According to IRAF News Agency, Nathalie Tocci, a well-known international relations analyst and former adviser to the European Union, has argued in a forthright op-ed for “The Guardian“ that the current stance of European leaders toward the U.S. military action against Venezuela reflects profound weakness and deep confusion within Europe’s decision-making structures.
She maintains that a continent which once championed strategic autonomy and multilateralism is now behaving toward Washington like a “collection of colonies.”
Tocci notes that, Europe had already adopted a passive and largely silent position during two major crises—the war in Gaza and the U.S. and Israeli attacks against Iran—and now stands on the verge of repeating the same mistake in the case of Venezuela.
In her view, European leaders’ refusal to condemn Donald Trump’s action in abducting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro not only constitutes a blatant violation of international law, but also reveals Europe’s political helplessness.
She writes that although leaders such as Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer, and Ursula von der Leyen have publicly emphasized the importance of upholding international law, their ambiguous and cautious positions—alongside the more explicit statements of figures such as German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni—underscore a deep identity crisis within Europe’s liberal-democratic order.
Tocci then examines three possible justifications for Europe’s wavering stance.
The first is fear of a harsh reaction from Trump, including the potential withdrawal of U.S. forces from Europe or a reduction in American support for Ukraine.
However, she stresses that this process is already underway: Trump has withdrawn part of the U.S. military presence from Romania and has advanced proposals that would effectively leave Ukraine to face Russia alone.
Therefore, Europe’s silence over Venezuela, she argues, does nothing to safeguard Ukraine’s security and instead reflects political naïveté.
The second justification relates to Trump’s view of Greenland and his revival of a new version of the Monroe Doctrine.
Originally proclaimed in 1823 to prevent European powers from interfering in the Americas, the Monroe Doctrine later became a tool for entrenching Washington’s dominance over Latin America.
Tocci argues that Trump is now pursuing an expanded version of this doctrine—what she terms the “Donroe Doctrine”—under which even parts of Europe are defined as falling within the U.S. sphere of influence.
She warns that Europe’s silence in the face of Venezuela’s occupation effectively signals submission to Washington, and that the more Europe behaves like a subordinate, the more the United States will treat it as a colony.
This trajectory, she adds, poses a direct threat to countries such as Denmark, which retains sovereignty over Greenland.
The third European justification—weakening Russia through Maduro’s removal—is, in Tocci’s assessment, both the least significant and the most dangerous.
She acknowledges that ousting Maduro might increase economic pressure on Moscow, but insists that such short-term gains must not come at the cost of violating the fundamental principle of national sovereignty.
Tocci concludes by warning that accepting Trump’s logic of “spheres of influence” is precisely what Vladimir Putin wants for Europe.
In her view, if Europe allows a foreign power to overthrow a government through military force and impose a quasi-colonial structure, it is effectively sacrificing its own security.
She describes this approach as not only immoral, but openly irrational.
