Cuba's Final Communist Hours

Dear all,

We welcome you to the Greater Caribbean Monitor (GCaM).

Today's edition almost got delayed. For a good portion of the week, it seemed like we were having a flashback from January 2 or February 27, when a tense wait foretold a shocking aftermath on Saturday morning. But it didn't happen. For now, Cuba is still under the communist regime's rule, but it is definitely different around the Palacio de la Revolución, for everyone knows this won't last much longer.

Everything points to the same thing: the regime's collapse is imminent, and, perhaps, it will happen in the following days… or hours, even. We do not know the time or the shape of what will happen, but something will. We would have loved to bring you the news today, but the stars didn't align as they did back in January and February. But stay tuned, because when it happens, our analysis will be in your inbox as soon as possible; and, as always, it will be as good an analysis as you can get out there.

In this issue, you will find:

• Cuba Will Fall, the Question Is How

• America Is Going Digital

• Bracing for Junk: Parallel Liquidity and Structural Imbalances in Mexico

As always, please feel free to share GCaM with your friends and colleagues. We all, at the GCaM team, wish you a good weekend.

If you’ve been forwarded this newsletter, you may click here to subscribe.

The clock is ticking on Cuba, and this time, it appears to be definitive: the Cuban regime could be decapitated in the following days.

In perspective. The coordinated release of a major public address by Secretary of State Marco Rubio alongside the formal U.S. indictment against Raúl Castro this week did not look accidental. In Washington, timing is rarely random, and in the context of the accelerating Cuban crisis, the message increasingly appears to be that the Trump administration has entered a new phase in its approach toward Havana.

• Cuba is facing the deepest structural collapse it has experienced since the fall of the Soviet Union, but unlike the Special Period of the 1990s, this crisis arrives with far fewer escape valves.

• Venezuelan oil support has deteriorated dramatically, Russian assistance remains limited and inconsistent, and the island’s internal productive capacity has continued to erode under years of infrastructural decay, mass migration, and administrative paralysis. At the same time, the geopolitical environment surrounding Cuba has changed.

• The White House no longer appears interested in coexistence management or gradual normalization, but rather in forcing an irreversible political outcome while the regime is at its weakest point in decades. Uncle Sam has put their name at the top of his list.

Between the lines. Rubio’s speech this week was important not simply because of its tone, but because of its framing. Rather than presenting Cuba as a long-term diplomatic challenge, he framed the current moment as an active transition point in hemispheric security and openly described the Cuban regime as increasingly unsustainable.

• The language was unusually direct even by Rubio standards, especially when paired with the Justice Department’s indictment against Raúl Castro and other senior regime figures tied to narcotrafficking and transnational criminal structures.

• The signal transforms the conversation from ideological hostility into institutional targeting.

How it works. The Trump administration appears to be converging several pressure mechanisms simultaneously: economic strangulation, legal delegitimization, psychological pressure and military ambiguity. None of these necessarily imply an imminent invasion, but together they create the conditions for accelerated regime fracture.

• The energy collapse remains the central variable. Cuba has spent months suffering severe fuel shortages, blackouts lasting up to 20 hours in some regions, collapsing transportation systems, and growing disruptions in hospitals and schools.

• Unlike previous crises, the regime now faces these conditions while internet penetration has significantly expanded social visibility into state failure. The government no longer controls the informational environment the way it once did.

Why it matters. Authoritarian resilience depends not only on coercion, but on perception. Once the population begins to internalize that the state may no longer be capable of maintaining basic order, fear barriers erode rapidly. At the same time, Washington increasingly appears to believe that the Cuban leadership itself is fragmented. The public indictment against Raúl Castro is particularly relevant in that sense.

• Beyond the legal dimension, indictments of this nature serve a strategic purpose.

• They isolate actors inside the regime, increase mistrust within elite networks and complicate the possibility of negotiated exits.

• In practical terms, they force regime insiders to begin calculating personal survival independently.

Hidden in plain sight. The real question is probably no longer whether the United States wants political change in Cuba, but what type of transition it believes is viable. At this time, invasion seems inevitable; several insiders, as well as Senators, confirm Cuba will likely fall in the following days. A full-scale Iraq-style military invasion remains highly unlikely. The political and logistical costs would be enormous even against a militarily weak adversary. However, that does not mean military pressure is irrelevant. The ambiguity itself is part of the strategy.

• Over the past weeks, the information environment surrounding Cuba has become saturated with speculation about possible U.S. operations, Southern Command activity and contingency planning.

• Some of it is clearly exaggerated social media hysteria. Some of it likely reflects deliberate signaling.

• The objective may not necessarily be immediate intervention, but rather to convince actors inside the Cuban state that Washington is prepared to escalate further if collapse accelerates. That creates incentives for internal fragmentation.

How it works. The most realistic scenario may therefore not be a conventional invasion, but a controlled internal rupture: sectors of the military and economic elite distancing themselves from Díaz-Canel while negotiating survival guarantees with Washington. In many ways, this resembles the logic increasingly discussed around post-Maduro Venezuela: not a clean democratic revolution, but a managed transition where parts of the old regime survive in exchange for opening the system.

• That possibility also explains why the administration seems increasingly focused on individuals tied to the Castro power structure rather than solely on ideological rhetoric.

• According to our intelligence reports, the path would follow a similar route to that of Maduro regarding Raúl Castro. The U.S. does need the symbolic image of a Castro behind bars, even if he is 94 years old.

In conclusion. Trump enters the second half of 2026 under growing political pressure. The Iran conflict has damaged the perception of strategic control, energy prices remain politically dangerous before the midterms, and the administration needs a foreign policy success that is visible, fast, and symbolically powerful. Cuba offers all three. Geographically, militarily, and economically, the island is uniquely vulnerable. Politically, the fall or transformation of the Cuban regime would represent a historic victory for the American right and particularly for figures like Rubio, whose political identity has long been tied to the Cuban issue.

• None of this guarantees an imminent democratic transition. Authoritarian systems often survive longer than expected precisely because collapse appears inevitable.

• But the convergence of structural exhaustion inside Cuba and escalating pressure from Washington has created a dynamic that increasingly resembles an endgame rather than another cyclical crisis.

• For the first time in many years, the question surrounding Cuba may no longer be whether the regime survives indefinitely, but whether its governing elite can still control the terms of what comes next.

The American continent is advancing towards becoming a technological giant, even if the progress is slow.

In perspective. The global race for influence is no longer fought only through military alliances, industrial capacity or energy corridors. Increasingly, it is being shaped through digital trade architecture: the agreements that regulate data flows, digital services, e-commerce, cybersecurity standards and the movement of technological capital across borders. In that context, this ranking reveals something important: the Americas are positioning themselves far more competitively than many assume.

• At first glance, the presence of Chile and Peru among countries with the most digital trade agreements may seem like a regional anomaly. Latin America is rarely associated with leadership in digital governance.

• The conversation around the region still tends to revolve around commodities, migration, political instability or security crises.

• Yet Chile’s 15 agreements and Peru’s 12 place them above or alongside several much larger economies, reflecting a long-term strategic understanding that future trade will increasingly be digital rather than purely physical.

Yes, but. The real story becomes clearer when viewed continentally. The United States, Canada, Chile, and Peru all appear on the list independently. Together, they form one of the most interconnected digital blocs in the world. North and South America are not competing only in manufacturing or raw materials anymore; they are increasingly integrating into the infrastructure of the digital economy itself, and digital trade agreements are not merely symbolic documents.

• They shape who controls data governance, digital taxation, fintech interoperability, AI regulation, cloud infrastructure, and cross-border technological services. In practical terms, they define who participates in the next phase of globalization.

Why it matters. This is particularly significant instantly when Europe remains heavily regulatory, China pushes state-centered digital sovereignty, and much of the developing world risks technological dependence. The Americas, by contrast, are quietly building a more open and commercially integrated digital ecosystem stretching from Canada to the Pacific coast of South America.

• Chile’s role is especially notable. Despite its size, it has positioned itself as one of the most globally connected digital economies in the Western Hemisphere, reflecting decades of trade-oriented institutional policy.

• Peru’s inclusion also signals that digital integration is no longer confined to the region’s largest economies, but is becoming part of a broader strategic shift across the Pacific-facing Americas.

• The United States appearing lower than Singapore or the European Union does not necessarily indicate weakness. Rather, it reflects Washington’s tendency to project digital influence through broader trade frameworks and corporate dominance instead of standalone digital agreements alone.

In conclusion. Overall, the graph points toward a larger geopolitical reality: the Americas are adapting to the digital century faster than many expected. In a world increasingly defined by data rather than geography alone, that may become one of the continent’s greatest strategic advantages.

Mexico’s sovereign credit landscape faces a sharp correction as major rating agencies reassess the country’s fiscal trajectory. In May 2026, Moody’s Ratings downgraded Mexico to Baa3, bringing its rating to the lowest tier of investment grade, while S&P Global shifted its outlook to negative. This coordinated institutional alarm reflects deep-seated anxieties over structural fiscal deficits and decelerating economic growth, specifically under Morena’s governing logic.

• The correction signals that the market is no longer willing to discount the expanding macroeconomic imbalances of the current political model.

In perspective. The downgrade to Baa3 places Mexico just one notch above speculative grade, reflecting a structural deterioration that has accelerated under the Morena administration. While the government has pledged fiscal discipline, its rigid policy architecture prevents meaningful consolidation. The causal drivers behind this institutional shift combine deteriorating growth dynamics with widening public spending commitments. By prioritizing state-driven energy sovereignty and unbacked redistributive models, Morena has anchored Mexico to an aggravating structural dilemma that limits fiscal flexibility and elevates sovereign risk.

• The downgrade aligns Moody’s with Fitch’s BBB- rating, meaning two major rating agencies now position Mexico on the absolute threshold of junk status.

• The fiscal deficit for 2025 concluded at 4.9% of GDP, substantially overshooting the administration’s initial 3.9% consolidation target.

• Real GDP growth projections for 2026 have been slashed to below 1.0%, choking off revenue generation while public debt service burdens continue to escalate.

In perspective. Mexico’s current fiscal strain is deeply rooted in historical vulnerabilities, specifically a persistent labor informality rate and the chronic mismanagement of Pemex, which has mutated into a permanent drain on public funds. However, the Morena administration has dramatically exacerbated these weaknesses by cementing severe rigidity into federal spending. By rapidly expanding universal welfare transfers without broadening the country’s narrow tax base, the state has locked in high expenditures against a backdrop of sluggish economic growth. This fiscal vulnerability is compounded by sweeping institutional changes, particularly a judicial reform that introduces party politics into judicial elections, undermining investor confidence just as external geopolitical shifts and global macroeconomic pressures demand maximum internal resilience.

• Labor informality undercuts revenue generation, forcing a narrow segment of the formal economy to sustain an expanding and structurally rigid welfare state.

• The judicial reform compromises institutional stability by making court appointments vulnerable to partisan electoral dynamics, deteriorating the long-term outlook for foreign direct investment.

• Severe budget rigidity leaves Mexico with virtually no fiscal buffers to absorb exogenous macroeconomic shocks, such as tightening U.S. trade policy or global monetary shifts.

Between the lines. The intersection of institutional insolvency and security breakdown is starkly visible within Pemex, where massive financial debt and snowballing supplier arrears have deepened its structural dependence on federal capital injections. This operational decay leaves critical energy infrastructure highly exposed to huachicol – the illegal siphoning, theft and black-market commerce of refined hydrocarbons. Operating within an inelastic domestic market, this shadow economy creates a highly liquid, cash-rich ecosystem that is further augmented by fraudulent fuel imports designed to bypass state excise taxes. Ultimately, the combination of administrative mismanagement and the political dynamics surrounding the Morena administration and its links to narcotrafficking has transformed Pemex’s structural vulnerabilities into a massive financial lifeline for organized crime, severely complicating Mexico’s fiscal status and compounding the credit risks borne by sovereign debtholders.

• Huachicol networks leverage sophisticated logistical capacity and underground tunnels to siphon fuel, feeding an insulated parallel economy backed by rigid consumer demand.

• Pemex lost an estimated USD 3.8B to fuel theft and illicit imports between 2019 and 2024, directly harming corporate cash flow and bleeding state tax revenues, while providing a market in which organized crime can thrive.

• This black-market liquidity subsidizes criminal autonomy while eroding institutional trust, placing severe long-term pressure on the federal government to guarantee Pemex’s outstanding liabilities.

In conclusion. Mexico’s fiscal stability is entering a high-risk zone where ideological policy rigidities actively deepen long-standing structural vulnerabilities. This self-inflicted insulation prevents the country from capitalizing on a high-revenue global energy market driven by geopolitical tensions involving Iran, an opportunity entirely squandered by Pemex’s operational paralysis.

• Instead of securing sovereign windfalls, the current policy matrix has inadvertently sustained a parallel, cash-rich illicit energy market domestically, pushed into high returns by international conditions.

• Ultimately, by failing to leverage international market dynamics while compounding local imbalances, the administration leaves sovereign debtholders exposed to an increasingly defensive macroeconomic outlook.