“`html
WASHINGTON, January 5, 2026 – The United kingdom is walking a tightrope as it responds to a dramatic intervention by the U.S. in Venezuela, one that saw the removal of Nicolás Maduro from power following a late-night raid. The situation is forcing Prime Minister Keir Starmer to balance condemnation of authoritarianism with the need to maintain a crucial relationship with Washington.
Navigating a Delicate Balance: UK Response to Venezuela Intervention
The UK government is carefully calibrating its response to the U.S.-led removal of Nicolás Maduro,prioritizing economic and security interests while upholding principles of international law.
- The U.S. authorized covert operations in Venezuela as early as October 2025.
- Starmer’s government took 16 hours to publicly respond to Maduro’s removal.
- Concerns are growing that a lack of condemnation could embolden China and Russia.
- The UK is prioritizing its economic and security partnership with the U.S.
What is the UK’s position on the removal of nicolás Maduro? The UK government acknowledges Maduro’s illegitimacy but emphasizes the importance of adhering to international law, a position reflecting Starmer’s background as a human rights lawyer.
The clues were mounting for months. The U.S. President had previously confirmed authorization of CIA operations within Venezuela targeting drug traffickers, and had also implemented a blockade of oil tankers. Despite these escalating actions and repeated threats to oust Maduro, some within the UK initially dismissed the possibility as improbable, comparing it to past, unfulfilled promises – like bringing peace to Ukraine instantly or developing a “Gaza Riviera.”
When the raid occurred, and the U.S. President announced Maduro’s capture on charges of “narco-terrorism,” Starmer’s initial public response, delivered 16 hours later, was notably cautious. “We regarded Maduro as an illegitimate president and we shed no tears about the end of his regime,” he stated, quickly adding a reiteration of support for international law.
downing Street has since maintained a strategy of minimal public comment, aiming to avoid antagonizing the U.S. while allowing Washington to justify the move legally. As one aide reportedly put it, the approach is to “recognise that it’s not our fight.”
Opposition parties,including the Liberal Democrats and the Greens,have pressured the government to issue a stronger condemnation. Within Starmer’s own Labor party, Emily Thornberry, chair of the foreign affairs commitee, forcefully argued that a lack of Western condemnation could embolden China and Russia.
However, Downing Street dismissed these concerns, with a spokesperson stating that comparing the situation in Venezuela to a full-scale invasion of a sovereign, democratic state was “a bad comparison.” Even Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, while acknowledging a potential violation of international law, suggested the outcome “might potentially be a good thing” if it deterred Russia and China.
Senior g