The President of the United States, Donald Trump, stated this Friday that his administration will initiate a "friendly and controlled takeover" of Cuba, in remarks attributed to an exchange with journalists at the White House.
The expression has not yet been accompanied by an official document, decree, or detailed plan explaining its specific scope, but the leader used that phrase when referring to the approach his administration would take regarding the island.
Trump made the comment during a conversation with journalists at the White House. In that context, he described Cuba as "a failed state," asserted that the Cuban government is "talking" to the United States, and stated that it is facing "a very serious situation."
He also stated that "they want our help" and that Secretary of State Marco Rubio, "is addressing this at the highest level", confirming that contacts are ongoing.
The phrase "friendly and controlled," as it was quoted, suggests—according to the reported context—a political or strategic approach, rather than a military one.
In other words, it could involve taking control of strategic variables: energy flows, economic incentives, and negotiation levers.
What this could imply in practice:
1) Energy as a central lever
Washington has sought to restrict Cuba's access to imported fuel, while at the same time partially easing some restrictions to allow shipments to the Cuban private sector, in a scheme aimed at reorganizing dependencies.
In a country where fuel defines transportation, agriculture, electricity generation, and even supplies, this variable acts as a "switch" for stability.
What would it imply:
- Selective licenses for supply (and the possibility of revoking them).
- Incentives for non-state economic actors.
- Verifiable conditions in exchange for partial relief.
2) Discreet diplomacy
Trump stated that Rubio is having conversations with the regime “at a very high level.”
This suggests a parallel negotiation track whose content is not explicitly stated, but which in terms of power logic usually includes:
- Tests of will (verifiable gestures).
- Limited exchanges (humanitarian/energy/migration).
- Gradual and reversible conditions.
3) Gradual economic reconfiguration
The document suggests that one way of influence would be for Cuba to rely more on supplies and mechanisms linked to the United States.
That, when applied to politics, resembles a model of transformation by dependency: injecting oxygen into specific areas (privates, logistics chains, energy) while maintaining controls over the rest.
The case of Venezuela: how that model would look applied to Cuba
In the plan outlined by Marco Rubio for Venezuela, a phased approach has been discussed: stabilize, reorganize, transition. If Trump and Rubio were considering something similar, a “friendly and controlled takeover” for Cuba could be translated as follows:
Phase 1: Stabilization with critical resource control
In Venezuela, oil is the key. In Cuba, the key is imported energy (diesel, gasoline, fuel for generation).
Objective: to avoid a "disordered" collapse, but without relinquishing political leverage: to stabilize under conditions.
Phase 2: Economic Reconfiguration (with "acceptable" actors)
In Venezuela, the approach often includes redesigning the energy sector and reintegration. In Cuba, there would be limited openness to shipments to the private sector and the idea of specific licenses as a tool.
Objective: to strengthen an alternative economic framework and create new dependencies that reduce the state monopoly, without explicitly stating it as "regime change."
Phase 3: Pressure for gradual political transformations
In these types of models, the political aspects come later: elections, guarantees, liberties, rules of competition.
Here, the word "controlled" suggests that nothing would be delivered without verification and without the ability to reverse it.
If the United States were to implement in Cuba a strategy equivalent to the one announced for Venezuela, the internal dynamics and power structures on the Island could change radically, for several profound reasons related to the current regime's structure.
The transition in Cuba would be controlled and led by the United States. To begin with, in Cuba, it cannot start with elections or "nice reforms."
Estimates from Artificial Intelligence suggest that within a period of 10 years, the amount needed for the stabilization phase would be between 6 to 8 billion; for the recovery phase, between 16 to 23 billion; and for the transition phase, between 20 to 30 billion.
Why "friendly" and why "controlled"?
"Amistosa": suggests a non-belligerent process, more akin to negotiation + incentives + pressure, with certain channels open and without declaring war.
"Controlled": implies conditionality, supervision, reversible licenses, and a design that minimizes surprises (or "overspills") while pursuing a result.
Even if that were the idea, there are evident obstacles. Firstly, there would be resistance from the Cuban state apparatus to relinquish real control. Secondly, there would be geopolitical competition: Russia, China, and Iran would serve as counterweights.
Furthermore, there would be a latent risk that energy control could lead to greater humanitarian deterioration if not managed with precision.
As the island faces one of its worst energy crises in decades, Washington is betting that controlled access to vital supplies could become a leverage point of influence without broadly raising the framework of sanctions.
Filed under: