Is "Cubastroika" Just a Mirage? Examining Washington's Alleged Strategy for Cuba

Recent reports by USA Today about a potential economic agreement between the Trump administration and the Cuban regime have sparked a heated debate over the direction of U.S. policy toward the island.

The reports suggest a strategy that combines economic pressure with selective openings for the Cuban private sector, possibly involving agreements in areas like ports, energy, and tourism, as well as a potential easing of travel restrictions for Americans.

One of the most intriguing aspects of this scenario is the speculation about a negotiated exit for Miguel Díaz-Canel, while the Castro family remains in Cuba and the political system begins a phase of gradual economic reforms.

Some analysts have dubbed this strategy "Cubastroika," drawing a parallel to the Soviet perestroika: a limited economic opening within a political system that remains largely unchanged.

Is a Real Political Shift Possible?

However, this hypothesis has raised skepticism among analysts, activists, and sectors of Cuban civil society, who question whether such a formula could indeed bring about a profound political transformation in the country.

A frequently cited objection is that the removal of Díaz-Canel alone would have minimal political impact. Since his appointment as president in 2018, he has been widely perceived as an administrative figurehead within a system where genuine power lies not with the presidency but with much deeper structures.

The core of Cuba's political power remains concentrated in the Communist Party, the state security apparatus, and the military-industrial complex tied to the Armed Forces, whose corporate network—such as conglomerates like GAESA—controls vast sectors of the national economy, from tourism to foreign trade.

The Role of the Castro Family and the Military-Industrial Complex

In this context, a change in the government's visible figure would not necessarily imply a substantial alteration in the power architecture.

For this reason, some observers argue that focusing negotiations on Díaz-Canel's departure could amount to a cosmetic shift rather than a structural transition.

Another question fueling doubt is the role of the Castro family and their political and economic influence. Although Fidel Castro passed away in 2016 and Raúl Castro formally retired from public office, the institutional legacy and power networks established over decades continue to wield significant influence over the country's political and economic system.

Beyond the historical political control of the Communist Party, the military-linked business network has developed a dominant presence in strategic sectors of the economy.

Even with the recent expansion of the private sector and the emergence of thousands of small and medium enterprises (SMEs), various analysts note that a significant portion of this new business fabric operates in close association with state structures or actors linked to the military-industrial apparatus.

U.S. Foreign Policy and Geopolitical Concerns

If this reality does not change, some experts argue, economic opening could indirectly reinforce the same power groups that have dominated the system for decades.

This point becomes particularly relevant when examining the debate from the perspective of U.S. foreign policy.

In recent years, Washington has begun to more clearly define a strategy to reaffirm its influence in the Western Hemisphere, amid increasing geopolitical competition with powers like China and Russia.

In this framework, several analysts have started to discuss a contemporary reinterpretation of the historical Monroe Doctrine, which some commentators have referred to as the "Donroe Doctrine" in reference to Trump's foreign policy approach.

Under this logic, Latin America and the Caribbean are once again considered a strategic priority space for U.S. national security.

One central objective of this approach is to limit or reverse the presence of rival actors in the region.

Over the last decade, both Russia and China have increased their economic, technological, and diplomatic presence in several Latin American countries. Cuba, in particular, has maintained historic political and military ties with Moscow and has also developed growing links with Beijing in areas like telecommunications and infrastructure.

Can Economic Engagement Lead to Real Change?

In this context, some analysts wonder whether an economic agreement that leaves the core of Castro's power intact would be compatible with Washington's strategic objectives in the hemisphere.

If the goal is to reduce the influence of rival powers and consolidate a regional environment aligned with the United States, allowing the regime's political and military structure to remain intact might not address the underlying issue.

This uncertainty is compounded by another element: the contrast between the strategy suggested in USA Today's reports and the firmness projected by the current administration in other recent international scenarios.

Washington's actions in Venezuela or the conflict with Iran have been interpreted by many observers as signs of a foreign policy more willing to use direct pressure tools—economic, diplomatic, and even military—to reshape regional balances.

From this perspective, a strategy based on gradual economic reforms within the Cuban system might appear, at least on the surface, as a more moderate approach than one might expect within the same geopolitical logic.

However, there are also other possible interpretations. Some experts believe that the scenarios described in the press could represent just an initial phase of a broader strategy.

Under this hypothesis, strengthening the Cuban private sector and increasing economic interaction with the United States could aim to generate gradual changes within the country's economic structure, creating internal pressures that could eventually lead to deeper political transformations.

Another possibility is that the leaks or journalistic interpretations reflect only part of the negotiation process, without necessarily revealing the ultimate goals of the U.S. strategy.

Throughout recent history, political change processes in authoritarian systems have followed very different trajectories.

In some cases, gradual economic reforms have paved the way for deeper political transformations. In others, regimes have managed to adapt to reforms without losing control of power.

The open question in the Cuban case is which of these paths might materialize.

For now, what seems clear is that any strategy aimed at driving change in Cuba will face a complex institutional reality, marked by decades of political centralization, state economic control, and deeply entrenched power structures.

In this context, the debate sparked by USA Today's reports reflects a broader question: whether the regime's transformation can occur through gradual economic reforms or if, conversely, deeper political changes will be necessary to alter the totalitarian control that has defined the country for over six decades.

The answer to this question, which remains open, will be key to evaluating the coherence between Washington's stated strategic objectives in the hemisphere and the tools it ultimately decides to use to achieve them.