The US military intervention in Venezuela and the removal of President Nicolás Maduro have sent shockwaves at international level. President Trump administration has defended the operation as a necessary response to drug trafficking, regional instability, and what it describes as years of institutional collapse under Maduro’s rule.
Governments, international organisations, and market actors have responded in different ways, reflecting long-standing divisions over how far external powers can go in shaping political change in another country and questioning the use of force and its compatibility with international law, while others argue that Venezuela’s crisis had reached a point where inaction was no longer an option.
Washington’s Message: Compliance or Consequences
US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have issued blunt warnings to Venezuela’s new interim leader, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez. In an interview President Trump stated that Rodríguez would “pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro” if she failed to “do what’s right,” openly endorsing regime change as preferable to the status quo. According to Bloomberg, Trump went further, arguing that the United States needed “total access” to Venezuela’s resources, particularly oil, in order to “rebuild the country.”[1]
Trump’s rhetoric extended beyond Venezuela. Multiple outlets reported him suggesting that “Cuba looks like it’s ready to fall” and warning Colombian President Gustavo Petro that he “won’t be doing it very long.” The New York Times quoted Trump denouncing Petro as “a sick man” allegedly involved in drug trafficking into the United States. When asked whether Washington would consider an operation targeting Colombia, Trump replied: “It sounds good to me.”[2]
A Fragile Transition on the Ground
Inside Venezuela, the situation remains volatile. The armed forces have publicly backed Rodríguez as interim leader, while Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino López called for Maduro’s return, claiming that members of the former president’s security detail were killed during the US operation.[3]
Rodríguez has struck a notably conciliatory tone, calling for respectful relations with Washington and proposing cooperation based on shared development and international law. It appears a way to buy time and legitimacy amid international external pressure. [4]
US Vice President J.D. Vance defended the intervention in Politico as part of the fight against fentanyl and drug trafficking, arguing that cutting Venezuelan revenues would weaken Latin American cartels.[6] Yet even within Republican ranks, this rationale has been disputed. Critics argue that the operation is fundamentally about oil access and regime change rather than narcotics enforcement.
China’s All-Weather Partnership with Venezuela
China has always had a steady and well-thought-out relationship with Venezuela, which has been defined as an “all-weather strategic partnership,” being elevated to a higher level in 2023. On the political level, China has been consistently backing the Maduro administration, for example, in supporting Maduro’s disputed victory in the presidential elections of 2024 and opposing attempts to recognize other opposition leaders, such as Juan Guaidó in 2019.
There is also an extremely strong economic dimension in this partnership. Since the early 2000s, Venezuela has been loaning over $60 billion to China, which has been repaid in the form of discounted petroleum imports, making Venezuela a “notable source of around 4-5% of total Chinese oil imports.” Although there are major investments by China in sectors like infrastructure, mining, and so on in the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative, the Venezuelan debt to China is substantial, currently pegged at $10-12 billion as of early 2026.
Reaction to the US military operation which resulted in the arrest of Maduro and an attack on Venezuelan assets, was fierce from the Chinese government.
A representative from the Chinese government characterized international intervention as a ‘violation of international law and international charters. Wang Yi, a foreign minister with the Chinese government, said, ‘The US acts like world police and world judge. ‘The country does not recognize another country’s right to impose such intervention on them,” Wang Yi explained. [7]
China has also hinted that it would bring up the matter at the United Nations Security Council in consultation with Russia, with non-intervention being cited as a reason for its position.
Within China, the country’s financial authorities have asked banks to provide an account of their exposure to Venezuelan assets in the wake of the major change in regime. China’s measures, as anticipated, will be diplomatic, including multilateral diplomacy, the defense of its interests, and public demonstrations, rather than military intervention. Beijing has reiterated that the debts owed by Venezuela were valid and must be paid, come what may.[8] It is clear that it does not explicitly mention China’s broader diplomatic strategy, but it reflects Chinese concern over financial and geopolitical risk connected to the situation in Venezuela.
Europe Reacts: Between Principles and Pragmatism
European responses have exposed deep fractures. EU High Representative Kaja Kallas stated that the Union is working closely with the US and international partners to support a Venezuelan-led, negotiated and peaceful solution, stressing that Venezuelans must be free to “decide their own future.”
In a separate statement – backed by all EU member states except Hungary – Kallas called for calm and restraint and underlined that international law and the UN Charter must be upheld, “especially by members of the UN Security Council.”
France adopted a more ambivalent posture. President Emmanuel Macron posted on x:
“The Venezuelan people are today rid of Nicolás Maduro’s dictatorship and can only rejoice. By seizing power and trampling on fundamental freedoms, Nicolás Maduro gravely undermined the dignity of his own people. The upcoming transition must be peaceful, democratic, and respectful of the will of the Venezuelan people. We wish that President Edmundo González Urrutia, elected in 2024, can swiftly ensure this transition. I am currently exchanging with our partners in the region. France is fully mobilized and vigilant, including to ensure the safety of its nationals during these uncertain times.”
Italy illustrated Europe’s internal contradictions. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni spoke with opposition leader María Corina Machado and framed Maduro’s removal as opening “a new page of hope,” defending the operation as legitimate self-defence against hybrid threats such as narco-trafficking. On x, Prime Minister Meloni, posted:
“I have followed the developments in Venezuela since the very first evolutions. Italy, together with the main international partners, has never recognized Maduro’s self-proclaimed electoral victory, condemning the regime’s acts of repression and has always supported the Venezuelan people’s aspiration to a democratic transition. Consistent with Italy’s historic position, the Government believes that external military action is not the path to take to put an end to totalitarian regimes, but at the same time considers legitimate an intervention of a defensive nature against hybrid attacks on its own security, as in the case of state entities that fuel and favor narcotrafficking. We continue to follow with particular attention the situation of the Italian community in Venezuela, whose security constitutes the Government’s absolute priority.”
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico labelled the intervention a “gross violation of international law,” lamenting that great powers “do whatever they want,” while acknowledging that EU-US relations are deteriorating.[9] Austria and Finland called for de-escalation and respect for international law, carefully criticising Maduro’s legitimacy without explicitly condemning Washington.
The attitude of the EU involves a combination of cautiousness, values, and various member-states’ interests. The EU institutions, as well as several EU member-states, demand that the transition in Venezuela must be Venezuelan-led and in accordance with international law, whereas other member-states refer to the role of narco-trafficking in their assessments of the US intervention.
The level of stance, ranging from strong criticism voiced by Slovakia and Spain, through careful appreciation in Italy and France, reveals not only national differences in priorities but also difficulties of reaching a collective Europe for foreign affairs.
The Venezuelan crisis also poses questions for Europe on a wider level: What to do when key partners defy international law on their own initiative, and on how to preserve the integrity of international law.
Energy, Markets and Strategic Leverage
Energy markets are closely watching developments in Venezuela following the removal of Nicolás Maduro. President Trump has said that US companies could help revive the country’s oil sector, which holds the world’s largest proven reserves but has suffered from years of underinvestment and mismanagement.[11]
Any shift in control over Venezuelan production could affect existing trade patterns. Oil currently exported mainly to China could be redirected toward the United States, particularly to refineries along the Gulf Coast that are equipped to process heavy crude. Over time, increased output could also help ease tight supplies of diesel and other refined fuels.[12]
So far, market reaction has been limited. Oil prices moved only slightly after Maduro’s removal, reflecting investor caution over how quickly production can be restored. Traders point to damaged infrastructure, legal and sanctions-related hurdles, and political uncertainty as factors likely to slow any increase in exports. OPEC+ has meanwhile decided to keep production levels unchanged, despite higher geopolitical risk.[13]
A Turning Point for the Global Order?
Beyond Venezuela, the broader implications are stark. Could this mark a decisive break with the post–Cold War order, replacing multilateralism with unapologetic, unilateral power politics focused on control of resources and territory? Could Trump’s intervention embolden authoritarian regimes and undermine Western efforts to rally the Global South against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
Meanwhile, Venezuelan opposition leader Edmundo González, currently exiled in Spain, has called for the immediate release of political prisoners and urged the military to respect the electoral mandate and support a peaceful transition. Protests have erupted across Europe, including large demonstrations in Madrid outside the US Embassy, where political figures denounced Washington’s action as “terrorist” and demanded a firm EU response.
Venezuela has posed many urgent questions. To what extent should foreign countries intervene in the politics in a foreign state? To what extent does the lack of consistent adherence to international laws undermine the integrity of a state’s credibility at the global stage? To what extent does the international legal system address the issue when a state applies its own laws unilaterally?
However, the aftermath of this intervention may have far-reaching effects, not only for Venezuela but for many countries worldwide. This intervention may be a momentary assertion of American power, but it is also a sign that a new dynamic is emerging between states. This will not only depend on American future actions, but also on whether the international community is ready to stand for the principles they hold.
[1]“Trump Threatens Venezuela’s New Leader With a Fate Worse Than Maduro’s”
The president told The Atlantic that Delcy Rodríguez needs to comply with U.S. wishes—or else.
By Michael Scherer, available at:
https://www.theatlantic.com/national-security/2026/01/trump-venezuela-maduro-delcy-rodriguez/685497
[2] “After the attack on Venezuela, Donald Trump threatens other countries in Latin America”
Donald Trump did not rule out that the US could launch a second attack on Venezuela if members of the administration of the country’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, who was kidnapped by US commandos, do not cooperate with Washington in “fixing” the country, available at:
[3] “Venezuela’s defense minister confirms that the United States killed part of Maduro’s security team”,Vladimir Padrino announces that the Armed Forces recognize the interim presidency of Delcy Rodríguez
[4] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-05/venezuela-s-rodriguez-asks-us-for-cooperation-after-maduro-raid?embedded-checkout=true
[5] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/secretary-state-marco-rubio-us-capture-maduro-war-venezuela-elections-rcna252111
[6] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/04/vance-venezuela-attack-fentanyl-00710281
[7] Joe Cash, “US capture of Maduro tests limits of China’s diplomatic push”, Reuters
January 5, 2026 available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-says-it-cannot-accept-countries-acting-world-judge-after-us-captures-2026-01-05/
[8] “China nudges banks to disclose lending ties with Venezuela,” available at:
[9] https://spravy.pravda.sk/domace/clanok/780754-fico-vynalozi-vsetky-skusenosti-na-to-aby-sr-nebola-zatiahnuta-do-vojny/
[10] “Spanish premier ‘strongly condemns’ violation of int’l law in Venezuela”, Agence Europe
[11] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-01-05/venezuela-oil-trump-now-has-his-own-petroleum-empire-in-the-americas?embedded-checkout=true
[12] https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-oil-refiners-win-chinese-rivals-lose-trumps-venezuela-strike-2026-01-04/
[13] https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/petrolio-l-opec-mantiene-produzione-stabile-nonostante-tensioni-interne-e-venezuela-AI5Yeeh
