OPEN LETTER: Ottawa, your ships are heading for the Indo-Pacific — but who guards the Arctic?

Introduction: A decision that demands answers

June 24, 2026: Ottawa takes the plunge

On June 24, 2026, Canada's Defence Minister announces the deployment of warships to the Indo-Pacific. The announcement is presented as a strong strategic signal — Canada commits to a distant theatre to demonstrate its willingness to contribute to global security. It is a courageous decision, and I respect it. But it raises questions that Ottawa has not yet answered publicly.

This open letter is addressed to Canadian decision-makers, to their allies, and to all those who follow with close attention the transformation of a country that is only now — at last — beginning to take its security seriously. This is not a criticism. It is a dialogue.

Canada waking up

Canada's defence spending increased by 20% in 2025. Ottawa is now "on track" toward the 2% of GDP required by NATO — after decades of chronic underinvestment that irritated Washington and embarrassed European partners. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte cited Canada as a positive example, using the phrase "leading by example" in his June 2026 statements.

This change of course is welcome. But a change of course at 20% growth on a structurally insufficient budget still means navigating to catch up — not leading. And that is precisely where the tension at the heart of this essay-in-letter-form lies.

To Ottawa's decision-makers: the Indo-Pacific — why now?

The strategic choice and its rationale

Deploying warships to the Indo-Pacific in 2026 means responding to an inescapable geopolitical reality: China is exerting growing pressure on its neighbours. The Philippines face repeated naval incidents near the Scarborough Shoal — a contested reef in the South China Sea (SCMP, June 23, 2026). Taiwan lives under a permanent threat. The commercial shipping lanes that cross this theatre represent a considerable share of global trade.

Canada's decision fits into an allied logic: AUKUS — which Canada is not part of — structures the English-speaking response to China's rise in the Asia-Pacific. Ottawa cannot remain absent from this theatre while claiming a role as a responsible global power. Sending ships means asserting its presence.

But who takes care of the Arctic?

My central question, addressed directly to Ottawa's decision-makers: while your ships sail toward the Indo-Pacific, who is watching the Arctic? Russia, despite sanctions and its military quagmire in Ukraine, maintains a sustained military presence in its Arctic. It is developing bases, maritime routes, and submarine capabilities there. And Canada has a vast Arctic frontier — the longest of any Arctic nation after Russia itself.

The defence of northern Canada remains structurally underfunded. The renewal of the North American aerospace defence system NORAD is progressing, but slowly. Arctic radar projects are advancing at a pace that contrasts with the real urgency of the threat. Sending ships to distant waters is a signal — but a signal that comes at a cost in resources and strategic focus.

To Washington: Canada is paying — now listen to it

90 billion reasons to be heard

In 2025, Canada and its European allies collectively added 90 billion USD more in defence spending. Canada is part of this effort — and the Canadian defence industry supports 83,000 jobs in the United States. That figure is a powerful political argument against a Trump administration that measures everything by American employment.

But is this message being delivered to Washington with the force it deserves? Canada holds real leverage: its defence investments directly benefit the American economy. In the context of trade tensions linked to the anticipated non-renewal of USMCA on July 1, 2026, this economic argument should be at the heart of every bilateral negotiation.

USMCA and defence: communicating vessels

The simultaneity of the naval announcement and USMCA trade tensions is probably not a coincidence. Ottawa is sending a dual signal: we are investing in defence, we are deploying military assets, we are demonstrating our commitment to collective security — and in return, we expect fair treatment from Washington on trade.

This is reciprocity diplomacy — subtle but readable for those willing to see it. The problem is that the Trump administration is not particularly known for its subtlety in reading diplomatic signals. Ottawa may need to be more explicit than usual.

To Beijing: Canada sees you

An unambiguous message

The deployment of Canadian ships to the Indo-Pacific carries a direct message to Beijing: Canada will not remain a spectator as China challenges the international maritime order in the South China Sea and western Pacific. It is a solidarity signal with nations facing Chinese pressure — notably the Philippines, ASEAN members, and Quad partners (the United States, Australia, India, Japan).

For China, the arrival of a Canadian vessel in the region is not militarily decisive. But symbolically, it expands the coalition of nations refusing to let Beijing unilaterally rewrite the rules of navigation and maritime boundaries. Every navy that transits these international waters reinforces the international law that China seeks to circumvent.

AUKUS without Canada — a gap or a strategy?

The fact that Canada is not a member of AUKUS — the Australia-United Kingdom-United States security pact — is a geopolitical reality Ottawa must own. The reasons for this exclusion are multiple: insufficient force volume, limited submarine capabilities, domestic political sensitivities around nuclear propulsion technology.

But this absence carries a cost in terms of intelligence-sharing and operational integration in the Pacific. Deploying ships without access to AUKUS's information structures means acting outside the most integrated circle. Ottawa will need to work harder to ensure its naval presence in the Indo-Pacific is genuinely connected to allied efforts.

To European allies: Canada is showing you the way

Canada as an unexpected model

For European nations still struggling to reach the 2% of GDP threshold required by NATO, Canada offers an instructive example. A country that was the symbol of defence underinvestment is transforming itself — with a 20% increase in its 2025 spending and a confirmed trajectory toward 2%.

This transformation is not easy. Canada faces significant internal pressures — high cost of living, necessary social investments, and a population without a militarist tradition. The political decision to prioritise defence carries an electoral cost that Ottawa's decision-makers accepted. That is political courage that deserves recognition.

Europe must draw the lessons

Europe is rearming — the ReArm Europe programme, the collective 900 billion EUR planned for 2030, the 15 billion EUR SAFE loan signed at Eurosatory Paris in June 2026. But the pace of execution remains a challenge. Canada, with its more flexible procurement system and direct industrial ties with Washington, can sometimes act faster than Brussels's bureaucracies.

For Europeans, Canada's message is clear: investing in defence is possible even with budget constraints, even with social pressures, even with a sometimes sceptical public opinion. All it takes is clear political will and leaders capable of explaining why this spending is necessary. The rest follows.

To Ukraine: your sacrifice resonates all the way to the Asia-Pacific

The war in Ukraine as a global accelerator

Canada's decision to increase its defence spending and send ships to the Indo-Pacific cannot be separated from the war Ukraine has been fighting since 2022 against Putin's aggression. This conflict was the global revelation of Western defence underinvestment. It forced Canada, like all allies, to face the real price of security.

Zelensky and his people have paid a terrible price to demonstrate that democracies must defend themselves — and that they can. That sacrifice changed the security conversation worldwide, including in Pacific capitals watching the war in Ukraine as a lesson for their own region facing China.

Canadian solidarity with Ukraine

Canada has provided substantial military, financial, and humanitarian support to Ukraine since the start of the invasion. The Ukrainian-Canadian community — one of the largest in the world — has been an essential political driver of this engagement. This support does not wane in 2026, even as budget challenges are real.

Canada's naval presence in the Indo-Pacific, seen from Kyiv, is also good news: it says that democracies refuse to be intimidated — neither by Putin in Europe, nor by Xi Jinping in Asia. It is a message of strategic unity that transcends geographic theatres.

The concrete challenges of an Indo-Pacific deployment

Logistics and sustainability

Sending ships to the Indo-Pacific is not trivial logistically. The Royal Canadian Navy has a limited number of operational frigates and destroyers. Each distant deployment reduces the capabilities available for North Atlantic and Arctic missions. The sustainability of these deployments depends directly on procurement decisions still in progress.

Canada has announced the acquisition of new naval capabilities — but the delivery timelines in the defence industry are notoriously long. Between the political announcement and actual operational capability, a decade can pass. Ottawa will need to manage this transitional period with existing assets, which demands difficult trade-offs.

Coordination with regional allies

For Canada's presence in the Indo-Pacific to be truly effective, it must fit within a framework of close coordination with regional allies — notably Japan, Australia, and the United States in their Pacific posture. This coordination already exists through RIMPAC exercises and allied command structures, but it will need to be deepened to give strategic meaning to Canada's presence.

Canada will also need to clearly define its rules of engagement in the region: pure freedom of navigation, support for allied operations, protection of commercial routes, deterrence against China? These questions deserve a coherent public answer — not merely symbolic signals.

Arctic security and the question of strategic priorities

The Arctic: the blind spot of Canada's dispersal

Canada's naval deployment to the Indo-Pacific raises a question of strategic consistency: while Canadian ships sail toward Asia, who is watching Canada's Arctic? Russia, despite its military quagmire in Ukraine, maintains a sustained military presence in the Arctic. It is developing bases, maritime routes, and submarine capabilities that directly threaten Canadian interests in the region.

The defence of northern Canada remains structurally underfunded despite the 20% spending increase in 2025. The renewal of the North American aerospace defence system NORAD is progressing, but at a pace that contrasts with the actual urgency of the Arctic threat. Sending ships to distant waters is a strong geopolitical signal — but one that comes at a cost in resources and strategic focus that cannot be ignored.

The defence industry as a commercial argument

The economic argument Canada can put forward to Washington is concrete and quantified: the Canadian defence industry supports 83,000 jobs in the United States. In the context of trade tensions linked to the anticipated non-renewal of USMCA on July 1, this argument should be at the heart of every bilateral negotiation on defence burden-sharing.

Ottawa holds real leverage: its defence investments directly benefit the American economy in key states. That is the language the Trump administration understands best — not speeches about shared values or shared history. Jobs. Billions. Contracts. That is what Canada's Prime Minister should produce at every Washington meeting to defend the Canadian position.

Conclusion: Ottawa, the road is long but you are on the right path

A shift in posture that matters

This open letter is not a indictment. It is an invitation to reflect for decision-makers who are making the right choices in a difficult context. Sending warships to the Indo-Pacific, increasing defence spending by 20%, positioning on the trajectory toward 2% — these are courageous political acts in a democracy where defence has not always been a priority.

Canada in 2026 is different from Canada in 2020. It is taking its security seriously. It is investing. Deploying. Speaking. That is precisely what the Alliance expects of it — and what the world, in this moment of multiple tensions, needs to see from robust democracies.

The next step

But the work is only beginning. The Arctic demands sustained attention. The relationship with Washington requires managing with firmness and pragmatism in the USMCA context. The contribution to the Indo-Pacific must be anchored in a clear doctrine. And support for Ukraine — political, military, financial — must continue without weakening.

Ottawa, you have taken your first steps toward a defence policy worthy of your place in the alliance of democracies. Now hold that course. The world is watching — and we need you.

Signed Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency box

Format and position

This open letter is an acknowledged journalistic genre — it expresses a personal point of view, addressed directly to identified political actors. It is not a news article. The facts cited are documented in the sources below; the opinions and challenges reflect the editorial position of columnist Maxime Marquette.

The columnist is pro-Ukraine and supports the solidarity of democracies against threats from Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. He does not claim to represent any organisation, government, or institution. His analyses are independent.

Limits

The precise details of the Canadian naval deployment — number and type of ships, duration, area of operations — are not fully public at the time of writing. Projections on reaching 2% of GDP are based on the trajectory declared by Ottawa, not on final budget data. These nuances are noted so that the reader can evaluate the presented information with appropriate perspective.

The figure of 83,000 American jobs supported by the Canadian defence industry comes from economic studies cited in the context of commercial negotiations — it reflects a sectoral estimate, not an exhaustive census.

Sources

Primary sources

Straits Times — Canada to send warships to Indo-Pacific, says Defence Minister — June 24, 2026

NATO official — Secretary General meets Trump in Washington, Europe is stepping up — June 25, 2026

Secondary sources

Anadolu Agency — NATO by the numbers ahead of the Ankara summit — June 25, 2026

KPMG — Global Navigator June 2026, USMCA — June 23, 2026

South China Morning Post — China and the Philippines in a rare naval standoff near the disputed Scarborough Shoal — June 23, 2026

EU Insider — ITAR-free European defence and rearmament — June 23, 2026