The USA intervention in Venezuela escalated sharply on 3 January 2026, when American forces struck targets in and around Caracas and detained President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, according to USA authorities and multiple media reports. Washington framed the operation as a step toward ending an illegitimate regime; Caracas has described it as aggression. No official death toll has been confirmed, but international media have reported at least 40 deaths, including civilians and soldiers.
What happened in Caracas during the USA intervention in Venezuela
In statements from Florida, US President Donald Trump said the USA would “run” Venezuela until what he called a “safe” transition takes place, and warned that a second wave of strikes could follow if needed. US officials also said Maduro would face legal proceedings in the USA.
On the Venezuelan side, the immediate institutional picture remains contested. Venezuela’s Supreme Court moved to install Vice President Delcy Rodríguez as interim leader, while Rodríguez has rejected any notion of foreign “colonisation” and insists Maduro remains the country’s president.
Finland and Sweden: legitimacy questioned, but law stressed
Finnish President (Presidentti) Alexander Stubb said Maduro’s rule has lacked democratic legitimacy for years and cited the 2024 election as “grossly unfair”. At the same time, he underlined that all states must respect international law, framing that principle as vital to Finland’s foreign policy.
Finland’s Foreign Minister (Ulkoministeri) Elina Valtonen made a similar public comment, also questioning the legitimacy of Maduro’s rule and pointing to Finland’s long-standing alignment with the EU position.
Swedish Prime Minister (Statsminister) Ulf Kristersson took a similar line. He said Venezuelans had been freed from dictatorship and called for a quick and peaceful transition to democratic rule, while adding that states have a responsibility to act in accordance with international law.
Sweden’s Foreign Minister (Utrikesminister) Maria Malmer Stenergard also stressed that Venezuela’s future must be decided by Venezuelans and that the transition must respect the UN Charter’s principles, while reiterating Sweden’s travel advice for the country.
Denmark and Norway: de-escalation, and doubts about what comes next
Danish Prime Minister (Statsministeren) Mette Frederiksen said the Danish government was following developments closely with allies and urged de-escalation, adding that international law must be respected. Danish Foreign Minister (Udenrigsminister) Lars Løkke Rasmussen also called for dialogue and said Denmark expected the UN Security Council to discuss the situation quickly.
Norway’s Foreign Minister (Utenriksministeren) Espen Barth Eide went further, saying the American intervention is not in accordance with international law, while insisting that a peaceful transition to democratic rule is the only viable path. In separate comments to Norwegian media, he also warned that Maduro’s detention may not translate into an actual regime change if the state apparatus and parts of the security forces remain in place—raising the risk of renewed instability.
EU executive response: calm, legality and a Venezuelan-led transition
In a statement backed by 26 EU member states (with Hungary not supporting it), EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas called for calm and restraint to avoid escalation and reiterated that the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. The statement again said Maduro lacks the legitimacy of a democratically elected president and argued for a Venezuelan-led, peaceful transition that respects sovereignty.
The EU also highlighted cooperation against transnational organised crime and drug trafficking, but stressed those efforts must remain within international law. It called for the unconditional release of political prisoners in Venezuela and said member states were coordinating to protect EU citizens in the country. Separately, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen—head of the EU executive—said any solution must respect international law and the UN Charter.
Political analysis: an old playbook, revived under new global conditions
Beyond the immediate crisis, the USA intervention fits a familiar pattern in the Western Hemisphere: using military and legal tools to shape outcomes in a region Washington has historically treated as a strategic sphere of influence—a logic often associated with the Monroe Doctrine and its later reinterpretations. In a more multipolar context—where Maduro’s Venezuela has deepened ties with Russia and China—the operation can also be read as a signal that the United States intends to reassert leverage close to home, even at the cost of renewed arguments over sovereignty, precedent and the future credibility of international law.
For us European, the episode also lands in a broader debate about power politics: if global competition is increasingly shaped by the three major poles of the USA, China and Russia, the EU faces pressure to strengthen its capacity to act as an independent strategic actor—or risk being squeezed between decisions taken elsewhere, even when its interests and legal principles are directly affected.
