Cuban historian Jorge L. León reacted strongly to the recent televised appearance of Miguel Díaz-Canel, an event that the regime presented as a "press conference" with national and foreign media, but which many ended up viewing as yet another carefully controlled propaganda exercise.
"We saw a president without real solutions," León wrote on social media, following an intervention lasting over two hours during which the leader avoided discussing the most pressing problems currently affecting the population: hunger, blackouts, the collapse of basic services, the hospital crisis, and a never-ending exodus.
León described the meeting as an act of "national shame" and asserted that Díaz-Canel delivered a speech disconnected from the reality of Cuba, focused on future promises and recycled plans, while the country survives amidst endless queues, crushed salaries, and a daily anguish that has become chronic.
For León, the most concerning aspect of the speech was not the rhetoric about "resistance" or "media war," but rather a phrase he considers a disguised warning. Díaz-Canel spoke about a situation approaching that will require “extreme measures”, something the historian interpreted as an announcement of further sacrifices imposed on the people: cuts, restrictions, more control, and possible repression.
"In the language of dictatorship, 'extreme measures' means the same as always," León wrote, emphasizing that the regime is laying the groundwork to shift the burden of its own failure onto the population.
In his publication, he concluded that the regime is not governing, but instead preparing for a deepening of the crisis.
"Cuba needs no more propaganda or promises: it needs freedom," he wrote, stating that what was seen on television was "a tired script" and a government unable to respond to the real emergency.
For the historian, the appearance was not an exercise in transparency, but a warning sign: "When a president announces extreme measures in a country in ruins, he is not governing; he is preparing the final blow against the people."
A "live dialogue" under suspicion
The appearance has also been marked by another controversy, as it was not broadcast live, despite being announced that way by official propaganda.
A seemingly minor detail sparked a frenzy on social media when everyone noticed the watch on the wrist of the pro-government journalist Arleen Rodríguez Derivet, the moderator of the event, which showed a time close to 5 o'clock. This contradicts the narrative that the program aired live in the morning. For many Cubans, this element suggests that the exchange may have been recorded and edited in advance, reinforcing the feeling of a staged event.
Another one of the strongest criticisms has been the alleged presence of foreign media. Although the regime marketed it as a dialogue with the international press, what was observed in the room were representatives of allied media such as RT (Russia) and Xinhua (China), all accredited Cuban journalists working for those outlets.
Additionally, Prensa Latina was included as an "international agency," despite being a Cuban state entity closely tied to the regime's information apparatus, which raised questions about the legitimacy of the format.
The absence of independent agencies like EFE, AFP, or AP further fueled the perception that the government carefully selected its interlocutors.
Additionally, a visibly uncomfortable Díaz-Canel was seen, with a trembling voice and nervous gestures in front of the microphones, at a time when the country is facing a severe crisis and social tension is rising.
Although the leader insisted on blaming the United States and spoke about long-term strategies such as photovoltaic parks and administrative reforms, he did not offer immediate solutions for the daily drama of millions of Cubans who spend hours without electricity, without transportation, and without basic food.
Filed under: