The Decibel - Military models invasion of Canada as Trump threatens Greenland

Episode Date: January 21, 2026

As U.S. President Donald Trump has continued to ratchet up threats against Greenland, Canada has weighed plans to send soldiers there as part of a NATO exercise. In a speech at the Davos Conference on Tuesday, Prime Minister Mark Carney expressed support for Greenland, but did not say whether Canada would indeed send troops.Meanwhile, according to senior government officials, the Canadian Armed Forces have modelled a hypothetical U.S. military invasion of Canada, and the country’s potential response. Robert Fife, the Globe’s Ottawa Bureau Chief, joins the show to talk about how Canada’s military is preparing to walk the narrow tightrope between our NATO allies and U.S. military prowess.Questions? Comments? Ideas? Email us at [e-mail] Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

U.S. President Donald Trump has continued to ratchet up threats against Greenland. How far are you willing to go to acquire Greenland? You'll find out. A text from Trump to Norway's prime minister was released on Monday, saying that he no longer felt, quote, an obligation to think purely of peace. Then, on Tuesday morning, he posted an AI image to Truth Social, showing a map of the U.S., Greenland, Venezuela, and Canada,

all covered by the U.S. flag. We've been saying this a lot on the show as of late, but Prime Minister Mark Carney is in a tricky situation, especially as Canada weighs the option of sending troops to Greenland to join other NATO countries for a military exercise. It's a serious situation, and we're concerned. We're concerned about this escalation. Meanwhile, senior government officials told the globe

that the Canadian Armed Forces are now also modeling Canada's response to a hypothetical U.S. invasion of Canada, something our government hasn't done in a century. So today, Robert Fife, the Globe's Ottawa Bureau Chief, is here. He'll help us understand how the Canadian military is preparing to walk this incredibly narrow tightrope between our NATO allies and the military giant to the south. I'm Cheryl Sutherland, and this is the decibel from the Globe and Mail. Hi, Bob. Thank you so much for making the time today. always a pleasure. While there's a lot to unpack right now in terms of how Canada and other countries are responding to Trump's calls to annex Greenland,

Carney mentioned it in his speech at Davos on Tuesday. On Arctic sovereignty, we stand firmly with Greenland and Denmark and fully support their unique right to determine Greenland's future. So some strong words there from the Prime Minister. We're speaking midday on Tuesday. Can you tell us which countries have a presence in Greenland right now? and what they're doing? Well, the United Kingdom and seven European nations are having military exercises in Greenland as a show of solidarity for Denmark.

They involve Germany and France and Denmark and Norway and Finland. All of these countries are deeply concerned about President Trump's unthinkable lust to be able to take over Greenland, which makes absolutely no sense. Greenland already has an American base there, and Greenland and Denmark are happy to work with the United States and providing even better facilities if they want to. As well, the NATO countries, including Canada and the countries that I mentioned are also very supportive of having an increased NATO presence in Greenland, because after all, we're all supposed to be allies. NATO was set up after the Second World War amongst democratic countries to particularly defend Europe from Russia, but also to protect the democratic world as a military alliance. And it's just being mind-boggling to see the U.S. President in an effort to seemingly, without any thought,

taking action that would in effect destroy NATO. So when we talk about these military exercises on the ground in Greenland, that involves these soldiers, right? Can you give me a sense, like, just briefly, like, what does the exercise look like? What does it entail? Well, it's really a small number of soldiers from all of the countries, and they're just doing, you know, military exercises. It's not a sophisticated, large-scale military exercises. It's really a small contingent of soldiers from all of these countries that are there to try to demonstrate to the world that they have solidarity with Denmark and Greenland, that they have their own choices in deciding whether they want to be part of the

United States or not. And it was at the request of Denmark that they asked them to come as NATO allies to this. Canada has may very well also join the NATO military exercises. Because they're not on the ground, right? Like at the time that we're speaking, there's no Canadian soldiers on the ground as part of the NATO exercise. That's correct. And the Canadian Armed Forces has done the contingency plan. They are ready to send a small number of soldiers to help out in these NATO military exercises. But they're waiting the approval of the Prime Minister. Prime Minister Kearney has been asked a couple of times about this and has kind of dodged it. And we thought he might get a sense of whether he's going to approve or not approve it at Davos today.

but he gave a speech talking about Arctic sovereignty and the deep concerns that the Western world has with the policies of President Donald Trump. But he has not been specifically asked in Davis and has not said whether he would approve that. Okay. So we're still waiting for the Prime Minister to make a call on that. And I'm sure that we'll be coming in the coming days or perhaps ours we'll see. What would sending Canadian troops to Greenland achieve? All it really is is sending a message to the world and the people of Greenland and Denmark, but also to the American people, that Greenland is not to be annexed or purchased under threat of military invasion from President Donald Trump. You know, this is a democratic country. It's part of Denmark. It has been a strong and supportive ally of the United States.

particularly in the high Arctic as it has been of NATO. And if you're going to let loose with these kind of threatening tactics, it's deeply concerning to the world. I mean, we just saw it. I mean, the president tweeted on a map that showed Venezuela, Greenland, and Canada as part of the United States. Yeah. That was at 1 a.m.

He put that AI photo of the U.S. flag going across U.S., Canada, Venezuela. It was a very surprising image. I mean, think about this for a moment. an American president, who is supposed to be the leader of the free world, and has spent since the post-war period, Americans have developed a security and defense arrangements with the Western countries, including Asian Pacific countries, and has developed a very sophisticated economic trade institutions as well as political and legal institutions, so that we all work cooperatively for the most part. and he's just going to rip this all apart.

It's dumbfounding to Western allies, including Canada, and it's obviously dumbfounding to, I would assume, senior leaders in the U.S. military and many congressmen, but for some particular reason, a lot of the Republicans, even though they know this is nonsense and dangerous to the world, have been reluctant to really speak out loudly and to challenge the president because the old, only way you're going to deal with a bully is to stand up to them. Yeah. And this is concerning because,

of course, you know, the U.S. making these types of threats. It's a superpower and it has a lot of military power in that. So, I mean, what has Carney said about his vision for keeping Greenland secure? Well, he said that, you know, what we need to do is to reinforce NATO forces in the Arctic, particularly in Greenland. If the Americans have deep concerns about wanting to make sure that They have stronger forces in Greenland to counter Russia and China, particularly as the polar ice begins to melt. And there are also significant critical minerals in Greenland that could also be exploited. All of this stuff is easily negotiated with the Americans without saying we have to take over

the island and make it part of the United States. That's just not the way the world should operate. you know, we don't have, we do not want to have an American bully trying to lead the free world. And certainly, it's a serious threat to Canada. If he gets Greenland and he's already got Venezuela, and does he actually think that maybe he could get Canada as well? I mean, that seems like very far-fetch, Cheryl, obviously. I mean, normally you and I would never be talking about things like that. But that's how far we've gone in one year of Donald Trump's president.

that we're actually talking about the prospect of Donald Trump wanting to take over Canada and Greenland. It's hard to believe, but it's what we are seeing. It's hard to believe. It's very surprising. But, you know, we have to talk about what is potentially, you know, a big risk for Canada and the rest of the world. So let's talk about what happens if Canada potentially gets involved here on the ground in Greenland. So we've already seen Trump threatened tariffs on the European countries that are part of this NATO exercise. And I'll reiterate this post that he made. So at 1 a.m. on Tuesday morning, Trump posted this AI image to truth social of him speaking to leaders next to a map showing Canada, Greenland, Venezuela as part of the United States. So these threats are ratcheting up still.

What are the risks to Canada specifically if our troops were to get involved on the ground in Greenland? Well, first of all, this is not getting involved in the ground to take on American forces. around. Like, this is just simply a symbolic and small number of troops to show solidarity with a Democratic ally, Denmark and Greenland. But I think you've hit the nail on the head. One of the reasons why I suspect the prime minister is holding back on making a decision on whether Canadian troops should go as to part of this NATO military exercise is for the very reason that we may get hit with more tariffs. We're already being hit. pretty significantly with tariffs that affect the auto industry,

our steel industry, aluminum industry, and copper. And, you know, the president is talking about a 10 and then 25% hit on the European countries for opposing his desire to take over Greenland. And interesting enough, the countries that he said he would tariff were the ones that have sent military soldiers to Greenland. He's even gone so far as to say he'll put 100% percent. tariff on French wine, for example. So, yes, I think there's a possibility that we could also be hit with other tariffs. I guess the question that we have to come to terms with is at some point,

we have to stand up to the bully. At some point, Canadians and Europeans are going to have to say, you know what, we don't want to risk a trade war. We don't want to have a confrontation with you, but you can't continue to treat us like we're vassals of the United States and you can push us around because you have a bigger economy and you have biggest and most superior military force in the world. We'll be right back. So, Bob, we know that Canada is in talks to potentially send troops to Greenland as early as this week, but you reported that the Canadian Armed Forces is also gaming out a war scenario for a potential U.S. military invasion of Canada. What does that mean exactly?

Well, again, that's something that normally you'd think I was nuts if I even talked about it. like this because it's absolutely unthinkable. It's been more than a century since Canada has even thought about how it might game out a potential U.S. invasion. Now, I have to stress that the military model that they're looking at is hypothetical, that it's not the same as military plans, which are very deeply thought out that have specific plans on where you would send troops and where you might put weapons and all that sort of stuff. This is simply a conceptual, theoretical thinking about what would happen if there was a U.S. invasion. This is no surprise to anybody. Nobody thinks that the United States is going to invade Canada. We have excellent

relations with our U.S. military counterparts. But I think it's just prudent to be able to kind of think this through now, be given what we are seeing coming to. out of the White House. And everybody understands in the Canadian military and experts outside of the Canadian military understand that Canada could not withstand a conventional war against the United States. If they invaded Canada, it could be a week, two weeks or even a couple of days before they defeated us militarily. We'll get into that, too.

I just wanted to point something out. You brought us up a couple of times now that there's this distinction between what Trump is saying and the relationship between Canada and the U.S. military. Yes, and in fact, it's the case with most people in Congress and senators as well. I mean, they regard Canada as a very trusted ally. And one can imagine what the U.S. military leadership must be thinking of a president who is putting up maps that shows him taking over Canada, let alone what he's done outrightly with his threats to Greenland. So, you know, Canadian military planners are, I think, being prudent.

I have to stress again that this is a model and it's not a military plan, but they realize that we would lose a conventional war very quickly. And some of the thinking behind this would be that we'd have to adopt more insurgency tactics like we saw the Taliban went after the U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, including Canada. We lost 150 soldiers in that conflict, of which many of them died from improvised explosive devices that were set off by the Taliban. And equally, we saw the success of the Ukrainians in stopping the Russian invasion from hitting Kiev. They use brilliant tactics in terms of using hit-and-run tactics with not only drones, but also handheld missiles that they were able to. to decapitate Russian military tanks and supply vessels, for example. So that's the kind of thinking that the Canadian government is looking at if there was a U.S. invasion. And again, I stress nobody is saying that that's going to happen, but they wisely happened to game it out.

I'm glad you stressed here that it's clear that this is just a precautionary exercise right now. But let's unpack what's in the plan. So what would it look like if the U.S. invaded Canada, according to these planners? Well, first of all, we'd have to put troops along the southern border. We'd have to have troops up in the Arctic. I think what we would also do is to get our European allies, the Germans, the British, the French, to send troops to Canada and to have ships in our ports as a deterrent. And having the French or the British who both have nuclear,

or weapons supporting Canada would be a pretty significant deterrent. You know, a lot of generals who I've spoken to also point out that although they could easily beat Canada in a conventional war, it would not be an easy country to occupy. First of all, it's 3,000 miles. We have major cities. So, you know, they don't have the number of soldiers that could be able to occupy Canada very easily. and I think there would be strong Canadian resistance.

It would be probably manifest in a whole lot of ways because those kind of insurgency attack is what can be very successful in making large countries who are involved in kind of conflicts to rethink why they even went in in the first place. And that's something that the plan did talk about, right? That, you know, Canada lacks the size of military personnel or equipment to fend off an American attack,

but, you know, we might see something like small groups of irregular military armed civilians that could resort to ambushes, right? That's something that the plan laid out. Yes, exactly. That's exactly what you could possibly see. What about conscription, right? I think that that might be a concern to some. Did these plans say whether conscription was on the table? No, it's not on the table. But right now, the chief of the defense staff is looking at trying to have a reserve force of 400,000, which is, that's a lot. And we're in the process of trying to set that up. But the volunteer reserve force of 400,000 is what the planners are looking at right now. Do military strategists have any sense of what the signals would be if an attack was

coming and what kind of lead time we would have? I think the first thing would be they would push us out of NORAD, which is one we cooperate with right now on continental defense. That would be a significant warning. Build up of American soldiers along the Canadian border. Friction probably in terms of you and I trying across the border. These are kind of all the post signs that would be indications that the Americans are serious about this. Obviously, the rhetoric from the White House would be pretty heated and presumably from the Secretary of Defense, who would now call themselves the Secretary of War. I would imagine that there would be American military leaders who would refuse to do so and then would be fired. And Trump would

go down into the depths of the U.S. Armed Forces to find somebody who would be a willing person to do this. So there would be outrage in Congress. Our allies would be speaking, I think, in a very, very strong voice, much more so than even they're dealing with Greenland. Because obviously, if he can and get Canada, they could be next. Something that I found interesting from your story, a little bit scary as well, was the amount of time that Canada would be able to ward off U.S. military. Can you just talk a bit about that?

Because I think those numbers were quite shocking. It could be a couple days. It could be, you know, a week or so, but it wouldn't be very long. And that's understandable. I mean, we don't have a big armed forces. We've let our armed forces deteriorate for many, many years. Our F-18s are 40-some years old.

We're going to buy new ones. F-35s from the Americans. Our ships are getting a little bit better because we've invested that during the Harper years. But we have old equipment. We are absolutely not equipped to take on the American forces. But I think it's become a really important barometer for Canada. And Prime Minister Kearney has got this right, is that in this new world, where the big powers are trying to bully people around,

we need to significantly beat up our armed forces. And we're going to at 2% where we're hoping to be at 5% by 2030 in terms of military spending. We're going to be buying more and more equipment to be able to show the Americans and, frankly, the world that Canada, for the first time since probably the Maroonie years, is taking national defense seriously. All the European NATO countries are in the same boat because they can't rely on the United States anymore. Yeah, and potentially, you know, beefing up military would help us have a better chance. But at the moment, it sounds like Canada doesn't really have a fighting chance in the unlikely scenario that the U.S. actually does invade Canada. I guess what would be the point of even fighting back against the power like the U.S.

if we just lose anyway? Well, I would hope that Canadians aren't defeat us like that, that we would say, okay, come on in. You can take over Canada. You can end our health care system. You can have guns everywhere in the streets. We can have ICE agents going around deporting people. I mean, Canada is a different country than the United States.

We're a progressive country. We have a healthcare system has got us problems, but it's better if you get sick in Canada, you don't go bankrupt. You know, we have very strong gun laws. And Canada has a proud tradition of fighting. We fought in the First World War. We fought in the Second World War. We fought in the Korean War. we fought in Afghanistan.

We said no to Vietnam because it was wrong. Americans would be fools to take Canadians for granted because although they may say we're mild-mannered people and polite, Canadians have proven over and over again that when pushed, they are willing to fight for values of democracy and freedom and, you know, all of these things that I think are hugely important for Canadians and, frankly, I think for everybody around the world, Democracy can be not an overly efficient system at times, but it's a lot better than the alternative.

Yes, and I also want to point out that, of course, Canada did burn down the White House in the War of 1812. That's right. Hey, we won. Before you go, I want to ask you about Carney's speech at Davos on Tuesday. We heard Carney speak about what it means to be a middle power right now. What did you think of that speech? Look, I think he's absolutely right. he's saying that the world has been divided between the, you know, the big powers like China and the United States, who have decided that they can use their economic power to threat people and their military power to threaten people

and that small, middle-sized powers like Canada need to wake up to this reality and work with other middle powers, otherwise you're going to get crushed. It's a very thoughtful, pragmatic speech about the changing world. It's been the post-war period of allied countries working with the United States has been fractured and may never come back. And that countries have to wake up to the reality that you can't rely on the United States anymore, both militarily, but certainly as a trading partner. And it's time to build up your own defense and work with other countries. middle powers on defense-related issues, but significantly to expand the trade away from the United States because it cannot be counted on.

Bob, it's always great to have you on this show. Thank you so much. You're welcome. That was Robert Fife, the Globe's Ottawa Bureau Chief. That's it for today. I'm Cheryl Sutherland. Our producers are Madeline White, Mikhail Stein, and Ali Graham. Our editor is David Crosby. Adrian Chung is our senior producer, and Angela Pichenza is our exoner. executive editor. Thanks so much for listening.