Germany has sharply criticized remarks by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev regarding the seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, while declining to take a clear position on the US military operation that triggered the controversy. The contrast has drawn attention to Berlin’s cautious and, to some observers, uneven handling of a highly charged international episode.
Medvedev, now deputy chair of Russia’s Security Council, reacted to reports of the US capture of Maduro with sardonic commentary. Speaking to Russian media, he suggested that if Washington considered such actions legitimate, similar scenarios could theoretically be imagined elsewhere, including against European leaders. His remarks, framed provocatively rather than as a concrete threat, nonetheless prompted an immediate response in Berlin.
At a federal press briefing, German government spokesman Sebastian Hille rejected Medvedev’s statements outright, describing them as unacceptable and worthy of the strongest condemnation. Questioned by journalists on whether Berlin viewed the remarks as a serious threat, Hille said the government had taken note of them and stood firm in opposing any such language.
When pressed on whether the same moral clarity applied to the actual seizure of a foreign head of state by US forces, the spokesman offered no direct answer. The exchange ended abruptly, leaving unresolved whether Berlin’s condemnation extended beyond rhetoric to the actions that prompted it.
The United States confirmed over the weekend that its forces had captured Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, during a raid in Venezuela and transported them to New York. US authorities say the couple will face multiple criminal charges, including drug trafficking. Maduro has denied the accusations and has described himself as a prisoner of war.
The operation marks one of the most dramatic uses of US military power against a sitting foreign leader in recent decades. It has raised immediate questions about sovereignty, international law, and the precedent such an action sets at a time when global norms are already under strain.
Germany’s response has mirrored that of much of the European Union, characterized by restraint rather than endorsement or outright rejection. Chancellor Friedrich Merz has avoided passing judgment on the operation itself, stating only that its legal implications are complex and require careful evaluation.
This cautious language reflects a broader European dilemma. While many governments have long criticized Maduro’s rule and questioned the legitimacy of his presidency, openly supporting a unilateral military capture by an ally risks undermining principles Europe has traditionally defended, including non-intervention and legal multilateralism.
The episode highlights a recurring tension in transatlantic relations. European states depend heavily on the US for security, yet often find themselves uncomfortable with Washington’s readiness to act decisively outside established international frameworks. Condemning hostile rhetoric is politically easy; addressing the legality and consequences of allied actions is far more delicate.
As the global order enters another uncertain phase, Berlin’s measured silence on the Maduro operation underscores the challenge of navigating between alliance loyalty and the preservation of international norms. In this space between confrontation and restraint, Europe continues to search for a coherent voice.