On March 16 Cuba’s national electricity grid failed for the third time in four months, leaving about 10 million people in the dark for more than 29 hours. Hospitals ran on backup generators, water pumps stopped, and trash piled up where collection trucks have not run for weeks.

What broke first: fuel, not wires

The immediate trigger was a fuel shortage that has been building since January, after the United States moved to cut off oil supplies to Cuba following the kidnapping of Venezuela’s president. Mexico, which had become Cuba’s biggest crude supplier and provided roughly 44 percent of its imports in 2025, stopped deliveries when faced with the threat of U.S. tariffs.

Put simply: less fuel meant less power generation, and a brittle electricity system collapsed under the strain.

Six decades of pressure, and the latest squeeze

This pressure on Cuba is not new. U.S. policy since the 1960s has included a full trade embargo and measures such as the Helms-Burton Act. A U.N. General Assembly debate in 2024 heard Cuban officials claim cumulative losses from the embargo of about US$1.5 trillion.

The Biden-era diplomatic openings were reversed by the previous administration, and in January 2026 a new executive order effectively imposed a fuel blockade. U.N. human rights experts called that move a serious violation of international law. At the same time, a war in the Middle East sent Brent crude prices above US$110 a barrel, making the squeeze harder to absorb.

The politics of tough talk

With U.S. midterm elections approaching and presidential approval ratings under pressure, rhetoric in Washington has hardened. On January 28, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a Senate committee he did not have plans to topple Cuba’s government but said he wanted the regime to change. By March, the president was quoted asserting he could do “anything” with Cuba because it was weakened.

That kind of language contradicts basic principles of the United Nations Charter and raises questions about respect for international and domestic legal commitments. It also matters that domestic institutions in the United States have shown signs of strain: the 2026 V-Dem report classified the country as an electoral democracy only, noting it is close to autocracy.

Quiet diplomacy, loud consequences

Behind the public rhetoric, quieter channels are at work. Reports describe a back-channel between U.S. officials and members of Cuba’s revolutionary family, with Washington pressing for political change as a condition for any deal. Cuba’s president pushed back strongly, accusing the U.S. of trying to seize the country under the cover of economic hardship and promising resistance.

Pressure on multiple fronts

  • Medical cooperation and revenue: Washington has pushed other governments to end health agreements with Havana, cutting a key source of foreign income. At its peak, Cuban medical missions included about 24,000 professionals working in 56 countries.
  • Allies and workarounds: Russia dispatched a tanker carrying roughly 730,000 barrels of crude expected in early April. Another vessel carrying Russian diesel was diverted to Trinidad and Tobago after U.S. financial rules blocked shipments to Cuba.
  • China’s role and renewables: Beijing helped Cuba connect 49 new solar parks to the grid in a year, increasing solar power from about 5.8 percent to over 20 percent of generation. That progress matters, but it does not solve immediate shortages.
  • Domestic production: Cuba produces roughly 40 percent of its own oil, which helps but leaves a large gap when imports are cut off and global prices spike.

International solidarity has appeared in small but visible acts. On March 20, a convoy called Nuestra América reached Havana with 650 delegates from 33 countries carrying about 20 tonnes of humanitarian aid. The gesture underscored how urgent the situation has become.

Three broad scenarios

It is impossible to predict the future with certainty, but three possible paths look plausible:

  • Strangulation plus bargaining: Continued economic pressure combined with behind-the-scenes negotiations could produce a deal that Washington sells domestically as a victory.
  • Destabilization: The blockade and worsening conditions could trigger unrest that weakens or topples the government. The March 16 blackout already saw protesters attack a Communist Party office in a central city.
  • Use of force: If an incident presents a pretext and the administration chooses a military option, a sudden show of force is possible, especially given some U.S. officials’ hawkish tendencies.

Key signals to watch are the speed of negotiations, how the Middle East conflict affects oil markets, and whether Washington eases or intensifies its demands.

Who pays the price

Whatever happens, ordinary Cubans are already paying the cost: hospital backups, water shortages, overflowing trash and the daily grind of unreliable power. Many decisions shaping this crisis are tied more to political calculations in Washington than to international law or humanitarian concerns.

That matters. When the debate is about elections and leverage, the human consequences can be immediate and long lasting.