Other countries are sharply divided about Venezuela right now: many Latin American and Global South governments are condemning the new U.S. airstrikes and the capture of Nicolás Maduro as a violation of sovereignty, while the U.S. and several allies frame it as a “necessary” step for a political transition and to end repression and criminal networks in the country.

Big picture

  • Many governments in Latin America (Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Cuba and others) are criticizing Washington’s bombing campaign and the seizure of Maduro as crossing a red line in terms of international law and regional sovereignty.
  • The U.S. and some partners argue the operation is meant to protect civilians, dismantle criminal networks linked to the Venezuelan state, and create space for a “safe transition” away from Maduro’s rule.

What Latin American leaders are saying

  • Brazil (Lula da Silva) : Lula calls the bombings and capture of Maduro an “unacceptable line” and a “very serious affront” to Venezuela’s sovereignty, warning it sets a dangerous precedent for foreign military action in the region.
  • Mexico (Claudia Sheinbaum) : Mexico “strongly condemns and rejects” the U.S. operation, saying it violates the U.N. Charter and international law, and urges an end to “acts of aggression” and a return to dialogue instead of force.
  • Colombia (Gustavo Petro) : Petro denounces the strikes as aggression against Venezuela and Latin America, calls for urgent meetings at the U.N. and OAS, and moves troops to the border, preparing for possible refugee flows.
  • Chile (Gabriel Boric) : Boric criticizes the intervention, insisting on peaceful solutions and warning that foreign bombing in Venezuela risks worsening an already deep crisis.
  • Cuba (Miguel DĂ­az‑Canel) : Cuba labels the U.S. action a “criminal attack” and “state terrorism” against the Venezuelan people and “Our America,” urging a rapid, coordinated international response.
  • Guyana : Guyana focuses on security, saying it has activated a defense plan and is closely monitoring the situation, trying to reassure its own population as tensions rise next door.

What major powers and Europe are saying

  • United States (Donald Trump) : Trump justifies the strikes and Maduro’s capture as part of dismantling a narco‑state and promises the U.S. will “run” Venezuela only until a “safe transition” is in place, presenting it as a temporary trusteeship rather than occupation.
  • China : China says it is “deeply shocked” and “strongly condemns” the use of force against a sovereign state, calling the attack a serious violation of international law and a threat to peace and security in Latin America and the Caribbean.
  • Russia : Russia denounces the U.S. operation as an “act of armed aggression” against Venezuela and criticizes Washington’s legal justifications as untenable.
  • Spain and some European states : Spain calls for “de‑escalation and moderation,” stressing respect for international law and offering to facilitate a negotiated solution, while reiterating its long‑standing criticism of Venezuela’s recent elections and support for Venezuelan refugees.
  • Broad Western coalition (earlier statements) : In late 2024, over 30 countries including EU members, the U.K., Canada and others issued joint statements backing a democratic transition in Venezuela and criticizing the integrity of the 2024 election, which shapes how many of them are now framing the post‑strike political track (even if they are more cautious on the bombing itself).

Regional fears and next‑step debates

  • Refugees and spillover : Neighbors like Colombia and Guyana are bracing for more displacement and security risks, with border deployments and public reassurances about defense readiness.
  • Precedent and sovereignty : Critics worry the U.S. move normalizes outside powers removing sitting presidents by force, especially in a region with a long history of interventions.
  • Transition vs. occupation narrative : Supporters of the strikes talk about a time‑limited “transition authority,” while opponents warn this could become a de facto occupation if no clear, rapid handover to Venezuelan civilians is set.

How this is playing online and in forums

  • On social networks and forums, discussions are polarized between those seeing Maduro’s removal as overdue justice and those seeing the strikes as imperial overreach that sidelines Venezuelans’ right to decide their own future.
  • A recurring theme in comment threads is distrust: some users suspect U.S. interest is driven by Venezuela’s oil and strategic position, while others argue regional left‑wing leaders are defending Maduro out of ideology rather than concern for democracy or human rights.

Information gathered from public forums or data available on the internet and portrayed here.