Related videos:
The journalist Cristina Escobar published an extensive text on Facebook this Tuesday, in which she lashes out at Cubans who support a U.S. military intervention on the island, in response to reports indicating that the likelihood of a U.S. attack on Cuba has increased.
The trigger was an article from POLITICO that warns about the escalating tensions with Cuba and points out that the Trump administration seems "increasingly willing to attack".
That scenario led Escobar to address directly those who, from both inside and outside the island, are calling for military action as a means for regime change.
"I don’t know, between blackouts and the threat of a bomb over my five-year-old daughter, I can’t focus much on the changes in Cuba," wrote the journalist, setting a personal and emotional tone from the very beginning.
Her message directly targets those she calls "couch politicians, the brave ones on Facebook," artists who "voluntarily leave through the airport and arrive on the outskirts claiming they have reached exile," and those who, according to her, use the pro-regime change rhetoric to gain notoriety: "if they didn't get involved, their names would be forgotten, even by their mothers."
Regarding the consequences of armed intervention, Escobar was straightforward: "When the bombs fall, when children die, when a foreign army bombards and kills people who could not choose one way or another, the responsibility for every death, every loss, every tragedy will fall on you."
He also warned: "If you see the Cuban people as collateral damage, indifferent to their deaths for the sake of what you believe should happen here, take a look at yourself, and hopefully the bomb won't fall on your mother or your grandmother. From there, there is no going back."
In response to the argument that violence is the only path, Escobar replied with a pragmatic reasoning: "To change governments, you need to be alive. Even to topple a regime, you need fuel, food, and light," of course avoiding labeling Miguel Díaz-Canel as a "tyrant."
However, recalling the Venezuelan case is relevant in this debate: the political change in that country —including the fall of Nicolás Maduro— occurred without bombings or direct military intervention, which reinforces the argument of those who maintain that transformation is possible without violence.
Escobar's text is set against a backdrop of intense polarization among Cubans.
In recent months, the debate about the future of the island has been divided between those who see a military pressure from Trump as the only viable solution to decades of dictatorship, and those who reject that option due to its humanitarian consequences.
In this second group, both defenders of the regime and individuals who have criticized the Cuban government tend to coincide, albeit for different reasons.
Escobar belongs to the latter category: she was a presenter for Cuban Television, but in 2025 she launched harsh criticisms against the state media for its inability to report accurately, and in 2021 she pointed out that "the Cuban press did not cover what happened" during the protests on July 11th.
Her critics, however, point to her as a voice that serves the regime at a crucial moment. So it’s not surprising that her approach is clearly focused on a soft defense of the regime.
Escobar concluded his publication with a phrase that sums up his entire argument: "Those who want bombs over Cuba do not care about Cubans. Everything else is demagoguery."
But of course, their words do not represent those who today rummage through the trash to survive in Cuba. Many prefer to risk a change rather than remain trapped in the regime's statu quo. For them, and not for Escobar, the transition is also a matter of survival.
Filed under: