Cuba at a Crossroads: Trump's Prophecies and the Formation of the "Shield of the Americas"

Immerse yourself in a world of heightened geopolitical tension, where high-level rhetoric clashes with a centuries-old history of confrontation. When Donald Trump loudly declared the imminent “collapse” of Cuba, he was not just expressing a prediction - he was outlining the contours of a new, tough American policy, seeking to rebuild a regional alliance called the “Shield of the Americas”. This moment was not just another episode in the complex relations between Washington and Havana, but also a key milestone that changed the dynamics of the entire Western Hemisphere, forcing Latin American countries to rethink their positions. What is behind these loud words, and what has this ambitious strategy turned out to be for millions of people?

Changing Course: The Trump Era and Its Impact on Cuba

Donald Trump's statement that "Cuba will fall very soon" was not just a spontaneous statement, but the quintessence of his administrative strategy aimed at completely revising US policy towards the Island of Liberty. ¹. In contrast to the rapprochement course chosen by his predecessor Barack Obama, the Trump administration adopted a maximum pressure tactic, seeking to weaken the communist regime through tough sanctions and active diplomatic isolation. This approach was motivated by the belief that weakening economic and political support from the United States would hasten the internal collapse of a regime that Washington believed posed a threat to democratic values ​​in the region.

Since Trump came to power in 2017, a series of game-changing decisions have been made. A number of measures aimed at normalizing relations introduced by Obama have been canceled. These include restrictions on investment by American companies, a ban on direct flights to a number of Cuban cities, and a significant complication of money transfers from the Cuban diaspora to relatives on the island. ². These measures were designed to “strangle” the Cuban economy, which is heavily dependent on foreign revenue and tourism. In addition, the Trump administration has intensified the use of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, which allows companies to be sued for profiting from property confiscated by the Cuban government after the revolution. The move has caused outrage not only in Havana but also among European allies that have economic ties with Cuba.

Trump’s targeted policy was based on the idea that economic instability and international isolation would be catalysts for domestic change. The administration believed that tightening sanctions, especially in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has further hit the Cuban economy, would force the Cuban people to rise up against their government. Trump’s rhetoric was often full of direct condemnation of the Cuban regime, labeling it a “brutal dictatorship” that “oppresses its own people.” ³This rhetoric not only shaped public opinion within the United States, but also influenced foreign policy relations with Latin American countries, which were forced to choose between supporting Washington's policies and maintaining autonomous relations with Cuba.

“Shield of the Americas”: an ambitious initiative or a political maneuver?

In the same context, the idea of ​​creating the “Shield of the Americas” emerged - a concept that aimed to unite the countries of the Western Hemisphere in a coalition against authoritarian regimes, drug trafficking and external influence, in particular from China and Russia. Although the details of this initiative were never officially formalized into a full-fledged treaty or alliance like NATO, it was constantly mentioned in the speeches and statements of Trump and his senior officials as a strategic element of American foreign policy. ⁴The main opponents against whom this “shield” was to be directed were Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, which Washington considered to be among the “three tyrannies.”

The “Shield of the Americas” concept envisioned increased security cooperation, intelligence sharing, and coordination of joint actions aimed at protecting democracy and regional stability. The Trump administration actively lobbied this idea among conservative governments in Latin America, such as Colombia, Brazil under President Bolsonaro, and some Central American countries. The goal was to create a united front that would exert collective pressure on “undesirable” regimes and also counter the expansion of the influence of non-regional states. ⁵For example, China's growing economic presence and Russia's military deals with Venezuela were seen as a direct threat to US interests and regional stability.

However, despite the loud statements, the “Shield of the Americas” never turned into a full-fledged operating alliance. Many Latin American countries were cautious about such an initiative, fearing being drawn into a new confrontation with internal and external players. The historical memory of American interventions and support for dictatorial regimes in the past made them treat Washington’s proposals with some distrust. Some countries saw this as an attempt by the United States to restore its dominant influence in the region, ignoring the sovereignty and internal affairs of other states. As a result, the “Shield of the Americas” remained mainly a rhetorical tool that reflected Washington’s ambitions, but failed to form a stable and broad coalition, as planned.

Echoes of sanctions: Cuba on the brink

The consequences of increased US sanctions on the Cuban economy and society have proven devastating ⁶. The country, which has suffered from an economic blockade for decades, has faced acute shortages of fuel, food, medicine and other essential goods. The tourism industry, one of the main sources of foreign exchange earnings, has almost completely collapsed due to travel restrictions for American citizens and the global pandemic. This has led to a sharp increase in prices, job losses and a deterioration in the standard of living for millions of Cubans.

The Cuban government, in turn, tried to find new economic partners, deepening cooperation with China, Russia and Venezuela, but this could not fully compensate for the losses from the American blockade. Internal reforms aimed at liberalizing the economy were insufficient and slow, which only exacerbated the crisis. The shortage of currency led to restrictions on imports, which, in turn, caused a shortage of raw materials for local production and a further decline in production capacity. ⁷.

On a social level, the worsening economic situation has resulted in growing discontent and mass protests, rare in authoritarian Cuba. In July 2021, thousands of Cubans took to the streets of cities across the country, demanding change, freedom, and better living conditions. ⁸. These protests were brutally suppressed by the government, but they were a stark reminder of the deep social tensions and despair caused by decades of economic hardship and mounting external pressure. Many observers noted that while US sanctions were intended to weaken the regime, they also disproportionately affected ordinary citizens, deepening their suffering and limiting opportunities for development.

Latin American Palette: Regional Responses

Trump’s statement and his policy towards Cuba have provoked a mixed reaction in Latin America, demonstrating the complexity and diversity of the political landscape of the region. On the one hand, conservative governments such as Colombia under Ivan Duque and Brazil under Jair Bolsonaro have expressed support for Washington’s hard line. They share concerns about “leftist” regimes and are interested in strengthening ties with the United States on security issues and the fight against drug trafficking. For them, the “Shield of the Americas” could become a tool to counter internal and external threats ⁹.

On the other hand, a number of countries, including Mexico, Argentina, and Chile, as well as Cuba's traditional partners such as Venezuela and Nicaragua, strongly condemned the US sanctions and interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states. They stressed the principles of self-determination and non-interference, and expressed concern about the humanitarian consequences of the blockade. Some left-wing governments saw this as a return to the Monroe Doctrine and an attempt by the US to restore its dominant influence in the region, which contradicted their foreign policy independence. ¹⁰.

Even among countries that traditionally supported the United States, there were differences. Many understood that a complete collapse of Cuba could lead to unforeseen consequences, including mass migration and regional destabilization, which no one wanted. Instead of open confrontation, they preferred diplomatic ways to resolve conflicts and promote internal reforms through dialogue rather than coercion. ¹¹This regional divide has highlighted that Latin America is not a monolithic bloc, and US policy must take into account a complex web of relationships, interests, and historical memories.

Historical parallels and lessons from the past

The history of US-Cuban relations is a long and complex saga, marked by revolutions, interventions, blockades and brief periods of rapprochement. Trump’s claims about Cuba’s “soon collapse” echo the rhetoric and expectations of decades past. Since the 1959 Cuban Revolution, which overthrew the pro-US regime of Fulgencio Batista, the US has consistently sought to change the political course on the island. ¹²The Bay of Pigs operation in 1961, numerous assassination attempts on Fidel Castro, and the tightening of the economic blockade were part of this strategy, which, however, did not bring the desired results.

Every American president since John F. Kennedy has faced the “Cuban question,” choosing different approaches—from open confrontation to diplomatic initiatives. However, the fundamental goal—the dismantling of the communist regime or its substantial transformation—has remained the same. Experience shows that external pressure, while causing significant suffering to the population, often strengthens the regime, allowing it to mobilize the population around the idea of ​​national sovereignty and opposition to an external enemy. ¹³This is one of the key lessons that is often ignored in policymaking.

Parallels can be drawn with other Latin American countries, where US interventionist policies, while well-intentioned (e.g., fighting communism), have often had unintended and long-term negative consequences. From supporting military juntas in Chile and Argentina to interventions in Central America, the region’s history is full of examples of US attempts to “restore order” only fueling instability and anti-American sentiment. ¹⁴These historical lessons remind us that regime change from the outside is an extremely difficult and often counterproductive task that requires a deep understanding of local realities and a cautious approach.

Legacy and Future: Cuba After Trump

Since the end of Donald Trump's presidency, the Joe Biden administration has faced a difficult challenge regarding Cuba policy. Although the rhetoric has become less aggressive and some restrictions have been relaxed (for example, on money transfers), the general course of pressure remains in place. ¹⁵The legacy of the “Shield of the Americas” and Trump’s increased sanctions continue to impact relations and the state of affairs in Cuba.

The Cuban economy remains in deep crisis, and despite some government attempts to liberalize small and medium-sized businesses, the system's structural problems have not been resolved. Food security is a pressing issue, and access to medicine remains limited. Emigration from Cuba has reached historic highs, reflecting a deep crisis of confidence and despair among the population. ¹⁶Thousands of Cubans seek a better life in the United States and other countries, often risking their own lives.

Cuba’s future remains uncertain. On the one hand, internal pressure on the government to implement more decisive reforms and openness is growing. On the other hand, external pressure, although in a changed form, continues to be a significant factor. Is the “collapse” of Cuba, as Trump has spoken of, possible? Historical experience shows that regimes that seem unshakable can be changed suddenly, but often not in the way that external forces expect. A path of slow, painful transformations is more likely, requiring not only internal will but also a rethinking of approaches by the international community, including the United States. ¹⁷Dialogue, not just pressure, may be the only path to a stable and prosperous future for Cuba, one that serves the interests of both its citizens and the entire Western Hemisphere.

Sources

1. The New York Times: Trump Reverses Obama's Opening to Cuba
2. Reuters: US announces new Cuba sanctions as Trump targets Havana
3. Council on Foreign Relations: Trump's Policy Toward Cuba
4. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS): Latin America in the Trump Era
5. Washington Post: Trump's tough talk on Latin America, explained
6. Human Rights Watch: Cuba's Economic Crisis and Repression
7. ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean): The Economic Impact of the US Embargo on Cuba
8. BBC News: Cuba protests: Thousands take to streets demanding change
9. Americas Quarterly: Latin America's Shifting Alliances Under Trump
10. Associated Press: Latin America divided over US policy on Venezuela, Cuba
11. Journal of Latin American Studies: The Geopolitics of US-Cuba Relations
12. History.com: Bay of Pigs Invasion
13. Foreign Affairs: Why the Cuba Embargo Persists
14. The Guardian: The US and Latin America: a troubled history
15. CNN: Biden administration lifts some Trump-era restrictions on Cuba
16. Pew Research Center: Cuban Migration to the US Reaches New Highs
17. Brookings Institution: The Future of US Policy Toward Cuba

Number of words in the article: 1957