Related videos:
Families from eastern Cuba are reporting the sudden departure of young recruits to Havana without prior information or subsequent communication, amid an institutional silence that has heightened anxiety and distrust toward the Mandatory Military Service (SMO).
In several eastern localities, particularly in the Santiago municipality of Segundo Frente, relatives of young individuals drafted into Mandatory Military Service claim they are unaware of the whereabouts and conditions under which they were transferred to the capital in recent days, alerted independent journalist Yosmany Mayeta through his Facebook profile.
According to some testimonies published on social media and shared by Mayeta, recruits were taken from their communities without clear explanations, without prior training, and in some cases, without clothing or basic belongings.
Days after the transfer, the families claim they have not received official information about their destination or situation.
"Every time we ask, they tell us something different. No one gives a concrete answer," wrote a user who claims she hasn’t heard from her son in four days.
Other family members report that the young people were told about nearby destinations and only later found out they had been sent to the capital, which they describe as a deception and a lack of respect.
Several comments agree that the silence from military authorities has been consistent. Mothers and partners indicate that, following the departure of the recruits, there is no clear channel of information or an entity that takes responsibility towards the families.
The reactions on social media reveal that the unease goes beyond a specific relocation and is linked to a built-up distrust towards the SMO.
Several comments emphasize the lack of basic information for days, the contradictory versions provided to families, and the treatment they describe as haphazard and disdainful.
For some users, the issue is not just the current silence, but the normalization of opacity, where inquiring about a child becomes interpreted as an act of “hostility” or “provocation.”
Other comments place recruitment within a broader framework of social inequality. They point out that the burden of mandatory service consistently falls on the most vulnerable sectors, while the children of leaders and officials are exempt or have access to other opportunities.
The memory of past experiences, from everyday abuse to the participation of young people from the East in military missions abroad, serves as a backdrop for a deeper critique: the perception that mandatory military service operates as a mechanism of social punishment, delaying life projects and exposing young people to precarious conditions without real benefits or institutional protection.
Meanwhile, official pages and profiles on social media, along with journalist Idalberto Aguilar Macías, have spread images of the departures of recruits from the Second Front as organized and patriotic events, accompanied by slogans and banners of the Party and the UJC.
The contrast between that triumphant narrative and the reality described by the families has deepened the outrage.
Likewise, Mayeta referred to the circulation of a document addressed to the Eastern General Staff and the Ministry of the Armed Forces that questions the current recruitment model.
The text criticizes the treatment of young people as mere numbers to meet quotas, without assessing their family context or social vulnerability, and denounces abuses against those who lack the resources or influence to demand change.
The text warns that a recruitment process based on pressure, improvisation, and silence undermines the moral legitimacy of military institutions and causes deep harm to the families affected.
In the absence of official responses, the families demand immediate information and transparency regarding the situation of the transferred youths.
For many, the concern remains unchanged and can be summed up in a single question that, until now, has gone unanswered.
Filed under: