When the United States intervened militarily in Venezuela on January 3, removing President Nicolas Maduro from power, the immediate geopolitical shock waves were felt across Latin America. But perhaps nowhere has the fallout been more devastating than in Cuba, where the loss of Venezuelan oil has triggered a cascading energy crisis culminating in Monday's total grid collapse.
The chain of events reads like a strategic playbook. Venezuela's 35,000 barrels per day — half of Cuba's oil supply — vanished overnight. Mexico, under intense US pressure including tariff threats, cut its 22,000-barrel daily shipments to zero by January 27. President Claudia Sheinbaum called it "a sovereign decision," though analysts note the timing aligned precisely with US demands. Then came Trump's January 29 executive order, sanctioning any country that provided fuel to Cuba.
The result: Cuba lost approximately 90 percent of its fuel supply in under a month.
"If oil supply were to cease entirely, the Cuban economy would grind to a halt," warned Pavel Vidal, a former Cuban central bank economist. That prediction has now materialized. Cuba was already in its sixth consecutive year of recession, lacking the productive capacity or foreign currency reserves to compensate for the loss.
The energy crisis has exposed the fundamental fragility of Cuba's infrastructure. William LeoGrande of American University describes the grid as "way past its normal useful life," calling Cuba's technicians "magicians to keep it running." Those magicians have run out of tricks. Before Monday's total collapse, the island was generating barely half the electricity it needed.
Russia, Cuba's other major ally, pledged additional oil shipments but has delivered little. The US has already seized Russian tankers bound for Venezuela, raising the stakes for any would-be supplier. Skip York of the Baker Institute was blunt: the US would intercept sanctioned tankers bound for Cuba.
The geopolitical dimensions extend further. Fernando Ferreira of the Rapidan Energy Group described potential "regime change or political change" as an outcome, framing Cuba as "the next domino" after Venezuela in the administration's regional strategy. Trump himself has been remarkably direct: "I do believe I'll be having the honor of taking Cuba. They're a very weakened nation." Senator Lindsey Graham declared Cuba's "days are numbered."
Secretary of State Marco Rubio met secretly with Raul Castro's grandson at a Caribbean Community leaders meeting in St. Kitts and Nevis, telling him Cuba "needs to change dramatically because it is the only chance that it has to improve the quality of life for its people." Rubio testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January that regime change in Cuba remains a stated US foreign policy objective.
The UN has urged restraint. Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said the Secretary-General is "extremely concerned" about conditions that "will worsen, and if not collapse, if its oil needs go unmet." The UN Resident Coordinator reported encountering "a mix of resilience, but also grief, sorrow and indignation" among Cubans.
Jorge Pinon, a Cuban energy expert at the University of Texas at Austin, frames the central question starkly: "Is the U.S. going to allow Venezuela to continue supplying Cuba with oil?" As of Monday, the answer appears to be no.
What began as a military intervention in Venezuela has metastasized into an energy siege on Cuba — one that analysts say draws direct parallels to the Monroe Doctrine. Whether this represents strategic pressure for democratic reform or an economic stranglehold on a civilian population depends entirely on where you stand. What is not in dispute is the result: 11 million people sitting in the dark, waiting for the lights to come back on.