The US Is Forcing the Regime to Change by Starving the Cuban People

T

he US embargo constitutes a multi-layered pressure mechanism that is deepening Cuba’s energy crisis. Whilst companies transporting oil and insurance firms are reluctant to take risks due to sanctions on fuel supplies, the decline in subsidized oil flows from Venezuela is also exacerbating the crisis. At the same time, thermal power stations frequently go offline due to restricted access to US-origin technology and spare parts. Financial sanctions and Cuba’s inclusion on the list of ‘state sponsors of terrorism’ prevent international banks from facilitating payment transactions and hinder energy investments.

This situation is disrupting both fuel supply and infrastructure renewal, leading to widespread power cuts and economic disruptions across the country. The electricity crisis in Cuba is not merely a technical failure; it is a multi-layered “national security” issue that directly affects the country’s economic, diplomatic and social fabric.

Cuba’s electricity grid (SEN – Sistema Eléctrico Nacional) relies heavily on thermal power stations dating from the Soviet era, with ages ranging from 35 to 45 years. Due to a shortage of foreign currency, regular maintenance cannot be carried out on these stations, and spare parts cannot be procured. This situation leads to the power stations frequently being taken offline due to breakdowns. I would like to emphasize a crucial point here: the Antonio Guiteras power station in Matanzas and the Lidio Ramon Perez power station in Felton are the backbone of the system. Even the slightest technical fault at these sites plunges the entire island into darkness.

US intervention in Venezuela has ‘deeply’ shaken Cuba

Cuba relies heavily on heavy crude oil and diesel for its electricity generation. Whilst Venezuela under Nicolás Maduro met 40 per cent of the island’s oil needs, this support has come to a virtual standstill in recent times due to the pressure of US sanctions. As Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel has emphasized, with the exception of limited shipments from Mexico, virtually no fuel has been imported into the country since the start of the year. The US’s threat of sanctions against shipping companies transporting fuel to Cuba and the countries involved is causing deep social and economic fractures on the island.

Power cuts, known among the public as ‘Apagones’ and a major source of stress in daily life, virtually paralyzed the country in the second half of March. Between 16 and 23 March, as Cuba was plunged into total darkness, transport ground to a halt, life at petrol stations came to a standstill, and food supplies began to spoil rapidly due to the failure of refrigeration systems.

During this period, when the internet and communications were down, healthcare services were also severely disrupted. People are forced to cook their meals over wood fires because their stoves are not working. A tourist in Cuba describes the fuel shortage as follows: “If you want to order a pizza from outside, the delivery cost is twice the price of the pizza itself.” Consequently, bicycles are currently serving as the primary means of transport. The Cuban government, which has taken drastic measures such as changing working hours in public institutions and banning the use of air conditioning to tackle the energy crisis, is attempting to reduce consumption to a minimum.

However, the effects of the crisis have also spilled over into tourism; the suspension of flights by international airlines and the closure of hotels have plunged the tourism sector—the lifeblood of the economy—into a major crisis. Consequently, a population of 10 million faces collective punishment; this ‘energy embargo’ imposed by the US is forcing the island into scarcity and the regime into change.

Although Cuba’s population is officially reported to be approximately 11 million, it is estimated that the actual population has fallen to around 10 million due to the wave of emigration that has gained momentum in recent years. In particular, it is reported that in 2022 and 2023, hundreds of thousands of Cubans—equivalent to around 4–5 per cent of the population—left the country due to economic hardships and chronic power cuts. Whilst the migration of predominantly young and educated segments of the population is notable, the aging of the remaining population creates a more vulnerable situation, particularly for those requiring care during periods when the effects of the energy crisis are most acutely felt.

It is quite difficult to quantify the scale of the energy crisis in Cuba with a single ‘percentage’, as the situation changes by the hour. However, current technical data clearly reveals the critical level the crisis has reached. According to daily reports from the Cuban Electricity Union (UNE), approximately 30 to 45 per cent of the country’s total electricity demand cannot be met; this means that, particularly in the evenings, nearly half the country is left in the dark. As power cuts are implemented on a rotating basis, the entire population is left without electricity at certain times of the day.

The current situation is described as a ‘chronic shortage’ rather than the nationwide blackouts seen in the past. Whilst the capital, Havana, experiences relatively fewer outages due to its status as a tourism and administrative hub, people in regions such as Matanzas, Holguín and Santiago de Cuba can spend between 12 and 18 hours a day without electricity.

The lobby led by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s family background paints a different picture from what is widely known in the public eye. Rubio’s parents, Mario and Oriales Rubio, left Cuba not after the 1959 revolution, but in 1956—that is, before Fidel Castro came to power—and emigrated to the US for economic reasons. However, Rubio’s description of himself as a “child of exile” during the early stages of his political career led to the perception that his family had fled the country to escape the Castro regime.

This situation sparked controversy in 2011 when the Washington Post revealed that the family had emigrated before the revolution. Rubio responded to the criticism by stating that his family had returned to Cuba briefly after the revolution and had severed all ties with the country after witnessing the Castro regime. Rubio’s hardline stance towards Cuba is shaped not only by his family history but also by his ideological stance and domestic political dynamics.

In Florida politics, the Cuban immigrant voter base—particularly centered in Miami and possessing a strong anti-communist base—has effectively made a hardline stance against the Cuban regime a political necessity. It was reported in the press that this lobby donated 200 million dollars to help Donald Trump win the election. Rubio, however, defines the Cuban regime not merely as a political rival, but as an authoritarian structure posing a threat to democracy in the Western Hemisphere and to US security, and views the alliance forged with Venezuela and Nicaragua as a regional risk.

In line with this approach, Rubio—one of the most vocal opponents of the normalization process during the Obama era—played a key role in tightening sanctions against Cuba in the subsequent period. He also argues that, under the Helms-Burton Act—which forms the cornerstone of US policy—sanctions can only be lifted if there is political change in Cuba. Rubio maintains that lasting improvement is impossible without ‘new leadership’ and political reform in Cuba.

However, this strategy is sparking serious debate on the ground: the worsening fuel crisis, power cuts and difficulties accessing basic necessities are increasing the pressure on the population, whilst experts note that this could deepen the humanitarian crisis rather than the political one, and trigger new waves of migration.

The “deepest crisis” since the 1959 Revolution

Cuba is experiencing its most fragile period since the revolution due to the structural collapse of its food, medicine and energy systems. The current situation, historically compared to the 1990s “Special Period” (Periodo Especial), is being exacerbated by limited support from traditional allies such as Russia and China, and aid from left-wing governments in Latin America that has fallen short of expectations.

In the international community, the question of whether the solution lies in the lifting of US sanctions or in Havana undertaking radical political and economic reforms constitutes the greatest uncertainty regarding the island’s future. The Havana administration is preparing a “negotiation package” aimed at ending the chronic tension with the US that has persisted since the 1959 Revolution; this package involves radical changes whilst refusing to compromise on sovereignty.

Cuba’s strategic approach is built on four pillars: the lifting of the US embargo in exchange for opening the way for political reforms based on internal dynamics; the rejection of Washington’s “backyard” policy and the establishment of the principle of “diplomacy between equals”; and the cessation of support for left-wing groups to address regional security concerns.

Presented under the “win-win” principle, this diplomatic move is positioned not as a “surrender” but as a search for a solution based on mutual respect; meanwhile, the Cuban government is clearly drawing its red lines by sending a message that the spirit of historical resistance against attempts to force submission through economic or military pressure remains alive.

(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)