FACT CHECK: There is no conclusive evidence that either China or Russia have a spy base in Cuba.
Russia did have a massive spy base in Cuba known as Lourdes — during the Cold War. Vladimir Putin closed the base in 2001, and a year later, it was replaced by a public university. (Stay tuned for our upcoming report from the university, where our efforts to find Russian spies proved fruitless).
Allegations of Chinese spy bases have relied largely on anonymous officials and satellite imagery obtained by the D.C.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, which recently acknowledged that there was “no clear publicly available evidence” proving China’s presence at Bejucal.
Two years ago, we traveled to Bejucal and two other supposed sites and found no evidence of Chinese spies or spy bases.
While there is no proof that Russia and China are using Cuba to spy on the United States, the Trump administration is openly spying on Cuba. In April, a U.S. military surveillance drone was spotted flying off Cuba’s coast for several hours, circling in holding patterns near Havana and Santiago de Cuba.
The United States operates more than 800 military and intelligence facilities around the world, including bases used for surveillance, drone operations, missile defense and overseas military campaigns.
Monday, July 6, 2026
Walking the Tightrope and Threading the Needle: Strategic Adaptation Under Siege
Cuba’s Economic Reforms and Defense of Socialist Sovereignty
The announcement of Cuba’s new package of economic transformations has generated intense debate both within Cuba and among supporters of the Revolution internationally. Some have expressed concern that aspects of the reforms represent a retreat toward capitalism, a weakening of socialist principles, or even a concession to the relentless pressure of U.S. imperialism. Such concerns should not be dismissed. They arise from a genuine commitment to the principles that have defined the Cuban Revolution and an understandable apprehension about the dangers that accompany any expansion of market mechanisms.
Yet the starting point for any serious analysis must be reality. Cuba confronts one of the most severe economic crises in its contemporary history. This crisis is not the product of abstract policy failures alone, nor can it be understood apart from the unprecedented escalation of the U.S. economic war against the island. Washington’s objective remains unchanged: to create such hardship, deprivation, and social dislocation that the Cuban people abandon their revolutionary project and surrender their sovereignty.
For more than six decades, successive U.S. administrations have sought to achieve through economic warfare what they could not accomplish through invasion, sabotage, terrorism, diplomatic isolation, or political subversion: the destruction of the Cuban Revolution. The current phase of that assault has reached extraordinary levels. Cuba faces financial persecution, restrictions on fuel imports, obstacles to international banking transactions, sanctions against foreign investors, and a campaign explicitly designed to suffocate the country’s economy.
Under such circumstances, the Cuban revolutionary leadership could not simply stand still. To do nothing would itself have been a decision—a decision carrying potentially devastating consequences for the Cuban people and for the survival of the Revolution. As Cuban economists and policymakers have repeatedly noted, many of the measures now being implemented have been debated for decades. Indeed, part of the current crisis stems from reforms that were delayed, incompletely implemented, or obstructed by institutional inertia. The cost of inaction has been enormous.
The question therefore is not whether changes were necessary. They were. The real question is what kind of changes are being implemented, under whose authority, and for what purpose.
Some critics view measures such as expanded foreign investment, modifications to foreign trade arrangements, greater flexibility for state enterprises, and new forms of financing as evidence of capitalist restoration. Such conclusions are premature and often misunderstand the central issue confronting socialist societies.
Socialism has never been built under ideal conditions. Neither Marx nor Engels imagined that socialist construction would occur in a small developing country subjected to permanent siege by the world’s most powerful imperial state. Every socialist revolution has been forced to navigate contradictions, shortages, external threats, and difficult compromises. The history of revolutionary movements is not the history of advancing under perfect conditions; it is the history of defending emancipatory projects under hostile conditions.
Lenin confronted precisely this reality in 1921. After years of civil war, foreign intervention, economic collapse, and devastation, Soviet Russia introduced the New Economic Policy (NEP). The NEP permitted limited private enterprise, market exchange, and concessions to foreign capital. It was fiercely debated within the revolutionary movement. Yet Lenin insisted that the decisive issue was not the existence of market mechanisms in isolation, but which class held political power and whether the socialist state retained command over the strategic direction of society.
The NEP was not viewed as a surrender. It was understood as a strategic retreat designed to preserve revolutionary power, rebuild productive capacity, and gain time under extremely unfavourable conditions.
History never repeats itself mechanically, and Cuba is not Soviet Russia. Nevertheless, the comparison is instructive. Revolutionary governments occasionally face circumstances in which tactical flexibility becomes necessary to preserve strategic objectives.
The fundamental question remains: who controls the state? The Cuban Revolution has not relinquished political power to domestic capitalists, foreign corporations, or international financial institutions. Cuba remains a sovereign state governed by institutions created through the revolutionary process. The Communist Party remains in leadership. The state retains control over the commanding heights of the economy. National independence remains non-negotiable. This distinction is crucial.
The issue is not whether market mechanisms exist. Markets exist in varying forms in virtually every society. The decisive question is for whom the social product is generated and how the social surplus is utilized.
Is wealth produced for private accumulation by a narrow elite? Or is it directed toward national development, social welfare, public health, education, scientific advancement, food security, and collective well-being?
That is the central dividing line between socialist-oriented development and capitalist restoration. Those worried about the weakening of the state monopoly on foreign trade raise legitimate concerns. History demonstrates that openings to market forces can generate inequalities and social pressures. Similarly, proposals involving greater participation of foreign investment and changes in enterprise structures deserve careful scrutiny.
There are real dangers. No serious revolutionary should deny them. There is the danger of growing inequalities. There is the danger of bureaucratic distortions. There is the danger of the emergence of privileged sectors. There is the danger that market incentives, if left unchecked, could gradually reshape social relations in ways inconsistent with socialist objectives.
But dangers alone cannot determine policy. The alternative to confronting these risks is not some idealized preservation of a previous status quo. The alternative may well be deepening economic collapse, worsening shortages, increased emigration, deterioration of public services, and the weakening of the material foundations upon which the Revolution rests. The challenge is therefore not to avoid all risk—a practical impossibility—but to manage those risks while preserving revolutionary power.
In this regard, an important aspect of the current debate concerns alternatives that deepen worker participation, cooperative development, community control, and democratic forms of economic management. These discussions deserve serious attention. Cuba’s future need not be reduced to a choice between bureaucratic centralization and private capital accumulation. Expanding the role of workers, cooperatives, municipalities, and communities in economic decision-making remains an essential component of socialist renewal.
Indeed, the debate itself demonstrates an often-overlooked reality: Cuba continues to engage openly with fundamental questions about the direction of its development. The Revolution has never claimed infallibility. Cuban leaders have repeatedly acknowledged errors, shortcomings, delays, and bureaucratic obstacles. The current reforms emerge not from ideological conversion to capitalism but from a recognition that existing mechanisms have proven insufficient under present conditions.
Ultimately, however, the principal contradiction remains external. The greatest threat to Cuban socialism is not the ongoing debate among revolutionaries about economic policy. The greatest threat remains the unrelenting campaign by Washington – including the real possibility of military aggression – to force Cuba into submission. This is why international solidarity remains indispensable.
Those outside Cuba have every right—and indeed a responsibility—to discuss, debate, and critically evaluate developments on the island. But such discussions must begin from an unequivocal defence of Cuba’s right to determine its own future free from imperial coercion.
The Cuban people alone have the right to decide how their society evolves. Not Washington. Not Wall Street. Not the architects of blockade and economic warfare.
The irony is that many of those demanding a return to capitalism for Cuba preside over capitalist societies increasingly incapable of delivering security, equality, or hope for future generations. Across the capitalist world, growing numbers of people face declining living standards, mounting insecurity, precarious employment, and diminishing prospects for their children. The promise and illusion that capitalism would provide prosperity for all has become increasingly difficult to sustain even in its historic centres.
Against this backdrop, Cuba’s struggle remains what it has always been: the effort to preserve national sovereignty and social justice under extraordinarily hostile conditions. The current measures should therefore be understood neither as a capitulation nor as an abandonment of socialist aspirations. They are better understood as an attempt—whether ultimately successful or not—to navigate a perilous moment in defence of a revolutionary project that continues to face the concentrated hostility of the most powerful empire in history.
The debate over the reforms will continue. It should. But the first question must never be forgotten: what would happen if Cuba did nothing? The Revolution was never confronted with a choice between an ideal socialism and imperfect reforms. It was confronted with the challenge of defending socialist sovereignty amid economic siege.
That reality imposes urgent and necessary changes. The task now is to ensure that those changes strengthen rather than weaken the Revolution’s foundational commitment: a sovereign nation in which the wealth produced by society serves the many rather than the few, national development rather than foreign domination, and human needs rather than private profit.
Isaac Saney is a Professor and Cuba and Black Studies Specialist in Black African Diaspora Studies and History, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada. He is also a member of the executive of the Canadian Network On Cuba.
Thursday, July 2, 2026
The Nikkei Community in Cuba: Celebrating with pride Japanese legacy
The descendants of Cuban-Japanese celebrated their International Day recently with a compromise to strengthen their link with their historical memory.
The celebration, an opportunity to meet, fortify friendships and exchange experiences. Picture by Massiel Tessa
The first Japanese migration registered in America took place in 1868 and was towards Hawaii. In commemoration of this event, on June 20 communities of Japanese descendants around the world come together to celebrate.
Japanese migration to Cuba started at the end of the 19 century, divided into five main periods as follows: until 1914, from 1915 to 1923, from 1924 to1926, from 1943 to 1946 and finally after World War II.
Japanese descendants are known as Nikkei, singular, a term that changes from the first to the fifth generation (isei, nisei, sansei, yonsai, gonsei).
Last Census in Cuba, in 2025, showed there are 991 Nikkei living in the island and distributed in Cuba’s 15 provinces and in the municipality of Youth Island. Data showed the origin of the community was Kumamoto in Japan.
Today Nikkei are part of two main communities: the Society of the Japanese Colony of Youth Island (Sociedad de la Colonia Japonesa de la Isla de la Juventud) and the Management Committee of the Nikkei Association of Cuba (Comité Gestor de la Asociación Nikkei de Cuba) this last in process of legalization.
This year, for fifth time, Japanese descendants celebration together with the Embassy of Japan and included the presence of ambassador Nakamura Kazuhito, as well as the representative of the Agency for International Cooperation of Japan (Agencia de Cooperación Internacional de Japón (JICA) in Cuba, Ashida Tatsuya; the president and vice-president of the Management Committee of the Nikkei Association of Cuba Francisca Arakawa and Ivis Imamura respectively, other members of the accredited diplomatic body and members of the community.
In his speech the Japanese ambassador in Cuba highlighted the increase of younger members of the community among assistants and numerous representation from all provinces, despite the challenging circumstances Cuba is facing in terms of transportation.
This event is an opportunity to get together, strengthen our friendship and Exchange experiences; this is an example of perseverance and dignity, explained the ambassador.
The vice-president Imamura affirmed the pride the community feels regarding their genealogical links with Japan, and their compromise that to them represents the rescue of their legacy. She finalized saying that for them it is crucial not only to be together but to do together.
During the event videos were shown highlighting Cuban participation in the twenty second Panamerican Convention Nikkei (XXII Convención Panamericana Nikkei, COPANI 2026), celebrated recently and where the Antillean community was included in the Nikkei Panamerican Association.
JICA representative, Ashida Tatsuya, mentioned the achievements in matters of cooperation, professional capacitation and the development of cultural activities and she encouraged all to continue with such enriching experiences that contribute to strengthen diplomatic relations between both countries.
In the cultural space of this encounter the art of dancing was highlighted, in particular couple dancing Tsugai Kogarashi, combining elements of traditional and modern dance with elegant movement and the use of the fan.
Childhood was also present in a fashion show of traditional Japanese clothes, like yukata and kimono. Then, lovers of Japanese culture (Nikkei from the heart) danced Yosakoi, with energetic youth movements. In the end, professor of Japanese language Víctor Coro pleased the public with a show of traditional calligraphy (Shodo) and a humoristic monologue (Rakugo).
The evening ended with karaoke, a shared entertainment of modern Japanese society, in which many Japanese functionaries participated together with the descendants.
Nikkei historian Lidia Sánchez Fujishiro in her book, A Japanese in Santiago de Cuba (Un japonés en Santiago de Cuba), explains that being a Japanese descendant is simply being a Japanese descendant, does not imply additional obligations and that in this sense, there has been no need to build alternatives of identity resistance aiming at social privileges.
In 2028, Cuba will celebrate the 130th anniversary of the beginning of Japanese Immigration to Cuba, with a community of descendants that day by day build links with the legacy of their predecessors. Picture by Hideo Ishii.
Translation by NSCUBA (Nova Scotia)
Wednesday, July 1, 2026
From A to Z: A Countdown of hostility against Cuba
A brief dictionary of U.S. policy toward the largest of the Antilles
The Ñico López refinery in Havana was nearly sabotaged with explosives in 1965 Photo: Juvenal Balán
A
America is a word in conflict over meanings and existences… some strive to maintain the accent mark on the word, to be in, with, from, and for it; and others seek to eliminate it, so that the only way to pronounce and understand the word is through a tongue that doesn't dare touch the roof of its mouth to pronounce the "r."
B Blockade or Biden, who denied Cuba oxygen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Also Bush (for now, only the son), U.S. president between 2001 and 2009, whose "Cuba Plan" limited family visits to the island to one trip every three years and reduced the authorized per diem for such travel. He founded the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, to which he initially allocated up to $59 million over two years, with the express purpose of overthrowing the Cuban government.
C Sugar mill, the means by which the US gradually took control of the Cuban economy, or crops damaged by bacteriological warfare. Clinton, president from 1993 to 2001, who approved the Helms-Burton Act. The "c" also stands for CIA.
D The Monroe Doctrine was issued in 1823 to warn European powers and the nascent republics of the hemisphere of a succinct and central policy: America for the Americans. It also refers to Donald Trump, who 200 years later has forcefully revived that dogma. In his first administration, he dismantled the process of normalizing relations between Washington and Havana and applied 250 coercive measures to the island, intensifying the embargo. Since 2025, he has resumed his hostility where he left off and today maintains a total oil blockade and the threat of invasion against Cuba.
E The Platt Amendment, an appendix to Cuba's first Constitution after its independence, guaranteed a republic legally and politically subordinate to the United States. Also, Eisenhower, the US president at the time of the revolutionary triumph of 1959, approved in March 1960 the "Covert Action Program against the Castro Regime," which included the creation of a Cuban exile organization operating in conjunction with the CIA, as well as a clandestine apparatus within Cuba.
F The Ripe Fruit Policy was formulated in 1823 during the administration of James Monroe and stipulated that, for the time being, it was advantageous for the U.S. for Cuba to remain under Spanish control and that, when the historical moment arrived, the island would break away and fall, by the law of gravity, into the hands of "the Union."
G The Bay of Pigs was invaded in 1961 by a military force trained and financed by the U.S. government. The action failed in less than 72 hours, although it cost the Cuban Revolution more than 150 lives.
H The Helms-Burton Act of 1996 "allows" the U.S. to punish non-U.S. companies that trade with Cuba, mandates a series of subversive actions aimed at overthrowing the Revolution from within, and places coercive spotlights on activities related to former U.S. properties on the island.
I Military Intervention as a Method and Interventionism as a Policy. In 1898, the U.S. intervened in the Necessary War, which would later become the Spanish-Cuban-American War. After Spain's defeat, the U.S. military occupied the island until 1902. Intervention occurred again in 1906, at the request of Tomás Estrada Palma. During the Massacre of the Black Independents, the U.S. threatened to intervene again and also considered the possibility during the War of the Chambelona. Between 1934 and 1935, the U.S. ambassador in Havana, Jefferson Caffery, effectively governed the country.
J Jefferson (Thomas), U.S. president from 1801 to 1809, declared that the incorporation of Cuba into "our confederation is precisely what we need to advance our power as a nation to the point of its maximum interest." More than a century later, in his 1928 introduction to the book Our Colony of Cuba, historian Harry Elmer Barnes acknowledged that from the island, "we extended our economic penetration and political pressure into other parts of Central and South America, especially Mexico, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Panama."
K Kennedy formalized the blockade of Cuba in 1962. He also approved the Bay of Pigs invasion and was the leading U.S. figure during the Cuban Missile Crisis. For his part, Henry Kissinger, arguably the most famous diplomat in American history, nearly bombed the island in 1976 in retaliation for its participation in the defense of Angola against South African aggression.
L Lester D. Mallory, Under Secretary of State. In a secret memorandum, he defined the philosophy of the economic, commercial, and financial blockade unilaterally imposed against Cuba: "The majority of Cubans support Castro… the only foreseeable way to reduce his internal support is through the disenchantment and dissatisfaction arising from economic hardship and material difficulties…"
M Marco Rubio, the current Secretary of State of the neighboring country, has strong ties—and debts—to the Cuban-American mafia. He is the main promoter of the suffocation of the Cuban people, which has intensified at this time from the U.S.
N Nixon (Richard) was one of the sponsors of the Bay of Pigs invasion and did everything he could to expedite it so that a supposed victory would pave the way for his presidency. When he finally took over the White House in the late 1960s, his policy toward the island was characterized by persecuting Cuban nickel trade operations, kidnapping fishermen at sea, and detaining ships flying the Cuban flag in international ports.
Ñ The Ñico López refinery in Havana was nearly sabotaged with explosives in 1965. The plot was to be carried out by a CIA agent, Julio Marcelino Acosta Fuentes, Case 116-65. The plan was intercepted in time by Cuban authorities. Had it been successful, the blast wave would have killed thousands of people.
O Executive Orders of January 29 and May 1, 2026, issued by President Donald Trump, which expanded unilateral coercive measures against the Cuban economy and maximized the extraterritorial nature of the so-called "secondary sanctions." Operation Mongoose, according to the Office of the Historian at the State Department, "was designed to accomplish what the Bay of Pigs invasion failed to achieve." According to this official U.S. website, the program included political, psychological, military, sabotage, and intelligence operations, as well as assassination attempts against political leaders. He fostered and financed insurgent groups throughout most of the country as a prelude to a new invasion. The bulk of his actions took place in 1962.
P Peter Pan. The operation convinced thousands of families inside Cuba that the Revolution would strip them of their parental rights. Through his network, more than 14,000 children arrived in the U.S. without their parents between 1960 and 1962. Many were never reunited.
Q Quincy Adams (John) was the main proponent of the Ripe Fruit policy. He would become President of the United States shortly afterward, from 1825 to 1829. In 1823, he wrote to the U.S. ambassador in Spain about the annexation of Cuba as "indispensable for the continuity and integrity of the Union itself."
R Reagan (Ronald) was in the White House from 1981 to 1989, and during his administration, diseases such as dengue hemorrhagic fever were introduced to Cuba, which claimed the lives of 101 children during those years.
S Sabotage and terrorist acts in general have been a constant in U.S. policy toward the Cuban Revolution. At least 3,478 Cuban nationals have been killed. One of the most significant incidents was the bombing of the Barbados airliner in 1976.
T The Torricelli Act was passed in 1992 under the administration of George Bush (Sr.) and prohibited subsidiaries of U.S. companies from trading with Cuba, even if they were located in third countries. Furthermore, ships that docked in Cuban ports were barred from entering the U.S. for the following 180 days.
U
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was created in 1961 by Kennedy. It has fostered relationships of blackmail and dependency through its "aid," primarily in countries of the Global South, and has promoted regime change policies against alternative processes to U.S. hegemony, such as those in Cuba and Venezuela.
V The steamship La Coubre exploded in Havana harbor in 1960, killing approximately one hundred people. From the pain and outrage of that day, the slogan "Homeland or Death!" was born.
W Wood (Leonard) was one of the military leaders of the U.S. intervention in the Spanish-American War in Cuba, and in 1899, during the occupation, he was appointed Military Governor of the island. It is said that he took with him as a souvenir the first Cuban flag raised after the American flag was lowered in 1902.
X Xenophobia. Our people are subjected to a series of forms of discrimination outside the national territory, including obstacles to accessing banking services, visas, academic literature, and courses. Furthermore, phenomena such as the lack of recognition of our educational institutions occur.
Y Yankee. For the national liberation movements of the entire second half of the 20th century, including the Cuban Revolution, it has been synonymous with imperialist siege.
Z Zunzuneo was an intelligence operation funded by USAID to create a kind of "Cuban Twitter" between 2009 and 2012. Starting with trivial matters, it sought to reach a large audience within Cuba in order to then send large-scale political messages that would catalyze a parallel to the Arab Spring on the island.
Sunday, June 28, 2026
Sunday June 28 to Saturday July 4 2026. Canada
The week of action begins TODAY and I know that many or most of you will be participating in rallies in your respective cities. Take lots of pictures, and be sure to tag the Canadian Network on Cuba on social media. In-person visits to MPs, rallies outside their offices, banner drops, postering nights -- and how we can help you to amplify your local activities.
In solidarity,
Monday, June 22, 2026
Cuba: economic transformations in the face of the tightening of the U.S. Blockade
The Prime Minister of Cuba presented 176 proposals during the Extraordinary Session of the National Assembly of the Popular Power.
Author: "Estudios Revolucion".
For the first time, foreign investment in private companies will be allowed, as well as the extension of economic partnership contracts.
During the Extraordinary Session of the National Assembly, Prime Minister Manuel Marrero presented to the deputies a set of proposals for economic and social transformations that seek to redefine the country's development model, in a context marked by the intensification of the U.S. blockade.
Unprecedented foreign investment
The most innovative measures focus on opening up foreign capital to hitherto restricted sectors. For the first time, foreign investment in private companies will be allowed, as well as the extension of economic partnership contracts. To guarantee greater stability to long-term projects, it is proposed to extend the surface right up to 99 years and the right of usufruct up to 50 years.
On the financial front, foreign investors will be able to open accounts abroad without prior authorization – only with notification – and directly access the foreign exchange market to operate with their currencies. In addition, the mandatory use of employing entities is eliminated, which opens the way to direct contracting schemes.
The regulatory package incorporates the principle of "positive administrative silence", reduces procedures and deadlines, and decentralizes the authorization process. Foreign investment is also allowed in specific areas such as Old Havana, and private companies and cooperatives are authorized to import and export directly, as well as to market trademarks and patents.
Banking and financial reform
The project recognizes the need for a profound transformation of the banking system and includes the possible creation of a private corporate bank under the supervision of the Central Bank. It also proposes the establishment of non-bank financial institutions for microcredits, the elimination of restrictions on payments in foreign currency between foreign suppliers and Cuban counterparts, and the updating of interest rates.
It also contemplates the creation of private exchange houses, a digital exchange market and currency auction systems, as well as the realization of successive devaluations of the national currency to adjust the exchange rate.
Tax reform and pricing policy
In tax matters, value added tax (VAT) is introduced with reduced rates in specific sectors, electronic invoicing is generalized and the tax burden for certain economic actors is reduced. The personal income tax is updated, with a modified progressive scale, fewer brackets and an exempt minimum equivalent to the average salary in 2025. In price policy, approval powers are decentralized and the approach based exclusively on costs is eliminated, moving towards a scheme determined by market correlation.
Social protection and subsidies
The proposals include the digitization of social aid through the Sovereignty platform, and establish that all economic actors contribute to the sustainability of social policies through banking agreements. They provide for the creation of a Social Protection Fund and the transformation of the subsidy scheme, moving from a product-centric model to a model focused on vulnerable people.
Tourism, transport and trade
In the tourism sector, the door is open to new business modalities such as leases, usufructs and sale of real estate, both for Cubans living and abroad. Real estate development is authorized in all strategic tourist destinations, the creation of private travel agencies and the incorporation of tourist guides and managers of local destinations. In transport, restrictions on the acquisition of equipment are eliminated and the import of electric vehicles is encouraged. In commerce, non-state forms of management and foreign investment are prioritized, chains of stores and restaurants are created, with the invitation to foreign franchises.
(With information from Cubadebate)
Translation by NSCUBA (Nova Scotia)
Monday, June 15, 2026
Saturday, June 13, 2026
When Calabria — one of Italy's poorest regions — faced a severe shortage of doctors, help arrived from an unexpected place: Cuba.
Today, we are proud to share the public release of our latest documentary, From Cuba to Calabria, which follows Cuban doctors as they serve on a medical mission in southern Italy. Rather than hearing about Cuba's medical missions through politicians and pundits, you can see one from the inside — through the voices of the doctors themselves and the patients whose lives they touch.
The Trump administration has claimed the doctors are victims of "forced labor" and pressured governments around the world to terminate the missions.
Refining domestic crude oil: A path of great effort that continues to yield results
The processing of 20,000 tons of domestic crude oil in the Santiago de Cuba refinery demonstrates the resilience of Cubans and their boundless will to find solutions in the face of the most complex adversities
To process the national crude, it has been necessary to study, innovate, and experiment, the director of the Hermanos Díaz refinery affirmed. Photo: Archive
SANTIAGO DE CUBA.— In 2024, Granma had already investigated the processing of heavy crude oil, which our country imported, using a solvent that brought it to 16 degrees API—created by a team of specialists at the Hermanos Díaz Oil Refinery—to convert it into medium crude and, once distilled, obtain the derivatives. "That technological feat allowed our company to leave behind the period between 2016 and 2021, marked by losses, meager production, and the regrettable exodus of engineers, technicians, and service personnel," acknowledged engineer Irene Barbado Lucio, general director of this branch of the Cuban Petroleum Union (Cupet). But in 2026, "the situation became extremely complex due to the energy blockade imposed by the Trump administration, preventing the oil we once purchased abroad from flowing through our facilities," the director lamented. "Once again, the option was to become self-sufficient through our own efforts, as advised by the Commander-in-Chief in his concept of Revolution. He was the one who promoted the expansion and modernization of our plant in the 1980s, but I want to emphasize that it was designed to process light crude," specified Víctor Manuel Díaz Despaigne, director of the refining area. THE BEGINNING OF THE TRANSFORMATIONS When refining of imported heavy crude began, the Hermanos Díaz refinery—one of the country's four refineries—processed "naphtha, gasoline, fuel for drilling wells, fuel oil for thermoelectric power plants and distributed generation, as well as for asphalt production and the nickel industry," explained its CEO.
This was the result of the efforts of more than 700 workers, because the technological upgrades were numerous. Thanks to this collective ingenuity and the powerful movement of innovators and efficiency experts, profits were generated and distributed, and the emigration of skilled personnel to other Cupet companies and to centers in both the state and private sectors was prevented.
According to Barbado Lucio, "it was a complex process, involving much study and experimentation, in which our maintenance team—responsible, as its name indicates, for ensuring the operation of the industry—and Cupet's Refining Directorate also played a fundamental role." "If at the end of the last decade we had resigned ourselves to the technological limitations that, obviously, made refining heavy crude impossible, the fate of this important industry would have been very uncertain. That is why, united, we overcame what seemed invincible," he affirmed. With some seven decades of operation, work is underway at this site to improve infrastructure, production processes, and working conditions. In this regard, progress has been made on the flow measurement project to guarantee traceability of the processing, prevent fuel losses, and consequently strengthen fire suppression systems, lightning rods, and spill containment measures (which minimize environmental impacts in Santiago Bay). ANOTHER TURNING POINT Through coercion and blackmail, the U.S. government "dictated to our suppliers that they should no longer sell us crude oil. But the greatest risk was that the country would run out of naphtha, essential for continuing extraction in our oil wells," emphasized the member of the Party's Central Committee. "If we were able to convert imported heavy crude into medium crude, given the urgency, we decided to do the same with domestic crude," stated the director of the refining area. After intensive studies and adjustments, "we conducted an initial run of domestic crude in March; we obtained naphtha, diesel, and fuel oil, and, above all, the exploitation of our oil fields did not stop," the director pointed out. Although these initial results were encouraging, the need for further adjustments to the plant also became apparent, given the viscosity and aggressiveness of Cuban oil due to its high sulfur and acidity levels. That is why, in this initial stage, crude oil from the western region is being refined, as it "has better characteristics, flows better, and has lower viscosity," commented engineer Irenaldo Pérez Cardoso, deputy director of Cupet. These actions were carried out in parallel with those developed by the Petroleum Research Center, based on thermoconversion, which were announced by the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Party and President of the Republic, Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez, along with members of the National Innovation Council. According to the president, "we broke a precedent, a taboo that existed in the country, that national crude oil could not be used for other purposes, and we had practically condemned it to be used directly in a group of thermoelectric plants." FOR GREATER AND BETTER RESULTS Since the country has only received one Russian tanker in the last six months, Cupet continued working with domestic crude and processed 20,000 tons. Once again, the Hermanos Díaz team took on this colossal challenge, which happily "yielded results superior to the first run of this pilot phase, with the production of solvent naphtha destined for wells and fuel oil," said Irene Barbado Lucio. Because the diesel obtained from domestic crude does not meet all the standards for commercialization, it was necessary to blend it with a higher-quality fuel to make it usable. The May run met the objectives; the extra-heavy fuel oil is even being used at the Antonio Maceo Thermoelectric Power Plant, with positive results, and its use in the nickel industry is being evaluated. Even though the processed amount does not cover the country's demand, it represents a technological advancement for making more efficient use of endogenous energy resources. "Therefore, we reiterate that, given the high sulfur content, acidity, and viscosity of Cuban crude, specialists were required to perform calculations and adjustments to optimize and facilitate the refining process," stated Yanet Revé Luna, senior specialist in the Technology Department. Thus, the crude oil washing systems were rehabilitated, "and the dosage of a new product called Vapen 220 pe was established. This product serves as a neutralizer at the top of the atmospheric distillation tower for the corrosive acids that form during the fractionation process," the specialist affirmed. Taking into account the characteristics of Cuban oil, a line was constructed to collect the polluting gases released at the top of the vacuum distillation tower. These gases are then burned in the furnaces, thereby contributing to environmental protection and the health of the workers. Since it was very difficult for the fuel to flow through the ten-inch diameter lines to reach the suction and processing unit, "we made an interconnection with a 20-inch line," Revé Luna noted. And in complete accordance with the need to take a little bit away from the problems each day, this team—with many of its members working long hours and in complete anonymity—continues to apply science and innovation so that petroleum products—no longer imported, because they are denied to us—are present, to the extent possible, in the country's main activities.
The Santiago refinery is one of the four in the country and was expanded in the 1980s. Photo: Santiago Martí Photo: Granma
Monday, June 8, 2026
Saturday, June 6, 2026
Díaz-Canel denounces new U.S. threats and sanctions against Cuba
With these measures, the US government intends to "strengthen the blockade and the conflict between Cuba and the United States," he stated
"The US president has made new threatening statements against Cuba; and the Treasury Department has added new names of Cuban leaders, organizations, and companies to an illegitimate sanctions list," denounced Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and President of the Republic, this Thursday via his Twitter account. Regarding this new episode, an expression of the White House's growing hostility toward the island, the Cuban president asserted that it is aimed at "strengthening the blockade and the conflict between Cuba and the United States." Furthermore, he stated: "This political blindness adds to the coercive measures applied in recent weeks against our country, designed to harm the Cuban people." Díaz-Canel warned that "the aggressiveness and perversion of the U.S. government will clash with our resolve to confront the worst-case scenarios and resist the imperial onslaught." For his part, Political Bureau member and Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla expressed on his Facebook profile that "the vile inclusion of President Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez, members of his family, as well as Cuban institutions, civil society organizations, and companies on an illegitimate and unilateral list by the U.S. government, is the latest example of the U.S. interventionist plan to portray Cuba as a threat to U.S. national security." The Cuban Foreign Minister asserted that "every U.S. action aimed at creating a scenario of conflict between the two countries is destined to fail." "Every threat against Cuba’s independence and sovereignty will be met with even greater unity and determination from our people," he added.
Wednesday, June 3, 2026
Cuba: There will be no possible neutrality at this time. It will be either organized resistance or cowardly complicity.
By Crisis Observatory
La Tizza, Cuban magazine
The enemy forces us to think in terms of total war. Therefore, it is necessary to state clearly: all US bases in Latin America will become de facto legitimate targets.
If Donald Trump's language has one valuable quality, it's its starkness. He doesn't hide behind euphemisms or linger in diplomatic circumlocutions. His threat to send an aircraft carrier to take over Cuba once the job in Iran is done isn't campaign hyperbole, nor just another element of his chaotic negotiating style, nor a joke from some unlikely imperial dinner party. It's the explicit confession of a policy that was never anything other than the preparation for the final blow.
For decades, large sectors have been anachronistically debating between reforms yes and reforms no, between tactical concessions and gestures of goodwill, between the hope of a reasonable negotiation and the calculation of how much to give up so that the beast would calm its rhetoric.
Trump has instantly shattered all faith in that supposed scenario, and, it must be acknowledged, has helped us to unveil that absurd nonsense. All those who naively believed in recent months that any reasonable negotiation scenario was possible have been sorely disappointed. Trump was never interested in negotiating; only in buying time. His blunt language has saved us the trouble of interpretation: there's no need to read between the lines anymore; now we can read the deck of a warship.
The less time we waste trying to unravel the chaotic dynamics of their back-and-forth, attempting to separate their rhetoric from our actual capacity for dialogue, or obsessively debating what we can concede to alter the enemy's policy toward Cuba, the less time we are giving to those who have already made up their minds. The only possible and realistic scenario today is to prepare without delay and with absolute responsibility for a comprehensive asymmetric war.
Cuba has made every possible effort to avoid war, without achieving the silence of the cannons implying sinking into the mire of shame.
II
But the nakedness of imperial language reveals something even deeper and more definitive. It's not that the current president despises the international order; it's that the order that supposedly guaranteed minimum security conditions for countries and peoples is dead. And some—even within our own ranks—insist on continuing to test the vital signs of a corpse that has been rotting for some time.
Cuba is a member of the BRICS, a signatory to the vast majority of agreements that place it within the United Nations' global architecture, and has provided decades of selfless humanitarian aid to the Global South, making it morally deserving of any order that claims to be civilized. And yet, the announced deployment of an aircraft carrier to Havana does not provoke an urgent meeting of the Security Council, nor preemptive sanctions, nor even a credible threat of multilateral diplomatic isolation. It provokes silence. It provokes petty calculations from powers that believe themselves safe. At best, it provokes lukewarm statements that no one fears and that no one will heed.
We should go further: what Trump is doing is not declaring the system dead, but rather exposing the shamelessness of its actual functioning. What has died is not the system itself, but the precarious harmony between its powerful elements. Along with the usual expendable lives, the classic hegemon has also sacrificed the system's supporting players and that scaffolding called the "international order," because they now hinder his geopolitical offensive against competitors who are no longer external to capitalism but emerge from its own cultural, rational, and ideological framework.
When competition arose against what was perceived as "anti-systemic"—even if such opposition was more imagined than real, as ultimately happened in the case of the USSR—the system needed counterweights, checks and balances, a backdrop for its hegemony. Today, when the challenge is framed in openly inter-capitalist terms and comes from powers that have undermined the Bretton Woods Pact—through which Washington emerged unchallenged worldwide —that international order has become an obstacle.
The same thing is happening with the international order as with classical liberalism: when the flexibility of the state ceased to be useful for absorbing the energy of popular struggles and demands, capital gave rise to the Washington Consensus and the neoliberal restructuring of Latin American dictatorships. This creation is now sacrificing the very framework it designed, deeming it insufficient.
Let us, then, spend less time summoning the reaction of an already dead order and instead employ all possible forces to build a new one at gunpoint. An order where the guarantee of security is not a piece of paper deposited in Geneva, but the certainty that every inch of land will be defended, and that this defense will be the founding act of an insurgent international legality, born from the cannons of dignity and not from the notarial deeds of empire or the delirious weekly jokes of a madman. But madness is not Trump's fundamental trait; rather, it is a capitalist order that needed to construct such a delusional architecture to sustain itself at all costs.
.III
Let no one expect, however, a seventeenth state to come and rescue us. Bitter reality has confirmed that Russian energy aid was a temporary, collegial, and pre-negotiated window of opportunity with the empire itself. Today, no geopolitical bloc exists with the genuine will and structural capacity to disobey Washington and modify the exceptional architecture imposed on Cuba. This is the stark reality of our tactical isolation, and acknowledging it is not defeatism: it is the first step in a true strategy.
But there is one fact that the United States, Trump, and his select group of fascists in power try to ignore with the arrogance of those who only know how to read kilotons and nuclear warheads: the enormous lesson of Iran and the Axis of Resistance, of the mobilized Iraqi forces, of the Yemenis who overcame Saudi logistics, of Hezbollah resisting the persistent attacks of Israeli troops in southern Lebanon, even amidst—let us avoid laughing at such dramatic events—a "ceasefire" that, as always, only the victims complied with.
These peoples had no aircraft carriers, no Security Council to protect them, no geopolitical bloc to save them. They have a doctrine. A genuine and authentic pedagogy of resistance that the empire has never been able to decipher.
Imperialism can capitalize on "surgical" strikes, assassinate generals, destroy infrastructure, and orchestrate the spectacle of its air power. But there is one variable that eludes all its algorithms: attrition. Prolonged asymmetric warfare drains budgets, shatters domestic consensus, devours parliamentary majorities, and transforms every tactical victory into a political defeat.
Resistance is certainly more costly in lives and infinitely more politically effective than submitting to preserve a life that, without sovereignty, is no longer truly a life or has minimal guarantees of being one. Choosing resistance is not an act of suicidal heroism; it is the rational calculation of those who understand that life under occupation is a deferred death, and that the only currency the empire respects is the unacceptable cost a people is willing to inflict and bear. We did not arrive at this point in history through poets; time and again, by force and coercion, we have been compelled to write with blood in order to dream and have a homeland, a flag, a people, "the land, the water, the air… the fire."
IV
The recent executive order signed by Trump is the tangible expression of this new state of affairs. It is not simply another tightening of the embargo: it is the written formalization of a total state of exception regarding Cuba. Any gesture toward the island, even one of solidarity or humanitarian aid, is completely prohibited under its provisions.
They seek to precipitate internal collapse through suffocation, without inconvenient witnesses, without aid workers, without food, without medicine. It is war by other means, codified in the language of decrees.
To justify this, the empire maintains a constant double narrative that urgently and precisely needs to be dismantled. On the one hand, "Cuba is about to fall," "it's next," "it's a failed state" that requires only a final push. On the other, Cuba is an "unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security of the United States," to the point that an aircraft carrier is being assigned to it.
So what's the truth? If we're a threat capable of inflicting damage of this magnitude, how come we're on the verge of collapse? If we're on the verge of collapse, why do they need a total state of emergency and the deployment of their naval power?
The answer is simple: neither statement is true. They are interchangeable parts of a propaganda machine designed to justify the unjustifiable. And what will we do? Become specialists in subtle, hidden, and subtle discourses?
Everything is on the surface; those who do not wish to see it should not expect to cure their presbyopia with an aircraft carrier a hundred yards off the coast of Cuba.
But let's take the adversary's logic seriously for a moment. If Cuba, this May Day, compelled 500,000 people to march in front of the U.S. embassy in Havana amidst this crisis, if it forced more than six million Cubans to sign a declaration against the empire's policies, then we are facing a regime with superhuman coercive power, capable of mobilizing wills on a scale that the empire itself cannot match. If that power is real, they should think twice before attacking: how can they deal with a country that controls its population in such a way?
But if, on the contrary, those marches and signatures were not the product of any coercion, if they arose from a genuine desire to defend Cuba beyond any threat, if they were the free gesture of a nation that does not need to be forced to defend what is its own, then they should think about it even more. Because what they face is not a failed state nor a population that will welcome them with open arms, but a cohesive people, willing to resist at any cost and by any means.
In either case, the conclusion is the same: invading Cuba would be the most costly and prolonged mistake in American imperial history.
And as our Fernando Martínez Heredia said before he died: "Let the Americans think of it, even if it's with a lunatic for a president; we don't care, it's all the same to us whether he's a nice guy or a lunatic, we don't care about either of them."
V
But we didn't get here by spontaneous generation. The attack on the Twin Towers was the pretext for establishing a state of domestic exception, enacted with the Patriot Act within the United States, breaking the pact of non-interference in private lives that capitalism supposedly upholds. This state of exception was then transferred to the world with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: any legal framework ceased to matter. The internal needs of a world order defined and delimited by Washington became paramount.
Trump is not an anomaly or an accident; he is the product of the return of that neoconservative project that was left incomplete.
But let no one be mistaken, we would not have arrived at this point without the Gaza episode. There, in that genocide broadcast live, this new global order of exception was inaugurated. The international community accepted the commission of a genocide against expendable lives, lives that could be killed without legal or political consequence.
We failed to grasp at the time that what was happening in Gaza wasn't just a violation of international law; it was the establishment of a new order, one where barbarity is public, condoned, and televised. And that is the order under which an aircraft carrier threatens Cuba today.
Iran is in this era what the Soviet Army was in its time: the only power with a genuine will to stand firm and to alter the current balance of power against imperialism. But the burning question in Our America is different: where is the Axis of Resistance in Latin America? It is urgent to establish it, and for this, the logic of the state will be of little use. From it come only calls for dialogue, respect for a dead international order, and appeals to a multilateralism that reeks of death even before it has been born.
The war in the Persian Gulf has shown that in an asymmetric scenario, control over strategic routes and resources is crucial. Therefore, it is necessary to state unequivocally: all US bases in Latin America will become de facto legitimate targets. Every Caribbean country that lends its territory for troop movements against Cuba, or that leaves its waterways open for aircraft carrier transit, or its airspace open for US aircraft and drones, will place itself on the battlefield. All bases in Florida and along the US coast that can serve as supply routes will also be legitimate targets, as will the transit zones for goods used by the United States.
This is not a threat or trench warfare bravado. It is the technical description of what a prolonged asymmetric war against an empire logistically dependent on a hemispheric network of bases, sea lanes, and support points would mean. The enemy forces us to think in terms of total war. We must do so with the coldness and fervor of one who defends their existence, which, in reality, is not only their own.
All solidarity groups with Cuba, all movements committed to the highest possible level of internationalism, must prepare to unleash resistance within their own countries, including U.S. military bases as legitimate targets, both inside and outside the United States. Only organized, regional resistance can allow us to shift the balance of power. It is not simply a matter of defeating this new wave of aggression that the empire is imposing on Cuba and the entire region. It is about eliminating U.S. imperialism from Our America once and for all.
Trump, unwittingly, gives us a historic opportunity to unleash the true struggle for the independence of our peoples and close that nefarious chapter of our history that is the American empire. What he offers as a death threat, we receive as the long-awaited opportunity to complete our unfinished independence.
We do not ask permission to defend ourselves. We do not invoke an order that no longer exists. We do not seek the protection of institutions that validated genocide. We tell the empire, with the calm of those who risk things far more sacred than permits to receive investment, that every aircraft carrier deployed, every base used, every drone launched, every supply ship, will be met with a response in times, places, and ways that we will choose.
And we say to the people of the United States that there is still time to prevent them from being drawn into a confrontation, hatched in the comfortable halls of Washington, by the very same people who turn their backs on the serious social problems that afflict them as a nation. A confrontation they will know precisely the moment they enter, but they will not be able to say when they will get out, nor at what cost. To the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean, we say that the time to decide has arrived.
There will be no neutrality at this time. It will be either organized resistance or cowardly complicity. It will be either definitive independence or permanent servitude.
