The Unthinkable Scenario
A Canadian professor has written what most would dismiss as alarmist fiction: a detailed playbook for how the United States might invade Canada, and how Canadians could resist. The Walrus publishes this examination of continental power dynamics at a moment when sovereignty itself feels unsettled across the Western hemisphere.
The Question No One Wants to Ask
Peter Jones, a professor at the University of Ottawa's Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, opens with a premise that strains belief yet refuses to be ignored. The Walrus writes, "We now live in a time where, even if something remains highly unlikely, it is no longer impossible."
That sentence captures the unsettling mood of the piece. Jones does not argue invasion is probable. He argues it is thinkable—and that thinking it through is itself a form of preparation.
The Walrus writes, "What would we do if our restive neighbour to the south decided to test, once again, Thomas Jefferson's maxim, propounded in 1812, that taking Canada is 'a mere matter of marching'?"
"Our strategy must therefore lie in making ourselves as 'indigestible' as possible until the American public insists that this attempt to take over Canada be stopped."
How It Might Begin
Jones rejects the notion of full-scale bombardment. Destroying Canadian infrastructure would be counterproductive for an occupier seeking integration. Instead, he outlines a graduated pressure campaign: economic disruption, cyber attacks, disinformation, and support for separatist movements in Alberta.
The Walrus writes, "Trump's negotiating style does display some traits that are, at least, consistent. When he really wants something, and the other side has said it won't budge, his first move is to punch them in the face, verbally at least, and then demand something preposterous."
The article draws parallels to Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine, where "little green men"—unmarked special forces—created chaos before regular troops arrived. Jones suggests similar irregular forces could stir trouble along the Canadian border, giving Washington plausible deniability while testing Canadian resolve.
Critics might note that this analogy stretches thin. Ukraine and Russia share a history of ethnic tension and disputed borders. Canada and the United States share the world's longest undefended border and deep economic integration. The conditions that enabled Russia's initial incursions do not exist in North America.
The Ukrainian Lesson
Jones argues Canada must not repeat Ukraine's initial hesitation. The Walrus writes, "The lesson of Ukraine is clear. Doing nothing in the hope Trump will be impressed by the restraint is a fool's errand. All it will get us is further escalation."
The piece calls for immediate, forceful response to any cross-border incursions—even small ones. The goal: signal seriousness before escalation becomes inevitable.
Here Jones makes a striking claim about American politics. The Walrus writes, "Since the various branches of the actual US government are apparently incapable of containing Trump, the American public is probably going to be our greatest ally in terms of restraining him."
Polling, he notes, shows Americans across political backgrounds oppose invading Canada against Canadian will. The strategic task becomes communicating Canadian resistance to American citizens—not insulting them, but demonstrating that Canadians do not secretly desire annexation.
Resistance, Not Victory
Jones acknowledges Canada cannot win a conventional war against the United States. One sharp attack could obliterate Canadian military infrastructure. The objective shifts: survive long enough to make occupation unbearable.
The Walrus writes, "The key in all this will not be to defeat the Americans but to force them to make their occupation of Canada just that—an occupation."
Preparation would include decentralized resistance networks: military reserves, retired personnel, police forces with local knowledge, and dispersed weapons and supplies. The Ukrainian experience with drones and guerrilla tactics becomes the model. Jones even suggests small Canadian units could cross the border to attack critical American infrastructure.
Critics might argue this romanticizes resistance warfare. The human cost of guerrilla conflict against a vastly superior military would be catastrophic for Canadians. Jones mentions casualties will "go both ways" but does not dwell on what that means for Canadian communities.
The International Dimension
Jones notes that an American invasion of Canada would trigger global economic crisis. The Walrus writes, "An America which had gone so utterly rogue as to actually invade Canada would be something the international order could not live with."
He points to Greenland as precedent: when the European Union threatened its "trade bazooka," that alone may have deterred American action. Canada should coordinate with international partners now to prepare devastating economic counter-response.
The Danish prime minister's remark that attacking Greenland would end NATO could multiply dozens of times for Canada. The global response would be punishing—even without military intervention.
The Arctic Scenario
Jones considers a limited incursion: the United States invading part of Canada's Arctic and declaring it under permanent American "protection." This scenario would be less personally dangerous for southern Canadians but equally challenging to respond to.
Diplomacy aimed at American public opinion and international institutions would be central. Military and economic options could make the American presence far harder than anticipated.
The Verdict
Jones closes by acknowledging he shook his head while writing. He does not believe invasion is likely. But the fact that the scenario must be contemplated reveals something about the current moment.
The Walrus writes, "We have no choice but to regard the era of free trade and continental integration as over and to prepare for a future where our relations with the US, and the rest of the world, will be very different."
Bottom Line
This piece is less a prediction than a stress test for Canadian sovereignty. Jones forces readers to confront what preparation means when the unthinkable becomes merely unlikely. The argument's strength lies in its refusal to assume institutional constraints will hold; its weakness lies in underestimating how deeply integrated American and Canadian interests remain. Whether this is sober preparation or alarmist speculation depends on how one reads the current moment: as temporary turbulence or structural rupture.