The dramatic capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro by United States forces, who whisked him from Caracas to face trial in New York, has triggered a diplomatic earthquake. Yet across European capitals, the official reaction has been notably restrained, marked by careful wording and a conspicuous avoidance of direct criticism towards Washington.
The Calculated Silence of European Power
Statements from Brussels, London, and Paris have uniformly welcomed the end of Maduro's authoritarian rule while meticulously sidestepping any explicit endorsement of the American operation. The common thread has been a stress on the need for a "peaceful and democratic transition" and repeated, yet abstract, invocations of the importance of international law. France ventured furthest, voicing concern that the action violated the principle of non-use of force. In contrast, Downing Street adopted a notably cautious stance, with the UK position described as affirming a belief in international law "in the abstract" without applying direct judgement to the US move.
This public reticence is not born of approval but of stark geopolitical calculation. According to diplomatic analysis, a single overriding priority dictates Europe's restraint: the war in Ukraine. European governments are determined not to antagonise Donald Trump at a pivotal moment, as his future backing is still viewed as crucial for security guarantees for Kyiv. Officials believe public condemnation would yield little practical gain while potentially jeopardising valuable private channels of influence.
Ukraine and the 'Special Relationship' as Guiding Forces
For the United Kingdom, this calculus is particularly acute. The government is "absolutely determined" to ensure the US remains committed to European security, especially in the context of any future peace settlement for Ukraine. Antagonising the Trump administration is seen as counterproductive to this fundamental national security interest, which is rooted in the deep intelligence and defence partnership with Washington.
Furthermore, uncertainty clouds the US strategy in Venezuela. Washington removed the regime's head but left its body intact, avoiding a full dismantling of the state apparatus—a tactic seemingly informed by the bloody aftermaths of interventions in Iraq and Libya. This "partial regime change" creates an ambiguous situation where Europe's path forward remains unclear, further encouraging a wait-and-see approach.
Criticism and the Spectre of a New World Order
This caution has not gone unchallenged. Critics warn that Europe's muted response risks normalising the flouting of international law, potentially emboldening rivals like China and Russia to act with similar impunity in their own spheres of influence. Some have labelled the episode a "morbid symptom" of a rules-based order disintegrating.
The episode forces a broader, uncomfortable question for Europe: in a world increasingly shaped by great power spheres of influence, what is its role? The analysis suggests Europe is being compelled to confront whether it wishes to be a genuine superpower, which would require becoming a defence superpower, not merely a trading or soft power bloc.
The ultimate test of Europe's red lines may lie elsewhere. The report notes that US threats regarding the acquisition of Greenland, a sovereign territory of NATO ally Denmark, would represent a fundamentally different provocation. Such a move would threaten the alliance itself and likely force a far more robust and unified European response, highlighting the limits of diplomatic pragmatism in the face of core strategic challenges.
