The Guardian reports:

The meeting had been requested by Colombia, which delivered a carefully calibrated rebuke of Washington. The country’s ambassador, Leonor Zalabata Torres, condemned the US action as a violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity.

“Democracy cannot be defended or promoted through violence and coercion, and it cannot be superseded, either, by economic interests,” she said. “There is no justification whatsoever, under any circumstances, for the unilateral use of force to commit an act of aggression.” She added that the raid was reminiscent of “the worst interference in our area in the past”.

Russia and China, both permanent security council members, were less restrained and called on the US to immediately release Maduro and Flores. Vasily Nebenzya, Moscow’s ambassador, described the intervention as “a turn back to the era of lawlessness” and urged the 15-member council to reject the methods of US military foreign policy.

Nebenzya, whose country is currently under US sanctions following its illegal invasion of Ukraine, added: “We cannot allow the United States to proclaim itself as some kind of a supreme judge, which alone bears the right to invade any country, to label culprits, to hand down and to enforce punishments irrespective of notions of international law, sovereignty and nonintervention.”

China’s representative, Fu Cong, echoed the charge, saying the US had “wantonly trampled upon Venezuela’s sovereignty” and violated the principle of sovereign equality. “No country can act as the world’s police.”

China demanded that the US “change its course, cease its bullying and coercive practices”, and “return to the path of political solutions through dialogue and negotiations”. [Continue reading…]

The Guardian also reports:

In public, Russian officials have reacted with anger, condemning the attack as a flagrant violation of international law and a dangerous precedent. But beyond the rhetoric, there is a sense of grudging respect – and even envy – at the effectiveness of the coup that Moscow itself once imagined, but failed to execute because of a series of intelligence blunders and Ukraine’s strong resistance.

“The operation was carried out competently,” wrote the pro-Kremlin Telegram channel Dva Mayora, which has close ties to the Russian military.

“Most likely, this is exactly how our ‘special military operation’ was meant to unfold: fast, dramatic and decisive. It’s hard to believe [Valery] Gerasimov planned to be fighting for four years,” it added, referring to Russia’s chief of the general staff.

Such commentary has fed a mood of soul-searching among pro-war voices, with some openly questioning how Russia’s promised blitzkrieg in Ukraine morphed into a protracted and deadly war.

Olga Uskova, a pro-Kremlin tech entrepreneur, said she felt “shame” on Russia’s behalf in the face of how brazen the US intervention appeared to be.

“In the space of a day, Trump arrested Maduro and seemingly wrapped up his own ‘special military operation,’” she wrote.

Margarita Simonyan, Russia’s chief propagandist and the head of RT, also weighed in on Telegram, saying Moscow had reason to “be jealous”. [Continue reading…]