The Invuik and Old Crow Ranger Patrols prepare to leave for their journey from the Arctic Ocean to Aklavik on March 2.Gavin John/The Globe and Mail
On May 13, reporter Gavin John answered reader questions about the future of Canada’s Arctic defence and why the region has become to strategically relevant around the world.
John, a journalist and strategic studies graduate student at the University of Calgary, recently made the daunting trek with a group of Canadian Rangers across the Arctic by snowmobile, as part of Operation Nanook-Nunalivut 2026. He wrote about the trip and the changing infrastructure of Canada’s Northern strategy.
Arctic snowmobile trek pits Canadian Rangers’ resolve against a ‘nightmare’ storm
Readers asked why the region is so important, what John learned from the Canadian Rangers and how to survive a blizzard in the Arctic. Here are some highlights from the Q&A.
Strategy in the Arctic
What do you think is the main thing most Canadians don’t know about military strategy in the Arctic?
Gavin John: How integrated and collaborative the military is with federal, territorial, and Indigenous governments in the north. It’s truly a team effort that not a single aspect of society isn’t somehow contributing to the security of the region.
Is the Arctic even worth defending considering that the majority of Canadians live and work in the southern areas of Canada?
John: A house without a reliable roof is not a reliable house.
The defence of the majority of Canadians starts in the Arctic, and without it those majority are at greater risk. I would also say that the Canadians in the Arctic are just as deserving of protection from any and all threats to Canada as those in Toronto.
It’s not just Southern Canada, it’s also the United States. Under NORAD’s shared airspace agreement, defence of one is the defence of the other. If the U.S. doesn’t contribute to our defence, that leaves them vulnerable. Same principle applies here.
Gavin John/The Globe and Mail
How does Canada plan to expand its command of the North in coming years?
John: Based in Yellowknife, the Joint Task Force North (JTFN) is responsible for any northern operation in Canada. Part of the Canadian government’s commitment to expanding our Forces, JTFN is set to expand its physical footprint as well as personnel over the next couple of years. Which tells me that the North and Arctic are a priority for the CAF moving forward.
Capabilities wise, I know that moving beyond isolated operations to a year-round presence is a goal for the CAF Arctic posture. The Operation NANOOK series is going to be expanded from five operations to seven in the next couple years, and on top of that, NANOOK will have more international forces participating in the years to come.
How can Canada develop their facilities in the North without harming the habitats and environments of the Inuit? How are the resources divided between the two parties?
John: I first have to acknowledge that it’s not only the Inuit in the Arctic. The Gwich’in, Dene, and other First Nations have an important role and deep history in the region as well. Also, it’s not often a binary between the two parties. A majority of the Rangers of 1CRPG are Indigenous and they are also often members of the Hunting and Trapping Associations of their communities as well.
Development of infrastructure is a balancing act and is often informed by these Indigenous communities. The route itself of the patrol was deeply informed by Indigenous communities, with deliberate intent to avoid environmental and culturally sensitive regions. I’ve seen from all levels of leadership in the CAF that this advice is both taken seriously and operationalized.
The CAF isn’t perfect, and has a deep colonial past, but it’s nice to see there’s a deliberate effort to both include and consider Indigenous communities in Arctic defence.
Journalist Gavin John while documenting Operation NANOOK-NUNALIVUT.Gavin John/The Globe and Mail
Travelling with the Rangers
What did you learn from your time spent with the Rangers? What do they think about the increased strategic importance of the North?
John: Nothing will replace boots-on-the-ground and nothing will replace human resilience. Technology alone could never accomplish that patrol, and in conditions like what we faced, the only thing that was reliable was each other. Not your snow machines, not the GPS, not the electronics. When things got really rough and honestly terrifying, I would look to the Rangers. Many of them, like most Canadians, seemed uncertain about the future and a little apprehensive. So much is already asked of them, and it’s clear more will be. But I can say that the majority also seem ready to face whatever is asked of them.
What sort of training do the Rangers need to go through to be able to accomplish a feat like this?
John: That’s the great thing about the Rangers. They’re recruited because they already come with the necessary skills to operate in the North. Training is more around the martial side of military operations, not land-based skills. However, for this operation, the core group of seven that completed the entire expedition were chosen for their demonstrated extreme aptitude in such conditions.
Master Corporal Philippe Brient was one such person, and he came with a level of “hushed whispered lore” from the other Rangers with regards to his level of confidence in the Arctic. I’ve never seen anyone so unbothered and calm in some of the most violent weather conditions ever. There wasn’t a snowmobile he couldn’t unstick, a storm he couldn’t navigate, or weather that impeded him. He often led the patrol, alongside the local Rangers because of his skill. Of people who I think deserve a book written about them, it’s probably him.
MCpl Philippe Brient and the rest of the patrol take a brief break on March 20.Gavin John/The Globe and Mail
The trip was certainly a huge tactical accomplishment but what does it prove? What operational effect did it achieve?
John: The CAF demonstrating that they have the capability to move across some of the most hostile terrain in the most hostile time of year is in itself a strategic effect. Also, if our adversaries know that we have a fast, light, and effective capability to reach anywhere in the Arctic, then it would absolutely factor into decision making.
How would you explain the reason for getting caught in a severe white-out blizzard, given all of the meteorological intelligence resources and Ranger’s “Arctic knowledge” available to the patrol?
John: When it came to the blizzard, simply put, the Arctic is dangerously unpredictable. Despite all of the technology, GPS, weather, and communications we had, they are all within a degree of confidence that is never 100 per cent. There will always be a level of personal judgement that came to decision making. Sometimes we would beat the storm, sometimes, as the article tells, we did not.
The skills that the Rangers bring aren’t exactly a predictive model of weather, but an adaptive mindset of decision making and movement. Knowing when to move, how to move, and where to move is often the most important skill one can have in such hostile environments. Which absolutely came in handy when getting caught by storms that moved faster than anyone anticipated.
The sun breaks over the Richardson Mountains, NWT, and a wind swept field of hummocks on Feb. 19.Gavin John/The Globe and Mail
Military presence in the Arctic
What are some factors that have made the Arctic such a strategic hotspot for world powers?
John: Climate change is a massive one. After the era of discovery and into the 20th century, there was a belief that the nature of the Arctic, its hostile nature, remoteness, and inaccessibility made development infeasible and that it should be “preserved” as such. However, a warming climate and rapidly warming Arctic has led to the perception that the previous factors that limited development can now be mitigated or ignored.
The Northwest Passage is a great example of this. While its usefulness and feasibility as an international shipping lane is tenuous at best, it is widely perceived by other states in the world as one. It definitely isn’t one today, as it is still dangerous and expensive to transit for marginal pay off, but there is great speculation that it COULD be one in future decades.
Along the same lines, there are vast amounts of gas and oil offshore in the Bering Sea. It is still not economically viable to do so, but if the sea ice and brutal weather were less a factor, then that would change.
Militarily, should NATO and Russia go to war, this is a vital frontline for airborne weapons en-route to North American or Russian targets. Whoever can detect, track, intercept, and deter the other in both the Canadian and Russian Arctic has a great advantage. This has been the case since the 1950s, but the development of technology from bombers to hypersonics have compressed the time to respond from hours to minutes. As of now, hypersonic missiles have the advantage, which the NORAD modernization program and Golden Dome intend to counter.
Should Canadians be preparing for an invasion from the North? How likely is that to happen in the coming years or decades?
John: If you’re thinking of a conventional, tanks rolling across a border and paratroopers landing behind front lines kind of invasion, then no. The likelihood of that kind of invasion is incredibly small, so it’s unlikely that’s going to be a threat. Large-scale conventional warfare in the Canadian Arctic is not something that we should prepare for and is not something that anyone is actively preparing for either. In a hypothetical scenario, nations could achieve greater gains though other more effective tools in the Arctic like cyber, disinformation, and aerial- and ocean-based threats.