Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s recent visit to Iqaluit in Canada’s High North, supposedly about Arctic security, was nothing more than a carefully staged photo-op. Carney has spent his career obsessing over carbon credits and ESG scores, not national defense. His sudden interest in the Ar ctic is about politics, not security. While the new prime minster posed for cameras and lectured on “climate resilience” and “sustainable investment,” Russia was expanding its Arctic military infrastructure and China was pressing forward with its bid to entrench itself in Arctic governance. Carney’s worldview, built on the belief that global finance and regulation are the ultimate levers of power, ignores the hard reality that sovereignty is upheld by military strength. Close Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here The latest in politics and policy. Direct to your inbox. Sign up for the Opinion newsletter Subscribe Carney’s proposed Arctic strategy reflects his fixation on green policies rather than concrete security needs. He envisions a future where Canada asserts sovereignty not through military presence or strategic infrastructure, but through climate-friendly economic development. His plan prioritizes clean energy projects, international environmental cooperation and increased investment in sustainable industries. He argues that by positioning Canada as a leader in Arctic climate policy, the country will gain influence and legitimacy in shaping the region’s governance. But this vision ignores the fact that the Arctic is not merely an environmental frontier — it is a contested geopolitical space where adversaries are not waiting for Canada’s green investments to dictate the rules of engagement. Carney has always put ideological commitments ahead of national interests. As governor of the Bank of England, he pushed financial institutions to abandon fossil fuel investments, dismissing energy security as a secondary concern. As a U.N. climate envoy, he promoted carbon reduction targets while ignoring the economic and geopolitical consequences for Western countries. Now, with his political future in mind, he’s repackaging his green agenda as an Arctic strategy. But no amount of renewable energy projects will deter Russian bombers from testing Canadian airspace or stop China from mapping Arctic waters for its own strategic use. Operation Nanook, Canada’s annual Arctic military exercise, was supposed to reassure Canadians that the government is serious about northern defense. Instead, it highlighted just how unprepared Canada really is. While Canadian troops trained alongside their NATO counterparts, Russia continued its Arctic military buildup, deploying hypersonic missiles and running war games along NATO’s northern flank. Meanwhile, China quietly expanded its Arctic presence under the guise of scientific research and economic partnerships. The U.S. has strengthened its military posture in Alaska, recognizing the Arctic as a growing theater of competition. Canada remains an afterthought. Canadian Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre’s proposed Arctic strategy is a long-overdue correction. The Arctic is no longer a frozen frontier — it is a contested space where hard power matters. Russia has spent decades fortifying its Arctic holdings, building military bases, expanding its nuclear submarine fleet and developing a new class of icebreakers designed for strategic dominance. China, though geographically distant, has declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and is embedding itself in Arctic governance institutions to shape the region’s future. Canada cannot safeguard its Arctic sovereignty through diplomatic gestures and economic initiatives alone. Poilievre’s focus on military presence is an acknowledgment of reality: Canada’s Arctic defense is threadbare. The Harry DeWolf-class offshore patrol vessels, while an improvement, are too few in number and lack the endurance for sustained Arctic operations. The Canadian Rangers, invaluable as they are, are not a substitute for a modern defense force. Poilievre’s plan to establish a permanent military base in Iqaluit would provide logistics support for Arctic patrols, ensure rapid response to security threats and send a clear message that Canada’s Arctic is not up for grabs. Carney’s fixation on carbon reduction treats the Arctic as a symbolic battleground for environmental policy rather than a region of strategic importance. While climate change is undeniably reshaping the Arctic, his framework ignores national security realities. Carney’s Arctic vision assumes that diplomatic engagement, green investment and international cooperation will be enough to protect Canada’s interests. Yet history provides no example of a nation securing contested territory through diplomacy alone. A good international reputation cannot substitute for actual deterrence. The stakes in the Arctic directly affect the U.S. and NATO. The Northwest Passage, once locked in ice, is becoming a viable shipping route. Control over this passage remains contested. Canada asserts it as internal waters, while the U.S. argues it should be treated as an international strait. China has suggested that the Arctic should be governed as a “global commons,” which would strip Canada of much of its authority over its own waters. Poilievre’s plan strengthens Arctic defenses and ensures that Canada, not external powers, will dictate the governance of its northern waters. Critics argue that Poilievre’s emphasis on military infrastructure risks alienating Arctic communities, particularly Indigenous populations. This concern is important but is overstated. A serious Arctic strategy must be built in partnership with Indigenous communities, not at their expense. Indigenous peoples have long been central to Arctic sovereignty, and many serve in the Canadian Rangers. A well-planned military base in Iqaluit could provide economic benefits, improved infrastructure and enhanced security for northern communities. Security and Indigenous engagement must go hand in hand. Canada must also address its long-standing failure to develop Arctic infrastructure. Decades of government inaction have left the North with inadequate roads, ports and airstrips. If Ottawa is committed to Arctic sovereignty, it must invest in infrastructure that serves both military and civilian needs, strengthening Canada’s strategic position and its partnership with the U.S. Climate change complicates Arctic security, but it does not replace it. As ice recedes, new economic opportunities emerge — but so do new vulnerabilities. The loss of natural ice barriers makes Canadian waters more accessible to foreign submarines and military incursions. It also raises the risk of ecological disasters, from oil spills to illegal dumping by foreign vessels taking advantage of Canada’s weak enforcement. A serious Arctic strategy must include environmental protection alongside military investment, ensuring that Canada remains both a responsible steward and a sovereign power capable of defending its territory. Canada can no longer afford the complacency of past governments. Carney’s approach, like that of successive Liberal administrations, rests on the outdated assumption that Arctic security can be outsourced to allies, that economic development alone will cement sovereignty and that diplomacy can substitute for deterrence. Poilievre’s strategy, by contrast, recognizes that sovereignty is meaningless without the capacity to enforce it. If Canada does not act now, it risks becoming a bystander in a region where it should be a leader. Poilievre’s plan is a step in the right direction, but if Ottawa hesitates, future governments will not be debating how to assert sovereignty — they will be debating how it was lost. And for the U.S., a weak Canadian Arctic presence is not just Canada’s problem but a growing liability for North American security as a whole. Andrew Latham is a professor of international relations at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minn., a senior fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy, and a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities in Washington, D.C. ...read more read less