You clearly underestimate the political support factor towards the US in Europe. Which is low... to use an undestatement.
We will see. If the US gets a dem president next who aplogizes for Trumps action and can maintain a non Maga administration for 2-3 terms in a row, then I expect Europe to remain a major American military market. At the end of the day Euro govts are behoden to their own budgets, if the US becomes friednly again and offers cheaper alternatives to German/French made arms, then the cheaper gear will have a market. But this is contigent on US having atleast 2-3 non maga administrations in a row.
I think you meant to say "overestimate".
Or none of those options and instead have very limited foreign policy options as a result. You don't need weapons to stare down Russia and support Ukraine if you're willing to sell Ukraine downriver. You can get by with less if you stay back further, and lean more heavily on a nuclear deterrent.
Even in the 50’s 60’s and 70’s when the nuclear deterrent was at its apex the power v power dynamic had a work around. One that the Russians today love to use. Insurgency and political destabilization operations. Something that Vladimir Putin’s FSB was deeply involved in Eastern Europe before the 2014 invasion. If the national government is unstable or even moreover a puppet of the Kremlin a nuclear deterrent is rendered mute.
Even Euro MIC continue survival more and more related to Middle East and Asia market as Euro market on it is own will not be enough. I once attend Bankers and Industry meeting in Singapore, and during MIC session one of Dasault Executive acknowledged that. Without Middle East and Asian market it is very hard to keep Rafale production line open. This is just an example that shown how Euro MIC looking to Middle East and Asia market to keep maintaining their production line.
This is largely attributable to a defense-industry ecosystem not suitable for the current reality. The governments must be involved in the R&D and de-risk it and production programs. The best way to do that is to lead by setting requirements, and then make gradual buys that keep production lines open indefinitely.
I don't agree F-35 sales has been lackluster and slow. European countries have replaced their 4. gen jets when they have reached end of life, with a few exception (mainly France and Sweden). Hundreds of F-35 have been bought already and many more will be bought (unless the conflicting signals from the WH on support to allies turn prospective buyers off). There are some European ships with Aegis (Spanish, Norwegian, and soon German frigates/destroyers) but due to locally developed competing systems many European countries have chosen European systems.
Nuclear Umbrella is an inherently unreliable concept. I don't know why EuroNATO felt secure under it, and I really hope they don't intend to rely on Fr*nce for it as well.
Seems unlikely that the Dems will win as MAGA is setting the agenda to rig the elections in it's favour for a long long time, MAGA control of the media is progressing at pace, dissenting (or even mildly skeptical ) voices are being suppressed and liesxare replacing truth at every corner.
Twelve years...not even close, it will take way longer or never for the reasons you mention. MAGA control of media and more importantly the whole US electoral apparatus may will spell the end for democracy in the land of the free, cough. The other two branches of government, Congress, and the SCOTUS failed miserably in being the checks and balance on the executive branch. America and its allies will suffer for it.
A total of roughly 250 modern fighter jets, many of them F-35, operating more and more jointly, should not be underestimated. And with budget increases all over, there will be missiles for all these aircraft. Finland has ordered AARGM-ER, and Norway is ordering JSM (as will Finland). Also, Finland has ordered JASSM-ER for their F-35s, Sweden has ordered Taurus for their Gripen fighters. And SDB I and II are coming to the Nordics of course.
I would imagine the differences between Canadian provinces would be similar to Australian states and more so for certain USA states.
Well... Australia isn't right next to Russia. And even China is really not that close. Defense spending is tied to the geo-strategic reality of your neighborhood.
Is there any realistic defence spending for Canada (other than WMD) for Canada considering the biggest threat is our ex-ally/friend to the south?