The Arctic or Brussels?
Canada’s Security Future Hinges on Hard Choices
The ongoing negotiations between Canada and the European Union (EU) on a security and defence partnership represent a pivotal moment in transatlantic relations. While these talks hold the promise of future benefits, there is a pressing need to acknowledge a critical concern: a deeper Canada-EU security relationship could inadvertently distract Canada from its primary security interests in the Arctic. As the negotiations progress, Ottawa must strike a delicate balance between expanding cooperation with Europe and safeguarding its strategic priorities in the High North. Failure to do so risks undermining Canada’s most vital national security imperatives.
The EU’s ambition to expand its global security footprint is undeniable. Recent pacts with Japan and South Korea underscore Brussels’ intent to safeguard maritime domains, protect underwater infrastructure, and secure critical sea lanes. Such initiatives reflect a broader push by the EU to enhance its role as a credible strategic actor. Canada’s interest in joining this effort is understandable, as it offers avenues to influence European defence policies, enhance interoperability, and access advanced military technologies. Yet, there is a fundamental tension that cannot be ignored. Canada’s security reality is rooted not in distant seas, but in the Arctic—a region where sovereignty, resource competition, and great power rivalry are converging with unprecedented intensity.
Canada’s identity as a North Pacific, Arctic, and North Atlantic power demands unwavering focus. The Arctic is no longer a distant frontier but a geopolitical arena where climate change opens new shipping routes and intensifies competition for resources. Russia’s militarization of its Arctic territories, coupled with China’s increasing interest in the region, underscores the strategic significance of the High North. If Canada becomes overly entangled in European security affairs, it risks diluting its capacity to respond effectively to these emerging threats. The allure of participating in joint naval exercises or contributing to EU-led maritime initiatives must not come at the expense of securing Canada’s northern flank.
However, the pursuit of a Canada-EU security partnership need not be a zero-sum game. The challenge lies in crafting a framework that enhances transatlantic cooperation without diverting Canada’s attention from the Arctic. One promising avenue is for Canada to align its European engagement with the interests of EU Arctic powers such as Denmark, Sweden, and Finland. These states share Canada’s strategic concerns in the High North and possess valuable expertise in Arctic operations. Collaborative efforts focused on Arctic security—such as joint naval patrols, infrastructure resilience projects, and intelligence-sharing mechanisms—could provide a dual benefit: strengthening transatlantic ties while reinforcing Canada’s Arctic presence.
Defence procurement and intelligence sharing will undoubtedly feature prominently in any eventual agreement. Yet even in these areas, caution is warranted. Defence procurement cooperation with the EU could offer access to cutting-edge technologies and streamline acquisition processes. However, Canada must ensure that such initiatives support, rather than undermine, its Arctic priorities. Investments in capabilities designed for European theatres of operation should not come at the cost of assets essential for Arctic defence, such as icebreakers, surveillance systems, and Arctic-capable submarines. Procurement strategies must reflect the unique demands of Canada’s northern environment, where harsh conditions and vast distances require specialized equipment and operational expertise.
Intelligence sharing presents another double-edged sword. Enhanced information exchange with European partners could bolster Canada’s ability to address hybrid threats, cyberattacks, and disinformation campaigns. Nevertheless, intelligence priorities must remain anchored in the Arctic context. Real-time intelligence on activities in the High North is indispensable for effective situational awareness and response. Canada should leverage its partnership with the EU to develop Arctic-focused intelligence capabilities, ensuring that European cooperation complements, rather than distracts from, its core security mission.
The EU’s pursuit of strategic autonomy adds yet another layer of complexity. Brussels’ desire to act independently in security matters could present opportunities for Canada to influence European defence policies. However, Canada must approach this opportunity with a clear-eyed understanding of its implications. Alignment with the EU’s strategic autonomy agenda should not come at the cost of undermining NATO’s role or diminishing Canada’s Arctic focus. Ottawa’s engagement with the EU must be framed by a realist assessment of its national interests, with the Arctic at the forefront.
A deeper Canada-EU security relationship also carries broader implications for transatlantic relations. As the United States recalibrates its global commitments, Canada’s role in ensuring North American and Arctic security becomes ever more critical. A meaningful transatlantic partnership must recognize this reality. The Arctic is a cornerstone of North American defence, and any Canadian contribution to European security must be weighed against the imperative of maintaining a robust northern defence posture. European partners must understand that Canada’s security engagement cannot be divorced from its responsibilities in the High North.
While the allure of a comprehensive security partnership with the EU is strong, Canada must proceed with bold clarity of purpose. The Arctic represents the future of Canadian security—its gateway to emerging geopolitical challenges and opportunities. Any partnership that threatens to divert attention from this reality must be approached with caution. The potential for a balanced approach exists, but only if Canada is willing to assert its interests decisively.
One way forward is for Canada to champion an Arctic-focused dimension within the broader Canada-EU security framework. By prioritizing cooperation with EU Arctic powers, Ottawa can ensure that European engagement strengthens rather than undermines its northern strategy. Such an approach would allow Canada to contribute meaningfully to transatlantic security while reinforcing its leadership role in the Arctic. Joint initiatives focused on Arctic infrastructure, climate resilience, and maritime domain awareness could serve as cornerstone projects that align Canadian and European interests.
Ultimately, the success of these negotiations will hinge on Canada’s ability to navigate the fine line between ambition and realism. The allure of deeper ties with the EU must not overshadow the imperatives of Arctic security. Canada’s future as a credible security actor depends on its capacity to focus on what matters most—defending its northern frontier and asserting its role in the High North. A bold, balanced, and strategically grounded approach to these negotiations will determine whether Canada can achieve both objectives without compromise.
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 DefensePriorities, a think tank in Washington, DC.