Two episodes in rapid succession—U.S. strikes in Venezuela followed by the seizure of President Nicolás Maduro, and renewed U.S. talk of acquiring Greenland with “military” language in the background—have triggered an unusually aligned response from capitals that otherwise disagree on almost everything: sovereignty is non-negotiable, and the UN Charter is not optional.
Episode 1: Venezuela
- 3 Jan: U.S. strikes; Maduro captured and taken to the United States (U.S. frames it as enforcement of existing charges).
- 4 Jan: EU issues a formal “calm and restraint” statement anchored explicitly in international law and the UN Charter.
- 5 Jan: UN Security Council meets; many delegations call the operation a breach of sovereignty and international law.
- 12 Jan: Trump fuels controversy with a Truth Social post circulating an edited “Acting President of Venezuela” image.
Sharpest Reactions
Latin America: condemnation led by Brazil and Colombia
- Brazil (President Lula): publicly framed the strikes and capture as crossing an “unacceptable line” and urged UN action.
- Source post (X): Lula’s statement – https://twitter.com/LulaOficial/status/2007436536590012845
- Colombia (President Gustavo Petro): pushed the “sovereignty / escalation” argument and pointed the issue towards urgent multilateral handling.
- Source post (X): https://twitter.com/petrogustavo/status/2007356950514729388
- Chile (President Boric): condemned the use of force and called for a peaceful route. (Reuters attribution.)
Mexico: condemnation plus “we will not be next”
Mexico’s posture is best read as two messages running in parallel: reject the Venezuela operation, and signal early that similar logic will not be tolerated on Mexican territory.
Europe: the EU’s “law first” line, with a legitimacy caveat
The EU’s High Representative statement is structurally important because it does two things at once:
- reiterates the EU position on Venezuela’s political legitimacy debates, and
- insists that even then, the UN Charter and international law apply “under all circumstances”.
- Official text: EEAS statement (4 Jan 2026)
The UN system: unusually explicit legal framing
- UN coverage of the Security Council meeting records that many speakers framed the operation as putting state sovereignty and international law at stake.
- UN human rights experts later described the strikes as an apparent breach of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter (and raised the “aggression” question).
- Official text: OHCHR press release (UN experts)
Trump’s own signalling: why it intensified the backlash
Beyond the military action, international concern widened because Trump publicly adopted “ownership/management” language.
Why it matters
For many governments, the Venezuela operation revived a core fear: if a major power treats sovereignty as conditional, the precedent travels—to neighbours, rivals, and allies. The UN debate and the EU statement indicate this is being handled as a system-level question, not merely a Venezuela question.
Episode 2: Greenland
- U.S. officials and Trump advisers are described as actively discussing ways to acquire Greenland; the White House line, as reported, is that military use is “always an option” and the objective is Arctic deterrence.
- European and Greenlandic authorities respond with unusually direct phrasing: Greenland is not for sale and not for seizure.
The key reactions (and what they signal)
Greenland: “NATO framework, no takeover—under any circumstances”
Greenland’s government has been explicit: defence should be anchored in NATO, not a bilateral coercion dynamic, and a U.S. takeover is unacceptable.
Denmark: stop the threats
Denmark’s prime minister publicly pressed Trump to stop the takeover rhetoric and reiterated Greenland is not for sale—language that effectively escalates this from a diplomatic irritation to a serious allied dispute.
Europe’s coordinated message: a joint statement with names attached
A seven-leader statement—published on the Élysée site and mirrored by the Italian government—puts Europe’s line in writing with full signatories (Macron, Merz, Meloni, Tusk, Sánchez, Starmer, Frederiksen): “Greenland belongs to its people.”
- Official text: Élysée joint statement (6 Jan 2026)
- French diplomacy mirror: France Diplomatie page
EU foreign policy chief: “extremely concerning”
Kaja Kallas’ formulation matters because it shows the EU treating the threat as potentially real and discussing what a European response would look like.
EU defence commissioner: “end of NATO” warning
The most dramatic line came from Defence and Space Commissioner Andrius Kubilius, who warned that a U.S. military takeover would mean NATO, as we know it, ends, and pointed to EU mutual-assistance provisions as the backstop.
China: “do not use others as a pretext”
Beijing’s intervention is also telling: China is using the episode to argue the U.S. is instrumentalising “Russia/China” narratives to advance its interests, while insisting its own Arctic activities are lawful.
Why it matters
Greenland turns an abstract debate into a concrete one: what happens if coercive acquisition logic is applied inside the Western alliance space? That is why the European response has been fast, named, and NATO-coded—deterrence by political unity rather than military theatre.
The connective tissue: why Venezuela and Greenland are now being read together
Diplomats and analysts are increasingly treating the two episodes as variations of one challenge: strategic geography + resources + a major power asserting control by exceptional methods. Once that frame takes hold, condemnation is not only about the target country/territory; it is about protecting the rule-set.
What to watch next
- UN track: further legal and political pressure will likely remain rhetorical because of veto arithmetic, but the UN record now anchors the “law breach” allegation.
- EU/NATO signalling: Greenland could accelerate NATO Arctic posture discussions; EU institutions are openly scenario-planning responses.
- Bilateral diplomacy: Denmark/Greenland–U.S. engagements will be scrutinised for any “security package” that looks like leverage for sovereignty concessions.