Why an invasion of Greenland might cause the end of Canada

Until last week, the notion of the United States Marines storming the beaches of Nuuk seemed the stuff of bad Tom Clancy fan fiction.

Then came the Caracas raid.

The extraction of Nicolas Maduro by American special forces, an operation Washington hailed as a masterstroke against tyranny and everyone else decried as piracy, has recalibrated the global sense of the possible. If a sovereign head of state can be snatched from his palace in the tropics, a sparsely populated island in the Arctic hardly seems out of bounds.

Donald Trump has never made secret his desire to acquire Greenland. Having been rebuffed by Denmark during his first term, he now appears ready to dispense with the asking. The island is a treasure chest of dysprosium and neodymium, rare-earth elements essential for everything from iPhones to F-35s, and currently monopolized by China. It also sits atop the “GIUK gap”, the naval choke-point through which Russian submarines must pass to threaten the Atlantic if a war with the West were to ever occur.

But for military planners in Washington, the Greenland operation is about more than just rare earths. As the Arctic melts, new shipping lanes are opening that offer Russia and China unpoliced backdoors into the Western Hemisphere, exposing North America to strategic vulnerabilities. In this context, the push north is the act of an empire scrambling to maintain its grip on hegemony.

For some, the operation also quietly represents a two-for-one gain. By provoking a crisis in the High North to maintain control over the GIUK gap and new arctic routes, the United States creates a dilemma that Ottawa cannot solve, turning Canada from a neighbouring ally into a vassal US state.

In Europe, the diplomatic mood is sour. Copenhagen has instructed its troops in Greenland to "shoot first and ask questions later" should American boots touch the ground. European allies, terrified of abandoning a NATO member but terrified equally of fighting the United States, have pledged a tripwire force of French and German troops to the island.

A clash over Greenland might remain a localized skirmish or cascade into a global conflagration. Such is the inherent unpredictability of war.

This puts Canada in an impossible position. Denmark is a NATO ally. If it invokes Article 5, Canada is treaty-bound to come to its aid. Yet Canada is geographically fused to the aggressor. If Ottawa honours its NATO obligations, it effectively declares war on the superpower next door. This is a suicidal gesture for a country whose military is chronically underfunded and whose population is clustered within a hundred miles of the American border.

If Canada refuses to honour its NATO obligations, declaring neutrality, it falls into another trap. Under the Hague Convention, a neutral state must prevent belligerents from using its territory. Realistically, Canada cannot do this and would be deemed unable or unwilling to enforce its neutrality. Canada would be at the mercy of American military strategy.

Either through force or cooperation, the US needs access to Canada to support any prolonged incursion into Greenland. To project power into Greenland effectively, the US Air Force needs to fly directly over Canada. Canada lacks the interceptors, surface-to-air missiles, or radar density to stop advanced American aircraft. Canada literally cannot close its own sky. Sustaining a war also requires massive logistics—fuel, munitions, staging grounds. The most efficient routes to the high north utilize Canadian rail, roads, and airbases (like CFB Goose Bay). Without Canadian cooperation, the US supply chain is stretched thin over open ocean; with forced cooperation, Canada becomes a forward operating base.

This becomes a precursor to annexation. Canada, trying to stay out of a war between NATO allies (US vs. Denmark), could refuse access to maintain neutrality. The US, deeming the Greenland mission critical to national security, ignores the refusal and uses Canadian airspace anyway. Once the US is actively ignoring Canadian sovereignty to move troops, it effectively controls the territory.

To secure these supply lines permanently against interference, Washington might decide it's safer to formalize that control, either by installing a compliant government or legally integrating the territory under defense acts. This effectively ends Canada as an independent sovereign entity.

Should Canada be designated a hostile entity the consequences would be immediate. The assets of Canadian banks in the United States could be frozen. Snowbirds in Florida might find their condos locked and their bank accounts inaccessible. The Canadian dollar and Canadian assets could collapse, wiping out savings and pensions, and raising the cost of living. An envelope of financial, legal, military aggression would rapidly squeeze the life out of Canada.

The timing is auspicious for Washington. Canada is currently politically brittle. The re-election of Trump has emboldened separatist movements that had been dormant. In Alberta, frustration with the federal Liberal government’s policies and perceived hostility to the oil industry has boiled into a passionate conversation about separation. 

The White House knows this. A two-for-one strategy would likely involve a side deal for Alberta: support the American play (or at least stay out of it), and face no tariffs, gain a new pipeline, and enjoy the protection of the American security umbrella. It is a seductive offer for a province that feels underappreciated by the rest of Canada.

Meanwhile, Quebec has long teased separation, a sentiment that could easily be re-inflamed. The province controls the St. Lawrence Seaway, the industrial artery of the continent. A deal that recognizes Quebec’s distinct sovereign status in exchange for American military rights over the seaway would neuter Ottawa’s control over its own economy.

Canada would be hollowed out, leaving a rump state of coastal provinces and Ontario, separated by large landmasses. This is both economically and politically unviable, with each remaining scrap of the country either allying with the US or forming it’s own distinct country. 

We don't know the precise outcome of the Whitehouse's desire to aquire Greenland. Perhaps its all bark and no bite.

But what was once unthinkable is now possible, so we must look at all hypotheticals. As of today, there is a possibility Canada ceases to exist and North America effectively becomes a US fortress.

Greenland is Canada’s problem. 

Thanks for reading. My name is Sarah and I run Collapse2050. It is a place for the collapse-aware community to learn, debate and connect. Please consider subscribing.

The site is free for all. No ads or corporate sponsors. Paid subscribers and one-time contributors help keep me going. Support also goes towards my shift to full time writing and helping people manage their future. Thank you. Sarah.