KATHMANDU:  Cuba is facing a deepening crisis shaped as much by geopolitics as by economics. Since early 2026, the United States has sought to pressure Havana toward regime change, leveraging control over Venezuelan oil and tightening sanctions. The disruption of Caracas’s shipments has caused a near-total collapse of Cuba’s fuel imports, leaving the island scrambling for scarce alternatives and plunging its energy, transport, and public services into crisis.

The rhetoric accompanying this pressure has been unusually blunt. President Donald Trump has suggested that the United States could “take” Cuba, framing the crisis not merely as economic leverage but as an opportunity for political transformation. Behind the scenes, American officials are reported to be pressing for the departure of Cuban leader Miguel Díaz-Canel as part of any negotiated settlement.

Such developments underscore a deeper continuity. Few bilateral relationships have been as enduringly shaped by suspicion, intervention and ideological conflict as that between the United States and Cuba. What may appear today as a sudden crisis is, in reality, the latest chapter in a long-running contest over sovereignty and influence.

To grasp its significance, one must look beyond the immediate energy shock. The roots of this confrontation stretch back more than a century, to a time when America itself was still defining the boundaries of its power-and Cuba was caught, then as now, at the intersection of ambition and resistance. Here is everything you need to know about America and Cube relationships from history to present:

How did slavery-era politics shape early American interest in Cuba?

Long before Cuba became a Cold War flashpoint, it was entangled in America’s domestic divisions. In the mid-1800s, the United States was split between pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces. Cuba, then under Spanish rule, emerged as a strategic prize in this ideological struggle.

Southern politicians saw Cuba as a potential slave state that could reinforce their economic and political system. Some advocated purchasing the island from Spain; others considered taking it by force. Northern politicians opposed these ambitions, arguing that expansion into Cuba represented both moral failure and imperial overreach.

This early debate set a precedent. Cuba was never just a foreign policy concern-it was also a reflection of America’s internal contradictions. Questions about Cuba often doubled as questions about American identity itself.

Was the Spanish-American War about liberation or expansion?

The Spanish-American War (April 21- August 13, 1898) marked a turning point. As Cuban revolutionaries fought Spain for independence, the United States intervened militarily. Publicly, the intervention was framed as an effort to liberate Cuba. But strategic motives ran deeper. The United States sought to remove Spain from the Western Hemisphere and assert its own dominance, in line with the Monroe Doctrine. After Spain’s defeat, the US faced a dilemma: should it annex Cuba, as it did with other former Spanish territories, or grant independence? The compromise was ambiguous. Cuba became independent in name, but not fully in practice.

Did independence really make Cuba sovereign?

Following the Cuban War of Independence (February 24, 1895-December 10, 1898), Cuba entered a period of limited autonomy. The United States imposed conditions that allowed it to intervene in Cuban affairs and maintain a permanent military presence at Guantanamo Bay. This arrangement effectively made Cuba a quasi-protectorate. Although it had its own government, key decisions-especially in foreign policy-remained under American influence.

For many Cubans, this was a bitter outcome. Independence from Spain had not delivered true sovereignty. Instead, it introduced a new form of external control.

Why did the United States repeatedly intervene in Cuba?

In the early 20th century, American intervention became a recurring feature of Cuban politics. US troops occupied the island in 1906 and again in 1917, typically citing instability as justification. In reality, these interventions often aligned with protecting American economic interests, particularly in the sugar industry. Cuba’s economy had become deeply intertwined with US markets, making stability there a priority for American policymakers. These actions reinforced a perception among Cubans that their country remained under foreign domination—fueling resentment that would later shape revolutionary movements.

Did America ever step back from its dominance?

A shift occurred in the 1930s. Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the United States adopted a less interventionist approach toward Latin America. Cuba experienced a period of relative political independence and democratic development. Relations between the two countries improved, and direct intervention became less frequent. Yet underlying dependencies persisted. Cuba’s economy remained heavily reliant on the United States, limiting the extent of its autonomy.

What led to the collapse of Cuba’s democracy in 1952?

Cuba’s fragile democratic order collapsed abruptly on March 10, 1952, when Fulgencio Batista seized power in a pre-emptive military coup, cancelling elections and dismantling the progressive 1940 constitution. What followed was an increasingly authoritarian regime that, despite its repression, enjoyed firm backing from Washington, where Batista was seen as a reliable bulwark against instability and the spread of leftist politics. For many Cubans, Batista’s rule symbolized not only dictatorship but also foreign influence. His government became a focal point for growing dissatisfaction.

How did the Cuban Revolution reshape the relationship?

Opposition to Fulgencio Batista ultimately coalesced into the Cuban Revolution, led by Fidel Castro. On January 1st 1959, Castro’s forces entered Havana, bringing Batista’s dictatorship to an end after years of guerrilla warfare. In the weeks that followed, Castro consolidated control, assuming command of the armed forces before being sworn in as prime minister in February. At the outset, the revolution bore the hallmarks of a nationalist project rather than an explicitly communist one. Castro signaled a willingness to engage with the United States, seeking recognition and economic cooperation-an opening that, had it been seized, might have set the relationship on a very different course. However, relations deteriorated quickly. Cuba’s nationalization of American-owned industries triggered hostility from Washington, while the US refusal to support the new government pushed Havana toward alternative allies.

The revolution fundamentally altered the balance of power, ending decades of American dominance in Cuba.

Why did Cuba align with the Soviet Union?

After 1959, Cuba moved decisively into the orbit of the Soviet Union, trading strategic loyalty for economic survival and political isolation. By the early 1960s, the partnership had hardened into a full Cold War alliance: Moscow supplied oil, credit and military backing, while Havana exported sugar and served as a Soviet foothold in the Western Hemisphere. The relationship was formalized through successive agreements-notably a 1966 commercial treaty extending Soviet credit for development-and culminated in Cuba’s entry into Comecon in 1972. For three-decade Soviet underwrote the Cuban economy, enabling it to withstand American isolation while binding it tightly to Moscow’s fortunes until the bloc’s collapse in 1991.

This alignment transformed the island into a key player in the Cold War. What had once been a regional issue became a global confrontation. Cuba’s strategic importance increased dramatically, placing it at the center of superpower rivalry.

What went wrong at the Bay of Pigs?

The Bay of Pigs invasion remains one of the most spectacular failures in the history of United States-Cuba relations. First authorized in 1959 under Dwight D. Eisenhower and executed in April 1961 under John F. Kennedy, the operation sought to overthrow Fidel Castro using a proxy force of Cuban exiles.

The plan was deceptively simple: an initial air strike to neutralize Cuba’s small air force, followed by the amphibious landing of roughly 1,400 CIA-trained exiles at the Bay of Pigs, on the Gulf of Cazones along the southern coast. The invading force, trained in Guatemala and Florida, was expected to ignite a popular uprising against Castro. Before dawn on April 15th 1961, B-26 bombers launched from Nicaragua to commence the assault.

The operation quickly collapsed. Air strikes failed to disable Cuba’s defenses, the anticipated popular revolt never materialized, and the exile force, isolated and outnumbered, was overwhelmed within 72 hours.

The consequences were profound. The debacle humiliated Washington, strengthened Castro’s domestic authority, and cemented Havana’s alignment with the Soviet bloc. It also entrenched mutual distrust, hardening a confrontation that would define US-Cuba relations for the remainder of the Cold War.

How close did the world come to nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis?

In October 1962, the discovery of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. On October 15th, U-2 reconnaissance flights confirmed missile sites under construction. President John F. Kennedy convened secret meetings and, on October 22nd, announced a naval “quarantine” to block further shipments, demanding removal of the missiles.

For thirteen tense days, miscalculations and secret communications between Washington and Nikita Khrushchev held the world in suspense. The crisis ended when the Soviets agreed to withdraw missiles from Cuba in exchange for a U.S. pledge not to invade, and a secret deal to remove American missiles from Turkey.

In 1963, tensions eased further with the establishment of the White House-Kremlin “Hotline” and the July 25th signing of the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The crisis cemented Cuba’s role in the Cold War and demonstrated how close miscalculation could bring the world to nuclear catastrophe.

Why did the United States impose an embargo on Cuba?

The U.S. embargo, first imposed in February 03, 1962 under John F. Kennedy, aimed to weaken Cuba economically and politically to provoke internal dissent and push for regime change. It followed the nationalization of U.S.-owned businesses and Cuba’s alignment with the Soviet Union.

Over the decades, the embargo has become central to U.S. policy, targeting trade, finance, and entities linked to Cuba’s military, intelligence, and security sectors. On December 17, 2014, President Obama eases the embargo in tourism sectors.

Measures were reinforced under Donald Trump in 2017 through a National Security Presidential Memorandum, further restricting transactions with state-controlled companies, holding firms, and defense-related entities. The policy endures today as a tool of political and economic pressure.

Did the U.S. embargo achieve its goals in Cuba?

No. The U.S. embargo, imposed in February 1962 under John F. Kennedy to provoke regime change and curb communism, has failed to topple Havana’s government or create a democratic transition. Decades of economic restrictions have caused severe hardship, but the Cuban leadership has remained firmly in place but historic week at this moment.

Cuba has survived 66 years of embargoes, yet today faces its most acute crisis since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. A near-total blockade, compounded by oil shortages and the collapse of Venezuelan support, has crippled energy supplies, paralyzed transport, and strained hospitals, creating a dire humanitarian and political emergency for the island’s 11 million residents.

A tightening American embargo, compounded by Washington’s actions in Venezuela, has choked off the island’s most vital lifeline: Oil. With Venezuelan shipments effectively halted, fuel scarcity has cascaded through every layer of the Cuban economy, pushing an already fragile system towards breakdown.

The consequences are stark. Cuba’s ageing energy grid-long dependent on imported fuel-has begun to fail at scale. A nationwide blackout in March left millions without electricity, exposing the structural vulnerability of the island’s infrastructure. Public transport has been reduced to essentials, industry has slowed to a crawl, and even basic services-from waste collection to hospital operations-are under strain. In Havana, uncollected refuse piles up in residential districts, while rolling outages have become a defining feature of daily life.

The crisis extends beyond inconvenience; it threatens the foundations of the Cuban economy. Tourism-one of the country’s few reliable sources of foreign exchange-now faces sever disruption as fuel shortages ground transport and undermine basic services. Without energy, the island risks entering a deeper cycle of economic contraction, with limited capacity to recover.

Economically, the embargo has cost Cuba an estimated $144 billion, according to the Cuban government and UN estimates. While Cold War-era Cuba achieved comparable GDP growth to its regional peers-$645 per capita in 1970, $2,565 by 1990-these gains masked vulnerability. The post-Soviet collapse, tightened sanctions under president Donald Trump.

How did Cuba survive the collapse of the Soviet Union?

The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 triggered Cuba’s “Special Period,” a catastrophic economic crisis. Soviet subsidies-one-quarter of national income-vanished, GDP fell 35% between 1989 and 1993, sugar production collapsed, fuel shortages paralyzed transport, and families faced severe deprivation. Factories closed, tractors were replaced by oxen, and ordinary Cubans endured extreme hardship.

Cuba survived by restructuring its socialist economy. Tourism replaced sugar as the top foreign-exchange earner, private farming and cooperatives were allowed to sell surplus on open markets, and foreign investment brought new capital and know-how. Remittances, legalized in 1993, became a vital lifeline, reaching up to $1 billion annually by 2000. State spending prioritized healthcare and education, preserving public support despite shortages.

Economic indicators slowly recovered: GDP growth returned by 1994, tourism expanded from 340,000 visitors in 1990 to 1.77 million by 2001, and crude oil production more than doubled between 1990 and 2000. Yet, life remained constrained: central control limited entrepreneurship, the dual currency system created inequality, and post-2010 tourism gains peaked before collapsing under tightened U.S. sanctions, the COVID-19 pandemic, and fuel crises.

Cuba’s survival demonstrated the resilience of its revolutionary system: it endured the loss of its primary international backer, adapted to market mechanisms, and maintained core social services-proving its model could survive beyond the Soviet sphere.

What role did migration play in shaping US policy to Cuba?

Migration added a new dimension to the relationship. Waves of Cuban migrants, particularly those who fled political repression, settled in the United States. These communities became influential in American politics, often advocating for a hardline stance against the Cuban government. Their experiences and perspectives played a significant role in sustaining the embargo.

Why did post-Cold War rapprochement between U.S & Cuba prove difficult?

After the Cold War, opportunities for reconciliation emerged. Both sides showed interest in improving relations. However, political constraints-especially within the United States-limited progress. Incidents that heightened tensions reinforced skepticism and delayed normalization. The legacy of decades-long hostility proved difficult to overcome.

How did U.S. President Barak Obama transform U.S.-Cuba relations?

Under Barack Obama, U.S.-Cuba relations experienced a historic thaw. Shifting U.S. public opinion, evolving Cuban-American attitudes, and reforms under Raúl Castro created a window for diplomacy. Mediation by Pope Francis helped both sides restore diplomatic relations in 2014.

In March 2016, Obama became the first sitting U.S. president in 88 years to visit Cuba, landing at José Martí International Airport in Havana. He met Raúl Castro for one-on-one talks and a joint press conference, delivered a televised speech at the Gran Teatro emphasizing democracy and human rights, and engaged with dissidents at the U.S. Embassy.

The visit symbolized a turning point after nearly six decades of hostility following Fidel Castro’s 1959 revolution, signaling U.S. willingness to move beyond confrontation. It advanced diplomacy, created openings for private-sector engagement, and strengthened the case for easing the embargo, though Congress remained a critical obstacle.

Why does Cuba still matter strategically to the United States?

Cuba’s proximity-just 90 miles from Florida-makes it a perennial strategic concern for Washington. Historically, control or influence over the island has been linked to regional dominance in the Caribbean and Latin America. Today, the U.S. worries about Cuba serving as a foothold for foreign adversaries, including Russia and China, which have expanded military, intelligence, and infrastructure ties on the island.

Economic and humanitarian crises compound the strategic stakes. Blackouts, fuel shortages, and the collapse of basic services have triggered Cuba’s largest emigration wave in history, with over 610,000 Cubans encountered at the U.S. border since 2022. These pressures heighten migration, drug trafficking, and instability risks for the United States.

Cuba’s location also matters globally. The island borders the Windward Passage, a key maritime route linking the Atlantic to the Panama Canal, and controls strategic sea lanes essential to regional trade.

U.S. policy is influenced by ideology as well. The Cuban communist regime, led by Miguel Díaz-Canel, represents both a historical challenge to U.S. authority and a symbol in the broader contest against socialism and Chinese influence in the Western Hemisphere.

Recent events have intensified U.S. focus. After military action in Venezuela in early 2026, President Donald Trump declared Cuba’s support for Caracas’s former leadership cut off, removing oil and financial flows and signaling potential leverage over Havana. The severe economic crisis in Cuba provides Washington both an opportunity to exert pressure and a reminder that the island’s strategic relevance has never waned.

Is regime change still a goal of U.S. policy in Cuba?

For more than six decades, U.S. policy toward Cuba has been guided-explicitly and implicitly-by the aim of ending one-party, communist rule in Havana. The 1992 Helms-Burton Act codified the objective of a political transition, while successive administrations have varied in tactics. Under Donald Trump, rhetoric intensified: he described the Cuban government as “very weakened” and suggested the United States could “take” the island, framing sanctions, oil blockades, and diplomatic pressure as tools to accelerate regime change.

Yet the goal is tempered by legal, diplomatic, and strategic constraints. Direct military intervention remains off the table, leaving Washington reliant on economic pressure and political isolation to destabilize the regime. Recent crises in Cuba-widespread shortages of food, fuel, and electricity, soaring migration, and a collapsing public sector-have provided new leverage, but success is uncertain. Regime change remains an aspiration of U.S. hard-liners, but policy continues to mix coercion, negotiation, and strategic signaling rather than a single, decisive plan for removal of the Cuban leadership.

Can the U.S. and Cuba ever have normal relations?

Normalization between the U.S. and Cuba remains distant. Decades of mistrust, strategic rivalry, and unresolved political grievances complicate any rapprochement. Recent events underscore this fragility: after the January 3, 2026 capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Cuba lost a critical oil lifeline, triggering widespread blackouts and economic collapse. President Donald Trump has openly threatened a “friendly takeover” while signaling early-stage discussions with Havana to address the blockade.

Cuba insists any dialogue respects its sovereignty. President Miguel Díaz-Canel has stressed that meaningful negotiations cannot occur under coercion, even as preliminary talks with U.S. officials aim to address the energy crisis. Deep-rooted mistrust, aggressive U.S. policy, and the island’s economic vulnerability ensure that full normalization remains unlikely in the near term but cannot rule out any outcome due to Trump’s unconventional diplomatic tactics can flip any direction.