The Strategic Partnership between Canada and Sweden is an important milestone in the relationship between the two countries. It speaks to the idea, expressed by Prime Minister Carney, of like-minded democracies building ‘coalitions that work’. The Partnership has the potential to be more than another diplomatic framework: it is a call to action.
Under the Partnership, the two countries commit to deepening collaboration on several issues, including on women, peace and security, Arctic security, and on developing ‘whole-of-society’ defence. The growing interest in bringing more of society into defence is understandable given both the nature and severity of emerging threats. However, developing such a system requires political commitment on all levels and a coherent strategy for Canada’s territorial defence.
For such an important and challenging task, there is no quick fix, nor do Swedish or Nordic models provide ready-made templates for Canada. Yet the partnership with Sweden offers a unique opportunity for knowledge development, collaboration, and adaptation that can help both countries improve defence and deterrence.
Bringing Society (back) In
Among NATO allies, there is a clear trend: governments are seeking to involve more parts of society to build resilience and strengthen deterrence. Whole-of-society defence is seen as a key response to growing and expanding security challenges, ranging from conventional threats of war to disinformation and influence campaigns, supply chain disruptions, and attacks against financial or communications systems.
Like Sweden and most of the Nordic and Baltic states, Canada is part of this trend. Unlike Sweden, however, Canada has no ‘total defence’ concept to fall back on. From this perspective, then, Sweden offers some potentially useful lessons, but certainly not the only model.
There is no ‘one size fits all’ when it comes to total or whole-of-society defence; even between similar countries like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, there are noteworthy differences. Models are shaped by geography, political cultures and systems, national histories, threat perceptions, and public attitudes.
Media reports, analyses, and discussions have explored what a ‘total defence’ concept for Canada could look like. This is not surprising. The war in Ukraine has shown that defence extends way beyond the military. To defend a country under attack and against full-spectrum threats, actors from all parts and levels of society must be engaged and activated – from regional and local governments to the private sector and civil society.
Sweden’s total defence strategy emerged after World War II. In the 1990s, it was mostly disbanded, but following the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, the country has sought to re-invent the concept.
To be sure, Canada’s geography, political system, and defence organisations are different from Sweden’s. The point is not that Canada replicate Sweden’s system or that of any other country with a similar concept. Rather, the goal is to identify which elements are best suited to Canadian realities and build coherent policies around them.
As Lt. Col. Annukka Ylivaara, Assistant Secretary General of the Finnish Security Committee, reminded us at the 2026 Ottawa Conference on Security and Defence, legal foundations, clear allocation of responsibilities, and permanent cooperating bodies are key to institutionalising whole-of-society defence. Two additional challenges should be added: creating structures for collaboration and securing popular support and participation.
The Organisation-Collaboration Challenge
At the heart of whole-of-society defence is a demanding proposition: hybrid threats transcend conventional boundaries, so states need to combine military and civil defence in networked arrangements that span civilian-military, public-private, and local-national-international divides. Hybrid threats – very much influencing Canadian society too – challenge our ideas about defence and security as well as the ability of public institutions, armed forces, private companies, and communities to act together.
Sweden’s experience is instructive because it shows both the promise and difficulties of organising for whole-of-society defence. The system relies on a long-standing and, to many Swedes, familiar idea that defence involves the whole population and all sectors of society. At the same time, Sweden has struggled to turn political ambition into institutional capacity. Differing perspectives and role perceptions as well as lack of trust and institutional inertia have created collaboration and governance challenges to the point where the system risks becoming ‘a colossus on clay feet’. Building interorganisational relations and trust takes time. For Canada comes the added challenge of a federal system which entails additional structural and jurisdictional issues.
Relatedly, whole-of-society defence requires close interaction between actors that do not necessarily work well together. Collaborating across boundaries will be even more challenging if the existing system is siloed or shaped by overlapping mandates and conflicting organisational cultures. Research on both total defence forces and total defence organising highlight this problem: without structural foundations, clear roles, and working relations between key groups, these ideas risk becoming slogans rather than systems that can deliver defence and deterrence.
This is particularly true when it comes to the private sector. Today, very little can be achieved without market actors, be it for food production, logistics, health care and education, cyber security and AI, or the development and supply of defence systems and technology. For this reason, Sweden’s Civil Defence and Resilience Agency recently circulated a brochure to ‘increase awareness among businesses of how they can strengthen their own preparedness for crises and war’.
Public-private partnerships are hindered by a lack of business incentives, long-term planning, regulation and control, accountability, and security concerns. Under the Strategic Partnership, the key role of business from across sectors should be studied further in order to build sustainable and functional public-private partnerships for whole-of-society defence.
People, Knowledge, and Legitimacy
Another key challenge is people. Whole-of-society approaches depend on both popular support, awareness and engagement. Sweden has a long tradition of conscription and of legally requiring individuals to perform civil or military ‘total defence duties’ in times of crisis. In addition, the idea of communicating threats and preparing the civilian population for crisis or war has long been established. Still, the inclusion of women, minorities, and Indigenous peoples remains a challenge. The Partnership can be used to address these issues – fundamental if we are serious about engaging the whole of society – and to develop much-needed knowledge exchange and development.
Recruitment styles and modes of organising and communicating are very different in Canada. Still, attracting more people is a shared challenge. Even if conscription is not on the agenda, introducing some form of mandatory national service and increasing the number of part-time reserves are, and both measures may strengthen the connection between defence and wider society. Polls in Canada suggest a majority of Canadians are willing to volunteer for civil defence work, and around 19% would be willing to join the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) part-time. Yet, defence engagement and threat awareness among the population remain a challenge.
Finally, a whole-of-society approach must remain anchored in democratic values and norms. As defence expands into more areas of society, questions of oversight, transparency, and accountability become more important. Public confidence in the CAF is relatively high, though undermined by cases of systemic misconduct and discrimination, which in turn affect recruitment and the alignment of the institution with societal norms. Under the Partnership, shared challenges related to organisational culture, public support, and defence literacy should be explored further.
A Call for Collaboration and Adaptation
The partnership between Sweden and Canada expresses political will and both countries stand to gain from collaboration that strengthens readiness, deterrence, and defence. Conventional and hybrid threats are real and cannot be ignored: deliberate, concerted action is called for. Whole-of-society systems can be effective, but we need to be realistic about the challenges involved. Canada needs a whole-of-society system adapted to Canadian needs and conditions. To this end, we should take the opportunity provided by the partnership to learn from each other and develop new knowledge together.
Joakim Berndtsson is a full Professor in the School in the School of Global Studies, University of Gothenburg. His research focuses on military-society relations, civil-military collaboration, personnel and recruitment, and total defence.
The views expressed in this op-ed are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of the Institute or its staff.
