Here’s a shocking truth: Yvette Cooper’s silence on Trump’s actions in Venezuela isn’t just diplomatic restraint—it’s a calculated move tied to Ukraine. But here’s where it gets controversial: Could the UK’s reluctance to criticize Trump’s controversial seizure of Nicolás Maduro be a strategic sacrifice to secure fragile U.S. support for Ukraine? Let’s dive in.
Anyone wondering why Cooper dodged questions about whether the UK viewed Maduro’s capture as a violation of international law need only look at the events unfolding in Paris the very next day. After her grueling 90-minute grilling in the House of Commons, where MPs from all parties slammed the government’s stance on Trump’s Venezuela intervention, a joint statement was expected from the coalition of willing nations. Notably, a draft included the U.S. pledging binding security guarantees to protect Ukraine from further Russian aggression.
From the Foreign Office’s perspective, criticizing Donald Trump risked derailing these painstakingly negotiated guarantees. These assurances, months in the making, were seen as a credible alternative to Ukraine’s NATO aspirations—a dream Kyiv is reluctantly abandoning. They’re also a precondition for any negotiated settlement between Russia and Ukraine that Europe and Kyiv could accept. For British officials, securing U.S. commitment as a guarantor—symbolized by Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff’s presence in Paris—was a diplomatic lifeline, especially after Witkoff’s leaked 28-point plan abandoning Ukraine left Europe reeling in November 2025.
And this is the part most people miss: The U.S. official most instrumental in coaxing Trump to back Ukraine’s protection was Marco Rubio, the secretary of state and national security adviser. Europe owes Rubio a debt, but since Maduro’s capture was largely his brainchild—with Vice President JD Vance notably absent—British diplomats deemed it unwise to question the legality of what Rubio considers a triumph. One official called it ‘a no-brainer,’ weighing the value of criticizing Rubio over the removal of a leader the UK hadn’t recognized anyway, and whose overthrow was already a done deal by the time the UK was informed. Notably, the UK had long stopped sharing intelligence with the U.S. on Venezuelan drug boat attacks.
Cooper’s hints to MPs on Monday night were subtle but clear: in her weekend talks with Rubio, she didn’t just abstractly champion international law—she implied it should apply to Venezuela. Yet, she’s also angling to insert the UK into Washington’s vague plans for Venezuela’s future. The UK’s ties to Venezuela date back to the early 19th century, when it backed Simón Bolívar, the Great Liberator. Now, the Foreign Office insists Venezuela needs a democratic transition, but admits it’s unrealistic to expect Chávez loyalists to act as U.S. puppets.
‘Stability requires a transition driven by the people’s will,’ Cooper told MPs. She’s been promoting Colin Dick, the UK’s chargé d’affaires in Caracas, as someone who understands the Venezuelan opposition, including the marginalized María Corina Machado. But Rubio, a Latin America expert himself, has made a harsh call: Venezuela’s opposition isn’t ready to govern and would likely spark a civil war akin to Libya or Iraq, where dismantling the military created a power vacuum. For the U.S., this isn’t about regime change but forcing operational reforms.
The Foreign Office’s worry? Trump and Rubio show little interest in the UK’s Latin American expertise. While journalists in Washington easily get Trump on the phone, Keir Starmer wasn’t even consulted on Maduro’s capture. This raises serious questions: Can the UK still rely on its historic asymmetric relationship with the U.S., built on defense and security, when shared values seem increasingly uncertain?
Many MPs across the political spectrum believe the Foreign Office must reassess how to influence Trump in his second term. Trump remains an enigma: neither isolationist nor liberal internationalist, he avoids prolonged wars, favors quick strikes, and revels in the propaganda of force. He shuns alliances, prefers autocratic powers, and has unveiled a national security strategy the UK openly disagrees with. After Caracas, the U.S.’s forced seizure of Greenland is a real possibility. As Stephen Miller bluntly told CNN, ‘We live in a world governed by strength, force, and power.’
In this harsh reality, the UK can celebrate temporary victories on Ukraine and cautiously leverage its influence in Washington. But if ‘America First’ means dismantling the rules-based order, the UK may soon face a stark choice: abandon its risk-averse approach and seek influence in ways unrecognizable from the past 80 years. What do you think? Is the UK’s silence on Venezuela a necessary evil, or a dangerous precedent? Share your thoughts below.
