Former deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland’s suggestion during her leadership run that Canada might rely on France and Britain for protection against the United States is laughable.
Freeland claimed that U.S. President Donald Trump was “clearly threatening our sovereignty,” forcing Canada to turn to NATO partners in Europe to “guarantee our security.” She said, “I would be sure that France and Britain were there, who possess nuclear weapons,” adding, “I would be working urgently with those partners to build a closer security relationship… in a time when the United States can be a threat.”
The idea that countries across an ocean could defend Canada from its closest neighbour — with whom it shares the world’s longest undefended border — is divorced from geography, capability and common sense.
Yes, France has the largest armed forces in the European Union, with 201,000 military personnel and 62,000 civilians. It maintains the ninth-largest defence budget in the world, and its 9.6 per cent share of global arms exports is second only to the 43 per cent of the United States. But Paris is 4,000 kilometres from St. John’s and nearly 8,000 from Vancouver. That’s hardly close enough to serve as a credible shield for Canada.
As for Britain, its military is a shell of its former self. At the start of the Second World War, Britain had a force of 700,000. Today, its army consists of just 108,413 personnel, including 25,742 reservists. Most of its active troops are deployed offshore, and only about 10,000 could be mobilized quickly at home.
British historian and author Dr. Mark Felton, whose YouTube channel has more than two million followers, has detailed the U.K.’s vulnerability in recent months. In a video posted in November 2024, Felton asked whether Britain was ready for a cruise missile attack from Russia. His conclusion was , based on a comparison of British and Russian arsenals.
A functioning airborne warning and control system (AWACS) could help detect incoming threats, but Britain’s three new E-7 Wedgetail aircraft won’t be ready until late 2025. While Britain still has 137 Typhoon fighter jets, 30 of them are being retired this year. Of the 48 F-35s Britain originally ordered, 37 have been delivered.
Britain’s defence assets are concentrated and vulnerable. Its RAF fighters are based at just two domestic airfields. The Royal Navy operates from only three bases, and its submarines are stationed at Faslane, Scotland. A few well-placed strikes on those facilities — plus attacks on key bridges or power plants — could cripple Britain’s ability to fight back.
Felton explains, “Britain has scrapped virtually all its civil defence capabilities. This leaves the U.K. at a disadvantage following any attack, as the population has no training in precautions, and there is no system of warning of imminent attack and no proper shelters. That is also the case for the RAF, whose bases are now largely devoid of Cold War-era bunkers and are very vulnerable to strikes.”
Military spending tells a similar story. In 2023, Russia spent 5.9 per cent of its GDP on its military, and the U.S., 3.4 per cent. But Britain, which spent 4.1 per cent of its GDP on defence in 1990, now spends just 2.3 per cent. The British army, oddly enough, has — more than twice as many as it has tanks.
When the Cold War ended in 1991, Britain had 1,200 Challenger II main battle tanks. Today it has only 213, partly due to sending 14 to Ukraine. Of these, only 157 could be made combat-ready within 30 days.
Felton also highlights the disproportionate in today’s Royal Navy. It has 62 commissioned vessels, but only 25 are designed for combat. Yet the navy employs 40 admirals. With 32,225 personnel in total, that’s one admiral for every 805 sailors. In 1939, the Royal Navy had 1,400 commissioned vessels — including 367 combat ships — and 200,000 sailors under 53 admirals, or one for every 3,773.
Freeland’s proposal also falls apart when it comes to nuclear deterrence. Britain’s nuclear warheads are designed and built in partnership with Lockheed Martin in the U.S. The Trident missiles that carry them are leased from the United States, serviced in Georgia, and tested in Florida. There is no independent British nuclear deterrent — only a shared one reliant on American support.
Britain has nine submarines, four of which are Vanguard-class vessels equipped to carry nuclear missiles. All four have surpassed their intended 25-year service life, and only one is on active patrol at a time. The next-generation , expected in the early 2030s, will also depend on American Trident missiles.
For good reason, Trump has called on Canada and other NATO allies to boost their military spending. Canada cannot afford to ignore that message — nor can it seriously rely on Britain to defend it. The hard truth is that Britain is barely capable of defending itself.
For good reason, Trump has called on Canada and other NATO allies to boost their military spending. Canada cannot afford to ignore that message — nor can it seriously rely on Britain to defend it. The hard truth is that Britain is barely capable of defending itself.
Lee Harding is a research fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
©
The commentaries offered on 麻豆视频.ca are intended to provide thought-provoking material for our readers. The opinions expressed are those of the authors. Contributors' articles or letters do not necessarily reflect the opinion of any 麻豆视频.ca staff.
