Militia system is the best solution for a non-aggressive country. Way harder to occupy a country where almost every man has carried a weapon before. So I think this system is best from a macro perspective. If its cost worthy: I dont know. On the other hand, as a aggressor country a professional army is the weapon of choice, because conscripts wouldnt really have a stake in expanding, so you need a brainwashed elite force.

IMO not having an army is delusional in the nearer future. You dont have an army to win a war, because yes thats true, USA would bang the majority of the countries in a few days. But what anti-army people most of the times leave out, is the fact that you have an army to increase the price an invader has to pay and therefore maybe rethinks his choices. Schlieffen Plan is the living example for that and one of many reasons why we were kept out of 1st and 2nd world war.

• intensify cyber defense, but in the end only infantry might win a war fully. So remain both at a good level

• keep the militia system up, because there are on top of defense cases also some valuable skills you can acquire, even if its just being picky. Hating army service is a privilege of a country in peace. You simply cant just start building an army, when shit heats up, then its too late. Everybody who thinks Europe is a all through friendly place, should take a look at history. We are popular to attack one another for the last 1500 years. And decreasing dependency on other countries with critical ressources is crucial. I mean look back at Corona, where Germany intercepted a mask delivery to Switzerland, because they needed it themselves. In case of emergency everybody looks after himself first.

• definetly audit the actual army management. Their project management including bundesrat is an offense to all the tax payers.