European nations divided over legality of US military action in Venezuela

The U.S. military operation that captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has triggered a fragmented and contentious response across Europe, revealing stark disagreements over sovereignty, international law, and alliance politics. Despite a shared view that Maduro lacked democratic legitimacy, European capitals are split on endorsing the means used to remove him.

A cautious EU consensus and internal dissent

The European Union's collective response, articulated by foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, called for restraint and respect for international law, while not recognizing Maduro as a legitimate leader. The statement, supported by 26 of 27 member states, emphasized a Venezuelan-led transition. Hungary dissented, with its EU minister criticizing the bloc's foreign policy as ineffective. This thin consensus papered over significant national divergences.

Critics of intervention: Spain, France, and Central Europe

Several governments directly challenged the legality of the U.S. action. Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez refused to recognize the "intervention," stressing international law must be upheld "always and everywhere." France's foreign ministry stated the operation violated the non-use of force principle. Austria and Slovakia similarly condemned the move as a breakdown of the rules-based order, with Slovak PM Robert Fico warning it creates a "law of the jungle."

Focus on outcome over method: Italy, Greece, and Poland

Other nations, while paying lip service to international norms, focused primarily on Maduro's removal. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, a close Trump ally, highlighted Italy's non-recognition of Maduro and referenced "defensive" actions against state-sponsored drug trafficking. Greece's leader welcomed the end of a "brutal dictatorship," prioritizing transition over a "comment on legality." Poland's foreign minister offered a personal, sarcastic endorsement of Maduro's capture.

A reflection of broader strategic dilemmas

The European split mirrors a fundamental tension between upholding principled multilateralism and aligning with a powerful ally's disruptive realpolitik. For a nation like Türkiye, which consistently advocates for sovereignty and opposes foreign-imposed regime change, the European discord validates its stance that selective application of international law by powerful states erodes global stability and sets dangerous precedents that ultimately threaten all nations.