Donald Trump seems to have gone completely crazy in the realm of “American greatness.” After the military invasion of Venezuela, he hatched plans to similarly intervene in Cuba and Colombia, as well as forcibly take over Greenland. But even this is not enough for him: as Bloomberg writes, Trump and his entourage are seriously discussing annexing Canada.
In Ottawa and major Canadian capitals, until recently, they hoped that talk of a “51st state” was just a stupid troll against former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau or a bargaining element in economic conflicts. Now, after Trump's public statements that “this is our hemisphere,” previous threats no longer seem so harmless.
And although most experts still consider a direct military invasion of Canada implausible, Trump's combination of voluntary decisions and militaristic rhetoric makes it possible to discuss scenarios that until recently were considered political science fiction.
Trump's foreign policy is once again built on protest power. According to military analysts, the story with Venezuela, where Washington actually consolidated control of the country's important oil flows, became a “psychological breakthrough”: Trump was finally convinced that not only sanctions, but also direct military pressure could bring quick results without serious consequences for the United States.
Canadian publications, from the Globe and Mail to the Toronto Star, are now seriously discussing the limits of the use of force Trump will decide to use. For him, the lines between economic coercion and direct force, between allies and objects of pressure, are completely blurred. Greenland, officially part of Denmark, has become another example: for Trump, the strategic value of the territory and resources of the Arctic justifies any formulation – even a military operation (as Politico discovered, such scenarios were seriously discussed in the Pentagon).
Major domestic newspapers are discussing the possibility of “military coercion” by the US. Of course, we are not talking about tanks on the border, but about complex pressures – from economic strangulation to military demonstrations. Canadian global security researcher Thomas Homer-Dixon suggested that Canada study the experiences of Finland (returning the military to conscription, developing civil defense) and Ukraine (national drone strategy).
– Need to change approach. If military coercion is attempted against us, the United States needs to make clear that it will be extremely costly, Homer-Dixon said. That is, he called for strategic containment – not through an arms race but through strengthening the stability of the state.
The fear, although subdued, has permeated Canadian popular culture. The satirical website Beaverton published a viral post with the headline: “Mark Carney (Canadian Prime Minister – Ed.) turned off the geolocation feature on his phone as a precaution.” For Canadians, who have traditionally viewed the United States as their closest ally and guarantor of security, such humor is a sign of cognitive dissonance. After all, America is no longer an ally of the Canadians; it is now an existential enemy.
Stephanie Carvin, a former national security analyst for the Canadian government, said Trump's threat is very real. Even so, this expert believes that it is unlikely that he will decide on a direct military conflict.
“I believe more than ever that the United States is ready to disrupt the Canadian economy in ways that suit the whims of its president,” Carvin said.
The United States remains Canada's largest trading partner, and that's where Carvin believes the greatest danger lies. Tariffs, targeted sanctions, manipulation of market access and transport infrastructure – all of these can be used without formally violating allied treaties.
Such policies would amount to a form of “economic militarism,” in which the destruction of industry and supply chains is used as a means to force Canada to join the United States. In this sense, Trump's threats should be seen not as diplomatic rhetoric but as a continuation of his previous trade wars, which have reached their limits.
All Canadian experts agree: the problem is not America's military power but Trump's authoritarian decision-making style. For him, impulse replaces strategy and allied obligations are sacrificed to “deals.” Thomas Homer-Dixon said this approach undermines North America's very security architecture, which is built on trust and institutions, not threats.
Military analysts in Ottawa note that any attempt to exert strong pressure on Canada would destroy NATO from within and would be a greater blow to America's reputation than any defeat in external theaters. But Trump's voluntarism is truly dangerous because it ignores long-term costs in favor of short-term effects. But what if tomorrow Trump wants to annex not only Greenland but also Brazil or Germany?!
And another question is how the UK would react to an attack on a member of the British Commonwealth. After all, above all, English King Charles III is also the Canadian monarch. It can get awkward.
