After the US shock grab of Venezuela’s boss Nicolás Maduro, European Union chiefs preach restraint. Capitals squabble over tone and Russia predictably howls about precedent. Markets remain unmoved, fretting over oil prices, yet detecting scant clues on further developments.
Markets, though twitchy, found little guidance in the flurry of statements. Venezuela’s battered oil sector—once a marginal supplier to Europe—featured only indirectly in EU remarks. Analysts noted that Washington, not Brussels, had floated plans for American firms such as Chevron, ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips to rebuild production and to “redirect oil exports primarily to the United States market”. European capitals offered no counterproposal, and nobody in Brussels addressed the Kremlin’s claim that the raid created an energy vacuum for Russia and China to fill.
The economic impact on the union, therefore, remains speculative. The bloc’s traders already shun most Venezuelan crude under existing sanctions, and its lawmakers focus on green energy rather than far-flung barrels. Yet the assault raises awkward questions.
Oil uncertainty
If Washington draws Venezuelan oil into its own orbit, could that offset American demand for other grades, pushing global prices down and easing inflation in Europe? Or will renewed conflict in the Caribbean disrupt shipping lanes, inflame risk premiums and complicate the EU’s fragile recovery? For now officials have no answers—only the refrain that the rule of law must prevail.
On the diplomatic side of things, Brussels is wagging a lawyerly finger at Washington while secretly exhaling in relief. Kaja Kallas, European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs, moved first. “The EU has repeatedly stated that Mr Maduro lacks legitimacy and has defended a peaceful transition in Venezuela. Under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. We call for restraint,” she wrote on X after telephoning Marco Rubio, the American secretary of state. Ms Kallas added that the safety of EU citizens in Venezuela was “our top priority”.
You might be interested
Brussels knows it has little leverage over events scripted in Washington. Yet it must be seen to defend rules it cherishes. Officials reminded reporters that the bloc had declined to recognise the disputed 2024 Venezuelan election and had already sanctioned dozens of Caracas insiders. The assault of 3 January therefore posed an awkward question: how loudly should the EU scold an ally for doing what many Europeans long wished they could do themselves?
Law over force
That unease framed a day of hurried calls. Diplomats insisted they were “closely monitoring” developments, but they offered no plan for the morning after. Some feared the bloc risked appearing complacent if it limited itself to platitudes. Others argued that unity of message—respect for law, avoidance of force—mattered more than detailed policy when the facts on the ground remained sketchy.
Jean-Noël Barrot, France’s foreign minister, chose indignation. Mr Maduro had “gravely violated” Venezuelans’ rights, he allowed, yet the American raid “contravenes the principle of non-use of force, which underpins international law”. He warned that “no lasting political solution can be imposed from the outside”. Paris’ top diplomat said: “The increasing violations of that principle by big powers will have serious consequences for global security, sparing no one.”
The Venezuelans deserve a democratic and legitimate regime, what they have been lacking with Maduro. Maduro must be held accountable for his actions. — Maxime Prévot, Belgium’s foreign minister
Spain, on the contrary, struck a softer note and even offered its good offices. “Spain calls for de-escalation and restraint,” its foreign ministry declared, adding that Madrid stood “ready to help in the search for a democratic, negotiated, and peaceful solution for the country”. That mediation offer echoed previous Spanish efforts in Latin American crises and underscored the Iberian peninsula’s cultural ties to Caracas. On the other hand, Pedro Sánchez Socialists are playing with fire: the party has long grappled with accusations of taking illicit campaign funds from Venezuela’s ultra-left leaders.
Cautious relief
Across the Channel Sir Keir Starmer, Britain’s prime minister, tried to balance legal scruple with political relief. “The UK has long supported a transition of power in Venezuela. We regarded Maduro as an illegitimate president and we shed no tears about the end of his regime,” he said, while stressing his “support for international law”. The government, he added, would confer with Washington “as we seek a safe and peaceful transition to a legitimate government that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people”.
Switzerland, another closely aligned non-member EU state, sang from the same hymn sheet. Its federal foreign ministry urged “de-escalation, restraint, and respect for international law, including the prohibition of the use of force and the principle of respect for territorial integrity,” noting that no Swiss citizens had suffered any harm. From The Hague, Dutch prime minister Dick Schoof warned that “security in the region is of great importance” and pledged support for the Caribbean territories of the kingdom “in these uncertain times”.
Eastern voices chimed in. Peter Pellegrini, Slovakia’s president, thundered that “any attack on a sovereign state and its representative without a mandate from the United Nations Security Council constitutes a serious violation of international law regardless of the regime governing the targeted country”. Such actions, he cautioned, “create a precedent that may destabilise other regions of the world as well”. (No wonder, given the fact Mr Pellegrini is running a show eerily similar to that of Venezuela.)
Restating red lines
Denmark’s foreign minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, called the events “dramatic” and insisted on respect for international law. Austria, of all countries, responded with an eye on principles. “This attack constitutes a serious violation of the prohibition of the use of force enshrined in the UN Charter. It is a matter of our credibility to clearly state this. We must uphold the international rule of law,” declared Andreas Babler, the vice-chancellor. He lamented a world “move backward geopolitically”, with structures “disintegrating before our very eyes”, and rejected “the law of the jungle” as a political method.
Ireland found itself in familiar company. Foreign minister Helen McEntee underlined the “absolute necessity of full respect for international law and the principles of the UN Charter”. While noting that Mr Maduro “does not have any democratic legitimacy”, she said Dublin had “consistently called for a peaceful and negotiated transition in Venezuela, and have supported all international efforts to that end”.
The EU has repeatedly stated that Mr Maduro lacks legitimacy and has defended a peaceful transition in Venezuela. Under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. We call for restraint. — Kaja Kallas, EU’s top diplomat
Robert Golob, Slovenia’s prime minister, judged that “any military intervention not based on international law is unacceptable and leads the world into a further spiral of war and violence,” adding, “We do not want another war. We do not want civilian casualties and the suffering of the innocent population.”
Murmurs in Moscow, nerves in Brussels
Belgium spoke of accountability as well as caution. “The Venezuelians deserve a democratic and legitimate regime, what they have been lacking with Maduro. Maduro must be held accountable for his actions,” said Maxime Prévot, the foreign minister. Yet he, too, repeated the mantra that “international law must be respected, in all circumstances” and hoped for “a swift de-escalation and for a peaceful transition. The civilian population must be safe”.
Portugal, mindful of its diaspora in South America, focussed on consular duties. The government said the “absolute priority is the safety and well-being of the Portuguese community in Venezuela,” but it also reiterated the need for “respect for International Law and the Charter of the United Nations” and for a quick return to “democratic normality”. Other member states echoed that sentiment, leaving Brussels with a wall of words but scant consensus on next steps.
While Europe parsed the legal fine print, Russia pounced on geopolitics. “We are extremely alarmed by reports that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife were forcibly removed from the country as a result of today’s US aggression. We call for an immediate clarification of the situation,” said the foreign ministry in Moscow. Kremlin officials, edgy at the sight of Venezuela’s air force being overwhelmed by US assault without any resistance, spoke of a precedent that might justify future interventions elsewhere. That argument aims as much at European ears as American ones.
