability to defend its national territory against a major attack is virtually nonexistent. Canadian planners know that a conventional war would be lost before it even began.

Retired Lieutenant General Mike Day, who led the Canadian Special Forces Command and served as chief strategic planner for the future of the Canadian Armed Forces, is unequivocal: “We would not be able to withstand a conventional invasion.” ” He explains that Canada could, for a limited period, defend a very small civilian population—comparable to that of Kingston—but that the vastness of Canada’s territory and the dispersion of its population would make any conventional defense impossible. Similarly, Gaëlle Rivard Piché, executive director of the Conference of Defense Associations, emphasizes the need to significantly strengthen Canada’s defense capabilities—not to defeat the Americans, but to send them a clear signal that Canada is willing and able to defend itself.

The Insurgency Tactics Under Consideration

It is precisely this overwhelming disparity that has led Canadian planners to consider asymmetric tactics—the very ones that Western forces have struggled so much to counter in Afghanistan. The Canadian model draws directly from the Afghan resistance: sophisticated ambushes, hit-and-run operations, sabotage of critical infrastructure, the use of improvised explosive devices, and drone warfare. The objective would not be to defeat the United States militarily on the conventional battlefield, but to impose such high political and human costs that the occupation becomes untenable—exactly as the Taliban were able to resist the Western coalition for twenty years.

Retired Major General David Fraser, who commanded Canadian troops in Afghanistan alongside the Americans, also suggests the use of drones and anti-tank weapons similar to those used by the Ukrainians against the Russian invasion in 2022. These weapons, which are inexpensive yet extremely effective, enabled Ukrainian forces to block or delay much more powerful Russian armored columns. In the Canadian context, these tactics would make it possible to harass occupying forces without engaging in direct combat, taking advantage of Canada’s vast territory and knowledge of the terrain. Fraser notes, however, a fundamental difference: defending one’s own country—as Canada would do in the face of a U.S. invasion—is fundamentally different from defending foreign territory, as in Afghanistan.

What deeply troubles me about these preparations is the thought of what would happen if this scenario were to come to pass. I imagine Canadians—my fellow citizens—forced to take up arms against Americans: those neighbors with whom we share so much, those families we’ve lived alongside, those friends we may have met during our many trips south of the border. The prospect of a fratricidal conflict, however unlikely it may be, makes my blood run cold. We speak the same language, we watch the same shows, we consume the same cultural products, and yet here we are, preparing to kill one another. It is the utter absurdity of modern warfare amplified on a continental scale. And for what? For political ambitions? For a desire for greatness? For a colossal ego that sees the world as its personal playground? It’s incomprehensible. It’s unacceptable. And yet, it has become a reality we must come to terms with.

How to Detect an Imminent Invasion

Canadian military planners have identified several key indicators that would precede a U.S. invasion, giving Canada valuable time to prepare. The most significant would be a breakdown in bilateral cooperation within NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command. This organization, which has existed since 1958, provides joint surveillance and defense of North American airspace. A U.S. decision to end this cooperation would serve as a major warning sign, indicating that the United States no longer views Canada as a partner but as a potential target. Similarly, U.S. military warnings indicating that Canada no longer benefits from an airspace-sharing policy would be additional indicators.

Defense Department officials estimate that Canada would have a maximum of three months to prepare for a land and sea invasion after these early warning signs begin to appear. This timeframe, though short, would allow for some mobilization: moving troops to the border, preparing reserves, organizing critical infrastructure, and coordinating with potential allies. General Jennie Carignan, Chief of the Defence Staff, has already announced her intention to create a reserve force of more than 400,000 volunteers who could be armed or called upon to create disruptions if the United States were to become an occupying power. This approach is reminiscent of the total defense strategies implemented by other nations in the face of existential threats.

The Role of International Allies

If a U.S. invasion were to become a reality, Canada would not be alone. Canadian officials indicate that France and Great Britain, two nuclear powers, would be called upon to provide support and defense. This prospect raises fascinating questions about the international dynamics that would result from a U.S. attack on a NATO ally. Although Canada and the United States are both members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a U.S. attack on Canada would place NATO in an unprecedented situation: would the alliance be compelled to defend Canada against another founding member?

Major General Fraser points out that Canada can count on the support of many democratic countries, particularly in Europe, but also Japan, South Korea, and other nations. “You know, if you pick a fight with Canada, you’re going to have the whole world coming after you—even more so than over Greenland,” he explains. “People care about what happens to Canada, unlike Venezuela.” This distinction is crucial: Canada is a stable and respected democracy, a member of the international community with a long history of positive contributions. A U.S. attack on Canada would likely provoke global condemnation and a coordinated international response, even if the scale of that response remains uncertain.

When I think of the allies that might come to Canada’s aid, I feel a strange mix of relief and humiliation. Relief knowing that we would not be isolated in the face of this nightmarish scenario, that nations like France and Great Britain would consider our defense a cause worthy of their commitment. But also humiliation that we have come to this—that we, Canada, a country of peace and diplomacy, would have to rely on others to protect us from our own neighbor, our most important trading partner, the ally with whom we share the world’s longest undefended border. This is a defeat for diplomacy, a failure of continental cooperation, and a breach of the pact of trust that has united our two nations for generations. And in this breach, I see the end of an era—the era when North America could be considered a united family.

U.S. Expansionism and the New Monroe Doctrine

U.S. aggression toward Canada cannot be understood in isolation. It is part of a broader context of the resurgence of what some analysts call a “New Monroe Doctrine”—a doctrine that views the Western Hemisphere as a sphere of exclusive U.S. influence. The attack on Venezuela and the capture of its president, Nicolás Maduro, mark a significant turning point: Washington has demonstrated its willingness to use military force to extend its control over sovereign nations in the hemisphere. Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, is also threatened with annexation, as Trump demands U.S. control over this strategic island for reasons of national security and access to Arctic resources.

This expansionist approach is not without historical precedent. The original Monroe Doctrine, formulated in 1823, asserted the United States’ opposition to any European interference in the Americas, but it has frequently been interpreted and used to justify U.S. intervention in the affairs of Latin American countries. What we are seeing today is a modern, more aggressive version of this doctrine: the Western Hemisphere is not only off-limits to foreign powers, but must be subject to Washington’s direct control. Canada, by virtue of its size, its resources, and its strategic position in the Arctic, represents a particularly tempting prize for this new vision of the Western Hemisphere.

Implications for the International Order

The consequences of this expansionist policy extend far beyond relations between Canada and the United States. They threaten the entire international order established since 1945—an order founded on respect for national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the prohibition of territorial acquisition by force. If the United States—the world’s superpower and the nation that presided over the creation of this international order—decides to violate it so openly, the message sent to the rest of the world is terrifying: no one is safe, no sovereignty is sacred, and no border is inviolable if it stands in the way of Washington’s interests.

The impact on NATO would be particularly devastating. The Atlantic Alliance, founded on collective defense and respect for democratic principles, would find itself in an untenable position. If the United States attacks another NATO member, must the Alliance respond? Would Article 5—which stipulates that an attack against one member is an attack against all—apply to U.S. aggressions? This crisis could fragment the Alliance, weaken European security, and create a chaotic multipolar world where every nation would be forced to seek its own security by any means necessary. The implications are staggering, the risks immense, and Canada finds itself at the center of this emerging geopolitical storm.

What terrifies me most about this scenario is the trivialization of the unacceptable. We are witnessing the normalization of behavior that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago: the use of military force to redraw borders, the rhetoric of annexation treated as legitimate policy, and open contempt for the principles of international law. It is as if we have slipped into a parallel universe where the rules that have governed international relations for the past seventy years no longer apply. And in this new universe, the law of the strongest prevails; the law of the jungle dictates relations between nations. Canada, with its tradition of international law, multilateral diplomacy, and respect for sovereignty, finds itself completely overwhelmed and powerless in the face of this new reality. We have built our national identity on these principles, and today we discover that they no longer protect us.

Mobilization of National Resources

Faced with this threat, Canada is not standing idly by. Beyond military planning, the government is examining how to mobilize all national resources to counter a potential attack. Conscription has been ruled out for now, but the sacrifices demanded of Canadians remain a central topic of discussion. The concept of total defense—in which the entire population participates in the war effort, whether armed or not—is gaining traction. This includes not only military personnel but also workers in critical industries, providers of essential services, healthcare professionals, and even ordinary citizens who might be called upon to provide intelligence, logistics, or logistical support to resistance forces.

The vastness of Canada’s territory, often perceived as a weakness in a conventional conflict, becomes an asset in an insurgency scenario. The dispersion of the population, the vastness of the forests and mountains, and the extreme harshness of Canadian winters—all these factors would make the occupation of Canada extremely difficult and costly. Occupying forces would have to secure thousands of kilometers of border, hundreds of scattered towns and villages, and critical infrastructure spanning millions of square kilometers. It is this geographical reality that Canadian planners intend to exploit to make occupation untenable in the long term, transforming Canadian territory itself into a weapon of resistance.

Strengthening Defense Capabilities

Experts agree on one point: regardless of the actual likelihood of a U.S. invasion, Canada must significantly strengthen its national defense capabilities. Aisha Ahmad, a political scientist at the University of Toronto, emphasizes the need to “significantly boost Canada’s domestic defense capabilities, regardless of potential threats from the United States at the border.” ” This approach aims not only to prepare for an extreme contingency but also to send a clear signal that Canada is serious about its determination to defend itself, which could have a deterrent effect.

Gaëlle Rivard Piché reinforces this perspective: “A clear signal to our southern neighbor that we want to be—and are willing and able to quickly become—a credible ally capable of defending ourselves, ensuring our own national security and national defense, will serve as a deterrent against any potential U.S. desire to control or invade part of Canada. ” The strengthening of Canada’s military capabilities is not intended to match U.S. power—which would be impossible and counterproductive—but to make any aggression costly enough that it becomes strategically unattractive.

What upsets me is that we’ve come to this. That we, as Canadians, must invest heavily in our defense—not to protect ourselves against foreign enemies, but against our own neighbor, our most important trading partner, the ally with whom we share the world’s longest undefended border. It is a bitter irony, a colossal waste of resources that could be used for education, healthcare, the fight against climate change, or any other urgent need in our society. Instead, we must buy weapons, train soldiers, and prepare evacuation and resistance plans—all because of one man’s irresponsible rhetoric and expansionist ambitions. This is a tragedy for both our nations, for our continent, and for the entire world. And yet, I understand the necessity of these preparations, the importance of showing that we are not defenseless, that we will not allow ourselves to be annexed without a fight.

An Uncertain but Not Hopeless Future

As the world watches the situation in North America unfold with concern, it is essential to maintain a balanced perspective. Government officials and military experts unanimously stress that a U.S. invasion of Canada remains highly unlikely. Lieutenant General Day describes this possibility as “far-fetched,” and current relations between the Canadian and U.S. militaries remain positive, with both countries continuing to collaborate on major projects such as the new “Golden Dome” continental defense system designed to protect the continent against Russian or Chinese missiles. The model for responding to an invasion is rightly described as a “conceptual and theoretical framework,” not as an operational military plan.

However, improbability does not mean impossibility, and history teaches us that even the most improbable scenarios can sometimes come to pass when circumstances allow. Recognizing this vulnerability has had the positive effect of stimulating a necessary discussion about Canada’s national sovereignty and security. This crisis, while troubling, has forced the country to seriously examine its defense capabilities, its place in the world, and the means at its disposal to protect its interests and values in an increasingly uncertain international environment.

Ultimately, what remains is our resolve as Canadians. We have survived world wars, economic crises, and challenges of all kinds, and we will survive this ordeal as well. Perhaps none of this will ever happen; perhaps these scenarios will remain on paper—intellectual exercises for prudent planners. Or perhaps we will indeed be called upon to defend our homeland against a superior force, just as our ancestors have done so often throughout our history. Whatever the case may be, one thing is certain: we will not allow ourselves to be wiped out; we will not allow ourselves to be annexed without a fight; we will not relinquish our identity, our sovereignty, or our right to exist as a free and independent nation. Canada may not be a military superpower, but we are a resilient, proud, and determined people. And in that resilience, that pride, and that determination lies our true strength—one that no army will ever be able to conquer.