A Middle Power Adrift

Canada’s defence and security posture has entered uncharted waters. At the heart of this shift lies the country’s relationship with its southern neighbour. As Prime Minister Mark Carney bluntly observed, “Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over.” This marks not just a rhetorical pivot but a foundational rupture in Canada’s approach to security. For decades, Canadian strategy has leaned on the assumption of unshakeable partnership with the United States. That assumption now looks precarious at best.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats of annexation, however blustering they may appear, have stoked public anxieties and emboldened voices supporting greater defence spending and a rise of Canadian nationalism. What was once considered unthinkable, Canadians debating whether the nation should develop nuclear weapons, has, remarkably, become a topic of mainstream discourse. A decade ago, such proposals would have been dismissed as fringe. Today, those same ideas echo not only in think tanks but also in everyday conversations among friends.

The debate reveals a deeper unease: Canadians are no longer confident in their traditional security beliefs. Yet the question of what truly keeps Canadians safe demands vision, leadership, and the active engagement of civil society. As my colleague Jessica West notes in this issue, civil society itself is under immense strain and even attack — and it needs support.

A World in Disorder

The shifting context is global as well as bilateral. In early September, Chinese President Xi Jinping hosted a military parade marking the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War and the defeat of Japan. Flanked by Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, Xi declared that the world faces a choice between “war or peace.” The display of authoritarian solidarity appears aimed at signalling a new order. Meanwhile, President Trump’s unpredictable diplomacy has alienated not only adversaries but also long-standing allies. For middle powers like Canada, the sense of a world slipping into disorder is palpable.
In this environment, Canadians are grappling with profound questions: Can the country continue to rely on American security cooperation? Should Ottawa pour scarce resources into new weapons systems? And what does sovereignty mean when technological disruption, climate instability, and great-power rivalry all erode the foundations of security?

Defence Spending Increases

For years, Canada’s North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies have criticized its low levels of defence spending. Successive governments, Liberal and Conservative alike, resisted raising expenditures to the 2% target, in part because it remained deeply unpopular with the Canadian public. Project Ploughshares has long argued that such spending targets are arbitrary benchmarks that do not inherently reflect the actual security needs or values of citizens.

The new NATO target —5% of GDP, with 3.5% on defence and 1.5% on related security spending — marks an even greater leap for Canadians. Yet recent polling suggests a shift: a growing majority now believe Canada should strengthen its ability to defend its borders, even without assuming U.S. backing. According to Nanos polling from July 2025, 52% of Canadians support meeting NATO’s 2% defence spending target, while 32% would back an increase to 5%.

The debate over increased spending is not new, but the urgency is. Ottawa faces calls to invest not just in conventional forces but also in cyber defence, space security, and AI-enabled military technologies. Some argue that without these investments, Canada risks becoming irrelevant in both NATO and North American defence arrangements. Others warn that pouring money into expensive platforms risks crowding out essential social spending, which defines our national identity and which Canadians rely on for well-being in their everyday lives.

What is actually needed for Canada’s defence and security of its population is the key question, as support for increased defence spending will likely wane as economic pressures continue, tariffs and trade uncertainty lead to growing unemployment, and social spending cuts start impacting the public.

The Nuclear Temptation

The most striking and concerning shift in discourse is the renewed discussion of nuclear weapons. For decades, Canada prided itself on being a champion of nuclear non-proliferation, playing constructive roles in arms-control negotiations and supporting international disarmament regimes. That record had become less stellar over the last two decades as Canada became increasingly less active and engaged on nuclear disarmament. Still, the suggestion that Canada should pursue its own deterrent signals the depth of insecurity gripping the national psyche.

Supporters of a Canadian nuclear option argue that in a world where authoritarian states brandish nuclear threats and America’s reliability wavers, only an independent deterrent guarantees sovereignty. However, for nearly 50 years, organizations such as Project Ploughshares have demonstrated why this logic provides only a false sense of security. Far from enhancing safety, nuclear weapons make the world far more dangerous.
The need for Canadian voices to educate the public on the risks of nuclear warfare and the catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet has never been greater.

A Diplomatic Middle Power in a Harder World

Historically, Canada’s strengths lay less in hard power and more in diplomacy. From Lester Pearson’s Nobel-winning peacekeeping efforts to middle-power bridge-building in multilateral forums, Ottawa carved a role as a broker of compromise. Over the last two decades, though, Canada has largely ridden the coattails of its earlier contributions. In a harsher geopolitical climate, Canada will need to determine its priorities so that various headwinds do not push it in directions that undermine its own interests and security.

One domain where Canada cannot afford drift is the Arctic. Melting sea ice is opening new shipping lanes, attracting resource exploitation, and intensifying strategic competition. Russia has expanded its military footprint in the region. China, styling itself a “near-Arctic state,” is investing in polar research and infrastructure. For Canada, the Arctic is both an opportunity and a vulnerability. Defending sovereignty in the North will take more than rhetoric. Investments in infrastructure are a critical example of where increased defence spending could be directed, delivering multiple benefits for the economy, strengthening Indigenous and northern communities, and enhancing national security.

Technology and Autonomy

Another frontier is technology. AI, drones, cyber tools, and space systems are reshaping warfare. Canada, with its vibrant tech sector, could help steer innovation in ways that uphold ethics, protect civilians, and prevent arms races. But integrating emerging technologies into defence raises thorny questions of ethics, transparency, and accountability. There is growing pressure on Canada to embrace a more flexible approach to acquiring new technologies and speed up procurement, citing lessons from Ukraine. Yet whether those lessons truly fit the Canadian context remains far from clear and demands much closer scrutiny.

At the same time, reliance on American and allied supply chains for advanced technologies underscores Canada’s dependency. Semiconductors, satellites, and AI algorithms are increasingly entangled in geopolitical rivalries. Pursuing “sovereign” capabilities may sound appealing, but achieving technological independence is prohibitively costly. Meanwhile, Canada seems to be lining up to join the controversial “Golden Dome” multi-threat defence system, a puzzling choice if deeper integration with the United States is no longer on the horizon. The risk is that Canada ends up neither fully autonomous nor adequately integrated.

Governing in an Age of Anxiety

The larger question is one of governance. Canada’s political institutions are ill-prepared for a national-security debate of this magnitude. Public opinion is divided, regional interests clash, and minority governments lack the stability to pursue long-term strategies. The temptation will be to muddle through, spending a bit more on defence here, issuing lofty declarations there, without grappling with fundamental choices.

Yet muddling through may no longer suffice. The combination of an unpredictable United States, assertive authoritarian powers, and disruptive technologies leaves Canada exposed. To preserve sovereignty, Ottawa must rethink its security doctrine from the ground up.

Interestingly, Canada’s experience in peacebuilding may offer guidance. As analysts often note, peace processes seem impossible until they succeed and then require painstaking follow-through to endure. The same lesson applies to national security. Building credible defences, strengthening alliances, and investing in diplomacy will require patience, persistence, and political courage.

A Future in the Balance

Canada is not without options. It can strengthen its diplomatic capacity while carving out niche leadership in areas such as Arctic security and responsible AI governance. It can deepen partnerships with like-minded democracies beyond the United States, from Europe to the Indo-Pacific. It can harness its diplomatic tradition to push for guardrails on emerging technologies and renewed arms-control efforts.

But all of these require financial resources and political resolve. Above all, it requires vision and leadership. This in an incredible moment of opportunity for Canada to chart its own course, addressing anxieties and public concerns. Fighter jets and weapons may offer the appearance of strength or reassurance to an anxious public. But it is diplomacy that delivers security.

Published in The Ploughshares Monitor Autumn 2025