I just want to say that I certainly think Canada can work together with the U.S. militarily without losing sovereignty, because I think in the big cases of Vietnam and Iraq we didn't suffer any negative economic or other repercussions from saying no.
What I'd like to focus on is related to what you were talking about earlier, and that's the eastern front, or the Baltic states. One thing that would concern me is that the next front for Putin might be the Baltic states. The critical difference between them and Ukraine, of course, is that they're members of NATO and Ukraine isn't. That means there is the potential for article 5...and a NATO member to be attacked. I would think that if they did move in that direction, they'd do it subtly. It wouldn't be an all-out military invasion, but they could gradually assist the Russian-speaking people in parts of the Baltic states, and perhaps have some fake referendums, a little like Ukraine, and then it could fester.
I have two concerns over that. I'd like your assessment as to how important this is on two fronts. First, any potential direct military confrontation between Russia and NATO is inherently dangerous, obviously. Second, you were talking about how nimble Russia was in moving large numbers to Ukraine. I remember from 10 years ago, NATO was anything but nimble. There was talk of a big, rapid deployment force, but the ratio of tooth to tail was very low, and it was quite sclerotic. Maybe it's better now, but one of you said that NATO needs to be revitalized today.
I guess my concern is, first, the inherent risk of a confrontation with the world's other superpower, and militarily, nuclear, and second, the relative ability of NATO to act quickly versus what Russia has shown.