What people seem to want is a stronger public denunciation, especially given how exposed smaller countries are when a superpower starts acting this way. Completely understandable instinct. But public denunciation is not how a country like Canada protects itself from a doctrine it doesn’t want normalized.
Canada’s security doesn’t come from out-shouting the United States. It comes from narrowing the conditions under which power is treated as legitimate. That’s why Carney’s response matters less for what it avoided saying than for what it carefully locked in.
Canada reaffirmed, without hesitation, that Maduro was illegitimate and that Venezuelans deserve a democratic future. At the same time, it declined to validate the method used to remove him, anchoring everything to international law, sovereignty, and a Venezuelan-led transition. That’s a deliberate combination. It draws a hard line between supporting accountability and endorsing unilateral force as a model.
If the concern is precedent—and it very well should be—then the real danger isn’t that Trump acted once. It’s whether other countries quietly accept the logic behind it. Precedent hardens when it’s absorbed, repeated, or left unchallenged in the language that governs international conduct. Canada challenged it in the only way that actually constrains future use: by refusing to incorporate it into the rule set.
There’s also a practical reality that tends to get waved away. Canada doesn’t gain protection by staging a public confrontation it cannot convert into influence. It gains protection by preserving credibility, access, and alignment with other countries that share an interest in keeping the rules narrow and enforceable. If collective resistance ever becomes necessary, that groundwork has to be laid early—not burned for short-term moral theatre, and that is exactly what Carney has done here.
In that context, this wasn’t hesitation or appeasement. It was pre-emption. The aim is not to flatter power, but to deny it a precedent that could later be turned outward. Restraint here isn’t the absence of principle; it’s the application of principle under asymmetric conditions, with an eye on the long game rather than the day’s outrage.
CaptainCanusa on
I cut Carney a lot of slack when having to deal with Trump, etc, but yeah man, it’s a pretty fucking lame statement.
I get how hard it must be to deal with the world’s most powerful human being, who is apparently in the midst of kidnapping world leaders for made up reasons, and I’m sure there’s more going on behind the scenes we don’t know about, but still, now’s a great time to stand up for world order.
All that being said, I also didn’t realise how many other world leaders said basically the same thing. Just going by the quotes at the bottom of the article.
[deleted] on
[removed]
Low_Butterscotch_594 on
I personally thought his response was exactly what is needed right now. Yes, it’s subtle, but let’s remember who he’s dealing with and what has been said (i.e., drugs, socialism, and resources) with respect to annexing our country. All of which are reasons they used to overthrow the Venezuelan government. They’re not exactly in their right mind down there. Drawing more attention to us with a strong statement condemning their actions isn’t the best play right now.
Did Venezuela need Maduro to go? Of course. Carney’s tactful undertone says exactly what most of us think about how it was done without making a big statement and having the orange goblin turn his head north. We’ll show strength when we need to be strong, and I don’t think now is that time. I imagine more statements will come during/after the Coalition of the Willing this week.
Professional-Post499 on
“`
He also called on “all parties” to respect international law, mirroring a previous statement from Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand. Neither response mentioned the United States directly.
“`
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
💀
CzechUsOut on
What do people expect him to say when we have an imperialist USA with the most powerful military and economy on the planet next door. Keep our heads down and shut up. Any country not towing the line for American ideals and policies is going to get the same treatment. The world’s being carved up into three spheres of infiuence and ours lands us as close as you can possibly be to the USA.
banyanoak on
It’s easy to insist on standing up and denouncing injustice when you’re a simple private citizen, and your words don’t determine the future of 40 million Canadians.
If Carney condemned the action, and we got slapped with another 30% tariff that made it impossible for people to buy groceries and pay their mortgages, those people wouldn’t be able to eat our moral superiority.
I feel the outrage too. But Carney shouting this outrage out into Twitter, with no plan or benefit or way to turn that into useful influence right now, would provide no benefit and might get a lot of people hurt.
Hour_Season8625 on
Yes, I personally thought the statement was the right move, if not more implicitly critical than EU leaders give the reference to international law.
To the folks who they we should absolutely condemn this, what would your play be if Trump retaliates in response as we head into CUSMA negotiations? While diversification is obviously the long term play, in the short term, the quality of life of all Canadians will nose dive is CUSMA blows up. This would also, paradoxically, likely make it harder to diversify long term. I certainly wouldn’t take that risk over the PR optics of a public statement.
beeredditor on
No western national leader has called the U.S. action illegal. Some commentators and lower politicians have said so, but no leader. As such, the international community has implicitly condoned the US action.
9 Comments
What people seem to want is a stronger public denunciation, especially given how exposed smaller countries are when a superpower starts acting this way. Completely understandable instinct. But public denunciation is not how a country like Canada protects itself from a doctrine it doesn’t want normalized.
Canada’s security doesn’t come from out-shouting the United States. It comes from narrowing the conditions under which power is treated as legitimate. That’s why Carney’s response matters less for what it avoided saying than for what it carefully locked in.
Canada reaffirmed, without hesitation, that Maduro was illegitimate and that Venezuelans deserve a democratic future. At the same time, it declined to validate the method used to remove him, anchoring everything to international law, sovereignty, and a Venezuelan-led transition. That’s a deliberate combination. It draws a hard line between supporting accountability and endorsing unilateral force as a model.
If the concern is precedent—and it very well should be—then the real danger isn’t that Trump acted once. It’s whether other countries quietly accept the logic behind it. Precedent hardens when it’s absorbed, repeated, or left unchallenged in the language that governs international conduct. Canada challenged it in the only way that actually constrains future use: by refusing to incorporate it into the rule set.
There’s also a practical reality that tends to get waved away. Canada doesn’t gain protection by staging a public confrontation it cannot convert into influence. It gains protection by preserving credibility, access, and alignment with other countries that share an interest in keeping the rules narrow and enforceable. If collective resistance ever becomes necessary, that groundwork has to be laid early—not burned for short-term moral theatre, and that is exactly what Carney has done here.
In that context, this wasn’t hesitation or appeasement. It was pre-emption. The aim is not to flatter power, but to deny it a precedent that could later be turned outward. Restraint here isn’t the absence of principle; it’s the application of principle under asymmetric conditions, with an eye on the long game rather than the day’s outrage.
I cut Carney a lot of slack when having to deal with Trump, etc, but yeah man, it’s a pretty fucking lame statement.
I get how hard it must be to deal with the world’s most powerful human being, who is apparently in the midst of kidnapping world leaders for made up reasons, and I’m sure there’s more going on behind the scenes we don’t know about, but still, now’s a great time to stand up for world order.
All that being said, I also didn’t realise how many other world leaders said basically the same thing. Just going by the quotes at the bottom of the article.
[removed]
I personally thought his response was exactly what is needed right now. Yes, it’s subtle, but let’s remember who he’s dealing with and what has been said (i.e., drugs, socialism, and resources) with respect to annexing our country. All of which are reasons they used to overthrow the Venezuelan government. They’re not exactly in their right mind down there. Drawing more attention to us with a strong statement condemning their actions isn’t the best play right now.
Did Venezuela need Maduro to go? Of course. Carney’s tactful undertone says exactly what most of us think about how it was done without making a big statement and having the orange goblin turn his head north. We’ll show strength when we need to be strong, and I don’t think now is that time. I imagine more statements will come during/after the Coalition of the Willing this week.
“`
He also called on “all parties” to respect international law, mirroring a previous statement from Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand. Neither response mentioned the United States directly.
“`
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
💀
What do people expect him to say when we have an imperialist USA with the most powerful military and economy on the planet next door. Keep our heads down and shut up. Any country not towing the line for American ideals and policies is going to get the same treatment. The world’s being carved up into three spheres of infiuence and ours lands us as close as you can possibly be to the USA.
It’s easy to insist on standing up and denouncing injustice when you’re a simple private citizen, and your words don’t determine the future of 40 million Canadians.
If Carney condemned the action, and we got slapped with another 30% tariff that made it impossible for people to buy groceries and pay their mortgages, those people wouldn’t be able to eat our moral superiority.
I feel the outrage too. But Carney shouting this outrage out into Twitter, with no plan or benefit or way to turn that into useful influence right now, would provide no benefit and might get a lot of people hurt.
Yes, I personally thought the statement was the right move, if not more implicitly critical than EU leaders give the reference to international law.
To the folks who they we should absolutely condemn this, what would your play be if Trump retaliates in response as we head into CUSMA negotiations? While diversification is obviously the long term play, in the short term, the quality of life of all Canadians will nose dive is CUSMA blows up. This would also, paradoxically, likely make it harder to diversify long term. I certainly wouldn’t take that risk over the PR optics of a public statement.
No western national leader has called the U.S. action illegal. Some commentators and lower politicians have said so, but no leader. As such, the international community has implicitly condoned the US action.