Canada has carried out domestic simulations of a U.S. military “invasion” scenario and publicly affirmed support for Greenland and Denmark amid growing worries about Washington’s Arctic ambitions. Two senior Canadian officials confirmed the exercises, which Ottawa says are intended to prepare for contingencies and to send a clear signal that Canada takes sovereignty and territorial issues seriously.
Canadian commentators frame the moves as a response to what they describe as a U.S. effort to remake its strategy across the Western Hemisphere — a revival of Monroe Doctrine-style thinking dressed in new rhetoric. Ottawa’s concern is not merely rhetorical: officials point to recent U.S. overtures toward Greenland and an earlier public suggestion that Canada could be treated as a de facto “51st state” as evidence of an appetitive streak in U.S. policy.
Beyond symbolism, the Greenland episode crystallizes the strategic anxiety. Greenland sits astride the Arctic and its resources and basing potential have taken on renewed geopolitical importance as Washington, Beijing and Moscow jostle for influence in the High North. Canada’s explicit backing of Denmark and Greenland is as much about protecting an international norm of territorial sovereignty as it is about countering a perceived American reach for strategic assets.
Ottawa’s simulations also reflect frustration with the tools Washington has used against allies, including tariffs and coercive economic measures. Canadian analysts say long-standing structural dependence on the United States has in recent years become a lever Washington uses to press Ottawa on trade, security and political concessions, prompting a rethink of how closely to knit policy to U.S. preferences.
The Canadian government couches the exercises as prudent contingency planning rather than a prediction of war; defence planners stress the domestic message that Canada is preparing for a range of crises. Still, the choice to rehearse an American adversary is politically pointed: it signals to Washington that military adventurism would carry tangible costs, including casualties and domestic disruption inside the United States.
The episode illustrates a wider tension in allied relations: allies who rely on the United States for defence are simultaneously alarmed by signs of American unilateralism. For Ottawa, the challenge will be to translate signalling into durable policy changes — from deeper cooperation with NATO and Nordic partners to modest moves toward supply-chain diversification — without jeopardizing the economic and security ties that underpin Canadian prosperity.