Green Party co-leader Jonathan Pedneault has called for Canada to prepare for violent resistance against a potential U.S. invasion, advocating for a strategy modeled after Ukraine’s war effort. In a statement, on X Pedneault suggested that Canada should learn from Ukraine and Scandinavia in “training forces and mobilizing society for defensive purposes against a larger military power.”
But given the mass casualties, territorial losses, and humanitarian devastation in Ukraine, is militarizing civilians really the best course of action for Canada? Would diplomacy, international alliances, and negotiation not serve as a more effective deterrent? Ukraine and the Scandinavian countries of Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden all have some form of mandatory military service. Pednault’s latest statement implies he would like to see mandatory military service for Canadians; a radicle militaristic strategy .
A Plan for War Instead of Diplomacy?
Pedneault’s vision of Canadian defense sounds more like wartime mobilization than a diplomatic strategy. He argues that Canada must focus on “rendering any occupation of Canadian land by any armed force untenable” and calls for a range of aggressive countermeasures, including:
• Mobilizing civilians for armed resistance, as Ukraine did by distributing AK-47s to civilians.
• “Building urgent new security alliances” with Europe, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and Latin America.
• Expelling businesses linked to Trump allies and imposing visa bans on officials.
• Suspending media outlets he deems “Trumpian propaganda organs” (echoing Canada’s previous ban on Russian state media).
• Using Canadian media and celebrities for a “charm offensive” to rally global support.
While securing allies and strengthening diplomatic ties is a logical step, Pedneault’s emphasis on militarization and information warfare raises concerns about how far he is willing to escalate tensions with a nuclear-armed neighbor.
Would Armed Resistance Work?
Pedneault’s plan ignores the consequences of violent resistance. In Ukraine, where the government armed civilians en masse, the war has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and widespread destruction. Despite billions in Western military aid, Ukraine has lost significant territory and continues to struggle against Russian forces.
Would Canada—a country with a much smaller population and weaker military capabilities than Ukraine—really benefit from an armed standoff with the U.S.?
Instead of pursuing a strategy of mass militarization, Canada’s best defense against U.S. aggression would be diplomatic and economic. If a Trump administration pursued hostile actions against Canada, the most effective response would be rallying international condemnation, strengthening ties with other allies ahead of an invasion, and using diplomatic pressure to deter U.S. expansionism—not sending untrained Canadian civilians into battle with the U.S. military.
Selective Outrage: Pedneault Condemns Hamas as Gaza Ceasefire Collapses, Backs Ukraine as Peace Talks Emerge
Jonathan Pedneault’s latest statements on Hamas and Ukraine come at a critical moment in both conflicts. His condemnation of Hamas, calling it a “violent and despicable organization,” aligns with mainstream Western rhetoric, but his timing raises questions. With the ceasefire in Gaza on the verge of collapse, his focus on denouncing Hamas rather than pressuring Israel for a sustainable peace deal suggests a selective approach to diplomacy.
At the same time, Pedneault continues to back Ukraine’s military efforts as reports indicate that a peace deal could soon be on the table. His call for Canada to “learn from Ukraine” in terms of armed resistance stands in contrast to the growing push for negotiations to end the war. This contradiction—advocating for diplomacy in one conflict while endorsing militarization in another—mirrors his and Elizabeth May’s broader pattern of inconsistent foreign policy.
Contradicting Green Party Values
The Green Party of Canada has traditionally stood for non-violence, diplomacy, and de-escalation. Yet under Pedneault’s leadership, the party has increasingly aligned itself with militaristic policies—from supporting arms shipments to Ukraine to endorsing domestic weapons manufacturing (link to article).
If Pedneault truly believes that arming civilians and engaging in guerrilla warfare is the best response to geopolitical threats, he should explain how this aligns with the party’s supposed commitment to non-violence.
With tensions rising on the global stage, Canada needs serious leadership focused on diplomacy, strategic alliances, and de-escalation—not reckless calls for mass armed resistance that could lead to devastating consequences.
English (Canada) 
Français