Cuba on the Brink? Competing Visions of Crisis, Sanctions and Sovereignty

As Washington intensifies pressure on Havana following the dramatic capture of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro, Cuba has once again been thrust into the centre of geopolitical speculation. On a recent episode of Inside Story, host Adrian Finighan brought together sharply differing perspectives to examine whether Cuba is nearing collapse, and what role U.S. policy may be playing.

Joining from Havana, independent journalist Liz Oliva Fernandez painted a grim picture of daily life on the island. Widespread power outages, medicine shortages and an accelerating exodus of young Cubans, she argued, reflect a country under immense strain. While acknowledging longstanding structural problems, Fernandez placed primary responsibility on tightened U.S. sanctions, particularly those reimposed and expanded during Donald Trump’s presidency.

She contrasted today’s conditions with the period following the 2014 normalization efforts under Barack Obama, when limited engagement brought improved access to medicine, greater optimism and modest economic breathing room. “People could imagine a future here,” she said, arguing that renewed sanctions have reversed those gains and intensified suffering for ordinary Cubans rather than political elites.

Offering a starkly different view, John Suarez, executive director of the Center for a Free Cuba, contended that Havana’s leadership bears primary responsibility for the crisis. He cited decades of economic mismanagement, underinvestment in infrastructure and the expansion of military-controlled conglomerates within the Cuban economy.

Suarez argued that resources exist within Cuba to alleviate shortages, pointing to reports of significant cash reserves held by state-linked entities. He also criticized centralized agricultural controls, claiming inefficiencies lead to food waste while Cuba continues to import basic staples. From his perspective, sustained pressure is necessary to force meaningful political and economic change.

Bridging these views was Michael Shifter, senior fellow at the Inter-American Dialogue and adjunct professor at Georgetown University. Shifter described Cuba’s predicament as the product of both U.S. sanctions and entrenched domestic policies. While critical of the decades-long U.S. embargo, which he called “damaging and unwise”, he also emphasized Havana’s reluctance to pursue deeper reforms.

Shifter noted that even during periods of engagement, Cuba placed heavy restrictions on private enterprise, limiting growth and innovation. Lifting sanctions alone, he suggested, would not guarantee rapid improvement without parallel changes in governance and economic policy.

On the question of U.S. intervention, Fernandez was unequivocal. Cubans, she said, reject any externally imposed change, stressing that sovereignty remains a deeply held principle despite dissatisfaction with current conditions. Historical memory of U.S. interference continues to shape public sentiment, making military or coercive solutions deeply unpopular.

Looking ahead, Shifter expressed skepticism that current U.S. policy would produce stability. Instead, he warned that continued economic pressure could deepen hardship without toppling the government, leaving the Cuban people to bear the cost. Any meaningful turnaround, he concluded, is more likely to come from internal reforms than external force.

As Cuba faces one of its most precarious moments in decades, the debate underscores a hard reality: while blame is contested, the consequences are unmistakably human, measured in shortages, departures and fading hopes for the future.