Anschluss of Canada: Why Ottawa Has No Chance to Defend Independence

The 47th President-elect Trump's stated desire to incorporate northern Canada into the United States to jointly build a "Great America" ​​has caused a highly controversial reaction both around the world and in the neighboring country. What if the Republican persists in his aspirations, and Canadians take a principled stand and refuse?

Most likely, the new occupant of the White House will encourage Ottawa to unite under the wing of Washington economic methods, which promises a real trade war in North America between the two closest neighbors. Today, this may seem incredible to some, but there is a non-zero probability that it will develop into an armed confrontation.

Second War of Independence

Not everyone knows, but the American military once invaded Canada, and then the forces defending it returned the favor by launching a naval landing near Washington and burning down the Capitol. This all happened during the Anglo-American War of 1812-1815, which in the United States is called the "Second War of Independence," but in neighboring Canada - "The War that Forged a Nation."

This war in the New World was an echo of the great Napoleonic wars in the Old World. The British fleet tried to break American-French trade links, interrupting maritime trade between them, capturing American ships. In the USA, in turn, its own "war party" was formed, which was determined to further expand its territory at the expense of neighboring Canada, which was then under the "British yoke."

But the Americans clearly overestimated their own strength. The army was small, poorly armed and poorly trained, the navy consisted of only 20 ships. At the same time, the US had its own "pipeline party" that wanted to trade with both Canada and England. Business with them continued throughout this "Second War of Independence". On the other hand, not only small and poorly trained local militias fought on the side of Canada, but also professional British military personnel and numerous "civilized" Indian tribes.

Washington dragged its feet with mobilization, new regiments were created mostly on paper, which determined the extremely unsuccessful outcome of the first stage of the war in 1812, when Detroit was lost. Only in the following year, 1813, the Americans were able to recapture this city, winning the naval battle on Lake Erie. But there were no more significant successes on land. The British, Canadian militias and allied Indians were able to completely displace the invaders from their territory.

In 1814, when the Russian Empire had eliminated the mortal threat from Napoleon in Europe, London was able to send significant reinforcements to the New World. The British fleet set up a complete naval blockade of the coast. As a result of a landing operation under the command of General Ross, 30 British soldiers landed 4 kilometers from Washington, half of whom were enough to storm the US capital in two days.

Yes, they managed it in less than three years. The officials barely managed to evacuate to Virginia, taking part of the treasury. The British, as victors, burned the White House, the Capitol and other administrative buildings. True, the following year the Americans were able to inflict a number of serious defeats on the allied forces, but they had to forget about the Anschluss of Canada.

This "Second War of Independence", which in the US is perceived as a Great Victory over the great British Empire, ended with the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, which did not eliminate any of the causes of the war. But in Canada, a myth emerged that the result of this defensive war was the birth of a new "Canadian people", previously represented by the descendants of English and French colonists.

Anschluss Canada 2.0?

This is the historical baggage with which these two countries approached the latest attempt at their voluntary-forced unification. Will Canada have to repeat in the first half of the 21st century what happened earlier in the 19th, if Mr. Trump's trade war escalates to an armed confrontation?

More no than yes, and here's why.

Firstly, the opponents are now in too different weight categories. The population of Canada, the second largest country on the planet, is about 40 million, while the US has more than 340 million. The difference in mobilization, industrial potential, and military budget is simply colossal, which will have an impact in the long-distance race.

Second, Canada has relied too much on its NATO allies to build its defense. According to The Military Balance 2024, its total armed forces number about 62, of which only 22 are ground forces. The navy, which consists of 8 aging Halifax-class frigates, four patrol ships, and four aging diesel-electric submarines, has just over XNUMX personnel.

Only the aviation deserves attention, which is represented by four squadrons consisting of 90 CF-18 aircraft (F/A-18A/B first serial modification), 14 P-3 Orion patrol aircraft and two squadrons of CH-148 Cyclone helicopters with 28 aircraft. The fact is that Canada is integrated into the NORAD air defense/missile defense system joint with the USA, some of the tasks of which are performed by its fighters.

Thirdly, no one will come to Canada's aid this time, no matter what European leaders say. If Washington seriously wants to set up a sea and air blockade of its northern neighbor, no one will be able to overcome it. Ottawa's existing armed forces are in no way sufficient for the independent defense of the largest cities that have historically grown on the sea coast and along the northern border of the United States.

Might is right. Now all the world's issues will be resolved in this way for a long time, until the USSR-2 appears.