January 3, 2026 | Caracas, Venezuela / Global — Dalena Reporters
In the aftermath of U.S. military strikes on Venezuela and President Donald Trump’s assertion that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was captured following the operation, an intense and polarized wave of international reaction emerged on Saturday, January 3, 2026. Governments, regional leaders, and global organisations issued statements ranging from sharp condemnation to cautious calls for dialogue, underscoring deep geopolitical fault lines and rising concerns over international law and regional stability.
Leading the diplomatic rebuke, the Russian Foreign Ministry condemned the strikes as an “act of armed aggression”, asserting that the United States had violated Venezuela’s sovereignty and undermined trust in international relations. Moscow reinforced calls for restraint and dialogue, emphasising the need for Latin America to remain a “zone of peace” free from military interference.
Regional powers voiced alarm. Colombian President Gustavo Petro described the U.S. action as an “assault on the sovereignty” of Venezuela and Latin America, urging an immediate meeting of the United Nations Security Council and reaffirming the Colombian commitment to peaceful conflict resolution under international law. Similarly, Mexico’s foreign ministry “strongly condemned and rejected” the unilateral military action, calling for diplomatic negotiation and underscoring the risk posed to regional stability.
In Europe, responses varied. Spain offered to mediate for a peaceful solution to the Venezuelan crisis, urging restraint, de-escalation, and respect for international law. European Union foreign affairs leadership echoed these sentiments, stressing that any resolution must uphold the UN Charter and avoid further escalation. The United Kingdom’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer distanced his government from the U.S. strikes, affirming that Britain was not involved and reaffirming the importance of establishing factual clarity while upholding international law.
Countries outside the Western bloc also weighed in. Iran condemned the U.S. military attack as a flagrant violation of Venezuela’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, reflecting long-standing strategic ties between Tehran and Caracas. Cuba denounced the strikes as “state terrorism” against the Venezuelan people, calling for a swift international response to the crisis. Smaller states such as Trinidad and Tobago reiterated their neutrality, emphasising their peaceful relations with Venezuela while making it clear they were not participants in the military operations.
Opposition voices also emerged within the United States. U.S. Democratic senators criticised the military action, arguing that the intervention lacked vital national interests and violated legal norms, with one lawmaker describing the engagement as “illegal” and “embarrassing.
Voices from civil society and political movements further illustrated the global polarization. Left-wing parties in nations such as India condemned the strikes as imperialist adventurism and a gross violation of the UN Charter, while figures in Europe and beyond criticised the erosion of the rules-based international order.
The international community’s reactions reflect deep concern over the implications of unilateral military action, highlighting contested views on sovereignty, intervention, and the mechanisms for peaceful resolution. As world leaders and regional organisations continue to deliberate, calls for a return to diplomacy and adherence to international norms have intensified, even as fears mount about the potential for broader instability triggered by the conflict.