I've been preaching this perspective for months now. Buy enough F35s to meet our obligation re NORAD. Because it's a joint project with the U.S. it's in their best interest to keep the things flying. Buy the planes that our Nordic neighbors have, because we are a Northern nation with similar goals. The fact that they are willing to share the technology and let Canada build them says an awful lot about the difference in world view from the U.S. Most of us have had a different perspective on life than our southern neighbors, and that's becoming larger and more apparent. We need to plant the flag in our own country!
🇨🇦💙 Add in China imposing strict export controls and licensing requirements, blocking rare earths for foreign military use like in U.S. F-35s but allowing case by case approvals. 🤔 One F35 contains 418 Kg or rare earth, One Arleigh Burke DDG -51 destroyer contains 2600 Kg of rare earth, One Virginia Class submarine contains 4600 Kg of rare earth. Recently, the pentagon issued a tender for $500 million in alloy-grade cobalt. Not one country made a bid. The tender was retracted.
Exactamundo. In today’s world we have to get granular.
Right now I’m following gallium and tungsten specifically. They are metallic elements with contrasting properties with combined uses in advanced materials. Gallium melts near room temperature, while tungsten has the highest melting point of any metal.
This is where it gets interesting. They pair in coatings, like gallium on tungsten for oxidation resistance or tungsten-doped gallium oxide for stable thin films in electronics.
Canada has access to both tungsten and gallium resources, through deposits like the Mactung tungsten project in Yukon and gallium-bearing sites in Ontario and Quebec. Uses? Protective coatings, lubrication and electrodes for high temperature sensors.
Side Note: I first heard about tungsten in the Rita Hayworth movie Gilda. Her crooked husband was selling tungsten to Nazis. Canada’s Rio Tinto just started gallium extraction at its Vaudreuil refinery in Quebec.
My first assignment in Canada was in Kitsault, BC to assist with construction of the molybdenum mine there. That also shut down to low prices and the fact that the tailings were dumped directly into the ocean. My boss at the time was super stoked about mactung and that's why I remember it. I suspect there are lots of other small high grade opportunities for critical minerals that have not been on the books for years. Now is the time to dust them off and get new geologists back into the field like they were in the 50s.
The F-35 deal reminds me of the downside of owning a Tesla… Tesla only allows their dealers to work on it or provide parts and software updates. Imagine having a country that elected Trump (twice!) having that sort of control over Canadian fighter inventory.
It seems that there are those in the higher up positions of the Air Force who seriously want the F-35 and only the F-35. The Gripen more than satisfies our needs in many respects. Yes, meet our commitments for NORAD with the US but with as few F-35s as possible. By the way, the F-35 is already acquiring the moniker "The Hangar Queen", according to some. How true that really is, I'm not sure.
Ron... there’s definitely a split on this, no question.
Some in the Air Force are looking at capability at the high end…
and the F-35 is built for that kind of integrated, next-gen warfare.
But the other side of the argument is exactly what you’re pointing to... fit for purpose.
We’re not projecting power halfway around the world every day.
We’re defending a massive northern country, meeting NORAD commitments, and managing Arctic sovereignty.
That doesn’t always require the most expensive tool in the box.
On the “Hangar Queen” label...
there have been real concerns about maintenance time and readiness rates, but like you said, it’s not black and white. Every advanced platform comes with trade-offs.
Which brings us back to the bigger point...
👉 Capability vs cost
👉 Performance vs availability
👉 Power vs independence
That’s why the mixed fleet idea keeps gaining traction… it’s not perfect, but it spreads the risk.
I am still trying to understand why we need F-35s. Russia has nothing like it and there is no need for that kind of ability to shoot down Russian bombers. They are not, as farbas I am aware, capable of intercepting ICBMs. The only bombers we would need them to intercept and shoot down are B1bs, B2s and B52s. I also note, somewhat irrelevantly, that the 3 F15s (F16s?) were shot down by an F18.
- Saab wants to _expand GripenE production. Sweden is a small country (10 million). Saab is a small company (27,000 workers). Saab is offering to _build GripenE under license in Canada, which would keep defence spending in Canada, flowing to Canadian workers, companies and suppliers.
"Under license" means manufacturing is done at home and Saab gets a license fee for its blueprints, etc.
Building jets under license was a multiplier for Canada in the past. Canadair used to build Canada's fighter jets (CT-133, CF-86, CF-104, CF-5) under license in Canada. Canadair had even improved upon the F-86 by replacing its US-built GE engine with the better-performing Canadian-built Avro Orenda engine.
The multiplier: Canadair then also _created the Tutor (Snowbirds), the Challenger, the CRJ, the CL-415 "super scooper" water bomber.
The multiplier keeps working: Saab GlobalEye AWACS, just bought by France, uses Bombardier Global 6500 airframes -- airframes evolved directly from the CRJ ( Canadair Regional Jet ); the CL-415 "super scooper" is now in much demand for fighting wild fires and it's being updated as the DHC-515.
- Sweden has been steadfast in making its own jets. Partnering with Saab on GripenE puts Canada in position to help develop the next generation of jets, which can then be built once the final GripenE rolls off the line.
- What use is the F-35 as a common NATO jet if the F-35 vendor nation threatens to abandon NATO? How can NATO be expected to trust the F-35 vendor nation ever again? What happens to the global F-35 supply chain if the F-35 vendor nation becomes surly?
- F-35 has "gee whiz" features but Gripen can do the job well enough.
Canadian taxpayers drive inexpensive reliable Civics and RAV4s -- cars that get the job done just fine -- cars that are built in Canada -- so why should Canadian taxpayers have to buy flying Ferraris from a hostile vendor?
- F-35 seems to take 10 times more effort to keep flying than Gripen (ref: Swiss, RAF).
Would you rather your air force pilots be in the air gaining flight hours or sitting on their hands waiting for their hangar queen to come out of the shop?
- Equipment purchases of this size are also about economic benefit.
For proof look no further than US defence budgets: US politicians try to make sure defence spending goes to their districts. If US takes that approach then why should Canada be any different?
Putin's Russia can barely handle Ukraine's ragtag determined defense. Putin's Russia will never be in a position to attack NorthAmerica.
We should be thanking Ukraine for revealing Putin's Russia to be a paper tiger ... with nukes that it dares not use. After 4 years of grinding battle, where are Russia's vaunted jets and equipment that the F-35 was designed to counter? Putin's Russia has had to scrounge its drones from Iran.
So thanks to Ukraine, weapons manufacturers now have to invent a new boogeyman to replace Russian in their scaremongering when marketing their complex, expensive hardware.
China? Really?
China has no need for military action. China already has all the economic levers necessary to manipulate events in its favour. China knows better than to threaten its very lucrative commercial interests .
So, instead of humbling ourselves in order to appease NORAD, Canadians should be questioning its continued purpose.
Where was NORAD when a dozen drones swarmed a US airforce base in Louisiana earlier in March 2026?
The Grippens is already integrated with NATO in Europe. It's electronics are upgradeable and replaceable so there should not be any difficulty integrating them in NORAD
Yes, NORAD -- the arrangement that's primarily meant to protect the US mainland and where Canada just happens to be the geographic buffer.
Yes, it's politically necessary to have _some_ F-35s, if only to appease NORAD and the USAF, but that arrangement is slowly becoming a mafia-style protection racket:
"pay me (buy my equipment) and I'll make sure nothing bad happens to you.
And if you don't pay me? Well, you won't like what happens ..."
Nothing like getting kicked in the nose, bleeding down your nice clean shirt, to finally see the changes required to a better more self reliable country
Fred, this is a sharp read — and you’re right to frame it as sovereignty, not procurement. But the deeper shift isn’t just who builds the jets. It’s what kind of war Canada thinks it may have to fight.
Canada is quietly rediscovering something Europe is now learning the hard way:
industrial capacity is deterrence.
The F-35 is not just a fighter — it’s an ecosystem controlled by the Lockheed Martin and embedded in a US-led architecture. That brings capability, but also dependency. Denmark didn’t “reveal a secret” — it stated an operational reality every F-35 user already lives with.
And that’s where your point becomes more interesting:
This isn’t about replacing the F-35.
It’s about hedging against a single-point strategic dependency.
A mixed fleet — F-35 for high-end integration, something like Saab JAS 39 Gripen for sovereignty, cost, and availability — isn’t compromise.
It’s resilience by design.
Because modern war is exposing three uncomfortable truths:
Supply chains are now part of the battlespace
Software control can be strategic leverage
Industrial depth matters as much as frontline capability
That’s exactly what we’re seeing in Ukraine — and increasingly across NATO.
Canada’s $900M move signals something bigger:
a shift from platform thinking → system sovereignty thinking
And Washington’s reaction? Predictable.
Because once allies start optimising for independence rather than integration, the entire logic of US-led defence architecture begins to loosen at the edges.
So the real question isn’t “Ferrari vs fleet.”
It’s this:
Is your military a capability… or a dependency?
Canada isn’t breaking with the US.
But it is doing something more subtle — and more consequential:
👉 Reintroducing strategic autonomy into a system that quietly engineered it out.
—
If you zoom out, this fits a wider pattern: Europe, Canada, even parts of Asia are all starting to price in the same risk—
what happens if the system you depend on becomes politically conditional?
Not necessarily, but we could party together and become close friends. I like the term neighboring that came into use in Minneapolis. Active and meaningful care for each other. We both need more of that.
🇨🇦💙The Pentagon controls aviation fluids and spare parts. F35’s need temperature and humidity controlled environments for maintenance and storage, especially for its sensitive electronics and stealth coatings. Imagine a hangar in the arctic? Where’s the power grid and technicians? A Pentagon Inspector General report documented $1.31 billion of equipment stored in degrading, damaged or “critical‑condition” state across Army warehouses. Forget the fire power, dealing with these people is dangerous.
No it never was about jets or anything that a lot of Canadians believe it was!! Like American’s, Canada has a large number of brainwashed citizens that also can’t see the forest for the trees.
What it is, is the completion of the delivery of Canadas resources to the globalist psychopaths under the banner of the WEF ,as well as the delivery of all Canadian Citizens to be enslaved into the Nazi, Klaus Schwab’s, Hitler’s dream of a “One World Order”
Mark Carney is an implanted WEF PSYCHOPATH TO FINISH WHAT TRUDEAU STARTED UNDER THE TREASONOUS DIRECTION OF THE PSYCHOPATH’S at the WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM!
As of this past week, the criminalization of free speech has began and arrests have started for anyone criticizing Canadas Liberal/Wef NAZI PARTY!!
I've been preaching this perspective for months now. Buy enough F35s to meet our obligation re NORAD. Because it's a joint project with the U.S. it's in their best interest to keep the things flying. Buy the planes that our Nordic neighbors have, because we are a Northern nation with similar goals. The fact that they are willing to share the technology and let Canada build them says an awful lot about the difference in world view from the U.S. Most of us have had a different perspective on life than our southern neighbors, and that's becoming larger and more apparent. We need to plant the flag in our own country!
Jim... you’ve been ahead of the curve on this.
The part people miss is exactly what you said… this isn’t just about performance, it’s about control and alignment.
NORAD? Sure... that’s a joint system, and we play our part.
But everything outside of that? We should not be outsourcing our entire capability.
The Nordic angle matters more than people think too.
Similar geography, similar operational reality… and a very different mindset when it comes to sharing technology vs controlling it.
That gap in worldview you mentioned?
It’s not subtle anymore.
Feels like Canada is finally starting to price that into its decisions.
I think Carney is moving away slowly to keep the orange man in check, while Canada becomes more independant.
Buy enough F 35’s for NORAD means 65 Jets following the 80/70 rule of fleet maintenance. 1 in 5 of your fleet are always in deep refit.
The remaining jets are available at a 70% factor, We legally owe NORAD 36 on the ramp fuelled ,armed, trained pilot aircraft.
65x80%=52 x70%=36.
I think we will buy 65 F35’s and rapidly develop a Canadian unmanned combat drone with large range and mostly autonomous. 65 or so to start.
🇨🇦💙 Add in China imposing strict export controls and licensing requirements, blocking rare earths for foreign military use like in U.S. F-35s but allowing case by case approvals. 🤔 One F35 contains 418 Kg or rare earth, One Arleigh Burke DDG -51 destroyer contains 2600 Kg of rare earth, One Virginia Class submarine contains 4600 Kg of rare earth. Recently, the pentagon issued a tender for $500 million in alloy-grade cobalt. Not one country made a bid. The tender was retracted.
Roxy... that’s a huge piece of the puzzle most people never see.
Everyone talks about jets and specs… but the real choke point is materials.
If your aircraft depends on rare earths and supply chains you don’t control, you’re not just buying a jet... you’re buying exposure.
Those numbers you dropped are wild too…
people don’t realize how resource-heavy modern defence systems actually are.
And that cobalt tender getting zero bids?
That’s the market quietly saying, “good luck.”
This is exactly why diversification... not just in aircraft, but in supply chains... is becoming a strategic necessity.
The conversation is shifting from what we buy… to what we can sustain when things get tight.
Exactamundo. In today’s world we have to get granular.
Right now I’m following gallium and tungsten specifically. They are metallic elements with contrasting properties with combined uses in advanced materials. Gallium melts near room temperature, while tungsten has the highest melting point of any metal.
This is where it gets interesting. They pair in coatings, like gallium on tungsten for oxidation resistance or tungsten-doped gallium oxide for stable thin films in electronics.
Canada has access to both tungsten and gallium resources, through deposits like the Mactung tungsten project in Yukon and gallium-bearing sites in Ontario and Quebec. Uses? Protective coatings, lubrication and electrodes for high temperature sensors.
Side Note: I first heard about tungsten in the Rita Hayworth movie Gilda. Her crooked husband was selling tungsten to Nazis. Canada’s Rio Tinto just started gallium extraction at its Vaudreuil refinery in Quebec.
Roxy... this is exactly the level most of the conversation never gets to.
People think defence is about planes and ships…
but it starts way further upstream... materials, processing, and who controls them.
Gallium and tungsten are perfect examples.
You don’t need a shortage of jets to have a problem…
You just need a bottleneck in what goes into them.
And what you pointed out about Canada matters...
👉 We actually have access to key resources
👉 We’re starting to process some of them at home
👉 That gives us leverage most people don’t realize we have
That’s the part that ties all of this together... from fighter jets to supply chains.
The countries that control the inputs… quietly control the outcome.
Jeez, I haven't heard about mactung in 45 years. Us it still still not developed?
Kary... believe it or not… it’s still not developed.
Mactung has been sitting there for decades as one of the largest high-grade tungsten deposits in the world...
but it never made it into production.
A few things got in the way over the years...
Remote location (end of a rough 250 km road)
Infrastructure challenges (power, transport, river crossings)
Market swings (tungsten prices crashed more than once)
The old operator went bankrupt back in 2015
Now here’s the interesting part…
It’s back in play.
A new company (Fireweed Metals) bought it in the last couple years
Canada and the U.S. have both put money into advancing it.
They’re currently working through feasibility studies and aiming toward potential development.
So the short version...
👉 Not dead
👉 Not built
👉 But suddenly very important again
And that ties right back into what Roxy was saying... these critical minerals weren’t a big deal 20–30 years ago…
Now they’re strategic.
My first assignment in Canada was in Kitsault, BC to assist with construction of the molybdenum mine there. That also shut down to low prices and the fact that the tailings were dumped directly into the ocean. My boss at the time was super stoked about mactung and that's why I remember it. I suspect there are lots of other small high grade opportunities for critical minerals that have not been on the books for years. Now is the time to dust them off and get new geologists back into the field like they were in the 50s.
Kary... that’s a great perspective… and Kitsault is a perfect example of how this cycle works.
Projects get shelved when prices drop or conditions change… and then decades later they suddenly become strategic again.
What was “uneconomic” in one era becomes essential in another.
And I think you’re right... there are probably a lot of those forgotten deposits sitting quietly on the books.
The difference now is...
👉 Demand isn’t just industrial anymore… it’s geopolitical
👉 Supply chains are being weaponized
👉 And countries are realizing they need control over their inputs
So yeah… dusting those projects off doesn’t feel like nostalgia anymore.
It feels like necessity.
The F-35 deal reminds me of the downside of owning a Tesla… Tesla only allows their dealers to work on it or provide parts and software updates. Imagine having a country that elected Trump (twice!) having that sort of control over Canadian fighter inventory.
Pikabill... that Tesla comparison actually nails it.
It’s not about whether the product is good… it’s about who controls the ecosystem around it.
When maintenance, parts, and software all run through one country, you’re not just buying equipment... you’re buying into their system.
And systems come with leverage.
That’s the part Canada is starting to wake up to.
Performance matters…
But control matters more when things get tense.
Good point indeed! You are thinking like Carney is acting :)
Or John Deere farm machinery.
I always appreciate how clear and succinctly you present the issues. No word salad. No hedging. Just the straightforward reality. TKX Fred!
Owning is important. Be your own master.
It seems that there are those in the higher up positions of the Air Force who seriously want the F-35 and only the F-35. The Gripen more than satisfies our needs in many respects. Yes, meet our commitments for NORAD with the US but with as few F-35s as possible. By the way, the F-35 is already acquiring the moniker "The Hangar Queen", according to some. How true that really is, I'm not sure.
Ron... there’s definitely a split on this, no question.
Some in the Air Force are looking at capability at the high end…
and the F-35 is built for that kind of integrated, next-gen warfare.
But the other side of the argument is exactly what you’re pointing to... fit for purpose.
We’re not projecting power halfway around the world every day.
We’re defending a massive northern country, meeting NORAD commitments, and managing Arctic sovereignty.
That doesn’t always require the most expensive tool in the box.
On the “Hangar Queen” label...
there have been real concerns about maintenance time and readiness rates, but like you said, it’s not black and white. Every advanced platform comes with trade-offs.
Which brings us back to the bigger point...
👉 Capability vs cost
👉 Performance vs availability
👉 Power vs independence
That’s why the mixed fleet idea keeps gaining traction… it’s not perfect, but it spreads the risk.
I am still trying to understand why we need F-35s. Russia has nothing like it and there is no need for that kind of ability to shoot down Russian bombers. They are not, as farbas I am aware, capable of intercepting ICBMs. The only bombers we would need them to intercept and shoot down are B1bs, B2s and B52s. I also note, somewhat irrelevantly, that the 3 F15s (F16s?) were shot down by an F18.
Wow!!! This is awesome news!!! Thank you for the post again Fred :)
Glad we have an adult in charge.
Yes, Saab GripenE for Canada.
- Saab wants to _expand GripenE production. Sweden is a small country (10 million). Saab is a small company (27,000 workers). Saab is offering to _build GripenE under license in Canada, which would keep defence spending in Canada, flowing to Canadian workers, companies and suppliers.
"Under license" means manufacturing is done at home and Saab gets a license fee for its blueprints, etc.
Building jets under license was a multiplier for Canada in the past. Canadair used to build Canada's fighter jets (CT-133, CF-86, CF-104, CF-5) under license in Canada. Canadair had even improved upon the F-86 by replacing its US-built GE engine with the better-performing Canadian-built Avro Orenda engine.
The multiplier: Canadair then also _created the Tutor (Snowbirds), the Challenger, the CRJ, the CL-415 "super scooper" water bomber.
The multiplier keeps working: Saab GlobalEye AWACS, just bought by France, uses Bombardier Global 6500 airframes -- airframes evolved directly from the CRJ ( Canadair Regional Jet ); the CL-415 "super scooper" is now in much demand for fighting wild fires and it's being updated as the DHC-515.
- Sweden has been steadfast in making its own jets. Partnering with Saab on GripenE puts Canada in position to help develop the next generation of jets, which can then be built once the final GripenE rolls off the line.
- What use is the F-35 as a common NATO jet if the F-35 vendor nation threatens to abandon NATO? How can NATO be expected to trust the F-35 vendor nation ever again? What happens to the global F-35 supply chain if the F-35 vendor nation becomes surly?
- F-35 has "gee whiz" features but Gripen can do the job well enough.
Canadian taxpayers drive inexpensive reliable Civics and RAV4s -- cars that get the job done just fine -- cars that are built in Canada -- so why should Canadian taxpayers have to buy flying Ferraris from a hostile vendor?
- F-35 seems to take 10 times more effort to keep flying than Gripen (ref: Swiss, RAF).
Would you rather your air force pilots be in the air gaining flight hours or sitting on their hands waiting for their hangar queen to come out of the shop?
- Equipment purchases of this size are also about economic benefit.
For proof look no further than US defence budgets: US politicians try to make sure defence spending goes to their districts. If US takes that approach then why should Canada be any different?
NeedsImprovement... that’s a strong breakdown, and the Canadair example is a great reminder of what we’ve done before when we actually build at home.
That “multiplier effect” you’re talking about is real.
Once you have the capability, it doesn’t just stop at one project... it feeds into everything else over time.
I think where the debate gets more complicated is at the high end.
The F-35 isn’t just a jet… it’s part of a larger integrated system with allies, especially for NORAD.
That piece still matters whether we like it or not.
But your broader point stands...
👉 Domestic production = economic return
👉 Domestic capability = long-term independence
And those two don’t always show up in the sticker price of a jet.
The real question is finding the balance between...
Interoperability with allies
Cost and availability
And building something sustainable here at home
That’s why the mixed fleet idea keeps resurfacing…
it tries to thread that needle instead of going all-in on one side.
And what is NORAD's purpose, these days?
USSR dissolved in 1991.
Putin's Russia can barely handle Ukraine's ragtag determined defense. Putin's Russia will never be in a position to attack NorthAmerica.
We should be thanking Ukraine for revealing Putin's Russia to be a paper tiger ... with nukes that it dares not use. After 4 years of grinding battle, where are Russia's vaunted jets and equipment that the F-35 was designed to counter? Putin's Russia has had to scrounge its drones from Iran.
So thanks to Ukraine, weapons manufacturers now have to invent a new boogeyman to replace Russian in their scaremongering when marketing their complex, expensive hardware.
China? Really?
China has no need for military action. China already has all the economic levers necessary to manipulate events in its favour. China knows better than to threaten its very lucrative commercial interests .
So, instead of humbling ourselves in order to appease NORAD, Canadians should be questioning its continued purpose.
Where was NORAD when a dozen drones swarmed a US airforce base in Louisiana earlier in March 2026?
The Grippens is already integrated with NATO in Europe. It's electronics are upgradeable and replaceable so there should not be any difficulty integrating them in NORAD
Yes, NORAD -- the arrangement that's primarily meant to protect the US mainland and where Canada just happens to be the geographic buffer.
Yes, it's politically necessary to have _some_ F-35s, if only to appease NORAD and the USAF, but that arrangement is slowly becoming a mafia-style protection racket:
"pay me (buy my equipment) and I'll make sure nothing bad happens to you.
And if you don't pay me? Well, you won't like what happens ..."
Thanks so much for your awesome work. I trust our PM Mark Carney and know he will move us away from the US market. In my opinion
Lynne... appreciate that, thank you 🙏
I think what we’re starting to see isn’t about moving away from the U.S. entirely… it’s about reducing dependence where it matters most.
There’s a difference between partnership and reliance.
Canada’s always going to work with the U.S. ... that’s geography and reality.
But building more capability at home, and having options beyond a single supplier, just makes us stronger in the long run.
Feels like we’re finally starting to think that way.
Absolutely, I agree with your comments 👍
Nothing like getting kicked in the nose, bleeding down your nice clean shirt, to finally see the changes required to a better more self reliable country
Thanks so much for all your hard work 💜 ❤️
Thank you everyone for the excellent information regarding this topic. I learned lots today!
Fred, this is a sharp read — and you’re right to frame it as sovereignty, not procurement. But the deeper shift isn’t just who builds the jets. It’s what kind of war Canada thinks it may have to fight.
Canada is quietly rediscovering something Europe is now learning the hard way:
industrial capacity is deterrence.
The F-35 is not just a fighter — it’s an ecosystem controlled by the Lockheed Martin and embedded in a US-led architecture. That brings capability, but also dependency. Denmark didn’t “reveal a secret” — it stated an operational reality every F-35 user already lives with.
And that’s where your point becomes more interesting:
This isn’t about replacing the F-35.
It’s about hedging against a single-point strategic dependency.
A mixed fleet — F-35 for high-end integration, something like Saab JAS 39 Gripen for sovereignty, cost, and availability — isn’t compromise.
It’s resilience by design.
Because modern war is exposing three uncomfortable truths:
Supply chains are now part of the battlespace
Software control can be strategic leverage
Industrial depth matters as much as frontline capability
That’s exactly what we’re seeing in Ukraine — and increasingly across NATO.
Canada’s $900M move signals something bigger:
a shift from platform thinking → system sovereignty thinking
And Washington’s reaction? Predictable.
Because once allies start optimising for independence rather than integration, the entire logic of US-led defence architecture begins to loosen at the edges.
So the real question isn’t “Ferrari vs fleet.”
It’s this:
Is your military a capability… or a dependency?
Canada isn’t breaking with the US.
But it is doing something more subtle — and more consequential:
👉 Reintroducing strategic autonomy into a system that quietly engineered it out.
—
If you zoom out, this fits a wider pattern: Europe, Canada, even parts of Asia are all starting to price in the same risk—
what happens if the system you depend on becomes politically conditional?
That’s not theory anymore.
That’s planning
Canada, could you annex willing states?
Kay... I’ve been seeing that pop up a lot lately 😄
Fun idea… but I think we’ve got our hands full managing our own country as it is.
Probably better to focus on being good neighbours than trying to redraw the map.
Not necessarily, but we could party together and become close friends. I like the term neighboring that came into use in Minneapolis. Active and meaningful care for each other. We both need more of that.
Kary... that’s a good way to put it.
“Neighboring” feels a lot healthier than everything turning into sides and lines in the sand.
We’re always going to be connected… geography makes that permanent.
Might as well make that connection respectful instead of strained.
🇨🇦💙The Pentagon controls aviation fluids and spare parts. F35’s need temperature and humidity controlled environments for maintenance and storage, especially for its sensitive electronics and stealth coatings. Imagine a hangar in the arctic? Where’s the power grid and technicians? A Pentagon Inspector General report documented $1.31 billion of equipment stored in degrading, damaged or “critical‑condition” state across Army warehouses. Forget the fire power, dealing with these people is dangerous.
No it never was about jets or anything that a lot of Canadians believe it was!! Like American’s, Canada has a large number of brainwashed citizens that also can’t see the forest for the trees.
What it is, is the completion of the delivery of Canadas resources to the globalist psychopaths under the banner of the WEF ,as well as the delivery of all Canadian Citizens to be enslaved into the Nazi, Klaus Schwab’s, Hitler’s dream of a “One World Order”
Mark Carney is an implanted WEF PSYCHOPATH TO FINISH WHAT TRUDEAU STARTED UNDER THE TREASONOUS DIRECTION OF THE PSYCHOPATH’S at the WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM!
As of this past week, the criminalization of free speech has began and arrests have started for anyone criticizing Canadas Liberal/Wef NAZI PARTY!!
Smart move Canada