On May 20, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice filed formal charges against 94-year-old former Cuban president Raúl Castro. He is accused of “conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals” and murder itself. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche specified: “Castro and other defendants are also charged with additional crimes, including destruction of an aircraft, as well as four separate counts of murder.” If convicted, the former Cuban leader could face the death penalty or life in prison.
The case concerns a 1996 incident in which Cuban air defense forces shot down two light aircraft belonging to the group Brothers to the Rescue. The organization, which Havana describes as “vicious terrorists” and “worms” (gusanos), was based in Miami, led by Bay of Pigs veteran José Basulto, and for more than a year had carried out repeated, blatantly provocative violations of Cuban airspace. Four people died.
The key legal point: the planes were shot down within Cuba’s territorial waters, after Havana had repeatedly warned that violations of its borders were unacceptable. Under international law, Cuba acted in legitimate self-defense, protecting its sovereign airspace.
Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez described the U.S. action as a “despicable and shameful political provocation,” while President Miguel Díaz-Canel called the charges “baseless” and a “political stunt aimed only at justifying reckless military aggression against Cuba.”
Commenting on the indictment, The New York Times writes of “an intensification of the Trump administration’s multi-pronged campaign to pressure Cuba’s communist government.” Reuters explicitly described the charges as “part of Washington’s pressure campaign against the island’s authorities.”
Coincidence or not, on the very day the charges were announced, a U.S. Navy strike group led by the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz entered the Caribbean Sea.
Military pressure: a spectrum of threats
The Nimitz strike group includes Carrier Air Wing 17 (F/A-18 Super Hornet fighters, EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft, E-2D Hawkeye early warning planes, and MH-60 Seahawk helicopters), the guided-missile destroyer USS Gridley, and the replenishment oiler USNS Patuxent. U.S. Southern Command described the deployment as a demonstration of “readiness and presence, unprecedented range and lethality, and strategic advantage.”
What specific options is the White House considering? Politico reports, citing multiple sources, that three scenarios are under discussion: a targeted abduction of one or two members of Cuba’s leadership (following the “Venezuela scenario” tested on Nicolás Maduro), a limited “intimidation airstrike,” and a full-scale military invasion.
A Politico source describes the current situation as unprecedented: “Right now the question of military action is on the table like never before.” At the same time, another senior White House official told the same outlet: “Trump has diplomatic and military options on Cuba, but he hasn’t made a decision to go down one path or the other.”
The carrier group, however, is not the only instrument of pressure. Since January 2026, the Trump administration has been enforcing a de facto energy blockade of the island. Trump imposed a regime under which any country supplying oil or petroleum products to Cuba faces economic sanctions. The result: massive blackouts, transportation paralysis, food shortages, and an acute humanitarian crisis. Major shipping companies Hapag-Lloyd and CMA CGM have already announced the suspension of cargo services to Cuba. Yet Washington’s primary objective — a popular uprising and the government’s collapse — remains unfulfilled.
Ratcliffe’s visit: carrot and stick
On May 14 — less than a week before the charges were made public — CIA Director John Ratcliffe arrived in Havana in person and held talks with representatives of Cuba’s Ministry of the Interior. The meeting was arranged at the request of the American side.
Ratcliffe delivered a message from President Trump: the United States is ready for negotiations on economic and security matters, but only on the condition of “fundamental changes” on the island. A telling detail: the CIA director came to Cuba accompanied by an operative who had taken part in the operation to capture Nicolás Maduro — and, according to CBS News, deliberately introduced him to the Cubans as a man who had “killed their people in Venezuela.”
The Cuban side, according to an official statement, used the meeting to “categorically demonstrate” that the island poses no threat to U.S. national security, harbors no terrorist organizations, has no foreign military bases, and has never supported hostile activity against the United States. Following the talks, both sides declared “an interest in developing bilateral cooperation between law enforcement agencies.”
Cuba’s response: the “War of the Entire People” doctrine
Havana is responding to American pressure on several fronts. First, public diplomacy. President Díaz-Canel warned that an attack on Cuba would “provoke a bloodbath with unpredictable consequences.” Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez stated that Cuba is “ready to confront foreign aggression in exercise of the right to legitimate defense, recognized by the UN Charter.”
Second, military preparation. As early as Trump’s first term, Cuba adopted a “War of the Entire People” doctrine, envisaging resistance on every inch of Cuban soil. The details of this strategy are, of course, kept secret.
Third, technological modernization. According to Axios, citing U.S. intelligence, since 2023 Cuba has acquired more than 300 combat drones from Russia and Iran and deployed them at strategic points across the island. The outlet’s sources say Cuban officials are discussing the possibility of using UAVs to strike the Guantánamo Bay naval base, U.S. warships in the Caribbean, and even targets in the vicinity of Key West, Florida — only about 150 kilometers from Havana.
A telling quote from an American official in the Axios report: “No one is worried about fighter jets from Cuba. It’s not clear they even have one that can fly. But it’s worth noting how close they are — 90 miles. That’s not a reality we are comfortable with.”
A Cuban Foreign Ministry spokesperson denied reports of plans to launch drone strikes on American territory, calling them a “fabricated pretext” to justify U.S. sanctions and military pressure. The very fact of the intelligence leak, however, is telling — it is part of the mutual muscle-flexing.
Geopolitical backdrop
The Cuba crisis of May 2026 is not confined to a bilateral U.S.-Cuba confrontation. The Russian factor is clearly visible.
U.S. intelligence is tracking that the Cuban military is requesting additional deliveries of drones and military equipment from Russia. Furthermore, according to Axios, Cuban intelligence is actively studying Iran’s experience in resisting the American war machine. By some estimates, as many as 5,000 Cuban nationals may have taken part in the war in the Ukrainian theater, subsequently briefing Cuba’s military leadership on the effectiveness of drone deployment in modern conflicts.
Significantly, among the demands Ratcliffe conveyed to the Cuban side was a requirement to cease the activities of Russian and Chinese intelligence facilities on Cuban territory. In this context, one should consider the 2023 statement by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov: “Military contacts [with Latin American countries] exist, and they will continue. This is an important, yet only one, link… Our relations with these countries, with our key allies and partners in the region, are much broader and richer than military contacts and military-technical cooperation.”
Cuba is balancing between military threat and diplomatic maneuver. The CIA director’s sudden visit to Havana, staged as a show of force (including the presence of an operative who took part in Maduro’s abduction), paradoxically testifies more to a search for a way out of an impasse than to preparation for an inevitable war. Washington finds itself in a situation where economic suffocation is not yielding the desired political result, while a military adventure carries unacceptable risks.
Trump needs a victory — especially with midterm congressional elections looming in November 2026. But Cuba is not Venezuela, and repeating the “Venezuela scenario” here would inevitably result in a bloodbath, capable of sinking the political prospects of both the president and the Republicans as a whole. That is precisely why, for now, all the steam is still blowing out the whistle.
Comments