By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The U.S. Ambassador to Canada is cautioning of potential repercussions to the continental defense pact, NORAD, if Canada doesn’t move forward with the purchase of 88 F-35 fighter jets. He suggests the U.S. would need to increase its own fighter jet presence in Canadian airspace to address threats. This would happen if Canada chooses an “inferior product” according to the ambassador, with the F-35 being more interoperable. Some experts view this as a political pressure tactic, while others acknowledge the importance of interoperability with the U.S. Air Force.
Read the original article here
The very clear and present matter at hand is this: The United States, through its ambassador, is making it quite obvious that if Canada were to pull back from its order of F-35 fighter jets, the NORAD agreement would be up for renegotiation, or perhaps even significant alteration. This warning, or perhaps a more strongly worded threat, is causing quite a stir, particularly given the already strained relationship between the two nations and a general feeling of being subjected to a “protection racket”. It seems that the ambassador is implying that Canada’s defense cooperation with the US, particularly the joint defense of North American airspace, hinges on purchasing American-made military equipment.
The crux of the matter revolves around the F-35, a fighter jet that, while technologically advanced, comes with significant strings attached. Denmark, for instance, is experiencing buyer’s remorse, having been essentially forced to rely on the F-35, and is now at the mercy of the US for software updates and parts. Concerns have been raised about the US potentially withholding these critical components, effectively crippling a nation’s air force. It paints a picture of vulnerability, and of a situation where national security could be compromised by reliance on a single, foreign supplier. A Canadian pull back would mean the gaps would need to be filled.
Now, let’s just lay it all out. What does this mean for Canada? It’s really putting pressure on a country to make defense decisions based on the potential consequences of defying the US rather than on what’s best for its own national security and strategic interests. It’s essentially a form of coercion, or even blackmail, as some describe it – “buy my stuff or else…” The situation makes it clear, especially with everything that’s been happening in the United States recently, that the US is becoming an unreliable partner. It is a point where Canada has to move on no matter what US threats are as you can’t guarantee your planes can be used for their intended purpose.
The other point that comes into this, especially when taking the long view is that there are questions of Canada’s sovereignty. The fact is that the United States is the only country in the world that poses a significant, non-nuclear threat to Canada, and is the only country with the capability to invade.
This whole situation brings up the question of whether this threat from the US is actually a credible one. NORAD, after all, is a mutual defense agreement. The early warning systems that it provides help protect both nations, not just the US. The idea of the US “blinding itself” to threats coming over the Arctic, simply because Canada chooses a different fighter jet, seems counterintuitive to the very purpose of the pact. It also overlooks the fact that Canada is already a strategic partner, and therefore the US benefits from this partnership, so any alteration to NORAD would be the direct consequence of the US’ own actions, and is certainly nothing to do with Canada.
Then again, the US needs to care about Canadian airspace for its own safety, so the threat that they will stop monitoring even if they threatened to seems more like an empty threat. Perhaps even a bluff.
For Canada, it looks to be an opportunity to show everyone that it will not bow to the “buy our shit or we’ll blind ourselves to Russian nukes” protection racket. A more sensible, if painful decision, might be in the works: Disengage from all joint programs and ventures we have with the US and invest in ourselves, creating more jobs too. One potential solution, as some suggest, would be to switch to the Saab Gripen fighter jet, which is designed to integrate with NATO systems. This would allow for maintaining military and defense readiness and independence. This is a point to consider, given the United States is saying NATO hasn’t done anything for the US.
The ambassador’s statement is seen as a bullying tactic to make sales for Lockheed Martin, rather than a genuine concern for North American security. The fact is that the potential purchase of F35s is great leverage for when, or if the US goes ahead with the recent 100% tariff threats to Canada. Canada’s decision is now becoming more about the fact that America is an unreliable partner, a country that could change its strategic stance overnight, and that is just one election away from becoming a very dangerous place.
In short, Canada is in a position where it is, or is considering, decoupling itself from the US’s craziness. It is going to be painful, but working with like-minded and more rational states makes sense. Ultimately, it’s about weighing the price of dependence against the benefits of independence, and it’s about how to best secure Canadian sovereignty in a changing world.