Built Environment & Infrastructure Risk Management
-
Search
The US strikes on Venezuela and seizure of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife have split the international community. Some countries decried external regime change, while others viewed his capture as an opportunity for a democratic transition.
Initial international reactions to the US operation fall into three camps: those who oppose, those who are neutral and those that support.
Oppose: China, Russia, Belarus, Mexico, Iran, Brazil and Colombia – among others – condemned the operation as an act of armed aggression contrary to international law. Brazilian President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva stated that the US action crossed a red line and would destabilise the region. Cuba, which depends on Venezuelan oil imports, called the operation an act of “state terrorism”. China said it was “deeply shocked” and “firmly opposes” the “hegemonic” US action. Among close US allies, France described the operation as a violation of international law. UN Secretary-General António Guterres’s spokesperson also suggested that the US action breached international law.
Neutral: Many countries in the region – including Canada, Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru and Chile – issued neutral statements, saying that they were monitoring developments and calling for a peaceful and democratic transition in Venezuela. Panama – where the US in 1989 launched a similar military operation and captured and later imprisoned its leader on drug-trafficking charges – urged a democratic transition.
European powers were largely neutral. The EU said it was monitoring the situation and called for a democratic transition aligned with international law. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated that the UK – which previously suspended some intelligence sharing with the US over its strikes on vessels near Venezuela – was not involved in the operation and would consult with the US and European allies on the situation. Spain, with strong historical and cultural linkages to Venezuela, also called for de-escalation. Italy opposed “external military action” but accepted US justifications of the operation as a “defensive intervention” against drug trafficking. Germany called for de-escalation and a democratic transition. Although Ukraine did not directly endorse the operation, the country described the Maduro regime as illegitimate and welcomed the opportunity for a new government that would uphold democracy and human rights.
Support: Several US allies in Latin America supported the operation. Argentine President Javier Milei – a political ally of US President Donald Trump – welcomed Maduro’s capture, calling it “excellent news for the free world”. Ecuadorian President Gabriel Noboa said that the operation was a warning to Venezuela’s allies throughout Latin America.
The operation signals high US intent and capability – in line with a revised US national strategy – to dominate the Western Hemisphere, including through military force. Trump portrayed the operation as an assertion of US dominance and demonstration of military capability. The action may push other countries in the region to co-operate with the US on priorities like immigration and drug trafficking. However, it could also bolster long-standing anti-American social and political movements.
Trump stated that the US “embargo” on some Venezuelan oil would remain in place indefinitely, but also that the US would seek to rebuild Venezuela’s oil industry with financing and expertise provided by US oil companies. There is no indication that US military strikes targeted or damaged oil infrastructure, but political instability threatens to negatively impact oil production in the coming weeks because of uncertainty over ownership and control of sectorial assets. Over the long term, a successful political transition and oil sector investment would likely increase Venezuela’s oil production and exports, which peaked at around 3.5m barrels per day (bpd) in the 1970s.
Venezuela’s political situation remains unclear and fluid. Trump on 3 January said during a press conference that the US intended to “run Venezuela” until “such time that we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition to a new government”. He indicated that senior US officials would oversee a political transition, working with Venezuelan figures – potentially including President-designate Delcy Rodriguez. Trump suggested that US forces could be deployed to Venezuela to protect oil assets and that oil revenues would finance the transition and potentially compensate the US. Further details on US plans are likely to emerge in the coming days.
Political and economic instability could negatively impact neighbouring countries, like Colombia and Brazil, through increased refugee outflows and the expansion of criminal and militant activity in border regions. Colombia, which hosts around three million Venezuelan refugees, on 3 January stated that it had deployed military forces to its border with Venezuela in response to the US strikes. Both Colombia and Brazil will hold general elections in 2026.