The United States under President Donald Trump embarked on a dramatic and highly controversial military campaign in Venezuela, culminating in the late-night raid and capture of its leader, Nicolás Maduro. Trump confirmed authorizing the CIA for covert operations targeting drug traffickers and blockading oil tankers, escalating to a full-scale military intervention. Maduro was seized on charges of “narco-terrorism,” an action the US defended as a legitimate “law enforcement” operation to execute long-standing criminal indictments against an “illegitimate” leader, invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter and the 1989 capture of Panama’s Manuel Noriega as precedent.

This aggressive US action triggered immediate and widespread international condemnation at an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council. Numerous countries, including Brazil, China, Colombia, Cuba, Eritrea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, and Spain, denounced the strikes and Maduro’s capture as a “crime of aggression,” a grave affront to Venezuela’s sovereignty, and a dangerous precedent for the international community. UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed deep concern over potential instability in the region and questioned the operation’s adherence to international law, urging dialogue for a peaceful resolution. Russia and China, both permanent Security Council members, were particularly forceful, describing the intervention as a “turn back to the era of lawlessness” and condemning the US for “wantonly trampling upon Venezuela’s sovereignty” and acting as the “world’s police.” Experts largely questioned the legality of the operation, noting its lack of UN authorization, Venezuelan consent, or a clear self-defense rationale, as it violated the UN Charter’s principle against the use of force against territorial integrity or political independence.

In the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer’s government found itself walking a delicate diplomatic tightrope in its response to Trump’s Venezuelan adventure. Starmer, accustomed to a cautious approach with Trump, initially took 16 hours to publicly respond, offering a masterclass in hedging bets. While stating that the UK “shed no tears about the end of [Maduro’s] regime” as he was an “illegitimate president,” Starmer also reiterated his support for international law. The UK government’s strategy involved saying as little as possible to avoid offending Trump, leaving the legal justification to the US, and viewing the situation as “not our fight.” This “realpolitik route” was apparently driven by concerns over a multibillion-pound trade deal and peace in Ukraine.

However, this cautious stance drew significant internal criticism across the UK political spectrum. Labour’s progressive wing, including the Lib Dems and Greens, pressured the government to condemn the US action. Emily Thornberry, Labour chair of the foreign affairs committee, strongly argued that a lack of Western condemnation could embolden China and Russia, labeling the abduction a “breach of international law.” Richard Burgon, another Labour MP, criticized the prime minister for not addressing Parliament on the decision. Even former Conservative foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt warned that such actions could endanger the entire future of NATO if extended to sovereign territories of allies. Senior government officials within the Foreign Office privately expressed discomfort, viewing the UK’s position as “fence-sitting” and seeing the kidnapping of a head of state as setting a “dangerous path.”

The diplomatic challenge was further highlighted by Trump’s renewed threats to annex Greenland, a largely autonomous territory part of the Danish kingdom and a NATO ally. This specific threat prompted a more robust response from the UK government. Starmer publicly backed the Danish prime minister, asserting that the future of Greenland is solely a matter for Greenlanders and Danes. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper echoed this stance, though she had earlier refused to declare the Venezuelan operation illegal, deferring to Washington for justification. This episode underscored the potential limits of the UK’s cautious approach and the serious implications for NATO if US actions infringed upon an ally’s sovereignty. Starmer, who had attempted to contact Trump since the raid, was expected to speak with the US president after a “coalition of the willing” meeting in Paris. He reportedly told colleagues that while a tough stance against Trump might eventually be necessary, the current moment required weighing the cost to the UK’s “most important economic and national security partnerships.”