The official portal CubaSí has already found a way to dismiss the leak from CBS News regarding U.S. military preparations related to Cuba: calling it a "fable," reducing it to bureaucratic routine, and wrapping it in the old epic of resistance against the "empire."
The article, authored by Favio Delfín Roca, does not dismantle much. Instead, it attempts to numb the political impact of the report: accuses CBS of psychological warfare, ridicules the journalist James LaPorta, suggests electoral interests in the United States, and concludes with the inevitable “¡Venceremos!” rallying cry.
The central thesis is straightforward: since the document cited by CBS does not directly mention Cuba and since the availability of units is part of the normal procedures of the U.S. Army, there would be nothing to see. It would all be noise, manipulation, ratings, and propaganda.
It's half a truth turned into a smokescreen.
Of course, armies have bureaucracy. Of course, units report their availability. Of course, there are rules, forms, chains of command, and administrative deadlines. But a military contingency does not begin with movie music: it begins precisely with memoranda, logistics, fuel, doctors, engineers, military police, and availability consultations.
Bureaucracy does not deactivate strategic significance. Many times, it makes it possible.
CBS did not claim that there was an ordered invasion. It also did not conceal that the internal document did not directly mention Cuba. What it reported is that the Army Reserve was assessing support capabilities for Southern Command within a 90 to 120-day timeframe, and that U.S. officials were linking these preparations to scenarios related to the island.
CubaSí turns those cautions into supposed contradictions. It's the same old trick: taking the nuances from the original source, pretending they’re cracks, and selling them as "unmasking".
The underlying issue is that the report by CBS is credible given the context. Washington has been gathering signals for months: statements from Donald Trump regarding Cuba, pressure from Marco Rubio, intelligence flights in the Caribbean, military movements in Puerto Rico and Guantánamo, pressure on fuel, and strategic documents that place the island within a hemispheric security framework.
None of that proves an imminent intervention. However, it does explain why a military availability inquiry can no longer be seen as just a routine procedure.
The official article also fails to maintain a coherent line. It first states that everything is routine. Then it speaks of a psychological warfare operation. After that, it suggests that CBS seeks ratings, which favors the Democrats or creates electoral issues for Trump. All of this together, just in case it serves any purpose.
If it's an irrelevant routine, there's no need to report a conspiracy. If it's psychological warfare, then it's not so irrelevant. If it's just ratings, the barricade geopolitics is unnecessary. But propaganda doesn't seek coherence: it aims to soothe its supporters.
The reaction against James LaPorta follows the same logic. CubaSí does not merely discuss his data; it ridicules him for being a former Marine, for writing from a "protected, comfortable, and air-conditioned" environment, and for having previously published unflattering reports about Cuba. When the message cannot be discredited, the messenger is tarnished.
Marco Rubio also appears, now depicted as the obligatory villain. The text holds him responsible for the "multidimensional aggression" against Cuba and even for the atmosphere that allows reports like the one from CBS. It's the automatic reflection of the establishment: if Washington exerts pressure, it's Rubio's fault; if Trump moderates, it's damage control; if CBS publishes, it's a media operation; if the regime feels addressed, "We will overcome!".
What is more unsettling is the question of why the Cuban regime has brought the country to a point where a leak about U.S. military support units is politically credible.
Neither does the debate that the regime has avoided for decades appear: whether Cubans want to continue paying the price of blackouts, hunger, repression, mass migration, and economic ruin for an elite barricaded in power, or if they prefer to open a verifiable transition, with international observers and a genuine consultation about the country's future.
That debate does not belong in CubaSí. For that, we would have to stop speaking on behalf of the people and ask the people themselves.
That's why the conclusion of the article is so revealing. After accusing CBS of fabricating, the text ends in liturgy: Cuba strong, Cuba resilient, Cuba stubborn, Cuba unyielding, Cuba shouting "We will overcome!".
The problem is that the slogans no longer mask the blackouts or fill the markets. They also do not erase the fact that Washington is increasing the cost of the regime's stay in power.
CubaSí sought to portray the CBS leak as an issue inflated by the U.S. press. What it ultimately revealed is something different: Havana needs to reiterate that nothing is happening because it suspects that this time Washington might not just be talking.
Related videos:
Filed under: