The stance of the United States towards Venezuela, increasingly characterized by overt pressure aimed at regime change, has drawn cautious support from within Germany’s conservative political bloc. Jürgen Hardt, foreign policy spokesperson for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, defended President Trump’s actions in an interview with RTL and ntv, signaling a tacit endorsement of interventionist policies.
Hardt asserted that regime change represents a “proven method” when other avenues for influencing Venezuela’s trajectory have been exhausted, a statement that drew immediate criticism for its implications regarding international sovereignty and democratic principles. He cited the ongoing suppression of peaceful protest under President Maduro’s rule and alleged the Maduro regime’s involvement in global narcotics trafficking as justification for the aggressive posture. He underscored the purported threat this alleged drug trade poses to vulnerable populations globally, amplifying a narrative often used to rationalize interventionist action.
However, Hardt simultaneously cautioned against a large-scale military intervention by the US, labeling such action potentially “a step that goes too far”. While acknowledging the current reliance on threats and pressure, his initial endorsement of regime change creates a complex and potentially contradictory stance.
Perhaps more significantly, Hardt suggested a calculated geopolitical element to Trump’s Venezuela strategy. He posited a connection between the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the intensified US pressure on Venezuela, claiming the moves are designed to simultaneously exert pressure on Russia. Highlighting the perceived closeness between Maduro and Putin, Hardt’s assessment raises the troubling possibility that Venezuela is being consciously drawn into a larger strategic game, with potentially devastating consequences for the country and its people. This framing shifts the focus away from the purported internal issues within Venezuela and towards a proxy conflict dynamic, fueling concerns about the manipulation of a fragile nation for geopolitical advantage. The implications for international law and the principle of non-interference remain a point of considerable debate within the German parliament and across the European Union.