How many countries consider the actions of the USA against Venezula to be an act of aggression

1. Rapid chorus of state condemnations — who said “aggression”?

Within days of the strikes and Maduro’s capture, Russia and China both condemned the U.S. action, with Russia explicitly calling it “an act of armed aggression” and China saying it was “deeply shocked” and condemning the use of force ^{[3] [6]}. Regional powers and neighbours — Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Chile, Spain and others — issued joint statements or individual denunciations describing the strikes as violations of sovereignty and international law ^{[4] [1] [7]}.

2. UN experts and multilateral voices labeled it aggression

United Nations human rights experts and special rapporteurs publicly characterized the operation as a grave breach of international law and said it could amount to the international crime of aggression, urging member states to condemn the actions and act to halt them ^{[8] [9]}. The UN Secretary‑General and the U.N. Security Council meeting reflected deep concern that rules of international law were not respected, even as member states differed on language and remedies ^[5].

3. Lists in reporting point to “at least a dozen,” but coverage varies

Major outlets and aggregated pages list overlapping groups: The Guardian’s coverage named Brazil, China, Colombia, Cuba, Eritrea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa and Spain among states denouncing the strikes ^[1], while Wikipedia aggregations and other reports add Brazil, Chile, China, France, Iran, Mexico, North Korea, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa and Spain — demonstrating coverage that documents roughly a dozen named states describing the U.S. action as aggression or condemning it as unlawful ^{[2] [10]}. Reuters, CBC, Axios and CNBC report many of the same condemnations while also citing additional national statements and nuances ^{[4] [11] [12] [3]}.

4. Why a single numeric answer is elusive

The phrase “consider the actions … to be an act of aggression” can mean different things: some governments used the explicit term “act of armed aggression” or “illegal aggression,” others condemned the strikes as violations of sovereignty without invoking a criminal definition, and still others called for de‑escalation rather than direct labeling ^{[3] [6] [5]}. Reporting aggregates (news articles and encyclopedic pages) enumerate many states but do not provide a definitive, comprehensive roll call of every UN member position at a single time, so the sources support saying “at least a dozen countries and several UN experts” rather than a precise total ^{[1] [2] [8]}.

5. The geopolitical split — who did not call it aggression or stayed neutral

Several Western leaders and U.S. allies offered restrained language or avoided explicit legal categorizations, highlighting divisions in Latin America and beyond that reflect political alignments more than legal consensus ^{[6] [5]}. Some regional right‑leaning governments framed the action as justified or in self‑defense, underscoring that condemnation was neither universal nor unanimous ^{[10] [13]}.

Conclusion: What can be stated with confidence

Based on the contemporaneous reporting and aggregated reactions provided, a clear majority of named condemnations—spanning Latin American governments, European states such as Spain and Slovakia, global powers like China and Russia, and UN human rights experts—characterized the U.S. operation as aggression or a breach of international law; the documented lists in these sources support saying “at least a dozen” countries and several UN experts called the actions an act of aggression, but the materials do not permit a single definitive country‑count of all states worldwide ^{[1] [2] [8]}.