Nah, they are essentially irrelevant unless they are operating as part of a coalition. Last I checked they are still waffling on what 5th generation fighter jet to procure while the rest of the world are starting to plan for the 6th generation.

I presume you mean the recent changes to finally get Canada up to 2% GDP for its military spending? (I'll put aside some of the accounting shenanigans going on there)

I disagree - literal generations of cutting to the bone and beyond cannot be turned around overnight. Defunding isn't just about the dollars, it's about the lost mindshare, training, culture, morale, equipment, stockpiles - everything.

It will take a generation of strong investment and actual commitment to get this force back to something it ought to be. And based on trends since the 80's, future governments will be quick to pull back on any recent allocations.

We're talking about nation states here, not houses in a policed region. That's not a valid analogy.

Say you're East Timor and your neighbour wants what you have - if you don't have the means to defend yourself, you're pretty much screwed (and they were). It's the main reason we have a military - this is a harsh and unforgiving world at that level, and you need to maintain a given level of capability. We are not at the "end of history" as some thought in the early 90's, and this has been doubly re-enforced after the invasion of Ukraine.

So what I'm saying is that by making such sustained and deep cuts to the Canadian military, that our political leaders have left the second largest nation in the world undefended and subject to the whim of its neighbours. And if you're paying attention, those are some pretty unsavoury neighbours.

"What a horrible world you live in" - what a snarky and hostile thing to say, why not try to understand my message before typing out such a barbed and dismissive statement?

"US couldn't annex Canada if it wanted to" - Truly, the state of our military is shockingly bad. The US Marines could annex Canada, and I honestly mean that.

I do agree that the US military's perceived preeminence has taken a big blow, but what you're saying is just outrageously false.

I think the USA has long desired a stronger nation to the north. Not only would it be a good place to sell second-tier weapons (CF-5 anyone?), but it is also quite an important border to secure. It's only the extreme harshness, inaccessibility and vast distances that make it less of a concern. Well, that and Alaska provides enough of a launching point to swat at anything of concern.

The "you don't need it" excuse might have faired in the 90's post-war peace dividend times, but that's been a thing of the past for decades now. Our politicians really have used it as a chequing account when they can't make things balance. Hell, our airshow demonstration team was flying aircraft some 50 years old, and this was just disbanded - for budgetary reasons!

We've long done things radically on the cheap. From buying discarded legacy F-18's, to old garbage UK second hand subs. Hell our MCDV maritime defense vessels are cobbled-together from: a turbine for a skyscraper, WWII guns taken from museum pieces, and a hull that was never designed for any of this. You can imagine how well that worked out.

It's not just cheapness - it's political wankery. We had a multi-billion dollar helicopter contract cancelled, and paid more in fees that it would have cost to deliver the aircraft. Only to just buy those aircraft anyway years down the line. We signed on to the F-35 program, to bail on it, only to re-join it again. Our politicans act like we don't need a military, and it can be thrown around for political purposes - it's embarrassing, honestly.

If you want a good perspective from a veteran, a good resource is Esprit de Corps: https://www.youtube.com/@espritdecorpsmagazine