7 Strategic Signals: Why India Is Wary as Trump Upends Venezuela, echoing Russia–Ukraine stance. India’s reaction to the dramatic US military operation that captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was notable not for what it said—but for what it carefully avoided saying.
As Washington carried out a stealth special forces raid deep inside Caracas, spiriting away a sitting head of state and declaring effective control over Venezuela, New Delhi responded with a terse, five-sentence statement issued more than 24 hours later.
The language was restrained, non-accusatory, and conspicuously neutral—echoing India’s calibrated stance during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
The statement neither named the United States nor mentioned Maduro’s detention. It avoided references to national sovereignty, territorial integrity, or rule of law—principles India frequently highlights in forums such as the Quad, of which Washington is a key member.
Instead, India chose the language of dialogue, peace, and regional stability. This was not diplomatic hesitation. It was a strategic decision.
7 Strategic Signals: Why India Is Wary as Trump Upends Venezuela
India Breaks Silence—Carefully
On Sunday, India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) finally reacted to the US operation in Venezuela.
“Recent developments in Venezuela are a matter of deep concern. We are closely monitoring the evolving situation. India reaffirms its support to the well-being and safety of the people of Venezuela,” the statement said.
“We call upon all concerned to address issues peacefully through dialogue, ensuring peace and stability of the region.”
There was no attribution of responsibility. No condemnation. No endorsement.
The MEA also confirmed that India’s embassy in Caracas was in contact with the Indian community and would provide assistance as needed.
This minimalist response stood in contrast to the sharp reactions from several global capitals and underscored New Delhi’s instinctive preference for strategic ambiguity when great powers clash.
A Familiar Pattern: The Ukraine Parallel
India’s Venezuela posture closely resembles its response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Then, as now, India:
- Avoided explicitly condemning the aggressor
- Called for dialogue and diplomacy
- Emphasised humanitarian concerns
- Refrained from invoking sovereignty or international law in accusatory terms
That approach drew criticism at the time but was defended by New Delhi as necessary to preserve strategic autonomy—India’s long-standing foreign policy doctrine of avoiding rigid alignments.
Venezuela, like Ukraine, does not sit at the core of India’s strategic priorities. But the precedent of openly criticising a powerful partner does.
Why India Avoided Naming the US
One of the most striking elements of India’s statement was its refusal to name the United States.
This omission was deliberate.
Openly criticising Washington over Venezuela would have come at a moment when India–US relations are already under strain.
President Donald Trump has imposed penal tariffs on India for purchasing Russian oil and has shown little hesitation in using economic coercion against partners.
The US operation in Venezuela is Trump’s current foreign policy showpiece—a dramatic assertion of American power in the Western Hemisphere. Any public rebuke from India risked aggravating an already transactional relationship.
As foreign policy scholar Happymon Jacob put it:
“If we condemn the Americans now, we guarantee they might side with our adversaries in the next eventual crisis. It’s a matter of cold, hard survival.”
India’s Strategic Calculation: Power Over Principle
Jacob’s assessment reflects a broader realism shaping Indian diplomacy today.
“Today’s India doesn’t believe that ‘global norms’ or ‘morals’ run the world—power does,” he said.
From this perspective, neither Venezuela nor Ukraine holds the strategic weight of India’s immediate neighbourhood—China, Pakistan, the Indian Ocean, or continental Asia.
Condemning US actions in Venezuela may satisfy normative consistency, but it offers no tangible strategic gain—and could incur real costs.
Silence, Then a Travel Advisory
India maintained silence throughout Saturday as news of the US raid spread across the world.
It eventually broke that silence not with a political statement but a travel advisory, urging Indian citizens to avoid non-essential travel to Venezuela and advising those already there to exercise extreme caution.
The sequencing was revealing: consular protection first, geopolitics later.
Opposition Pushback at Home
The government’s restrained response triggered criticism from opposition parties, who accused New Delhi of abandoning core principles.
Congress
Congress leader Jairam Ramesh reaffirmed international law norms without directly attacking the government:
“Settled principles of international law cannot be violated unilaterally.”
Trinamool Congress
TMC MP Kirti Azad was more scathing:
“India’s global position has weakened so much that today India is not even able to have an opinion when a sovereign nation is invaded and colonised by the US.”
Left Parties
CPI(M) MP John Brittas described India’s stance as a “passive and disappointing response” to America’s “blatant aggression”.
Despite the criticism, the government has shown no indication it will recalibrate its position.
Trump’s Venezuela Shockwave
India’s caution must be understood in the context of the sheer shock value of the US operation.
In the early hours of Saturday morning, US forces launched Operation Absolute Resolve, striking military targets in and around Caracas, disabling infrastructure, and extracting Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores from their residence.
They were flown to New York, where Maduro now awaits trial on narco-terrorism and drug trafficking charges.
Trump quickly escalated the rhetoric.
“Don’t ask me who’s in charge… it means we’re in charge,” he said.
The spectacle of an American president claiming control over a sovereign nation reverberated far beyond Latin America.
A ‘Decapitation Strategy’
Unlike past US interventions aimed at regime change through prolonged conflict, the Venezuela operation appears to follow a decapitation-and-coercion model.
The White House’s immediate focus has shifted to Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, appointed interim leader by Venezuela’s Supreme Court.
Trump and senior officials have made it clear that Washington intends to coerce compliance, not immediately rebuild the state.
“President Trump sets the terms,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said.
This approach may require fewer US troops but carries enormous political and legal risks.
Imperial Optics and Oil Politics
Trump’s fixation on Venezuela’s oil reserves has fuelled accusations of 21st-century imperialism.
While denying that oil motivated the intervention, Trump has repeatedly spoken about ensuring US access to Venezuelan resources and preventing them from benefiting adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba.
For countries like India—historically wary of regime change driven by resource politics—the optics are troubling.
Why India Is Not Taking Sides
India’s reluctance to take sides stems from multiple considerations:
1. Transactional US Policy
Trump has shown that partnerships are conditional and interest-based.
2. No Direct Stake
Venezuela does not affect India’s core security calculus.
3. Precedent Risk
Condemning Washington today could invite pressure tomorrow.
4. Strategic Autonomy
India remains committed to avoiding rigid alignments.
The Quad Contradiction
India’s silence on sovereignty stands out because Quad statements—involving India, the US, Japan, and Australia—frequently emphasise:
- Territorial integrity
- Rule of law
- Respect for sovereignty
Yet invoking those principles against the US itself would expose contradictions within the grouping.
New Delhi appears unwilling to test that fault line.
Global Reaction vs Indian Restraint
Several Latin American and European countries condemned the US action more explicitly.
India did not.
This divergence reflects India’s evolving worldview:
a rising power navigating between competing blocs, prioritising flexibility over moral posturing.
What This Means for India–US Ties
India’s restraint is unlikely to win praise in Washington—but it avoids confrontation.
Given Trump’s unpredictable diplomacy, New Delhi appears to have concluded that silence is safer than sermonising.
A Broader Shift in Indian Foreign Policy
The Venezuela episode underscores a deeper shift:
- From normative leadership to pragmatic survival
- From moral clarity to strategic hedging
- From idealism to realism
This is not non-alignment of the Cold War era. It is multi-alignment in a fragmented world.
Conclusion: Caution as Strategy
India’s response to the US capture of Nicolás Maduro was not weakness or indecision. It was deliberate restraint.
In a world where power increasingly overrides principle, New Delhi has chosen caution—betting that saying less now preserves room to act later.
As Trump reshapes the Western Hemisphere with unprecedented force, India has opted to watch, wait, and hedge—just as it did when tanks rolled into Ukraine.
Whether this strategy pays off will depend less on Venezuela—and more on how transactional the world’s most powerful capitals choose to be.
Also Read: 9 Explosive Claims as Venezuela Slams US ‘Extortion’ at UN
Also Read: Today an illegal coup in Venezuela, but where next? Donald Trump talks peace but he is a man of war
