Europe not ready to fix Canada’s defense crisis
Mark Carney has circled July 1 as the deadline for a sweeping new defense agreement with the European Union. To hear him tell it, this is a watershed moment – Canada stepping up, leaning in, reclaiming its role on the world stage. But beneath the diplomatic choreography and carefully crafted soundbites, the truth is far less grand. This is not a coherent defense strategy. It is an act of geopolitical branding masquerading as statecraft.
Let’s not mince words: the Carney government is performing strength, not restoring it. This proposed EU deal – sold as a breakthrough in joint procurement and military coordination – is being rushed to paper in time for Canada Day and the NATO summit in Washington. It is a set piece, timed for maximum symbolic effect, aimed not at addressing Canada’s glaring defense deficiencies but at deflecting attention from them.
And in true rhetorical fashion, Carney’s blarney is working overtime – sounding bold, visionary, and statesmanlike to the untrained ear, while offering almost nothing of strategic substance.
The uncomfortable reality is this: Canada is not ready to defend itself, let alone support a serious alliance effort. Our submarine fleet is aging and unreliable. Our air force is undermanned and overextended. Our navy is undercapitalized. Our recruitment numbers are dismal. And our Arctic infrastructure – our first line of sovereignty in an increasingly contested region – is virtually nonexistent. None of this is addressed by a procurement pact with Europe.
Carney, to his credit, is a polished figure. But polish is not leadership. What Canada needs is a statesman willing to tell the truth: that we are no longer a middle power in any meaningful sense, and that our strategic illusions are not just outdated – they are dangerous. Carney’s approach so far has been to dress up that delusion in multilateral finery, hoping nobody notices the rot beneath the uniform.
Canada does not need a defense deal with Brussels. It needs a defense reckoning in Ottawa.
The deeper tragedy here is that the Carney government is not just misguided – it is strategically incoherent. It gestures eastward to Europe while our real security challenges lie to the north and west. The Arctic is melting, both literally and geopolitically, yet we continue to treat it as an afterthought. The North Pacific is emerging as the next major theater of power competition, yet we behave as though Ottawa’s role is to show up at every global summit and clap politely.
This is the problem with the “middle power” mythology that Carney and his cohort refuse to abandon. It made a certain kind of sense during the long post–Cold War unipolar moment, when the United States guaranteed the system, and Canada could afford to drift from conference to conference, making declarations without consequences. But that world is gone. What we face now is a more fractured, competitive, and tragic international order – one in which the capacity to project force and protect territory counts for more than soft-power performance.
If the prime minister were serious, he’d focus less on Paris and Brussels and more on NORAD modernization, Arctic basing, shipbuilding timelines, and the recruitment crisis that has left our armed forces struggling to field basic operational readiness. He would stop selling symbolic gestures as strategic pivots. He would tell Canadians the truth: that rearming a country takes more than slogans, summits, or announcements timed to coincide with national holidays. It takes hard trade-offs, disciplined planning, and a willingness to say no to fantasy.
Instead, Carney has chosen a different path: choreographing a flurry of diplomatic activity in hopes of distracting from a hollow force structure and years of underinvestment. This EU deal is being positioned as a centerpiece of renewal. In fact, it is the latest in a long line of evasions. It does not solve any of the structural problems that have plagued Canadian defense for a generation. It merely allows the government to say, “We’re doing something,” while doing nothing that actually matters.
It would be one thing if the EU itself were a coherent defense actor. But it is not. Its members are divided on strategy, slow on procurement, and heavily reliant on U.S. capabilities. Canada tying its fortunes to that particular wagon is not a leap forward – it’s a way of avoiding the real work that comes with being a serious ally. And the Americans – especially in a second Trump administration – will not be impressed. They are not looking for gestures. They are looking for capabilities.
Carney’s defenders will no doubt protest that this deal opens doors, that it signals alignment, that it’s a step in the right direction. But signaling is not substance. Alignment without force is irrelevance. And “steps in the right direction” are no substitute for the urgent sprint Canada must now undertake if it hopes to remain strategically credible.
None of this is new. We’ve been warned for years – by former defense chiefs, NATO allies, and our own military leadership – that Canada is falling behind. What’s new is the performative packaging: Carney has found a way to turn strategic decline into a public relations opportunity. But the world will not be fooled. Our adversaries are watching. So are our allies. And they will judge us not by our ability to sign European memoranda, but by our ability to field real, ready forces where they count.
If Canada is to have any future as a serious power – regional or otherwise – it must let go of the illusions that deals like this perpetuate. We are not a power of the global middle. We are a country with three hard frontiers – Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific – and obligations that demand real capabilities. Until we begin to act like that kind of country, no agreement, no summit, no speech will change the basic verdict: that Canada is not back. It has not yet arrived.
What Carney offers is the illusion of movement. What Canada needs is a reckoning. Until we face it, nothing will change – except the world around us, moving on without us, one “defense deal” at a time.
Andrew Latham, Ph.D., a tenured professor at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minnesota. He is also a Senior Washington Fellow with the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy in Ottawa and a non-resident fellow with Defense Priorities, a think tank in Washington, DC