Cuban Government Accuses U.S. of Plotting Forceful Overthrow: "Only a Military Attack Remains"

The Cuban government intensified its rhetoric against the United States this Friday, accusing Washington of attempting to oust the regime through forceful means. According to Carlos Fernández de Cossío, the Deputy Foreign Minister, this offensive is on the brink of escalating into a direct military assault. "Against Cuba, the onslaught has already begun; only a military attack is missing," stated the high-ranking official from MINREX in an interview with the Mexican outlet La Jornada, recorded in Mexico City.

Constant War Rhetoric

Fernández de Cossío, who served as the Director General for the United States at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from 2017 to 2022, claimed that Cuba is under "permanent aggression" and once again blamed external forces for the internal crisis on the island. "The absence of armed conflict does not equate to living in peace," he declared. "Washington's official policy is economic coercion, an embargo aimed at depressing and making living conditions as difficult as possible. This incites a migratory push."

He further asserted that the U.S. intends to alter the nation's political trajectory: "The United States will attempt to exert influence over our government's political processes through force, economic means, and other avenues." He also suggested that "anti-Cuban" factions in the U.S. wield more power than ever, particularly in Congress and the Executive, led by Marco Rubio, the current U.S. Secretary of State under the Trump Administration. "They feel more confident than ever to mobilize the enormous power of the U.S. against Cuba," he warned.

Escalating Tensions from Washington

Fernández de Cossío's remarks coincide with recent statements from the U.S. military sphere. Last month, Admiral Alvin Holsey, the head of the U.S. Southern Command, remarked, "Cuba's malign actions undermine our regional relationships, foster irregular migration, and threaten U.S. security." His words underscore that the perception of Cuba as a destabilizing force in the hemisphere is shared by high-level defense structures, not just U.S. legislative sectors.

Preparing for Conflict: Raúl and Díaz-Canel

The confrontational rhetoric is not merely verbal. In January, Army General Raúl Castro Ruz and leader Miguel Díaz-Canel personally attended the inauguration of the Bastion 2024 Strategic Exercise, a large-scale military maneuver organized by the regime under the pretext of preparing the country for external aggression. Raúl Castro, now retired from public office, reappeared to supervise the training of Cuban armed forces, sending a political message both domestically and internationally: Cuba remains in "war mode."

Siege Narrative and Demonizing the Opponent

In his interview with La Jornada, Fernández de Cossío also criticized former President Donald Trump's foreign policy, accusing it of attempting to impose its will across the hemisphere. He cited allegations of supposed Chinese military bases in Cuba as an example: "They presented images that could be a soccer field or rice paddies to claim: 'This is proof of Chinese bases in Cuba.' But there was no military, no one from the Pentagon, or the CIA."

He described this behavior as a "threatening attitude" by the United States towards Cuba, Panama, Canada, Greenland, and other regions.

Using the Embargo as a Scapegoat

When asked about the Cuban model's mistakes, the official referenced Fidel Castro, saying, "The biggest mistake was thinking someone knew how to build socialism." While he acknowledged "specific failures" in economic or social policies, he downplayed them in light of external pressure. He even joked about Trump's tariffs, saying, "I wish they could apply higher tariffs, because that would require easing the embargo."

A Nation Trapped in Its Own Narrative

The regime's statements—alongside military exercises and constant war rhetoric—occur amidst a profound economic, social, and migratory crisis, exacerbated by repression of dissent, restrictions on religious freedom, and widespread impoverishment. In this context, the persistent use of war narratives serves to justify internal persecution, criminalize protest, maintain power cohesion, and evade accountability.