The World Needs Cuba...

Enrique Ubieta: 

"Cuba's strength, its extreme danger to the empire, is its example"

February 2026

In this interview, the prominent Cuban intellectual observes: "Trump's latest measures and statements regarding Cuba, and his alleged oil blockade, have laid bare before the world who our historical enemy is and what he intends, uniting Cubans more."

By Geraldina Colotti / Resumen Latinoamericano

While the U.S. administration tightens the siege on Cuba by rescuing the rhetoric of the "unusual and extraordinary threat" – the same legal formula Barack Obama used to initiate his siege against Bolivarian Venezuela – the battle moves to the terrain of subjectivity and culture. It is not only an economic and financial blockade but a hybrid war that seeks to pulverize the soul of the Revolution, attempting to artificially instigate "color revolutions" in Cuba between the cracks of the material difficulties imposed by Washington.

In this trench of ideas, the voice of Enrique Ubieta Gómez is an essential compass. A sharp intellectual, essayist and director of the historic magazine Revolución y Cultura, Ubieta embodies the figure of the militant intellectual who never separates aesthetic analysis from political commitment. In this interview, Ubieta dwells on the internal crisis that US society is experiencing, reveals the impact of the events of January 3 in Cuba and traces the routes of international solidarity that must become an active shield against the blackmail of the dollar. With the lucidity of someone who lives the siege from the heart of Havana, Ubieta reminds us that culture is not an ornament, but the oxygen of the Cuban people, a people who has decided never again to be anyone's "backyard."

1.    Enrique, recently the Trump administration has tightened the siege against Cuba using the same rhetoric of Obama's decree against Venezuela: describing the nation as an "unusual and extraordinary threat." What structural threads link these decisions of presidents of supposedly opposite signs and what does this tell us about the continuity of the imperialist doctrine towards the region?

It is inevitable that I begin by saying some obvious things: imperialism has global interests and behaviors that both parties, and their power groups, apply indistinctly, and yet it is not monolithic; there are more or less powerful sectors, whose interests do not necessarily coincide with party structures and are expressed in groups inside and outside them.

Now, the presence of economic instruments of pressure in international relations is not new, as evidenced by the existence of the economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba dating back to 1962. An extraterritorial blockade that prohibits, among other things, the use of the U.S. dollar, the acquisition of machinery and equipment containing Cuban nickel by companies with total or shared US capital, the purchase by Cuba from third parties of products with 10 percent US parts or components, and even delays ships which  have called at Cuban ports to enter the US during the following 180 days. Furthermore, the blockade has incorporated new variants like the so-called "collateral sanctions" and "smart sanctions".

According to economist Yazmín Vázquez, the first (collateral sanctions) are designed to curb the support of third countries to those previously punished (for example, imposing higher tariffs); the second (smart sanctions) are aimed at a product or economic activity that occupies a central place in the life of a country, which alone can de-structure the entire functioning of the country. This is what they intend to apply with a recently signed executive order, as they did previously applied to Venezuela.

American society is facing an acute crisis that can fracture it: during the last decades, conservative thought, even reactionary and fascist, has permeated sectors affected by this crisis, willing to blame their hardships on migrants and atheists. That thought, currently in government, seems to be in the majority, because it expresses itself openly and dictates laws, outlines behaviors, represses its adversaries: it is anti-immigrant, supremacist, misogynist, racist, opposes abortion, censors books, fights the LGBT+ community. Every liberal attitude, in the traditional American sense, is described as communist. As a result, spontaneous communicating vessels are established between those affected that can lead to unitary fronts.

Politicians who call themselves liberals, traditionally representatives of the establishment in the United States, are beginning to claim previously unthinkable concepts, such as socialism. A Muslim candidate who declares himself a democratic socialist is elected mayor of New York by a significant majority of voters. The historical stage we live in has broken the drowsiness, the systemic correctness, the immobility of the American left, still leaderless and without shared horizons, forced to react to a right which does not hide its objectives and feelings and has broken with the rules of bourgeois democracy. The reaction is still timid, slow, somewhat belated, but it can lead to civil war. In the face of rupture of bourgeois democracy, there is still demand for its preservation. It is, at the moment, a behavior based on legitimate defense.

Barack Obama used the two classic tools of imperial politics: the carrot and the stick. While he tried to cajole Cubans with a poisoned coexistence, a challenge accepted, he promoted the coup d'état in Honduras, declared Venezuela an "unusual and extraordinary threat" and intervened in Libya. An op-ed published by the New York Times in 2016 was titled "Obama's Unexpected Legacy: Eight Years of Ongoing War," despite having received the Nobel Peace Prize.

The fury of self-centered Trump is understandable, he also aspired to receive a Nobel but he was  denied. The difference between the two presidents – and it may seem insignificant, but it is not – is that the tendency Trump represents, aware of the plummeting U.S. power, has set out to recover it at all costs, without time or desire to mask his actions. The bully from the neighborhood does not make excuses, or at least does not hide that they are, because he wants everyone to know that from now on he will act according to his imperial desire. Although he still needed to manufacture a fake drug cartel to prosecute Maduro, whom he defined as a narco-terrorist, Trump made it clear that his target was Venezuelan oil. The current administration has openly broken with all the international rules of coexistence and with the institutions that represent them.

Cuba does not possess significant oil reserves, nor particularly coveted natural resources, but it is the bearer of an unacceptable asset: a small insubordinate country ninety miles from US shores that has resisted siege, aggression and a cruel blockade for 67 years and 13 presidents, including the current one. Cuba's strength, its extreme danger to the empire, is its example. Cuba is a symbol. It does not export or support terrorism, it has suffered from it for six decades; it exports its example, even without intending to, with its silent resistance, with its medical collaboration in more than sixty countries, with its principled foreign policy.

2.    After this decree and the intensification of the blockade, what is the real scenario on the island? In the face of Washington's attempts to instigate a "color revolution" by instrumentalizing economic shortages, how is the intellectual vanguard and the organized people responding?

The Cuban people are experiencing two simultaneous aggressions: that of the blockade, which is now reaching unprecedented levels of extraterritoriality in its criminal purpose of economic asphyxiation, with its most visible consequence, blackouts of twelve and more hours a day, and that of the media and social networks, which try to manipulate the country's public opinion, inducing the belief that this situation is the result of bad government. In such circumstances, the lackeys, the mercenaries, or the "prematurely born" as Martí described them in his time, always appear ready to give away the Homeland to preserve or access a dubious personal well-being. We Cubans do not silence our doubts and disagreements, but when the Mambi cornet sounds calling for combat, we surprise the external observer with a massive response.

Paradoxically, Trump's latest measures and statements regarding Cuba, and his alleged oil blockade, have laid bare to the world who our historical enemy is and what he intends, and has united Cubans more. Our intelligentsia is aware of the danger that this attempt at recolonization entails for the national culture, for the very existence of the nation, and it expresses it in statements, poems, songs, audiovisuals, plastic works, in its willingness to exchange its creative weapons for the rifle that will defend the Homeland. José Martí, Cuba's greatest writer, announced: "Don't put me in the dark to die like a traitor." And he gave his life, gun in hand, facing the sun.

3.    January 3 marked a breaking point with the kidnapping of President Maduro and Cilia Flores. You in Cuba have received the Cuban soldiers and collaborators who survived that aggression. In the face of international dirty propaganda, what do these testimonies tell us about the magnitude of the conspiracy plan that was attempted to be executed that day?

Although the aggressions and the siege precede it, January 3 marks the beginning of the greatest crusade of force of imperialism against the peoples of Our America. The relative success of the kidnapping operation, in a bombed city, has emboldened the little emperor, and his threats are getting louder. The death in combat of the 32 Cubans who defended President Maduro, with enemy casualties not yet recognized, shows another reality: the most sophisticated military technology is insufficient when there is a decision to win or die. Paradoxically, that decision is the only guarantee of victory.

The arrival on national soil of those martyrs of internationalism, of the Venezuelan, Cuban and Latin American Revolution, shocked the people, who for hours, under heavy rain, waited to pay their posthumous tribute. The attitude of these compatriots achieved something that Trump should consider: it rekindled the flame of revolutionary mystique. The details of what happened that morning are not yet public, but what we know is enough. That mystique is the driving force behind revolutions.

4.    As editor of Revolution and Culture magazine, you know that culture is the lifeblood of resistance. How is the battle of ideas articulated today in the face of a siege that is not only financial, but also communicational and symbolic? What role does the magazine play in the defense of revolutionary subjectivity in the face of the neoliberal offensive?

Since ancient times, the conquerors have known that it is not enough to occupy foreign territories; it is necessary to occupy the minds of its inhabitants. In the age of the Internet, the culture war takes on a greater intensity. Revolutions restore the self-esteem of their citizens, rescue the history of their peoples and confront their enemies, external and internal, with courage and success. It is the first and essential step to break the chains of mental dependence: to feel proud of who we are and what we have achieved.

Neo-colonization acts in the opposite direction: it wants us to believe that we are inferior, that we will not be able to defeat imperialism, that we must imitate it and abide by it. Every socio-political project has its pantheon of heroes, because it needs, demands, a past that sustains it. The culture of having turn millionaires into "heroes" to be imitated, measures success in personal possessions. Our heroes are others, and they try to build a society in which its citizens are judged by their contributions to the common good. José Martí wrote that to be a Christian was to be like Christ, our children repeat in school "we will be like Che". It is not a question of dying on the Cross, or in La Higuera, it is a matter of following in the wake of humanism that both figures embody in their own way.

Cuban culture was forged in anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles. While Cuba was finishing its formation as a nation, U.S. imperialism was defined 90 miles from its coasts, and the first imperialist war of humanity, according to the Leninist definition of that stage of capitalist development, took place in Cuba, in 1898. A tour of the work of the main Cuban thinkers of the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries will show that the main concern of our culture lies in that asymmetrical relationship that was taking over our riches until their total liberation in 1959. The oil blockade not only affects the functioning of hospitals, schools, factories, our daily homes, it also affects culture. We have had to suspend this year the International Book Fair, the most massive cultural event in the country, just days before its inauguration.

But, there will be no cultural blackout. We will transfer the activities to the communities, we will create new spaces for creation. As our Minister of Culture has said, we will do more with less. The contribution of the magazine Revolución y Cultura, founded in 1961, and which I am honored to direct today, is modest. It aspires to link these terms in the national and international activity of our artists and intellectuals, to reinforce the paths of identity reaffirmation. After six years without being in print, we have recovered the sequence with the support of international solidarity.

5.    The Cuba-Venezuela exchange is the favorite target of imperial blackmail. In practice, how do you manage to maintain the flow of medical, scientific and cultural solidarity under the current state of siege? How are both nations shielding themselves from the blackmail of sanctions?

Cuba does not abandon you. Internationalism is in the constitutive DNA of the Cuban nationality: "I come from everywhere and I go everywhere," says a verse by José Martí, who imagined like Bolívar the unity of Our America. Imperialism in other times conditioned the relaxation of the blockade on our withdrawal from Angola, or on the suspension of aid to Sandinista Nicaragua in the first years. None of that happened. The answer was always the same: we leave when the legitimate authority asks us to; the attacked, not the aggressor. We do not negotiate principles.

The solidarity relationship of complementarity that Cuba and Venezuela (Fidel and Chávez) promoted is an example of what relations between all the countries of the world will one day be. As our President has said, there have been relations of complementarity, exemplary for Third World countries, which expanded with the ALBA-TCP, the Miracle Mission, PetroCaribe, the Cuban literacy programs "Yes I can," with the reception at the Latin American School of Medicine of thousands of young Latin Americans, Africans and even poor Americans. Cuba was the only country that sent medical brigades to West Africa in 2014-2015, to combat the Ebola epidemic, when the modes of spread of this deadly virus were not yet fully known, and in 2020 it extended its solidarity presence to 42 countries around the world, including some highly developed such as Italy.

I have said on other occasions that in human history there are two types of peoples: conquering peoples and liberators. The latter not only fight for their own freedom, they also contribute to that of others, because they see themselves in them. Bolívar was called the Liberator, and he did not allow anybody to exchange that tint of glory for the spurious title of emperor. The Venezuelans liberated half of the continental territory. José Martí created a party to achieve the independence of Cuba and Puerto Rico and fought to prevent imperialism from falling on our lands in America. Cubans in the twentieth century contributed decisively to the independence of Africa. We receive nothing in return. The culture of solidarity defines us.

We applaud the doctor who "leaves us" to assist the needy on any continent, even in the so-called First World. We admire the fighter who risks his life for a just cause in some "dark" corner of the planet. Chávez and Fidel formed the unbeatable duo of solidarity. Solidarity is the essence of a Revolution.

6. What allies and what scenarios do you foresee for Cuba in the short term? How do you assess the role of BRICS+ and powers such as China and Russia in breaking the hegemony of the dollar and guaranteeing the survival of sovereign projects in the Caribbean?

Internally, the scenario will necessarily be that of creative resistance, and that of combative preparation. As our President Díaz-Canel has said, we must transform this criminal aggression into an opportunity for the creation of mechanisms for energy self-sufficiency, through the refining of our oil and the growing network of renewable energy sources. In the 1980s, even before the collapse of the so-called socialist camp, Cuba knew that it had to depend on its own forces, that the security of its borders, of its project of social justice, depended solely on the unity and determination of its people. The "war of the whole people" was a concept implemented in the face of an enemy militarily, but not morally, stronger.

I can say that we have received practical testimonies of support from powers such as China and Russia, their statements have been followed by actions. It is not necessary to list them as they can be verified in practice. International solidarity is growing, that of the peoples and that of dignified governments. Cuba is not an oil asset, it is a moral asset, which imperialism hates, but the peoples of the world need. And not only the peoples of the world also their governments.

The strength of the BRICS does not lie in the isolated potential of each of its members, no matter how high, but in their ability to act as a bloc. Once upon a time the European Union could have been just that: a supranational state, with a strong currency, that would counterbalance U.S. imperial hegemony. But imperialism subverted that unity by offering military security in the sources of supply of raw materials and by stoking the old aspirations for greatness and the interests of some over others. In reality, the imperialism that we usually identify as American, because its directing, military, economic and symbolic center lies in the United States, is a supranational phenomenon and needs a subordinate Europe.

Some authors call it "Western imperialism," a geopolitical, not geographical, definition. That imperialism is in decline, reason why its claws today are more violent, as it tries at all costs to maintain its former global hegemony. The curious thing is that their actions also contribute to weakening it, to fracturing it. The strength of the BRICS can only grow outside that ecosystem; to be an ally of the United States means to accept its hegemony, the primacy of its interests.

In this context, the left, stunned by the failure of so-called real socialism for too long, has been discreet, politically correct, sometimes ambiguous; it has tried to set itself up as the defender of a bourgeois democracy that the bourgeoisie is abandoning.

It is not possible to be left-wing "inside", and not be "outside" (and vice versa), what they do to a neighbor today, as Bertold Bretch would say, they will do to you tomorrow. There have been large demonstrations of support for Cuba and Venezuela in front of the embassies of the empire in many capitals of the world.

7.    At the international level, what actions do you consider urgent to move from rhetorical solidarity to active defense? How do you see the continental scenario: are we facing a new judicial and media Plan Condor or do you think that the resistance of Caracas and Havana is creating a new awakening in the Global South?

We should not expect much from the current Latin American governments. I am expressing a personal opinion. Except for Mexico, whose president has defended the historical brotherhood of our countries, with an extraordinary mettle to resist the pressures of imperialism and those of an internal right, corrupt and dependent on trade with the United States. And, some of the dignified small states of the insular Caribbean, always brave and supportive. The arrival in government of open or underhanded fascists, ridiculous Trump imitators, traitors, creates an adverse scenario (in the rest).  The grey, stuttering left, although it seems preferable, has nothing to offer. This reality brings with it a lesson: women and men, honest leftist parties and movements, either assume an anti-systemic condition, or will perish in nothingness.

Fascism is the child of imperialism, of capitalism in its most decadent phase; either we fight at their roots, or we get lost in the restoration of colonial and neocolonial "normality".   We do not intend to immolate ourselves nor do we call for immolation, but the fall in combat of the 32 Cuban heroes in Caracas is a warning. Cuba will fight until the end.

8.    Enrique, we are on the verge of a date of enormous symbolic weight: the centenary of Fidel Castro's birth in August 2026. How is Cuba preparing, from thought and creation, to celebrate this century of Fidel's legacy? In a context of intensified siege such as the current one, how can it be ensured that these celebrations are not only an act of memory, but a tool of living political struggle, and in what way could the current economic situation try to tarnish or condition this global tribute to the Comandante?

In some strange way, the great Latin American heroes always return when they are most needed. José Martí did so in 1953, on the centenary of his birth and in 1995, on the centenary of his fall in combat, in the face of the disappearance of the socialist ecosystem. Fidel does it too, this year it is the celebration of his first centenary of life. To remember him is not to evoke him, to bring him flowers, to offer laudatory speeches; it is to follow his example of firmness in principles, of trust in the people, in victory, his flexibility in the tactics of struggle, his being always with the humble and for the humble in any corner of the world. "I am Fidel" was the slogan that the people repeated during his funeral in 2016. It does not mean that we are exactly like him, something impossible, it means that we will preserve and multiply his legacy.

There is a broad plan of activities to be carried out during the year, which will now be adapted to the conditions of war imposed by Trump, but the real tribute will be only one: to resist and win.

Translation N.F.  NSCUBA(Nova Scotia)

Avoiding Responsibility: Canada’s Travel Advisory as Complicity in the War on Cuba

Isaac Saney

The Government of Canada’s travel advisory urging Canadians to “avoid non-essential travel to Cuba due to worsening shortages of fuel, electricity, and basic necessities including food, water, and medicine” is not a neutral public-safety notice. It is a political act. More than that, it is an act of acquiescence to—indeed collaboration with—the illegal and immoral U.S. economic war on Cuba. By presenting a pending humanitarian crisis as a reason to stay away, rather than naming and condemning the deliberate policies that have produced it, Ottawa becomes complicit in the collective punishment of the Cuban people.

Let us be clear: Cuba’s shortages are not the result of natural disaster or internal collapse. They are the foreseeable and intended outcome of a systematic campaign by Washington—now intensified by Donald Trump and Marco Rubio—to strangle Cuba’s access to fuel, foreign exchange, and trade. Canada’s failure to officially condemn and reject these measures, and its decision instead to issue advisories that echo their consequences, amounts to tacit endorsement.

This unmasks the duplicity in Prime Minister Mark Carney’s recently “acclaimed” speech at Davos, in which he criticized the hypocrisy of the current international order. Fine words ring hollow when not matched by principled action. Just as Ottawa failed in its duty to unequivocally oppose and reject the genocide in Gaza, it is now failing as a similar catastrophe—engineered through economic means—threatens Cuba. One cannot denounce hypocrisy on the world stage while practicing it at home.

The stance of the Canadian government stands in stark opposition to the will of the vast majority of Canadians, who not only reject the U.S. economic war on Cuba but are demanding that Ottawa provide immediate, direct, and concrete material and humanitarian assistance to the island—especially in the form of oil and energy shipments to the besieged nation.

Across social media and public platforms, Canadians are raising their voices, urging the federal government to act now. This public sentiment is powerfully expressed in the recently launched Canadian Parliamentary Petition (e-7082), which condemns the U.S. economic blockade of Cuba and calls on Canada to deepen economic ties, trade, and assistance to the heroic island nation. The petition has already garnered—and continues to gather—thousands of signatures, sending a clear and unmistakable message to Prime Minister Carney and Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand: Canadians want concrete solidarity with Cuba, not complicity in its punishment for resisting imperialism.

Hundreds of thousands of Canadians have family members in Cuba. Millions more have travelled to the island, returning not merely as tourists, but as witnesses to—and participants in—enduring human connections. Over decades, Canadians have come to hold a deep and abiding respect for the Cuban people: for their dignity, resilience, creativity, and generosity in the face of relentless external aggression. Whatever our political or ideological differences, Canadians overwhelmingly support relations with Cuba grounded in mutual respect, equality, and the unassailable right of the Cuban people to choose their own path, free from coercion and domination.

To defend Cuba today is to defend Canada. It is to defend Canada’s sovereignty against extraterritorial bullying. It is to defend the right of Canadians to travel, trade, and engage freely. It is to defend international law against raw power, coercion, and the grotesque doctrine that "might makes right". And it is to defend a people who, despite decades of siege, continue to stand with dignity and courage.

History will record, with unforgiving clarity, where we stood at this decisive moment. Canada must choose independence over subservience, principle over expediency, and humanity over cruelty.

 

Every day of the Revolution is a victory

As we approach 2026, the year in which we will celebrate the centenary of the Commander-in-Chief, let us go forth to wage this economic and ideological battle, confident that, if we work well and more united, we will be contributing to a better Cuba

Author: Granma | internet@granma.cu

The 11th Plenary Session of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba, held by videoconference on December 13, adopted key agreements in the face of the challenging economic, political, and social situation of the country, in a context of intensified blockade and ongoing media warfare.

 One of the momentous decisions of the meeting was the postponement of the 9th The political organization's congress was convened following a proposal by Army General Raúl Castro Ruz, leader of the Cuban Revolution, announced by the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Party and President of the Republic, Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez, in a letter read before the Plenary, which had been previously analyzed by the Political Bureau.

 In his letter, the Army General emphasized the principle of always doing what is best for the Revolution, arguing that it was advisable to postpone the 9th Congress—scheduled for April of next year—to a later date, and to dedicate all the country's resources, the effort, and the energy of its cadres to resolving current problems; as well as to dedicate 2026 to recovering as much as possible.

 In adopting this necessary and timely decision, the members of the Central Committee reaffirmed the importance of uniting forces in the nation's development and creating the conditions for a better and more fruitful Congress. This underscores the Party's responsibility to guide the people, stand with them, and mobilize them to produce, develop, and achieve results that, as quickly as possible, will impact the population's living conditions and provide solid support for the social progress already attained, as expressed in the call for this major event, approved in July at the previous Plenary Session.

 To this end, it is essential in the immediate future to enrich and refine the Government Program to correct distortions and revitalize the economy; advance the implementation of the approved economic measures; ensure that next year's Budget responds to the people's priorities and the defense of the Revolution; and strengthen support for territories affected by natural disasters, leaving no one without assistance.

 It will also be essential to promote the active participation of youth in all spheres of national life and to intensify the ideological, cultural, and communications battle, defending the truth about Cuba against manipulation and disinformation.

 These work priorities, outlined by the First Secretary at the closing of the 11th Plenary Session, contribute directly to unity. They must be pursued with greater dynamism from now on, from a critical and self-critical perspective, in keeping with the complex times we live in, always strengthening popular participation.

 Focusing on these priorities will allow us to achieve tangible results, banishing any trace of inertia, bureaucracy, or pessimistic thinking. The call is to action: to produce more, generate income, multiply positive experiences, and seize every opportunity for development.

 As we approach 2026, the year in which we will celebrate the centenary of the Commander-in-Chief, let us go forth to wage this economic and ideological battle, confident that if we work well and more united, we will be contributing to a better Cuba. It will be the most fitting tribute to our historic leader.

 The 11th Plenary Session reaffirmed that it is indeed possible, that we can emancipate ourselves through our own efforts. It is possible to take the necessary leap, but it depends on dedication and daily drive, as demonstrated by those who, after Hurricane Melissa, have fully committed themselves to the recovery efforts in the eastern provinces.

 We have a heroic people, forged in the Mambí and rebellious struggle, who make each day of creative resistance a victory and do not yield to blockades or imperial threats. A people with José Martí's roots who trust in their political vanguard, the Communist Party, and remain faithful to the teachings of Fidel and Raúl.

 Just days before the 67th anniversary of the triumph of the Revolution, the Cuban people echoed the words of the First Secretary of the Party and President of the Republic, Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez, at the closing of the 11th Plenary Session of the Central Committee: "What is revolutionary is rising each day ready to energetically confront apathy and affront, external aggression, and the complex situations that besiege the economies of countries like ours, which have been stripped of their resources and rights more than once, and the blockade specifically designed to punish rebellious Cuba for its audacious claim to remain free, independent, and sovereign just a few miles from the empire."

____________________________________________

https://rumble.com/v72ue0u-addressallocution-arnold-august-parliamentparlement-canada31225.html

Address/Allocution Arnold August, Parliament/Parlement Canada/3/12/25

 Trump's Cuba Gambit

Scandal Management Using Nuclear Brinkmanship At The Cost Of Hemispheric Alienation

Einar Tangen, Asian Narratives, Feb 2, 2026

President Trump’s escalating confrontation over Cuba represents a dangerous convergence of short-term nuclear risks and long-term strategic collapse—a foreign policy increasingly defined by aggressive unilateralism that appears timed more to manage downward spiraling domestic political crises than to execute a coherent international or regional strategy.

The synchronization of events reveals a troubling pattern. On January 30, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Addressing Threats to the United States by the Government of Cuba,” declaring a national emergency and explicitly naming Russia and China as “malign actors” while threatening tariffs against any nation supplying Cuba with oil.

The order formally declares Cuba an “unusual and extraordinary threat” and establishes a tariff system allowing for additional duties on imports from countries that provide oil to the island. It mandates the Secretary of Commerce to monitor suppliers, with the Secretary of State recommending tariff levels to the President.

Within twenty-four hours, on January 31, the Department of Justice released a massive tranche of files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein—millions of pages creating significant political exposure.

The DOJ’s own press release included an unusual disclaimer that some documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims against President Trump, a caveat applied only to Trump and not others mentioned, without explanation of how such veracity was determined.

It is therefore difficult to see the timing as coincidental, as it repeats a pattern. Whenever politically damaging domestic narratives intensify—from Epstein revelations to mounting legal scrutiny—Trump’s foreign policy becomes markedly more aggressive and confrontational, systematically attempting to shift media attention toward external threats.

This pattern extends beyond Cuba. The January 2026 military operation that abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, cutting Cuba’s primary oil lifeline, followed months of increasing domestic legal pressures on Trump in terms of the Epstein Files, his tariff authority, siding costs and his fracturing political base. The escalation ladder appears calibrated not to regional realities but to the news cycle of Trump’s personal troubles.

The Cuba executive order is unprecedented in its explicit confrontation with nuclear powers. Unlike Cold War-era proxy conflicts, Trump has directly named Russia, with the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, and China, with the third-largest, as the core justification for his Caribbean intervention. He specifically cited Russia’s signals intelligence facility in Cuba and China’s defense cooperation with the island, framing Cuba as a platform threatening U.S. hemispheric dominance.

This rhetoric consciously evokes the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis but with a critical difference: then, the confrontation emerged from strategic surprise; today, Trump is deliberately manufacturing a crisis over long-standing intelligence partnerships, using economic warfare as an escalatory mechanism.

The immediate risks are severe, beginning with direct great power confrontation. The U.S. is not merely pressuring a client state but directly targeting core Russian and Chinese strategic interests in the hemisphere.

The threat of a total energy blockade risks a humanitarian catastrophe, potentially collapsing Cuba’s economy, crippling its electrical grid, hospitals, and water systems, and triggering mass migration and Caribbean-wide destabilization. Most perilously, backing major nuclear powers into a corner over what they view as sovereign partnerships creates unpredictable escalation dynamics and the risk of miscalculation.

Yet the rushed, reactive quality of these moves—on top of the upheaval in Venezuela, undertaken without apparent planning for governance or regional coordination—again suggests crisis manufacturing rather than crisis management. It appears less about achieving specific security outcomes than about creating a dramatic foreign confrontation sufficiently potent to dominate news cycles otherwise focused on domestic scandals. While Trump gambles with nuclear powers for political gain, he is simultaneously burning bridges with Latin America that will haunt U.S. interests for decades.

The political rupture is no longer subtle. The postponement of the 10th Summit of the Americas, initially scheduled for December 2025, was a diplomatic siren. The Dominican Republic, a traditional U.S. ally, delayed the summit citing “profound divergences” and “deep divisions currently hindering a productive dialogue in the region.” The cause was U.S. insistence on excluding Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. This followed announcements by Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Colombian President Gustavo Petro that they would not attend due to these exclusions.

This echoed the 2022 Los Angeles Summit, where multiple heads of state boycotted over exclusionary tactics. The only successful summit in two decades that included all thirty-five American nations was in 2015, when the Obama administration yielded to regional pressure and invited Cuba. The lesson is clear: inclusive dialogue is the regional norm; U.S. unilateralism is the aberration.

Latin American leaders from across the political spectrum have consistently defended national sovereignty against U.S. coercion. Cuba’s Foreign Ministry articulated the regional consensus, stating on February 2, 2026, that it “does not harbor, support, finance, or permit terrorist or extremist organizations” and called for “constructive engagement” and “respectful and reciprocal dialogue… based on mutual interest and international law,” a position supported by Pope Leo but one ignored by the Trump administration.

Trump’s approach rests on three aggressive pillars that run counter to regional preferences. The first is maximum pressure through economic strangulation, using an oil embargo and threatening third-country tariffs. This treats sanctions not as diplomatic tools but as economic warfare with civilians as collateral. A strategy critics label the “Donroe Doctrine,” a twenty-first-century colonialist revival asserting U.S. political and property rights over the hemisphere. Its goal echoes the 1960 Mallory Memorandum, which advocated creating “hunger, desperation and overthrow of government” by denying Cuba “money and supplies”—a sixty-six-year-old strategy revived.

The second pillar is gunboat diplomacy, using naval buildups and strikes on alleged drug vessels to project arbitrary force rather than build meaningful cooperation.

The third is the revival of the Monroe Doctrine as an assertion of absolute US hemispheric dominance, framed as countering Chinese and Russian “malign influence” but reflecting Trump's personal desire for regional hegemony. A desire he believes will get him added to Mount Rushmore, where he already has a place picked out.

It is a strategy that has demonstrably failed for over six decades in Cuba, while inflicting severe humanitarian costs, and actively driving Havana closer to the very rivals—China and Russia—Washington seeks to counter. Trump has not only continued it, but weaponized it further, even threatening Mexico, a critical ally that accounts for an estimated forty-four percent of Cuba’s foreign oil supply, with tariffs if it continues shipments. The message to Latin America is unmistakable: comply with U.S. demands or face economic or even military punishment, regardless of sovereignty.

Faced with this coercive reality, Latin American nations are not merely protesting—they are actively pursuing strategies to reduce their exposure to the United States.

Trump’s chaotic, scandal-driven foreign policy is accelerating three critical trends.

There is a growing rejection of unilateralism, as countries openly defy U.S. dictates, from Colombia initially resisting deportation flights to Mexico exploring ways to maintain oil shipments to Cuba despite tariff threats.

Nations are also diversifying international alliances to avoid the U.S.-declared sphere of influence, deepening ties with alternative powers like Europe and, in many cases, China.

Cuba’s survival model—sustaining its economy through agreements with China, Russia, the EU, Canada, and Mexico despite the U.S. embargo—is becoming a template. Regional experts describe this as a rational response to a U.S. “strategy of confrontation” that punishes states for exercising their sovereignty.

Most consequentially, there is a long-term shift toward reducing dependency on the U.S.-dominated financial architecture. U.S. sanctions create a “chilling effect” where international banks avoid entire regions for fear of secondary penalties, driving up transaction costs and creating financial exclusion. The logical conclusion is the accelerated development of alternative payment systems and financial channels independent of U.S. control—exactly what Washington claims to fear from rapidly developing dollar-alternative trade settlement systems.

The effort against Cuba is further prosecuted by a parallel legal track within the U.S. On February 23, 2026, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear two critical cases arising from Title III of the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, which creates a private right of action for U.S. nationals to sue over property expropriated by the Cuban government. The Trump administration has actively encouraged these suits, arguing that foreign sovereign immunity should not protect Cuban entities, creating a multi-front economic war that further alienates regional partners.

The volume and velocity of Trump’s actions betray their reactive, crisis-driven nature rather than a coherent strategy. In June 2025, travel restrictions on Cuban nationals were imposed. In late January 2026, the Maduro abduction occurred. On January 23, 2026, Politico reported the administration was considering a total naval blockade to halt oil imports, with the rationale that “Energy is the chokehold to kill the regime.” On January 30, the Cuba national emergency and oil tariff threats were announced. On January 31, the final Epstein files were released. By February 2026, the administration was scrambling to manage the Cuban humanitarian fallout, Mexican diplomatic tensions, and Russian and Chinese responses simultaneously.

These are not the measures actions of a sustainable regional policy but the frantic escalation of a leader seeking to change the subject—regardless of the geopolitical costs.

The domestic calculation may be working in the short term, with cable news covering the Caribbean confrontation rather than Epstein Files exclusively. But, rather than diverting attention, it will focus it on the contradictions of the US policy. The White House memo accusing Cuba of aligning with “malign actors” like Russia and China, are directly contradicted by the recently released U.S. National Defense Strategy White Paper, that explicitly downplayed both nations as security threats.

The strategic costs are staggering. The immediate danger of backing nuclear powers into a corner over Cuba risks catastrophic miscalculation reminiscent of 1962.

Hemispheric isolation grows as every Latin American nation calculates how to reduce U.S. leverage over their economies and foreign policies.

Alliance fracturing accelerates as threatening allies like Mexico with tariffs over sovereign trade decisions destroys trust that takes generations to rebuild.

Adversaries are empowered, as China and Russia gain credibility as alternatives, precisely because U.S. coercion validates the need for options, as both powers publicly signaled their support for Cuba and urged the U.S. to end the blockade.

Trump’s Caribbean offensive represents the worst of all strategic worlds, combining immediate nuclear risks with long-term alliance collapse, driven not by coherent national interest but by the news cycle of a president’s personal legal troubles.

The timing is too consistent to dismiss. As Epstein files emerge, Cuba becomes a national emergency. As domestic scrutiny intensifies, Venezuela’s government is overthrown. The pattern reveals a foreign policy increasingly untethered from strategy and anchored instead to scandal management—a dangerous basis for decisions that could trigger a great power war.

Meanwhile, Latin America is learning the lesson Trump is teaching: that partnership with the United States is conditional, coercive, and subject to the president’s arbitrary domestic political needs. The region’s unified resistance to summit exclusions and its growing pursuit of alternative alliances demonstrate that the message has been received. The lasting legacy will not be a compliant hemisphere but a transformed one, where nations systematically reduce their exposure to U.S. financial power, deepen ties with Washington’s rivals, and view American partnership as a risk to be managed rather than an asset to be cultivated.

As Cuba denied the accusations and called for “constructive engagement,” as Mexico sought diplomatic clarity while preparing for tariff threats, and as Russia and China watched the U.S. publicly escalate against Cuba, the world saw not American strength but American recklessness.

In a nuclear age, recklessness motivated by personal scandal rather than national strategy is perhaps the most dangerous gambit of all. The question is no longer whether Trump’s Cuba confrontation serves U.S. interests—the evidence suggests it serves only Trump’s. The human cost, framed by supporters of Trump's Cuba actions, like U.S. Representative Maria Elvira Salazar as a “brutal dilemma” necessary to “free Cuba forever,” is severe and intentional.

The real question is how much damage will accumulate before an inadvertent catastrophe occurs, or before Latin America is lost to alternatives no temporary political distraction can reclaim.