Stuck Between the U.S. and Russia: Canada Must Prove It Can Defend Its Arctic Territory

Introduction

For Canada, the Arctic is far more than frozen landscapes and remote Indigenous communities: it is a vast expanse of sovereign territory central to national identity, security, and future prosperity. With Russia’s expanding military footprint to the north and growing U.S. strategic interest, Ottawa stands at a geopolitical crossroads. As climate change opens waterways and unlocks resources, Canada must demonstrate that it can defend its Arctic territory—legally, politically, and militarily—against external pressures and competing ambitions. �

marshallcenter.org

The Arctic’s Changing Geopolitical Landscape

Historically, the Arctic was a region of low tension, where cooperation among the Arctic states—Canada, the U.S., Russia, Denmark (Greenland), Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland—under forums such as the Arctic Council helped manage environmental, scientific, and economic issues. However, this cooperative dynamic has weakened, in part due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and subsequent geopolitical fractures. �

marshallcenter.org

Melting sea ice has significantly increased access to Arctic shipping routes, most notably the Northwest Passage, which Canada considers its internal waters under international law. Greater accessibility means more strategic interest from global powers and greater complexity in defending sovereign claims. �

marshallcenter.org

Russia’s Arctic Military Buildup

Russia’s military investments in the Arctic dwarf those of other Arctic states. With more than 40 icebreakers, including nuclear‑powered vessels, and numerous bases and long‑range aviation assets, Moscow has signaled that it views the High North as essential to its defense and power projection. �

TASS

Outside experts highlight that Russia’s capabilities—ranging from hypersonic missiles to a robust submarine fleet—pose long‑term challenges to Canada's northern defenses and broader North American security. �

natoassociation.ca

This build‑up is not merely symbolic. Russia’s military posture complicates any rapid response by Western forces and raises questions about the effectiveness of existing deterrence frameworks. Russia’s enhanced Arctic footprint underscores the urgency for Canada to bolster its own capabilities if it is to defend its Arctic claims credibly.

Canada’s Strategic Dilemma: Sovereignty vs. Capability

Ottawa recognizes the stakes. Recent policy documents emphasize increased military and infrastructure investment to uphold sovereignty. Canada is investing billions into modernizing continental defense under the Canada‑U.S. NORAD pact, including enhanced radars, early warning systems, and air and missile defense networks. �

nationaldefensemagazine.org

However, according to defense analysts, even robust NORAD modernization does not necessarily create a credible stand‑alone defense of the Canadian Arctic. Current systems often focus on southern approaches and continental defense rather than northern territorial control. �

thesimonsfoundation.ca

Moreover, critics argue that Canada’s military presence and infrastructure in the Arctic remain underdeveloped, with limited permanent bases, austere transportation networks, and long procurement timelines for critical assets such as submarines or ice‑capable patrol ships. �

Reddit

Legal and Diplomatic Dimensions

From a legal perspective, Canada must defend its territorial claims not only militarily but also through robust diplomatic engagement. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), states can assert claims over continental shelves—but enforcement depends on international recognition, domestic control, and visible presence.

Canada has ratified UNCLOS and consistently maintained that the Northwest Passage constitutes “internal waters,” a position contested in the past by maritime powers that promote freedom of navigation. Ensuring that this legal claim matches on‑the‑ground (and sea/air) control will require sustained investment and credible enforcement measures. �

marshallcenter.org

Collaborative frameworks, such as the Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement, highlight peaceful cooperation among Arctic states, but these treaties are distinct from military‑security arrangements and do not cover sovereignty disputes. �

Wikipedia

Canada also participates in the ICE Pact with the U.S. and Finland, aimed at boosting Arctic icebreaker production to counter Russian and Chinese influence—an example of how legal, economic, and defense cooperation can reinforce Canada’s sovereign posture. �

Wikipedia

Alliances: NORAD and NATO

Alliance cooperation is a cornerstone of Canada’s Arctic strategy. NORAD’s ongoing modernization reflects deeper bilateral defense integration with the United States. Meanwhile, the expansion of NATO to include Finland and Sweden has strengthened the alliance’s northern flank, even as NATO’s mandate generally excludes territorial disputes. �

nationaldefensemagazine.org

However, alliance support is not a substitute for effective national defense. Legal scholars caution that relying solely on alliances for Arctic sovereignty may weaken Ottawa’s bargaining position in disputes and diminish Canada’s strategic autonomy.

Indigenous Rights and Arctic Policy

Canada’s Arctic sovereignty strategy must also account for Indigenous rights and governance. Many Arctic communities—Inuit and other Indigenous peoples—possess long‑standing legal and cultural ties to the land and water. Their inclusion in policymaking strengthens Canada’s internal legal claims and demonstrates respect for domestic law frameworks, including treaties and constitutional recognition of Indigenous rights.

Policy Recommendations for Legal and Defense Communities

For lawmakers, military planners, and legal professionals advising Ottawa or allied governments, key priorities include:

Expanding Permanent Arctic Presence: Increased investment in infrastructure—airfields, ports, radar stations, and year‑round bases—to support sustained operations.

Legal Enforcement of Sovereignty Claims: Ensuring legal instruments such as fisheries enforcement, search and rescue, and customs control align with territorial assertions.

Alliance Coordination with Autonomy: Balancing cooperative defense under NORAD and NATO with independent capabilities that signal sovereign control.

Indigenous Partnership: Integrating Indigenous authorities and knowledge into Arctic governance frameworks to strengthen legal legitimacy and community resilience.

Multi‑Domain Surveillance: Investing in satellite, aerial, and maritime monitoring to prevent unauthorized incursions and uphold international law.

Conclusion

Canada’s Arctic is no longer an overlooked region of ice and snow. It has become a theater of strategic competition where the interests of major powers intersect. Demonstrating that Canada can defend its Arctic territory is crucial—not only for sovereignty and security but also for upholding international law and strengthening national identity. This task demands political resolve, legal clarity, alliance cooperation, and strategic investment. The Arctic’s future hinges on Canada’s ability to match its legal claims with credible presence and capability—proving that Ottawa can protect what it claims as its own in an increasingly contested northern frontier.