On Cuba; Will Russia continue to the Soviet policy in regard to Cuba?
Since late 2024, Cuba has been
enduring a devastating energy crisis, defined by a "critical" state
of its national power grid. Cuba is currently grappling with a severe energy
crisis, which has accelerated its push into solar energy and electric vehicles.
In response to the dire lack of fuel, Cuba has initiated a rapid and ambitious
expansion of its solar energy capacity. Renewable energy's share of the
national grid tripled from 3% to 10% in just one year (from 2024 to 2025). This
rapid deployment is a direct result of the crisis and is being powered by
significant Chinese support. As of late 2025, 33 solar parks were already
operational, contributing to a total renewable capacity of 1,174 MW. Dozens
more have since been connected. China has become Cuba's essential partner in
this energy transition. Solar panel imports from China surged from 3 million in
2023 to 117 million in 2025. Recognizing that solar only works during the day,
Cuba recently inaugurated its first solar park with a battery backup system.
A donation of 5,000 small, 2-kW solar PV systems from China are being
installed in clinics, nursing homes, and other essential services to
ensure they have power even during blackouts.
In tandem with its solar power push, Cuba is also transforming its transportation sector by promoting electric vehicles (EVs). As of early 2025, new laws are in place to make EV ownership more accessible. The government offers significant benefits for EVs, including a reduced 10% import tariff (compared to 30% for gas cars), tax exemptions for domestically assembled EVs, and logistical support for imports. There are also no restrictions on the number of EVs an individual can own, unlike combustion-engine cars. Small EVs are becoming a practical choice due to their low maintenance needs and the ability to charge them from a standard home outlet. The Boyeros assembly plant (VEDCA), a joint venture with China, is ramping up production, reaching 10,000 units in 2025 (electric bikes, motorcycles, and tricycles) and planning to begin manufacturing electric cars. Electric tricycles are becoming a popular solution to public transit shortages, with over 430 in operation nationwide and plans for significant expansion. The twin crises of energy and transportation are unfolding simultaneously. The solar push, heavily backed by China, aims to power the national grid and the very EVs that are meant to alleviate the transit crisis. However, the effort to electrify transport faces a significant, ironic challenge: an underdeveloped charging infrastructure, which the government is now trying to build out, often relying on the same solar sources it is currently deploying.
This transition is less a choice
and more a necessity for the nation's survival and future stability.
As of mid-2026, the situation have
become critical but marked by a rapid, internationally-supported transition
towards renewable sources. A key turning point was when the new U.S.
administration in January 2026 imposed an executive order threatening tariffs
on any country supplying fuel to Cuba. This has severely disrupted the
arrival of oil shipments. Consequently, Cuba's Energy Minister has stated
that the island has completely run out of fuel oil and diesel. The situation
was worsened by the toppling of the Venezuelan government in January 2026,
which had been a crucial source of subsidized oil. A Russian tanker delivered a
shipment in April, but that oil has since been depleted.
Cuba ran out of fuel oil and
diesel due to a U.S “energy blockade,” causing extensive blackouts in the
country. It is not surprising that protests are going on for three days on one side the protests
against the US blockade and the other protests by a marginal section of
emerging middle class very much linked to those movements of “identity politics” and their handful Trotskyite
backers covertly supported by the US.
It is not surprising because the
new US administration is not shy of confessing their policy and practice of “starving”
people of a country through sanctions in order to instigate protests in
countries where they plan to change the government with a puppet one. Same scenarios carried out for decades latest
of which was Venezuela and Iran. They demonize the leaders and/or the systems
of the countries they target. The U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says that
the Cuban political and economic model is fundamentally broken, and a "meaningful
progress will remain impossible under the present leadership." He calls
for dramatic structural changes, emphasizing that Cubans thrive globally but
are uniquely held back at home by the communist regime.” The Hypocrisy is that Rubio
denies US actions, sanctions and blames
Cuba for economic failures.
He downplays the United States’
role in Cuba’s current fuel crisis which was triggered after the Venezuela incident
which prevented the oil shipments to Cuba.
His explanation is actually
another confession by itself, not even giving lip service to the sanctions by
the US. He says;
“We’ve tried to
explain it to anyone who will listen. Their system doesn’t work, their
system of economics,”... “It’s completely dysfunctional. It’s just not a real
system, and you can’t change it unless you change the government.” “We’ve
done nothing punitive against the Cuban regime. They claim we have, but we
haven’t. The only thing that’s changed for the Cuban regime is they’re
not getting free Venezuelan oil anymore,” “they’re not getting subsidies
anymore. That’s the only thing that’s changed.”
Hubris, arrogance, and blatant hypocrisy of the US-Neocons trying to conceal the 60 plus years of economic sanctions not only to Cuba but to any country trading with Cuba has largely been exposed to the people of the world with the exception of those members of “collective stupidity”.
Is the US planning a land
invasion of Cuba under the pretext that the “people of Cuba demands” the US
interference, or they are planning a coup in Cuba through intensifying the
protests? I had stated that ;
“Cuba and
Cuban people has proven their resilience and determination over 60 years on
the face of US aggression. Yes, the struggle goes on within and without, and
yes in Cuba there are, although a handful Trotskyites feeding mostly from
the “identity politics” and having support from the external forces.
However, it is the duty of international
Marxist Leninists to support Cuba rather than making speculations on its
“concessions”, “reforms” , “compromises” it may have to consider in order to
keep the party and the system alive and standing. They know their own concrete
conditions and situations better than any arrogant, know -it-all petty
bourgeois philistines and sophists. They are the only ones who will make the determination of the path they
will follow in order to save the system and party. If reforms, concessions,
compromises are required, they will choose that path. If the US does not
leave any room for any negotiations for the protection of the system, they
will fight to the death- no one should have any doubt about that.” Is
Cuba next? Fifth column “leftists” are at work again criticizing and attacking
on Cuba.
Reading between the lines of
Rubio’s statements, it seems that the “land invasion” is not on the agenda
(yet); for one, the Cuban people will fight to death, and second reason is the public
pledge of the United States not to invade Cuba which was the key concession
President Kennedy offered to get Soviet Premier Khrushchev to remove the
nuclear missiles from Cuba.
Looking at the history; On Oct.
26, Khrushchev had responded to the naval blockade of US by sending a long
letter to Kennedy offering him a deal: Soviet ships bound for Cuba would “not
carry any kind of armaments” if the United States vowed never to invade
Cuba.
Khrushchev reiterated the
basic outline that had been stated to Scali earlier in the same day:
"I propose: we, for our part, will
declare that our ships bound for Cuba are not carrying any armaments. You
will declare that the United States will not invade Cuba with its troops and
will not support any other forces which might intend to invade Cuba. Then
the necessity of the presence of our military specialists in Cuba will
disappear."
Che Guevara, on October 1962 had stated
that; “Direct aggression against Cuba would mean nuclear war. The Americans
speak about such aggression as if they did not know or did not want to accept
this fact. I have no doubt they would lose such a war. “ Che’s statement was “ridiculed”
with the same “hubris and arrogance” in an article titled "Attack us at your Peril, Cocky Cuba
Warns US", published by The Sunday Times of London (October 28, 1962).
Castro ordered all anti-aircraft
weapons in Cuba to fire on any US aircraft. On October 27, the CIA delivered a memo reporting
that three of the four missile sites at San Cristobal and the two sites at
Sagua la Grande appeared to be fully operational. It also noted that the
Cuban military continued to organize for action but was under order not to
initiate action unless attacked.
On the same day, after much
deliberation between the Soviet Union and Kennedy's cabinet, Kennedy
secretly agreed to remove all missiles set in Turkey and possibly southern
Italy, the former on the border of the Soviet Union, in exchange for
Khrushchev removing all missiles in Cuba.
Kennedy responded to Khrushchev’s
letter with a formal letter:
“I consider my
letter to you of October twenty-seventh and your reply of today as firm
undertakings on the part of both our governments which should be promptly
carried out.... The US will make a statement in the framework of the
Security Council in reference to Cuba as follows: it will declare that the
United States of America will respect the inviolability of Cuban borders, its
sovereignty, that it take the pledge not to interfere in internal affairs, not
to intrude themselves and not to permit our territory to be used as a bridgehead
for the invasion of Cuba, and will restrain those who would plan to carry
an aggression against Cuba, either from US territory or from the territory of
other countries neighboring to Cuba.”
It was a Public Agreement where
the US pledged not to invade Cuba in exchange for the Soviet Union dismantling
and withdrawing its missiles. The US also secretly agreed to remove its Jupiter
missiles from Turkey and Italy as part of the deal
As for the Question of
"Political System Change" attempts in Cuba by the US after the 1962
crisis, the explicit U.S. goal of overthrowing Fidel Castro's government was "gradually
removed," and there were "no demands for changes in Cuba’s
internal system" as part of the immediate resolution.
Historical evidence shows this "no
regime change" understanding was not a firm, written commitment. A Soviet
memorandum shows they sought "guarantees...of non-aggression". However,
the US viewed its pledge as conditional and was concerned about Cuba
becoming an "invulnerable base," leading to a reluctance to "tie
on to a no-invasion pledge" in a way that hindered its broader options.
Despite the pledge, the US
continued a policy of isolating and undermining the Cuban government
through means short of a full-scale invasion, including maintaining a
strict trade embargo and supporting covert operations.
In summary, the agreement to end
the Cuban Missile Crisis included a clear "no invasion" pledge.
Overthrowing the Castro government was not an explicit part of the deal,
but the US continued to oppose the regime through other means, and the
no-invasion pledge was seen by some in the US as conditional rather than
absolute.
Reading-listening Rubio’s and other neo-cons statements, we can
get the feeling that they are in the group who see the pledge as “conditional” and are in the
process of setting the grounds that will fit in to that excuse for either
government change or invasion.
One important aspect of this
is related to Russia’s stand on such a
development.
Although, the strategic
circumstances are vastly different, Russia’s current policy represents a
continuation of the USSR’s fundamental position.
The USSR's core position
was securing the US "no invasion" pledge in exchange for
removing missiles. It did not formally receive guarantees against
"political system change" from the US. Russia now supports Cuba politically,
economically, and militarily, and actively condemns the US embargo, but its
rhetoric has shifted from defending a socialist ally to opposing US
unilateralism. A major practical limit is that Russia has not reinstated
the strategic military foothold it had during the Cold War. However, Moscow
has consistently opposed external attempts to force regime change in
Havana and defends its sovereignty.
This backing seems to be not just
in words. In 2025, Russia ratified a new military cooperation agreement with
Cuba, is providing oil to alleviate energy crises, and consistently votes
against the US embargo at the UN.
As a conclusion, the Neo-Cons of
USA with their hubris, arrogance and delusions deriving from the fantasy that
the world is still under total hegemony of US, making statements and planning “government
changes” and “invasions” without considering the concrete realities of the
current world. They are beaten in Ukraine, in (one of the poorest country of
the world) Yemen, and they are being beaten in their current war against Iran,
now considering an adventure against Cuba. With all the confessed realities
that their military stockpiles are depleted to a critical level and lacking
the rare earth minerals necessary to produce weapons and ammunitions
(and so for many other technologies), such an adventure against Cuba could
easily be a last blow striking on the declining empire. In most likely case,
they will continue supporting and organizing a section of emerging middle class
in Havana together with those focused on their “identity politics” and led by a
handful of Trotskyites in order to plot and carry out a coup in Cuba. That is
another fantasy of Neo-Cons.
Erdogan A
May 15, 2026
.jpg)
