World reacts to Trump’s attack on Maduro with shock, condemnations and ideological divisions

Experts say the operation violates the UN Charter and sets a dangerous precedent for future conflicts around the world.

In the early hours of this Saturday, the world woke up to a new international crisis. The United States launched military operations against targets in Venezuela — an action that quickly provoked waves of diplomatic, political and ethical reactions on a global scale. While some governments welcomed the offensive as a “necessary step”, others classified it as an “unacceptable aggression”, flagrantly violating the pillars of international law.

The escalation, which includes air strikes on Venezuelan military installations and civilian infrastructure, as well as the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, has been described by different leaders as a dangerous precedent that threatens not only Venezuelan sovereignty, but the very stability of the international order built after the Second World War.

Latin America on alert: between solidarity and divisions

In Latin America, the reactions were particularly sharp. The president of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, used his X account to condemn the bombings:
“The bombings on Venezuelan territory and the capture of its president exceed an unacceptable limit. These acts represent a serious affront to Venezuela’s sovereignty and yet another extremely dangerous precedent for the entire international community.”
Lula went on to state that “attacking countries in flagrant violation of international law is the first step towards a world of violence, chaos and instability, where the law of the strongest prevails over multilateralism.”

Mexico also vehemently rejected unilateral intervention: “The Mexican government strongly condemns and rejects the military actions carried out unilaterally in recent hours by the armed forces of the United States of America against targets in the territory of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in clear violation of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations.” The country reiterated its support for dialogue as the only legitimate way to resolve conflicts.

Chile, through President Gabriel Boric, endorsed the same position: “As the Government of Chile, we express our concern and condemnation of the United States military actions in Venezuela and call for a peaceful solution to the serious crisis affecting the country.”

Colombia, Venezuela’s direct neighbor, expressed “deep concern” about the explosions and “unusual aerial activities” in the region. President Gustavo Petro reaffirmed his commitment to sovereignty and the non-use of force, rejecting “any unilateral military action that could worsen the situation or put the civilian population at risk”.

Uruguay, in turn, highlighted that “rejects, as it has always done, the military intervention of one country in the territory of another” and reaffirmed the need to respect territorial integrity and the UN Charter.

But not everyone in the region followed suit. Ecuadorian President Gabriel Noboa celebrated the offensive with enthusiasm: “The time is coming for all narco-Chavista criminals. Their structure will finally collapse across the entire continent.” Noboa also directly addressed Corina Machado and Edmundo González — Venezuelan opposition figures — stating: “To Corina Machado, Edmundo Gonzalez and the Venezuelan people: it’s time to take back your country. You have an ally in Ecuador.”

Argentine President Javier Milei, an ideological supporter of Donald Trump, celebrated with a video on X: “FREEDOM MOVES FORWARD. LONG LIVE FREEDOM, DAMN!” In the same video, Milei called Maduro a “threat to the region” and supported the pressure exerted by Trump on Caracas, stating that “The time for having a timid approach to this issue has passed”.

Global reactions: from Moscow to Tehran, via Brussels

On the other side of the world, Russia vehemently condemned the operation:
“This morning, the United States committed an act of armed aggression against Venezuela. This is deeply troubling and reprehensible.”
The Russian Ministry criticized the “unfounded pretexts” used by the US and warned that “ideological animosity prevailed over business pragmatism and the desire to build relationships based on trust and predictability.”
Moscow argued that “Latin America must remain a zone of peace, as declared in 2014”and supported the request for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council.

Belarus echoed this sentiment. President Alexander Lukashenko, through his spokeswoman Natalia Eismont, “categorically condemns the act of American aggression against Venezuela” and had previously said, in an interview with North American journalists: “It will be a second Vietnam. And the Americans don’t need it.”

In Iran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for resistance: “What matters is that when a person realizes that the enemy is arrogantly trying to impose something on the country, the authorities, the government and the nation, he must firmly oppose the enemy and resist with courage. We will not give in to the enemy.”
Khamenei further stated, with a messianic tone, that, “trusting in Almighty God, we will bring the enemy to his knees.”

In Europe, positions were divided between principles and geopolitics. The head of European diplomacy, Kaja Kallas, stated that the EU “calls for moderation” and that “in all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected”although it reiterates that “Mr. Maduro lacks legitimacy”. The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, endorsed this vision, expressing “solidarity with the Venezuelan people” and support for “a peaceful and democratic transition”.

In Germany, the conservative parliamentary opposition was divided. Roderich Kiesewetter of the Christian Democratic Union accused Trump of destroying the international order: “Under President Trump, the US is abandoning the rules-based order that has shaped us since 1945.”
His colleague Jürgen Hardt, however, justified the action based on Maduro’s record: “For many years, Maduro repressed civil society in Venezuela and supported terrorism and drug trafficking in the region… From a human rights perspective, the end of his government is good news.”

In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Keir Starmer took a more cautious stance: “I want to get the facts first. I want to talk to President Trump. I want to talk to the allies. I can say with absolute certainty that we were not involved… and I always say and believe that we must all respect international law.”
Nigel Farage, leader of the Reform party, acknowledged the illegality of the action, but speculated that “if they make China and Russia rethink their actions, maybe it will be a positive thing”.

In Italy, former Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte was categorical: “The American aggression against Venezuela has no legal basis. We are facing a flagrant violation of international law… Not even the illiberal nature of the government justifies an attack on a sovereign State.”

International law under attack

Legal experts also entered the fray. Marc Weller, from the British think tank Chatham House, was incisive:
“International law prohibits the use of force as a means of national policy. Unless mandated by UN Chapter VII, force is only available in response to an armed attack or, possibly, to rescue a population under imminent threat of extermination.”
Weller concluded: “Clearly, none of these requirements are met by the armed operation against Venezuela. The US interest in cracking down on drug trafficking or the allegations that the Maduro government was, in essence, a criminal organization do not offer any legal justification.”

Countries such as Spain, Indonesia and Trinidad and Tobago – which said they would not participate “of none of these ongoing military operations” — insisted on the need for de-escalation, protection of civilians and respect for the UN Charter.

The Lebanese armed group Hezbollah, in turn, expressed “total solidarity with Venezuela – its people, its presidency and its government – ​​in confronting this American aggression and arrogance.”

What comes now?

While the world debates the legality and ethics of intervention, a question hangs in the air: where does the defense of democracy end and the imposition of hegemony begin? Venezuela, for years immersed in a political, economic and humanitarian crisis, has become the scene of a dispute that goes far beyond its borders. If on the one hand there is relief with the possible end of the Maduro regime, on the other there is fear that, with the breakdown of the international order, no country — small or large — will be safe from unilateral intervention.

As Mexico clearly stated: “Latin America must remain a zone of peace.” It remains to be seen whether global powers will be willing to listen — or whether, once again, they will choose to talk with bombs.

With information from Reuters*