Related videos:
The Cuban leader Miguel Díaz-Canel returned this Sunday to the classic script of Castroism in his response to the recent warnings from U.S. President Donald Trump and the statements from several officials in Washington who have accused Havana of maintaining security and espionage networks in Venezuela.
In a series of messages posted on his X account (formerly Twitter), Díaz-Canel accused the United States of “having no moral authority to criticize Cuba on any matter” and claimed that those who criticize the regime “do so out of rage due to the sovereign decision of this people to choose their political model.”
"#Cuba is a free, independent, and sovereign nation. No one tells us what to do. Cuba does not attack; it has been attacked by the U.S. for 66 years, and it does not threaten, it prepares, ready to defend the homeland to the last drop of blood," wrote the designated ruler in an openly defiant tone.
The statements come after Trump's message on Truth Social, in which he claimed that Cuba "has lived for years off the oil and money from Venezuela" and warned Havana to "make a deal before it’s too late."
They also respond to the recent comments made by Republican congressman Carlos Giménez, who warned that the "puppet dictator of Cuba is next," and to the escalation of Washington's rhetoric, which holds the Cuban regime directly responsible for participating in Venezuela's repressive structure.
In light of this situation, the power elite in Havana has rallied around a narrative that aims to shift the blame for the crisis onto the United States and turn the threat into ideological fuel.
Díaz-Canel resorted, like his political mentor Raúl Castro and Fidel himself, to the old language of “imperialist aggression,” “besieged dignity,” and “heroic homeland.” But the current context is very different from the decades of bipolar confrontation: there is no longer a socialist bloc to support him, no subsidies from Moscow, nor oil from Caracas.
Although he tried to project authority, Díaz-Canel's speech revealed the fragility of a regime that defends itself more with slogans than with arguments.
Talking about a “sovereign people that chose its political model” is a historical falsehood: the system currently governing Cuba was not freely chosen, but imposed by force following the consolidation of power by Fidel Castro and the violent suppression of all internal dissent.
Instead of plural elections, Castroism established a single-party model where citizens do not decide but comply. Instead of debate, it instituted an ideological liturgy that blurs the lines between the state, the party, and the nation, claiming the right to speak “on behalf of the people.”
Díaz-Canel continues that tradition, repeating the dogma that Cuba is "free and independent," while in practice the country is sinking into poverty, repression, and isolation.
His insistence on blaming the U.S. embargo for all internal shortcomings—“they should be ashamed and keep quiet,” he said—deliberately overlooks the devastating effect of corruption, incompetence, and the state’s absolute control over the economic apparatus.
The "suffocation" that is being denounced does not only come from Washington but also from the very system that stifles any initiative and criminalizes individual prosperity.
Ultimately, Díaz-Canel's tweets sound more like an exercise in political survival than a strategic response. They seek to keep alive the heroic narrative of sacrifice at a time when the country is experiencing one of the most critical periods of its recent history.
As Trump hardens his tone and Washington increases pressure, the Cuban regime opts to entrench itself in the rhetoric of the past. However, the phrases "Homeland or Death" and "Until the last drop of blood" no longer inspire fear or admiration, but rather exhaustion.
The dictatorship continues to speak of a "sovereign people" as if its outdated political arguments explained the current reality… when more and more Cubans demonstrate—through migration, activism, opposition, and protests—that the nation demands a new social contract, a change of regime, and the establishment of a democratic rule of law.
Filed under: