Flashpoint: Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has urged the US to ‘stop the threats’ and asserting that
Greenland is not for sale and the US has no right to annex any territory of the Danish kingdom.
Europe’s collective response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has been hailed as one of the most decisive demonstrations of post-Cold War unity in defence of international law.
The United Kingdom, the European Union and individual states like Denmark classified Moscow’s February 2022 offensive as an illegal, unprovoked assault on sovereignty, reinforcing Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter and triggering extensive sanctions and military support for Kyiv.
Yet in the early weeks of 2026, a geopolitical contradiction has struck both observers and policymakers: while Europe’s moral clarity remains robust toward Moscow’s aggression, that same clarity is strikingly absent in the face of aggressive US actions against the republics of South America. This uneven application of legal and ethical principles risks eroding the very norms European capitals claim to uphold.
A Milestone and a crisis: The capture of Maduro
In an unprecedented military operation over the weekend, US forces struck deep within Venezuelan territory to seize President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in what the White House has described as a targeted strike against cartel-linked narco-terrorism.
Both were swiftly transported out of Caracas, ultimately reaching New York City for arraignment on federal charges related to drug trafficking, narco-terrorism conspiracy, bribery and machine-gun possession.
These are charges that carry potential life sentences if convictions are secured.
The dramatic operation, codenamed Operation Absolute Resolve, resulted in Maduro and Flores being removed from fortified military compounds in the Venezuelan capital and brought onto US soil under heavy escort. They appeared in a Manhattan federal courthouse this week, wearing standard detention attire as their legal teams prepared to challenge the legitimacy of their capture on grounds including sovereign immunity.
Washington has justified the operation as a law-enforcement action, emphasizing longstanding indictments and alleged ties between the Venezuelan leadership and major international drug networks.
However, US President Donald Trump’s comments following the raid have exacerbated international concern. Trump confirmed that investigators are contemplating an additional strike if the Venezuelan government does not cooperate with US objectives, a statement that many observers warn verges on extortion.
Europe’s quiet shift: Absent outrage where it matters
Even as global attention focuses on Caracas and New York, the contrast with Europe’s reaction to similar breaches of sovereignty is striking.
In the case of Ukraine, Europe’s leaders publicly condemned Russia’s actions, aligned sanctions and mobilised military assistance. In the case of Venezuela, a sovereign nation where the US executed a military capture of its head of state, there has been no unified European condemnation, no collective declaration that the US actions violate international law.
Instead, EU leaders have offered what some observers describe as pared-down cautious responses, coupling concern over the legality of US intervention with geopolitical calculation over continued alliance priorities.
While French and German leaders expressed unease over the legal basis of the raid, they stopped short of direct condemnation, reflecting a broader inability to confront Washington publicly.
This silence exposes a hard truth, which is that sovereignty appears vigorously defended in Europe when violated by adversaries but ignored when challenged by allies.
Greenland: Danish government responds
This inconsistency has found a new flashpoint in the Arctic. On Monday, as the world reeled from news of Venezuela leader’s detention abroad, Trump renewed controversial statements regarding Greenland, a largely autonomous territory that is part of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Trump reiterated his longstanding view that Greenland is strategically indispensable to US national security and refused to rule out any measure, short of outright war, to secure it for the United States.
In response, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen issued a statement, urging the US to “stop the threats” and asserting unequivocally that Greenland is not for sale and the US has no right to annex any territory of the Danish kingdom.
Frederiksen highlighted that Greenland’s status as a NATO member territory means collective defence guarantees apply and stressed that border changes cannot be unilaterally re-defined, even by close allies. Greenland’s own Prime Minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, also rejected Trump’s comments as ‘disrespectful’ and reiterated that any future changes to the island’s status must come through dialogue and international law, not coercion.
European capitals, from Paris to Berlin and London, along with Denmark, have backed Copenhagen’s emphasis on territorial integrity even as they tread carefully in their language regarding US actions in South America.
However, Denmark’s own silence on the Venezuelan issue contrasts with its vocal defence of territorial sovereignty in the context of Greenland.
Meanwhile, some EU officials have publicly reaffirmed commitment to sovereignty principles, though none have yet applied the same level of critique to Washington that was directed at Moscow in the Ukraine context.
The civilisational narrative and its consequences
At the core of this divergence lies not merely geopolitics, but narrative framing. In Europe, Ukraine is embraced as part of a shared moral universe, its suffering seen as unequivocally wrong, just as Denmark’s sovereignty is upheld.
By contrast, Venezuela has too often been portrayed through lenses of internal dysfunction rather than as a sovereign nation whose territorial inviolability matters equally under international law. This inconsistency reflects a deeper, civilisational problem.
Edward Said famously referred to this dynamic in his work Orientalism, in which he explored how Western powers have historically framed certain societies, especially those in the global south, as inferior or ‘other.’ This intellectual framework justifies a hierarchical approach to global relations, where some nations are seen as fully entitled to sovereignty, while others are relegated to a status that permits external intervention or manipulation. I would call this dynamic something harsher: Orientalist sadism. It’s not just a matter of viewing some nations as inferior, it’s the quiet acceptance of their suffering as useful or even inevitable.
The suffering of nations like Venezuela becomes something to be endured, a ‘necessary evil’ in the name of achieving a political or ideological objective.
It reflects a deeply ingrained hierarchy where certain societies are seen as full political equals and others are treated as objects of discipline or correction. The result is a dangerous erosion of the norms meant to protect all states.
The consequences extend beyond Venezuela
If European silence continues, the threshold for coercive rhetoric and military intervention will erode further. Countries like Canada and Denmark, which both face threats to territory and sovereignty, could find their own security frameworks tested as norms weaken.
Europe’s defenders will argue that comparisons between US actions in Venezuela and Russian aggression in Ukraine are imperfect. Yet international law does not grant exemptions based on benevolent intention; the prohibition on threats and the use of force is universal.
If Europe aims to champion a genuine rules-based order, it must embrace a hard truth: credibility depends on consistency, even when doing so is politically uncomfortable.
This does not require equating Washington with Moscow as enemies. What it does demand is a public reaffirmation that sovereignty and non-intervention apply everywhere, equally, to all nations and all states. Silence, in this context, is not neutrality. It is tacit acceptance.
And in a world where great powers increasingly test the boundaries of legal norms, acceptance can quickly become an invitation.
Europe cannot have it both ways. A rules-based order that restrains only adversaries is not an order at all; it is a hierarchy in legal clothing.
Kweku Ampiah is a professor in Japanese Studies in the department of East Asian Studies at the University of Leeds, UK.