Cuba prepares for US invasion as American drones patrol coasts – Secret Castro letter to Trump to avert massacre

While the entire planet monitors the military, political, and economic deadlock the Americans are experiencing in Iran, US President Donald Trump is allegedly setting the stage for the next war... Though he claims—citing the 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon—to have ended 10 wars, his aggression remains relentless. American psychotherapists have even suggested the possibility of "frontotemporal dementia," citing "lack of control over aggressive behavior" as a primary symptom. Reports indicate the Pentagon has already intensified planning for a military operation against Cuba, aiming to replicate the Venezuela scenario: just as President Maduro was targeted, the goal is to abduct the entire Cuban leadership. Cuba reportedly attempted to send a letter to Trump via unofficial channels to warn that it is ready to face a ground invasion while simultaneously signaling a desire for reconciliation and economic development. However, the message from Havana never reached Trump’s hands.

The letter from Raúl Castro's grandson

Cuba attempted to communicate directly with Trump, bypassing standard diplomatic channels and—as analysts estimate—US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, according to sources from the Wall Street Journal. Last week, Raúl Rodríguez Castro, grandson of Raúl Castro, requested that a secret letter be delivered to the White House through Roberto Carlos Chamiso González, a 37-year-old Cuban businessman in the luxury car rental and high-end tourism sector. A US official stated the letter functioned as a diplomatic note bearing an official Cuban seal, containing proposals for investment deals and the easing of sanctions. The White House did not respond to inquiries regarding whether it ultimately received the document. Axios had previously reported in February that Rubio was conducting back-channel talks with Castro’s grandson.

The warning

The letter also contained a warning that Cuban authorities are preparing for a potential US invasion. However, the document never reached the president. According to the WSJ, a US border official at Miami airport stopped Chamiso, who was sent back to Havana while the letter was seized. The reasons for his detention were not disclosed. The White House provided no answers regarding the fate of the letter. Havana reportedly sought direct contact with Trump to circumvent Rubio, who has long advocated for increasing pressure on Cuba’s communist government. Analysts note this was an attempt to jumpstart a dialogue with the new US administration amidst Cuba's worst economic crisis in decades.

"We will settle... Cuba as well"

A few days ago, Trump stated that after the Iran situation is concluded, Washington might turn its attention to Cuba. During a briefing, he described the island as a "country in decline" that has been poorly managed for a long time. "We will settle Iran, and then, when we are finished with that, maybe we’ll look at Cuba," the US President said.

Pentagon scenarios

In this context, USA Today reported that the Pentagon is discreetly ramping up preparations for a possible military operation against Cuba, should the president give the order. The US Department of Defense dismissed these reports as speculation. A spokesperson told the Russian news agency TASS: "We will not comment on hypothetical scenarios." However, it was clarified that the department prepares various contingency plans and is ready to execute presidential orders. Additional US activity around Cuba was reported by the SHOT Telegram channel, which noted that an MQ-4C Triton strategic reconnaissance drone (callsign BLKCAT6) took off from Jacksonville, Florida, flying along the island's coasts near Santiago de Cuba before heading toward Havana.

Trump's statements and Cuba's reaction

In late March, Trump stated that Cuba might be the "next target" for the US. He mentioned that Washington intends to deal with the island after other foreign matters are resolved, repeatedly emphasizing the need for regime change. "They’ll be next soon," the US President said. In another statement, he remarked it would be an "honor" for him to occupy Cuba, without clarifying if he meant a military operation or other forms of pressure. "I can do whatever I want," he declared. In Havana, these statements sparked a fierce reaction. Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel stated the country is ready to resist an attack and accused the US of long-term bullying. The Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs echoed this stance, with Deputy Minister Carlos Fernández de Cossío stating that while they hope for no attack, the country must be ready for all scenarios.

Personal obsessions and dangerous decisions

Donald Trump's stance seems driven not only by strategic calculations but also by personal obsessions. The open defiance of Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel against US threats appears to have caused significant irritation in Washington. Even more concerning is the possibility being considered: the abduction of members of the Cuban leadership, following the model of regime-change operations targeting leaders like Nicolás Maduro. If confirmed, such an intention would not only violate international law but would represent a dangerous slide into practices reminiscent of the darkest periods of the Cold War.

Russia's position

Russia stated that it supports Cuba amid Trump’s threats. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov mentioned that Moscow is closely monitoring the situation and is concerned about the escalation and increased external pressure on Cuba. "We confirm our solidarity with our Cuban friends in their right to sovereign development. We will continue to provide assistance, including material and humanitarian support," he stated. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov emphasized that Russia does not intend to reduce its presence in the Western Hemisphere despite US statements, adding that Washington seeks to displace Russia and China from the region, while Cuba remains a key axis of Russian foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Russian tanker "Anatoly Kolodkin" arrived in Cuba carrying 100,000 tons of oil as humanitarian aid. Energy supplies to the island had been disrupted since January due to US pressure. The White House stated it would review the entry of such tankers on a case-by-case basis, while the Kremlin stressed its duty to help its "Cuban friends."

Economic strangulation as a political tool

United States policy toward Cuba is not limited to military threats. The near-total energy embargo imposed on the island has led to a severe humanitarian crisis. Even within the US, criticism is mounting. Senator Tim Kaine openly denounced this policy, pointing out that Washington has effectively shifted the blame for the Cuban people's suffering from the Cuban government to the US itself. His statement that such a policy would be considered an "act of war" if directed against the US reveals the hypocrisy characterizing the American stance.

Fabricated pretexts and geopolitical games

As often happens, escalation is accompanied by the production of "justifications." The accusation that Cuba is allegedly providing military support to Russia in the war in Ukraine is being used as a new argument to increase pressure. However, even American reports admit there is no clear evidence. Nevertheless, this narrative is being politically exploited, as seen at the United Nations, to justify the continuation of an embargo that has lasted over six decades.

Diplomacy or pretextual dialogue?

Despite the tensions, there were recent signs of de-escalation. The permission for the transport of Russian oil to Cuba and Havana's moves to release prisoners and implement economic reforms suggested a possibility of rapprochement. However, these developments seem undermined by internal conflicts within the US administration, explains Lee Schlenker, a geopolitical analyst at the Quincy Institute. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, known for his hardline stance in favor of regime change in Cuba, is reportedly an obstacle to any meaningful diplomatic progress.

An extremely dangerous distraction

The possibility of military action in Cuba cannot be viewed independently of the broader crisis the United States faces in the Middle East. The war in Iran has already cost lives, increased energy prices, and burdened the economy. Within this context, a new front could serve as a political "diversion"—an attempt to shift the public agenda. This is a tactic used repeatedly in history, but rarely without serious consequences.

A policy without limits or accountability

The overall picture is troubling. The United States appears to operate on a logic of imposition rather than cooperation, ignoring both international law and its own internal procedures. Tim Kaine’s warning is characteristic: any military action without Congressional approval is illegal. Nevertheless, history shows such warnings are often ignored. If anything is clear, it is that the current strategy does not lead to stability but to a vicious cycle of conflict. As long as this logic prevails, the world remains hostage to a policy that seems to have neither limits nor a plan for peace.

The US wants to heal its wounded prestige with a military success in Cuba

Behind the rhetoric of "security" and "stability," a deeper and more disturbing motive for US escalation toward Cuba emerges: the need to restore wounded geopolitical prestige following the abject failure in the war with Iran. The war in Iran did not unfold as the Donald Trump administration calculated. Instead of a quick show of force, it turned into a prolonged and costly stalemate, dealing a blow to the image of American supremacy. In such conditions, history shows that great powers often seek an "easier" front to reassert their power. Cuba offers itself for this role; it is a significantly weaker opponent, geographically close, and already economically isolated due to the US embargo.

Dangerous plans

A successful military operation there could be presented as a "victory," politically and communicatively offsetting the failures in the Middle East. However, such a strategy is not about security or democracy—it is about image and power. Choosing a smaller and more vulnerable target to cover a previous failure reveals a dangerous logic of power projection where human consequences become secondary. If this reading is confirmed, then a potential intervention in Cuba would not just be another episode of US foreign policy, but a textbook example of how geopolitical defeats can lead to new, even more dangerous conflicts.

From defeat to aggression

The choice of such a target is not accidental. Unlike Iran, Cuba does not possess the same regional influence or a network of allies that could escalate the conflict to a broader level. This creates the illusion of a "safe war"—a low-risk military operation with high symbolic value. A success in Cuba could be presented domestically as proof that the United States remains a dominant power. In an election period, this gains even more significance, as foreign policy becomes a tool for domestic political legitimacy. However, this strategy reveals a transition from defeat to aggression. Instead of reflection and adjustment, the failure in Iran seems to lead to an attempt at compensation through a new conflict. This is not just politically problematic—it is extremely dangerous. The search for "easy victories" often leads to an underestimation of consequences. The history of US interventions shows that even seemingly simple operations can evolve into long-term crises.

The role of image and communication

In modern geopolitics, image carries almost the same weight as reality. The Donald Trump administration has repeatedly shown that it prioritizes the shaping of impressions. A military operation in Cuba could be presented as "decisive action," regardless of its actual cost. This reinforces the view that potential intervention is less about strategic necessity and more about the need to control the political narrative—both domestically and internationally. If Cuba is turned into a field for "prestige restoration," a dangerous precedent is set: that geopolitical defeats can be "corrected" through new military adventures against weaker targets. Such logic does not lead to stability but to the reproduction of conflict. And the price, as history shows, is not paid by the governments making the decisions, but by the peoples at the center of these choices. Ultimately, the question is not whether such an intervention could succeed militarily. The real question is whether a world where great powers attempt to restore their status through war can ever be stable or safe.

www.bankingnews.gr