In recent months, Spain’s foreign policy has come under close scrutiny. Pedro Sánchez, as head of the government, has adopted a rather unusual approach in dealing with the American administration. His public statements about events in Venezuela and regarding Denmark (specifically Greenland) have been marked by remarkable caution. Not once did he mention Donald Trump by name, though it was obvious to everyone whom he was referring to. This kind of diplomacy, where names remain unspoken, has become the new normal for Europe.
Instead of open confrontation with the White House, European leaders—including Sánchez—have chosen a strategy of measured comments and official statements that avoid direct accusations. This appears to be an attempt not to provoke Washington unnecessarily, while at the same time not giving up their own positions. As a result, it feels as though Europe is simply waiting for the storm to pass, preferring not to name the guilty parties aloud.
The diplomacy of silence
This strategy has been especially evident in the case of Venezuela. The Spanish government condemned military intervention but did not specify who was behind it. Sánchez signed several statements denouncing violations of international law, yet Trump’s name was never mentioned. This has become something of a hallmark of current diplomacy: addressing the issue without naming the key player.
This approach raises questions. On one hand, it helps avoid direct confrontation with the US. On the other, it creates the impression that Europe is not prepared to fully defend its interests. In the corridors of European capitals, there’s a growing sense of irony: ‘We simply avoid naming the one who threatens us.’ But how effective this policy truly is remains an open question.
European Caution
The situation repeated itself with Denmark and Greenland. After high-profile statements from Washington about possible territorial claims, European leaders responded only with restrained comments. None of them dared to openly challenge the US president. Sánchez again opted for diplomatic phrasing, avoiding personal remarks.
As a result, a paradoxical situation emerges: Europe condemns actions but names no culprits. This preserves a semblance of unity and helps prevent escalation, but at the same time undermines trust in European diplomacy. Many experts believe this strategy is merely an attempt to buy time and avoid damaging relations with the US.
The Venezuelan Dilemma
Venezuela has become yet another example of double standards. Sánchez condemned the military intervention but stopped short of naming those responsible. Moreover, when it came to mediating between the regime and the opposition, the Spanish Prime Minister chose to make statements from abroad—in Paris, rather than Madrid. This appeared to be an attempt to distance himself from the domestic debate and shift responsibility onto the international community.
The question of recognizing the results of the Venezuelan elections also remained unanswered. Despite Edmundo González’s victory, Europe—including Spain—did not acknowledge him as president. The official position was that real power remains with Nicolás Maduro, while González is merely a symbolic figure. At the same time, Sánchez publicly spoke of not recognizing Maduro’s regime, which clearly conflicted with the actual actions of the government.
A recurring pattern
The situation with political prisoners in Venezuela has only highlighted the inconsistency of European diplomacy. Official statements calling for their release have been made before, but no real changes followed. The language remained the same, and the outcome predictable. It seems that Europe—and Spain in particular—prefers not to intervene too actively, limiting itself to ritual condemnations.
All of this suggests that Spain’s current foreign policy is a balancing act between maintaining good relations with the United States and not losing face on the international stage. Sánchez has chosen a path of caution, but only time will tell how effective it will be.
