The statements made by the Chargé d'Affaires of the United States Embassy in Havana, Mike Hammer, have opened a new political focus: Washington maintains “communications with certain individuals” within the Cuban regime.
The statement, made in a recent interview with the Spanish newspaper ABC, suggests internal movements at a time of maximum external pressure on the dictatorial regime of Havana.
“There are communications with certain individuals”, said Hammer, referring to previous statements made by President Donald Trump. Although he avoided providing details, he added a significant nuance: “That some members of the Cuban regime say there is nothing; perhaps they are not informed, perhaps it is not with them…”.
The phrase introduces a key element: not everyone within the power apparatus would be aware of those exchanges. In a highly centralized and opaque system like Cuba's, this possibility suggests the existence of discreet channels or specific interlocutors.
Hammer went further by stating that within the system there are individuals who “realize that the project is already coming to an end” and that they might be interested in facilitating an exit.
According to the explanation provided, Washington's goal is a "peaceful exit without bloodshed" that allows for an economic and political opening, restoring rights, freedoms, and prosperity to the Cuban people.
Alongside the statements from the U.S. diplomat stationed in Havana, recent reports from the media have indicated that the White House and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have explored communication channels with Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, nicknamed “El Cangrejo,” who is the grandson and personal bodyguard of Raúl Castro, as part of potential scenarios for a negotiated transition.
El Cangrejo is part of the Castro elite, with direct ties to the military-business conglomerate GAESA and a life characterized by privileges and business opportunities amid the crisis faced by millions of Cubans.
However, the possibility of members of the Castro family participating in any transition process has been met with skepticism and rejection by sectors of the Cuban exile community, who deem it unacceptable for a member of the elite that has amassed power and luxury while the majority of the population suffers from structural crises to be a interlocutor in a potential political change.
Even public voices have questioned the veracity of these contacts, labeling them as a political maneuver for speculative purposes.
The context in which all these statements and alleged revelations occur is crucial. The Trump administration has intensified pressure on Havana, including a blockade on Venezuelan oil supplies, energy sanctions, and a more aggressive approach toward allied regimes in the region.
The economic and energy crisis on the island, characterized by prolonged blackouts, fuel shortages, and the deterioration of basic services, has increased internal pressure.
In that scenario, the confirmation or speculation about internal contacts raises inevitable questions. Who could be in dialogue? Hammer did not provide any names or concrete clues, and any categorical assertion would be speculative.
However, in structural terms, the power dynamics in Cuba concentrate in three main areas: the political apparatus of the Communist Party, the military-business sector linked to GAESA, and certain technical or economic personnel responsible for management.
Historically, transition processes in closed systems have involved negotiations with sectors seeking to preserve stability or guarantee specific conditions. Hammer's reference to a "peaceful" and "less chaotic" exit suggests that Washington would be exploring precisely that type of scenario, one closer to a negotiated transition than to a sudden collapse.
Another relevant element is the change in social perception that the diplomat referred to in the same interview: “People are not asking if it will happen, but when.” Although this is a subjective assessment, it aligns with an evident climate of economic exhaustion on the island and an increase in mass emigration in recent years.
At the same time, the regime has repeatedly denied the existence of formal negotiations with Washington. Hammer's statement thus introduces a direct contrast between the official Cuban discourse and the American narrative.
It is important to emphasize that confirming "communications" does not equate to announcing an imminent agreement or an open rift at the top. In diplomacy, contacts can be exploratory, indirect, or preliminary. However, the mere public acknowledgment of their existence represents a calculated political move.
Beyond the details, the central message is clear: Washington believes there are actors within the Cuban system willing to discuss the future. In a context of sustained external pressure and prolonged internal crisis, this combination could signal the beginning of a new political phase on the island.
For now, Hammer's statements do not allow us to anticipate deadlines or specific outcomes. However, they introduce an element that, if confirmed in reality, would have profound implications: the possibility that change in Cuba may not depend solely on external factors or economic strain, but also on internal dynamics that are beginning to shift beneath the surface.
Filed under: