Image Credit, Hans Toom
Mark Carney has made it clear where he stands: he’s committing to Canada meeting NATO’s 2% GDP spending target by 2030. After meeting with General Carignan, Chief of Defence Staff, he emphasized plans to modernize NORAD, strengthen the Arctic presence, and build a resilient national defense. On the surface, it sounds like a bold strategy. In reality, it’s a costly commitment to an outdated alliance that serves Europe first and North America second.
NATO was built for a world that no longer exists. Its original purpose was to counter the Soviet Union, a state that collapsed over three decades ago. Today, the organization functions less as a security pact and more as an agent of global provocation, expanding its reach under the guise of peace while creating instability in the process. Russia is the most obvious example. Whether one supports or condemns Moscow’s actions, there’s no denying NATO has spent years surrounding it, a calculated maneuver that directly contributed to the ongoing war in Ukraine. The pattern is clear—this alliance does not deter conflict. It creates it.
The biggest contributor, the United States, has spent years questioning its role in NATO. That hesitation is only growing. At some point, it will pull back, if not pull out entirely. When that happens, billions of dollars funneled into this organization will have been wasted, another example of national resources spent underwriting European security. Meanwhile, soldiers back home continue to train NATO troops for “peacekeeping” missions that bear little resemblance to the word. If the focus isn’t on combat, what exactly is being gained?
Defense investments should serve those who actually need them. NORAD already provides strong continental protection. Domestic forces have a long-standing reputation for excellence in military training. The Arctic, a critical region for both sovereignty and security, remains underfunded while billions are promised to a military alliance that does nothing to secure it. Spending commitments should reflect real threats, not outdated obligations.
Military alliances come with obligations. They create enemies by default. Once, it was possible to backpack across the world with a maple leaf stitched onto a backpack, a quiet statement that said neutrality, diplomacy, peace. That’s gone. Now, that same symbol is lumped in with nations that always seem to be at war. Membership in NATO does not create safety—it creates risk.
This isn’t just about one alliance. The world is filled with institutions that have outlived their effectiveness. The United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Paris Climate Accord—each one is a relic of an era that no longer exists. If they functioned as intended, the world would be in better shape. Instead, they make grand declarations while global crises continue. This belief that pouring billions into aging institutions is “leadership” is a myth. Real leadership requires rethinking these commitments, not blindly reaffirming them.
Carney has walked into the same trap as those before him, treating NATO as an obligation rather than a choice. It is a choice. And it’s the wrong one. The more money poured into this alliance, the less there is for the people who need it most. Security starts at home, not in Brussels. Nothing about this is bold. Nothing about it is innovative. This is a government moving in circles, tethered to an alliance that serves others first. Real change is impossible under these conditions.
About The Author
