Cuba blockade offers no diplomatic gain to the US: Cuba is running out of electricity, fuel and time. In parts of Havana, power returns for 20 minutes, sometimes at three in the morning. Families use the interval to cook, pump water and wash clothes. Outages elsewhere last more than 20 hours. Food spoils, hospitals postpone treatment and buses disappear from the roads.
The immediate cause is the collapse of Cuba’s oil supply. Venezuela can no longer sustain its former ally, Mexico has curtailed shipments under American pressure, and President Donald Trump has threatened tariffs against countries supplying oil to the island. Washington rejects the term “blockade”. The distinction offers little comfort to Cubans living without refrigeration or running water.
The Trump administration assumes that economic exhaustion will produce political concessions that six decades of sanctions failed to secure. Cuba is far weaker than it was under Fidel Castro. Its principal benefactors are gone, its power stations are failing and hundreds of thousands of working-age Cubans have left. Yet weakness does not guarantee a transition that serves American interests. It may produce prolonged disorder under the same rulers.
READ I NATO’s decline: Why the alliance has outlived its purpose
US’ Cuba blockade lacks a credible end state
Washington has offered several versions of its objective. Trump has spoken of a “friendly takeover”. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has defended pressure on the government while leaving the terms of an acceptable settlement uncertain. American officials have also held discussions with Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, Raúl Castro’s grandson, and members of the Cuban security establishment.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe’s visit to Havana in May exposed the contradiction. According to American officials, he offered engagement if Cuba made fundamental changes. Reports suggest that Washington could accept the continued presence of some Communist officials if Havana released political prisoners, reduced state control over the economy and ended security cooperation with American adversaries.
Those are negotiating demands, not a political destination. A managed transition involving the existing security apparatus would disappoint exile groups seeking the removal of the Communist order. Rapid regime collapse would leave Washington responsible for containing its consequences. Continued pressure without either outcome would preserve the present stalemate.
The administration can deprive Havana of fuel. It cannot choose who inherits the state, establish the authority of an exile opposition or ensure that Cuba’s armed forces obey a civilian government. The country has no organised equivalent of Poland’s Solidarity movement, no competitive election waiting to be recognised and no opposition coalition with an accepted presence across the island. Many dissidents are in prison or abroad. The internal balance of power remains opaque.
The fall of Eastern European governments in 1989 is therefore a poor guide. Those transitions followed changes in Moscow, organised domestic opposition and political bargains within the countries concerned. Cuba has a security apparatus built during 67 years of one-party rule and a leadership trained to treat American pressure as proof of its revolutionary case.
READ I Bigger NATO budgets will not preserve western dominance
Cuba blockade strengthen Havana’s alibi
Cuba’s government bears primary responsibility for the island’s economic ruin. It suppressed private enterprise for decades, distorted prices, neglected its electricity network and depended on subsidised oil from political patrons. The monetary reform introduced in 2021 aggravated inflation. Agricultural production has declined in a country that imports much of its food. Havana has also imprisoned opponents and closed peaceful avenues for political change.
American policy has nevertheless supplied the government with its most useful defence. Every blackout can now be attributed to Washington. Every shortage can be presented as resistance to a foreign siege. Official propaganda does not have to explain why Cuba cannot produce enough food or maintain its generating plants when the United States is openly trying to stop oil from reaching the island.
This does not absolve President Miguel Díaz-Canel. It shows why indiscriminate pressure can protect the political argument of a failing government. Cubans know the record of their rulers. They also know who stopped the tankers.
The administration’s exemption allowing American companies to sell fuel to private Cuban businesses recognises the problem but cannot solve it. Reuters reported that about 900,000 barrels were exported between February and May. Much of the fuel entered an improvised market where households and small firms with access to dollars could buy supplies at prices beyond the reach of state employees and pensioners. The relief has widened the difference between Cubans supported by relatives abroad and those dependent on a collapsing ration system.
Washington is trying to punish the state while sustaining private enterprise through infrastructure controlled by the state. Cuban ports, storage depots, pipelines and wholesale networks cannot be bypassed by administrative wording. Sanctions on Unión Cuba-Petróleo have made that contradiction sharper.
READ I Japan’s rearmament is redrawing Asia’s security map
Economic collapse will travel north
Cuba’s distress will not remain within its borders. Economic breakdown has already driven the largest exodus in the country’s modern history. Cuba’s official population fell below 9.75 million in 2024, a decline of more than 300,000 in one year. Independent estimates put the population lower. The migrants are disproportionately young and of working age, leaving hospitals and public services with fewer professionals and more elderly people to support.
Further deprivation may send another wave towards Florida and Mexico at a time when the Trump administration is restricting asylum and legal migration. A policy intended to force change in Havana could impose additional costs on the US Coast Guard, border agencies and neighbouring states.
A sudden political rupture would present harder choices. Washington would have to decide whether to recognise an interim authority, intervene to secure ports and military installations, finance essential imports, and manage competing claims from officials, dissidents and exile organisations. CSIS estimates that imported fuels account for roughly two-thirds of Cuba’s energy supply, while oil and gas generate almost all its electricity. Replacing that system after a collapse would require sustained external assistance. Pressure is cheaper than reconstruction.
Military intervention would compound the difficulty. Cuba cannot threaten the United States conventionally, but occupying or administering an island of nearly 10 million people would create resistance, displacement and an indefinite American liability. The memory of the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion still has political force in Cuba and across Latin America. A protectorate, however described, would confer legitimacy on the nationalist wing of the regime and divide the opposition.
Washington also has little diplomatic support for collective punishment. In October 2025, 165 members of the UN General Assembly voted for an end to the American embargo. Seven opposed the resolution. The vote did not vindicate Havana’s political system. It recorded the isolation of the United States on the method it has chosen.
The regional response will be governed by vulnerability rather than agreement. Mexico reduced oil supplies after Trump threatened third-country tariffs, but also sent humanitarian aid. Governments may comply with American demands while resenting the precedent that trade with a neighbouring country can invite punishment. That buys obedience, not a durable coalition for democratic change in Cuba.
Diplomacy needs a transaction Cuba can accept
The reported contacts with Raúl Castro’s family and the security establishment may prove more useful than the Cuba blockade. They acknowledge that any transition will have to engage people who possess authority inside Cuba. The harder question is what Washington will offer in return.
A workable bargain would require sequenced concessions. Cuba could release named political prisoners, permit independent civic activity, widen the legal space for private firms and accept international monitoring. The United States could restore oil access in stages, protect remittance channels and suspend specified sanctions when agreed conditions are met. Reversal clauses would preserve leverage.
Humanitarian supplies should be separated from political bargaining. Fuel for hospitals, water systems, food distribution and power generation can be licensed through monitored channels. Keeping such services alive would not rescue the Communist Party. It would reduce the suffering on which both Havana’s propaganda and another migration emergency will feed.
The embargo has survived because it is politically easier in Washington than either engagement or intervention. It has also failed on its stated terms. The Castro system outlasted 13 American presidents before the present administration returned to office. Greater pressure has brought Cuba closer to humanitarian breakdown, but has not yet produced an agreed succession, a representative negotiating partner or a regional mandate.
America can make Cuba poorer. Unless it defines the government it is prepared to deal with, the concessions it will reward and the safeguards it expects, strangulation will remain a show of power without a diplomatic gain.