US-Venezuela Crisis: Why India Is Concerned But Careful On The Developments

India’s response to the latest US action involving Venezuela has been deliberately cautious — signalling concern but stopping well short of outright condemnation.

The careful wording reflects New Delhi’s effort to balance principle with hard geopolitical and energy realities, according to former Indian ambassador Anil Trigunayat.

In a dramatic turn of events, Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were captured by the United States forces on Saturday. This marked an unprecedented geopolitical development under President Donald Trump.

From an Indian perspective, this is not a new dilemma. Trigunayat points out that India has previously conveyed to the United States that if it is expected to reduce oil purchases from Russia, it must permit alternative sources, such as Venezuela or Iran.

That flexibility, he notes, has not been forthcoming. India also has investments in Venezuela’s oil sector, making developments there directly relevant to its long-term energy interests.

Trigunayat argues that what is unfolding should not be seen as an isolated incident. In his view, it reflects a renewed assertion of American influence in the Western Hemisphere, consistent with the strategic emphasis articulated under former Trump’s national security doctrine. "It is symbolic, but it is also very real," he says.

As the US seeks to consolidate its position as a global oil superpower, control over oil flows, supply chains and strategic choke points has become increasingly important. Trigunayat cautions that similar actions could emerge in other regions as well.

On the diplomatic front, an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council is expected, but Trigunayat is sceptical about any meaningful outcome. With the US holding veto power, binding action is unlikely, he says.

Regionally, resistance is already visible. Much of Latin America has criticised the move, with notable exceptions, such as Argentina and Ecuador, shaped by their own geopolitical strategies.

For India, Trigunayat says, the approach is one of watchful pragmatism; to safeguard national interest while clearly signalling discomfort with unilateral actions. The absence of condemnation, he suggests, should not be mistaken for endorsement, but rather for strategic restraint in an increasingly polarised world order.