Canada stood quietly yet confidently within the North American defence perimeter for decades. Its geographical proximity to the United States and membership in NATO provided it with security and global credibility, all while maintaining relatively modest defence spending and geopolitical visibility. That long-standing formula is now undergoing reassessment, not because Canada has turned away from its allies but because the strategic environment that supported it is fractured.

The recalibration we are witnessing is not driven by ideology or partisanship; instead, it is a response to the erosion of guarantees once taken for granted. Canada’s pivot, subtle yet unmistakable, arises from necessity. While its implications are acutely felt in Ottawa, the reverberations extend across the Atlantic and Pacific, raising broader questions about alliance durability and diplomatic adaptability in an age of fragmented power.

Strategic Friction with a Historic Ally

Canada’s relationship with the United States relies on implicit trust and a shared vision of global order. However, this dynamic has changed. The imposition of unexpected tariffs on Canadian goods, the symbolic closure of significant spaces such as the Haskell Free Library, once a symbol of cross-border friendship, and the rhetorical criticisms from U.S. leaders have undermined assumptions of unity. Even more pressing are defence gaps that leave Canada outside the ballistic missile defence framework and, according to public reports, beyond the scope of protection in the event of a North Korean attack.

These developments have presented Canadian policymakers with a dilemma: continue depending on a relationship that no longer provides certainty or begin cultivating a strategic identity grounded in diversified partnerships. Canada has opted for the latter.

Diplomacy and Defence Converge: The Role of Infrastructure

At the heart of this shift is recognising that diplomacy cannot be separated from infrastructure defence; e.g. The Port of Montreal, second only to Vancouver nationally and the primary container port on the Atlantic coast, serves as a critical artery in NATO’s logistics network. It connects North America’s defence industrial base, including Ohio’s M1 Abrams production and Quebec’s artillery shell manufacturers, to European supply routes.

Yet this critical node is becoming increasingly vulnerable. As hybrid threats expand, adversaries aim to paralyse economies and alliances through cyberattacks, sabotage, and disinformation. Russia’s cyber campaign against Canadian ports in 2023, which included targeted DDoS attacks in response to Ottawa’s support for Ukraine, demonstrated how grey-zone tactics are already challenging North American defences. Canada’s economic and symbolic infrastructure now stands at the forefront of geopolitical contestation.

Missile Gaps and Asymmetric Exposure

Hybrid threats are only part of the equation. Canada’s vulnerability to kinetic attacks, particularly long-range missiles from Russia or other adversaries, creates a sense of urgency. Russia’s ICBMs and hypersonic glide vehicles (such as the RS-28 Sarmat and Avangard HGV, among others) emphasise that Canada remains exposed despite NORAD’s watchful eye. Unlike many NATO partners, Canada lacks a comprehensive civil defence strategy. There is no equivalent to FEMA, and military forces are often tasked with disaster relief and defence simultaneously.

This vulnerability entails a diplomatic cost. It raises questions among allies regarding Canada’s readiness and ability to contribute meaningfully to collective defence. It also strengthens Ottawa’s determination to establish new strategic connections abroad.

Europe: A Calculated Diplomatic Pivot

The perceived fragility of North American cohesion has prompted a shift in Canada’s strategic outlook. The appointment of Prime Minister Mike Carney, known for his transatlantic credentials, signifies a deliberate re-engagement with Europe. His outreach to EU leaders, emphasis on climate diplomacy, and renewed interest in democratic coordination suggest more than mere optics; they demonstrate a serious recalibration of priorities.

This realignment is supported by policy. Canadian officials are examining more vigorous defence and trade ties with Europe. While full EU membership remains unlikely, functional integration across areas, such as energy security, technology standards, and arms procurement, is now on the diplomatic agenda.

This pivot does not represent a rebuke of the United States. Instead, it serves as an adjustment by a middle power navigating uncertainty. When guarantees weaken, hedging becomes a prudent strategy. Europe provides Canada with shared values, multilateral mechanisms, and a safeguard against the volatility of great power competition.

Defence Procurement as Diplomacy

One of the most precise indicators of this strategic shift is procurement. President Trump’s recent announcement of a multibillion-pound contract for the sixth-generation F-47 fighter jet, described as “the most lethal aircraft ever built”, has cast doubt on the long-term coherence of the F-35 programme. Canada, already wary, has reopened its fighter acquisition process. Prime Minister Carney directed Defence Minister Bill Blair to reassess the F-35 deal, placing alternatives such as the Swedish Saab Gripen and French Dassault Rafale back on the table.

Canada is not alone. Portugal, Denmark, and other allies are reconsidering their F-35 commitments amid Trump’s unpredictable foreign policy, tariff threats, and proposals like the annexation of Greenland. These moves signal a wider diplomatic recalibration across the alliance.

Operational realities compound the issue. According to CBC News, only 40% of Canadian fighter aircraft are mission-ready. Strategic procurement has become a military and diplomatic necessity, an effort to ensure capability while aligning with stable, trustworthy partners.

Diplomatic Implications Beyond Canada

Canada’s repositioning is instructive beyond its borders. It exemplifies middle powers’ choices in a disordered world: adapt diplomatically, economically, and militarily, or risk irrelevance. As alliances become less predictable, strategic flexibility becomes a form of resilience.

This moment also presents the United States with a chance for reflection. Canada’s shift is not a betrayal but rather a wake-up call. If the U.S. wishes to remain the gravitational centre of democratic alliances, it must recognise that credibility and consistency are its most valuable assets. In their absence, partners will and should seek alternatives.

Not Drifting, Rebalancing

Canada is not drifting; it is rebalancing. Its strategic reassessment is based on diplomatic realism, not ideological rupture. Mutual trust and proactive engagement are essential for North America to continue functioning as a geopolitical anchor. The U.S. must recognise that its actions, trade policies, defence exclusions, and unilateral declarations have consequences. Canada must continue to demonstrate that adaptation is not abandonment.

In this age of geopolitical recalibration, defence strategy and diplomacy are inseparable. Canada’s realignment reminds us that diplomacy must fill the gap when alliances fray, not with nostalgia… but with purpose.