Good morning. The dramatic seizure of Nicolás Maduro from Caracas by US forces to face trial in New York has sent diplomatic shock waves around the world. For European leaders, it has exposed an uncomfortable dilemma: how to welcome the removal of an authoritarian ruler without endorsing an action that many legal experts argue violates international law. This complexity reflects the tensions inherent in modern geopolitics.
In the UK, politicians in opposition have been more vocal in their reactions. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch stated, “Where the legal certainty is not yet clear, morally I do think it was the right thing to do.” In contrast, Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey has called on Labour leader Keir Starmer to condemn what he termed an “illegal action in Venezuela.” Such divisions highlight the differing priorities within party lines when it comes to international policy.
For those in power, however, outspoken criticism of US actions isn’t always an option, as their decisions are often shaped by the realities of international diplomacy. Our diplomatic editor, Patrick Wintour, explored these dynamics, emphasizing that the muted response from European governments reveals their priorities, anxieties, and limitations in dealing with the current US administration.
Five big stories
- Greenland | Donald Trump and his advisers have explored “a range of options” for acquiring Greenland, asserting that military intervention is “always an option.”
- UK politics | Keir Starmer’s chief of staff has reportedly warned the cabinet about needing to reconnect emotionally with voters, describing the upcoming period as “the fight of our lives.”
- Crans-Montana fire | Authorities stated that the bar, where 40 young partygoers died on New Year’s Eve, had not undergone safety inspections for five years.
- Spain | A foundation linked to Princess Leonor raised alarms about scammers using AI-generated videos to deceive social media users.
- US politics | During a recent letter from Democratic senators, it was revealed that the Trump administration has shifted resources away from combating child exploitation in favor of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
In depth: Why Europe is biting its tongue over Venezuela
The response from Europe, described by Wintour as muted and evasive, stems from a strategic calculation: “We don’t agree with it, but we’re not going to say anything about it, because there’s no practical value in doing so.” This demonstrates a reluctance to openly challenge the US, given the complexities of their overarching relationship.
While European leaders have broadly welcomed the end of Maduro’s rule, they have stopped short of explicitly endorsing the means by which it occurred. Official statements from Brussels, London, and Paris have emphasized the necessity for a “peaceful and democratic transition” and invoked the importance of international law without specifying whether they believe it was breached.
Among European leaders, France has expressed the most concern, warning that the operation violated the principle of non-use of force. Italy’s Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, voiced a contrasting view, labeling the intervention as legitimate. Meanwhile, the UK has maintained a cautious stance, citing a belief in international law but avoiding definitive judgments.
Reflection on European Response
The reluctance to confront the US publicly can largely be attributed to a single overriding priority: Ukraine. European governments want to avoid antagonizing Trump, whose support is viewed as crucial for future security guarantees for Kyiv. Officials believe that public criticism would yield little and could undermine private diplomatic influence.
In particular, the UK is motivated by a desire to secure an active US role in ensuring security during any peace settlement. Any actions perceived as undermining this relationship could be deemed detrimental to national interests.
There remains uncertainty regarding US intentions in Venezuela. Despite Maduro’s removal, the US has not dismantled the existing security apparatus, likely to prevent civil war—a tactic influenced by lessons learned from previous interventions in Iraq and Libya.
Concerns about Weakened European Leadership
Critics argue that this cautious approach poses its own risks. Labour’s Emily Thornberry warned that failing to condemn the US operation could embolden authoritarian regimes like those in China and Russia. The episode has been described as a “morbid symptom” of a disintegrating rules-based international order, according to Health Secretary Wes Streeting.
Nevertheless, Patrick notes that the UK’s foreign policy decisions are often shaped by its commitment to maintaining a solid security, intelligence, and defense relationship with the US—regarded as foundational to Britain’s national security.
As Europe grapples with these challenges, questions about its place on the global stage become increasingly pertinent. The situation prompts a reevaluation of whether Europe desires to become a “superpower” in its own right, not only as a trading bloc but also as a military and diplomatic influence.
According to Reuters, any US threat toward Greenland, a sovereign territory of NATO member Denmark, would require an immediate and more unified European response, reflecting the serious implications of the US’s actions in Venezuela.
