There's no "not". They've gutted the Royal Navy. It's not debateable.

Still beside the point. Their decision to reduce the size of the Royal Navy by the same proportion that we reduced our navy - whether you call that "gutting" or not - is not the same choice as our decision about whether to damage our alliance with them. We get to choose how to conduct our relations with the UK.

Look at this thread. You want to discuss Trump and only Trump. I'd rather discuss the state of NATO readiness in the context of the global partnership. But every other board participants wants to...reduce the entire issue to Trump.

This thread is about Canada, and their efforts to reduce their engagement with the U.S. in favor of greater engagement with the EU. It's not about NATO readiness - it's a thread about the impact of Trump's terrible approach to diplomacy and foreign relations. You want to discuss NATO readiness and only NATO readiness, even though that's something that's not especially germane to this particular topic.

Don't you get bored with that?

Nope. This is a board for talking about current events, mostly. Trump's the President, and he's constantly making massive changes in how the U.S. government acts in a wide variety of contexts. Because of his management style, almost all of the steps taken by the Federal government of any significance are based on his preferences - and he makes wide breaks with past practice. Good or bad, he's certainly been the most consequential President we've had in terms of upending and disrupting longstanding practice and policy.

Makes for a wide variety of interesting and diverse conversations on a wide range of aspects of current events and policy. Certainly less boring than continually returning to NATO readiness all the time. I get that's an area of interest for you, and I suspect that you think that your perception that other NATO states aren't doing enough underlies some of your defense of Trump's appalling conduct of international diplomacy. But with non-US NATO countries spending about $800 billion on their collective militaries (compared to the $1 trillion US figure), mostly coming from the countries you'd expect (the big powers like Germany, UK, France, etc.), it's really hard to respond to your continued insistence that Europe is doing nothing and the US is doing everything, when it's so contrary to the truth. The other NATO nations collectively have a massive military presence. Collectively, they have more naval vessels than the US - and for every type of naval vessels, they collectively have more than the US (save and except aircraft carriers and certain types of nuclear ballistic missile subs). NATO can't fight a massive continental war without US participation because it wasn't built to be able to do that, because it's wasteful to do that. It's not meant for NATO to operate separate from the US. You don't need the other 31 countries to maintain an air force the size and scope of the US also, because air resources are so mobile. What it's built for is for the NATO states to put in massive amounts of military resources in coordination with the US.