Related videos:
The recent article published by Razones de Cuba in response to the FBI's warnings about Havana's intelligence operations does not refute the facts presented by U.S. authorities.
It also does not provide new data that contradicts the investigations. Instead, it accepts the revelations as valid and builds a narrative aimed at justifying them, while attempting to present Washington's concerns as an exaggeration.
The contrast is clear. On one side, the FBI has warned that Cuba represents “a real threat” in terms of espionage, based on decades of documented infiltrations within key institutions of the U.S. government.
On the other hand, the regime's narrative does not deny these operations, but rather redefines them as a logical response to a supposed historical hostility from the United States.
In recent weeks, U.S. authorities have detailed the extent of these networks. Cases like that of former diplomat Víctor Manuel Rocha —who had access to sensitive information for over 40 years while collaborating with Cuban intelligence— illustrate the level of infiltration achieved.
These include figures such as Ana Belén Montes and Walter Kendall Myers, all connected to a long-term strategy that involved early recruitment and positioning within key structures.
None of this is questioned by the official article. There is no discussion about access to organizations such as the National Security Council, nor is the existence of networks built from elite universities denied, nor is the persistence of these operations even in the context of extreme economic crisis on the island refuted. The approach is different: to shift the debate.
That displacement is built upon a central idea: that Cuba acts driven by a need for defense against an existential threat.
The argument is not new, and in fact, elements of that perception have been acknowledged by the FBI itself as part of the historical context. However, in the official Cuban analysis, that explanation becomes a justification.
There lies the key shift. Understanding why a state develops intelligence capabilities does not equate to legitimizing its actions.
The operations described are not limited to territorial protection or the prevention of direct attacks. They include access to strategic information regarding U.S. foreign policy, operations in third countries, migration agreements, and data on officials. This is an activity that transcends passive defense and ventures into the realm of influence.
The official article reinforces its stance by advocating for the so-called "ideological motivation" of the spies. According to this perspective, figures like Rocha or Montes did not act for money, but out of conviction.
But this argument, presented as a virtue, has been identified by the FBI itself as one of the factors that makes these networks harder to detect. It is not a moral element, but an operational one.
Moreover, this reinterpretation omits an essential aspect: these agents violated laws, compromised sensitive information, and operated covertly for decades within the state apparatus of another country. Turning this behavior into an expression of political awareness is, in practice, an ideological construct.
The text also references a long list of historical grievances—from Cold War covert operations to the embargo—to provide context for its arguments. However, this appeal does not change the nature of current events. Instead, it acts as a mechanism of diversion: rather than analyzing contemporary espionage, it shifts the focus to past conflicts to justify it.
At the same time, the narrative of the regime avoids addressing a key point highlighted by the research itself: the continuity and priority of the Cuban intelligence apparatus even during the most critical moments of its economy. While the island faces prolonged blackouts, shortages, and social deterioration, the State has maintained an active capacity for espionage for decades.
Beyond the justification, the article also introduces a relevant nuance: it seeks to delegitimize the FBI's warning.
The headline of Razones de Cuba ("FBI remains committed to portraying our Intelligence services as a threat") aims to depict the U.S. alert as exaggerated or even obsessive. This is not just about defending one's own actions, but also about questioning the credibility of those who denounce them.
However, this approach does not change the essence of the matter. The FBI itself acknowledges the historical context in which these operations take place, yet it does not alter its conclusion: Cuban intelligence activities pose a sustained threat to the United States.
Ultimately, the official text fails to dismantle this thesis. By acknowledging the facts and merely reinterpreting them, it implicitly confirms the extent of the Cuban surveillance apparatus. The difference lies not in the reality described, but in how it is presented.
For Washington, it is a documented threat. For the Cuban regime, it is a defense policy. But beyond that narrative dispute, the facts remain.
And in this case, what is most revealing is not what is being discussed, but rather what no one denies anymore.
Filed under: