I would go the other way. I would say that geography traps us in some senses.
One of the things I do is show my students a ballistic missile intercept that would be fictive between Pyongyang and Washington. One of the things they notice, of course, is that there's a whole bunch of geography in there of where we live. Then we talk about how fast this happens and that as we move towards mid- or early-course intercepts, we're not talking about six minutes. We're talking about three minutes. Most of these people can't go smoke a cigarette or go to the bathroom in three minutes. Could we prevent nuclear war in that time? That's one thing we need to think about.
There's a public allergy in Canada, I think, with regard to defence spending versus foreign affairs spending. This has to do a bit with Canada's self-perceived role in the world as a multilateral country, as a collaborator and as somebody who always goes along with the gang.
As somebody who has studied defence spending now for a long time, I think there's a misconception that it's always about spending on war. A lot of defence spending is about spending on peace. That's a lot of what NATO's defence spending is. I think there's a large misconception around that.