MOSCOW/CARACAS — Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council and former Russian president, on Sunday described U.S. President Donald Trump's military operation in Venezuela—which resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores—as a "clear violation of international law." However, Medvedev acknowledged a "certain consistency" in Trump's actions, arguing that the U.S. leader and his team are staunchly defending their country's national interests without pretense.
In an interview with the state-run TASS news agency, Medvedev stated: "At the same time, it must be acknowledged that, despite the obvious illegality of Trump's behavior, he has a certain consistency. He and his team are very staunchly defending their country's national interests." He drew parallels to Maduro's longstanding accusations that Washington seeks control over Venezuela's vast natural resources, particularly its oil reserves—the largest proven in the world. Medvedev noted that Trump "doesn’t hide it," openly stating intentions to "run" Venezuela temporarily and repair its "broken" oil infrastructure for U.S. benefit.
Medvedev's remarks included a pointed reference to the ongoing war in Ukraine, suggesting that the U.S. actions undermine Washington's moral standing to criticize Russia. "The US now has nothing to reproach our country for, even formally," he said, implying that American interventionism mirrors what the West accuses Moscow of in Ukraine. This comes amid Russia's continued military campaign in Ukraine, now in its fifth year, where Moscow has faced international sanctions and isolation for violating sovereignty principles.
The comments followed the dramatic U.S. military strikes on January 3, 2026, codenamed "Operation Absolute Resolve." Venezuela's government reported attacks on civilian and military installations across multiple states, including airfields, command centers, and infrastructure in Caracas and surrounding areas. Acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez declared a national emergency, denouncing the operation as "imperialist aggression" aimed at seizing the country's resources. Casualty figures remain unverified, but Venezuelan officials claimed at least 40 deaths, including civilians, while U.S. reports asserted precision strikes with no unintended harm.
Trump confirmed the "large-scale" operation in a post on Truth Social, announcing that Maduro and Flores had been "captured and flown out of the country." The couple was transported to New York, where they are detained in a federal facility. Maduro, 63, faces superseding charges from a 2020 U.S. Justice Department indictment, including narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, and possession of machine guns and destructive devices. He is accused of leading the "Cartel de los Soles," allegedly using his position to facilitate drug trafficking. Flores faces similar charges. Both are scheduled for an initial court appearance in Manhattan federal court on January 5.
Trump elaborated in subsequent statements, vowing that the U.S. would oversee Venezuela's governance "until a safe, proper, and judicious transition" is ensured. He highlighted plans to "fix" the nation's oil sector, which has suffered from years of mismanagement, sanctions, and underinvestment, reducing output from over 3 million barrels per day in the early 2000s to around 800,000 currently. "We're going to make Venezuela great again, and that starts with our energy security," Trump said in an interview with Time magazine, framing the intervention as protecting American interests from drug flows and economic instability in the hemisphere.
The operation capped months of escalating U.S. pressure on Maduro, who Washington has long accused of rigging elections, human rights abuses, and ties to narcotics. Maduro, in power since 2013, denied the allegations and repeatedly expressed willingness for dialogue, including through intermediaries like Norway. However, the Trump administration, bolstered by hardliners like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, opted for direct action, citing failed diplomacy and urgent national security threats.
Russia, a key ally of Maduro's regime, has provided military, economic, and diplomatic support to Venezuela since the early 2000s, including arms sales, oil investments, and vetoes against UN resolutions critical of Caracas. Medvedev's statements reflect Moscow's broader narrative of U.S. hypocrisy, especially as Russia faces accusations of war crimes in Ukraine. In a separate Telegram post, Medvedev escalated rhetoric, warning that only "maximum military strength, including nuclear weapons," can deter such interventions, concluding: "Long live nuclear weapons!" This has been interpreted as a veiled threat amid heightened global tensions.
International reactions remain polarized. Allies like China, Iran, and Cuba condemned the strikes as sovereignty violations and demanded Maduro's release. China's Foreign Ministry urged the U.S. to "stop toppling" governments and respect international law. Brazil's President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva called it a "grave affront" and "dangerous precedent," while Mexico and Colombia expressed concerns over regional instability, with Colombia deploying troops to its border amid fears of refugee surges.
Conversely, Venezuelan opposition figures and some Latin American leaders, such as Argentina's Javier Milei, hailed the capture as a step toward democracy. In the U.S., bipartisan support emerged, though critics like Senator Bernie Sanders questioned the legality without congressional approval, drawing parallels to the 1989 Panama invasion.
The UN Security Council convened an emergency session on January 5 at Russia's request, where debates over intervention legitimacy are expected. Legal experts argue the operation breaches the UN Charter's prohibition on use of force, though U.S. officials invoke self-defense against transnational threats.
As Venezuela navigates uncertainty under acting leadership, with protests and celebrations dividing the nation, the incident underscores shifting global power dynamics. For Russia, it provides propaganda fodder against the West, while highlighting vulnerabilities for non-nuclear states aligned against U.S. interests.
