US President Donald Trump tossed several grenades into the still waters of Canadian defence platitudes and forcefully called attention to the clear fact that Canada has been a world-leader in defence freeloading since the late 1960s. In The Line, Tim Thurley suggests that Canada should look more closely at how Finland has maintained its sovereignty with a larger, militarily dominant, and unpredictable neighbour for more than a century:
Map of Finland (Suomen kartta) by Oona Räisänen. Boundaries, rivers, roads, and railroads are based on a 1996 CIA map, with revisions. (via Wikimedia – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Finland-en.svg)
Canadians pretended we didn’t need to take defence seriously. We justified it with fantasies — the world wasn’t that dangerous, threats were distant, and America would rescue us if needed. That delusion is dead. U.S. Republicans and some Democrats don’t trust us to defend our own territory. Trump openly floated annexation and made clear that military protection now comes at a price — potentially statehood. Canadian military leaders now describe our closest ally as “unpredictable and potentially unreliable”. And even when America was a sure bet, our overreliance was reckless. Sovereignty requires self-defence; outsourcing it means surrendering power.
We should take cues from nations in similar situations, like Finland. Both of us border stronger powers, control vast, harsh landscapes, and hold valuable strategic resources. We’re internally stable, democratic, and potential targets.
We also share a key strength — one that could expand our military recruitment, onshore defence production, rebuild social trust, and bolster deterrence: a strong civilian firearms tradition.
We should be doing everything we can to make that tradition a bigger part of Canadian defence, and a larger part of our economy, too.
That may sound absurd to some Canadians. It shouldn’t. Finland is taking full advantage by attempting to expand shooting and military training for civilians both through private and public ranges and the voluntary National Defence Training Association. Finland is seeking to massively upgrade civilian range capacity by building 300 new ones and upgrading others to encourage civilian interest in firearms and national defence, and is doing so in partnership with civilian firearm owners and existing non-government institutions.
Multiple other states near Finland are investing in similar programs. Poland is even involving the education system. Firearm safety training and target practice for school children are part of a new defence education curriculum component, which includes conflict zone survival, cybersecurity, and first aid training. Poland’s aim is to help civilians manage conflict zones, but also to bolster military recruitment.
Lithuania and Estonia encourage civilian marksmanship as part of a society-wide comprehensive defence strategy. The Lithuanian Riflemen’s Union, one of the small nation’s most recognizable institutions, is a voluntary government-sponsored organization intended to prepare civilians for resistance to an occupying power. It has 15,000 members in a population of 2.8 million. The Estonian Defence League trains mostly-unpaid civilian volunteers in guerrilla warfare. It has an 80 per cent approval rating in Estonia, where over one in every 100 men and women with ordinary jobs have joined to learn defence techniques, including mastering standard-issue military service rifles that they may keep at home, ready to fight on a moment’s notice.
These strategies are modern. These countries are no strangers to cutting-edge modern warfare, necessitated by a common border with an aggressive Russia. But technologies like drones are not a replacement for a trained and motivated citizenry, as the Ukraine conflict illustrates. Against a stronger and more aggressive neighbour, these societies deter and respond to aggression through organized, determined, and trained populations prepared to resist attackers in-depth — by putting a potential rifle behind every blade of grass.
Canada, meanwhile, is spending money to hurt our own capacity. It’s coming back to bite us. The Trudeau government misused civilian firearm ownership as a partisan political wedge and ignored the grave flaws of that strategy when they were pointed out, hundreds of times, by good-faith critics. Thousands of firearm models have been banned at massive and increasing expense since 2020 despite no evident public safety benefit. In the recently concluded party leadership race, Mark Carney pledged to spend billions of dollars confiscating them. Government policies eliminating significant portions of business revenue have maimed a firearm industry that historically contributed to our defence infrastructure. Civilian range numbers, which often do double-duty with police and even military use, plunged from roughly 1,400 to 891 in five years. Without civilians to maintain ranges for necessary exercises and qualification shoots, governments must assume the operating expenses, construct new ranges, or fly participants elsewhere to train.
Comparing Finland’s and Canada’s situations with the neighboring countries, saying we both border on “unpredictable and unreliable neighbours” is close to full stop retarded. Russia and Finland are not friends, and have never been allies. Canada as a country has never been at war with the USA, all interactions led by the British before Confederation really don’t factor into the geopolitical reality that Canada has faced with the USA since 1867. I can’t think of two remotely different situations frankly.
Trump is tweaking the nose of every Canadian with his over the top comments, waking them up to the reality that we Canadians have been living on the largess of America for a long damn time. I honestly don’t think that Trump wants a Great White California, he would be a fool to try and take on a majority Canada with 60% socialists bordering on full out commies. No, I think Trump is just opening the negotiations with misdirection, getting the most Karen of Canadians into a tizzy so when he starts making real demands they will not seem as controversial.
Not to mention that every country that borders on Russia has been over run within the last 100 years with actual war that killed so many of their civil population. I can see how Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, and the like would try and prepare for the possibility of invasion by a Russian neighbour who has invaded them before, sometime more than once over the centuries. I can’t take anyone serious who actually believes that Canada needs to arm themselves on the fear of an American invasion. Given the fact that Trudeau had made it a life mission to disarm even the most honest hunters, our lack of a viable military means that a real invasion would not even look close to the defence that the Ukrainians are able to put forth vs a limited Russian invasion. And I am sure that if the Russian really wanted to take the whole of the Ukraine they could have had it years ago. And I am not saying that the west should, or would, abandon Ukraine. I’m just looking realistically at what a full scale effort by Russia could do if they had the political will and were willing to risk wider confrontation with the west.
I don’t agree with Putin’s position on the Ukraine, but I can at least see some of the reason behind the problems there. Not enough people are interested in the “why” of the Russian invasion to see the political and nationalistic reasons behind it. Also, not enough people recall that Putin’s taking of the Crimea and the Donbass happened under Democrat administrations. Putin was never as bold when Trump was president.
Comment by Dwayne — March 24, 2025 @ 18:51
There are similarities between the current situation on the border between Canada and the US, and that of the Finnish border with the former USSR and today’s Russia, but I agree that they are nowhere near exact parallels. A lot of instant Canadian “patriots” would jump at the comparison — if they knew enough history to see the vague outline of the Finnish plight from 1939 onwards.
This is far from the first time that US politicians have made serious-sounding threats to annex Canada, but the last time it was taken as seriously as Trump’s bloviations it got Sir Wilfrid Laurier thrown out of office for good.
I agree that Trump is probably not serious serious about actually annexing the country, but I imagine even he is astonished at just how far he’s managed to get under the skin of the Laurentian Elite and the sheep who yesterday were calling Canada a genocidal state that deserved no respect but are now plastering themselves with made-in-China “patriotic” crap.
Comment by Nicholas — March 25, 2025 @ 09:31