The US demands to obtain Greenland from the Danish Kingdom based on security and defence issues, to have the massive island as a bulwark to Russian and Chinese security threats in the “American sphere of influence,” should have Canadians wondering about what this could mean for Canada and its claims in the Arctic.
Here is the reality:
“…the United States does not fully recognize Canada’s sovereignty claims over the Arctic archipelagic waters and the Northwest Passage, viewing them as international waters open for transit passage, differing from Canada’s stance that they are internal waters requiring permission, though they maintain a pragmatic “agree to disagree” approach, especially regarding U.S. icebreakers. This disagreement stems from differing interpretations of international law (UNCLOS) and strategic interests, particularly for U.S. maritime freedom and potential shortened shipping routes.”
Could, or would, the US at some point in the future want to claim or request to obtain parts of the Canadian Arctic? Some of America’s arguments for acquiring Greenland would also apply to the Canadian Arctic islands, especially the inability to deploy military forces to defend them and the lack of a military presence to do so as it stands today.
Canadian Rangers, the Token and Symbolic Military Presence
Yes, Canada has the rather token and symbolic ‘Canadian Rangers’ in the far north. The government of Canada’s Department of National Defence (DND) website says, “The Canadian Rangers are a sub-component of the Canadian Army Reserve who live and work in remote, isolated, and coastal regions of Canada.” The Rangers serve as the “eyes and ears” in Canada’s remote north while technically and officially providing a military presence. But let’s be honest, what is a single Ranger with their bright red top, armed with a red bolt-action rifle named the Colt Canada C19 (licence-built, Finnish-designed Tikka T3 CTR bolt-action rifle), going to do if they spot a Russian submarine? Nada, nothing, zilch, except report it. They are probably told not to shoot at it with their bolt-action rifle.
Why are the Rangers, as a military force, not issued semi-automatic military rifles at least? This might sound like an aside to the subject of Canadian Arctic sovereignty, but it’s not; it’s relevant.
I’ve long argued that the Rangers could have been issued the old FN C1 A1 after the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) decommissioned them back in the late 80s. The problem, I believe, is that because the FN C1 is a prohibited firearm for civilians in Canada today, the government did not want the Rangers to possess them, despite the Rangers being officially a part of the CAF. (This tells us how much of a disconnect there is in Ottawa when it comes to military matters, that even a part-time military force is limited to what weapons they can have and use over civilian gun law concerns.) You see, the Rangers keep their issued C19 at home. Before the C19, the Rangers used the old Lee Enfield No. 4 rifles– which Rangers got to keep after the Lee Enfield was decommissioned and replaced by the Tikka C19.
I presume the idea of these Rangers having an FN C1 at home bothered the powers that be, though it makes no sense to me — compare it to countries such as Switzerland, with a citizen’s army, where citizens have generations-old military-issued bolt-action rifles and newer semi-automatic rifles in their homes, all issued to them by the government.
Nonetheless, issuing bolt-action rifles to the Rangers is an example of government idiocy (and related misguided civilian gun control beliefs) and backs up the notion that the Rangers’ existence is more token and symbolic than anything. Because, let’s be honest, if the US were to dispute the Arctic and the islands, and Canada were to refer to its “military” presence of the Rangers with their red bolt-action rifles, would the US [or any nation, including Russia] take that seriously or see that as a deterrent?
Meanwhile, any US citizen in America with no criminal record can readily buy an FN FAL, something not out of the ordinary, while Canadians aren’t allowed to buy an FN FAL today; and our Canadian Rangers military force of the Arctic isn’t even allowed to have FNs or any semi-automatic military rifle system. Ridiculous.
Overall, the Canadian optics are bad and pathetic.
Perhaps the US will never make any claims or want to obtain the Canadian Arctic, but with the present administration in the White House and the Trump doctrine, the Greenland crisis is setting a precedent that should concern Canada’s own far north interests.
–RdM
🔴Addendum: A Canadian friend said today, “We have abdicated the mutual defence of our realm. This is what happens after years of Liberal neglect. We are pretty low-hanging fruit for friends and adversaries.”
With his perspective, to add, for how long have I heard Canadians say, “Oh, we don’t need a big military because the US will protect us”? — RdM
1985 Polar Sea controversy
The 1985 Polar Sea controversy was a diplomatic event triggered by plans for the navigation of USCGC Polar Sea through the Northwest Passage from Greenland to Alaska without formal authorization from the Canadian government. It was the United States’ position that the Northwest Passage was an international strait open to shipping and it sought only to notify Canada rather than ask for permission.[1]
Publication of the plans enraged the Canadian public opinion as it was regarded as a breach and disregard of sovereignty and prompted the government to take preventive measures in defending Canada’s arctic territories.[2] The U.S. never recognized Canada’s claim over the Northwest passage but nevertheless, the two countries reached an agreement two years later which stipulated that in the future, the U.S. would ask permission before navigating the disputed waters.
Canada’s sovereignty over the region’s waters was still a contentious issue as of 2010 and is likely to become of increasing importance as climate change in the Arctic has the potential to render those waters more accessible to commercial ships and the thawing of the sea ice of making oil drilling easier.[3]
To read more, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Polar_Sea_controversy
Addendum: 23 Jan 2026: BBC News Reports: Stuck between the US and Russia, Canada must prove it can defend its Arctic territory: See: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vx0p77pn8o
Another brilliant discussion Royce, and all true.
Thanks, Brent.
It’s no wonder we are teased! Our logistics and military stance is only going to hinder us not help us! Since the U.S. has for decades been seen as our saviour, it seems odd that Canada would act like a child when the U.S. enters our waters in the Arctic. You would think for a “polite” country we would encourage it not demand permission! Also to think, sweetie pie that’s the head of the military says we are ready for war!!! Okay , Rangers…. your up…. hold off the Russians until we can get our soldiers fed, prepped and pampered before we send them to have your back! 🤦🏼♀️
The entire defence situation for the Arctic is shameful.