The Cuban state and its official media described the military operation carried out by the United States (U.S.) against Venezuela on 3 January 2026 as “state terrorism” and a “criminal military attack.” Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel, in a statement delivered at the Anti-Imperialist Tribune in Havana, characterized the intervention as both a blatant violation of international law and a serious assault on regional peace. According to him, this act constitutes “a direct attack against Latin America and the Caribbean, which have been declared a ‘zone of peace.’”[i][ii]
This assessment, explicitly emphasized in the official statement disseminated via Prensa Latina and published in Granma, the official organ of the Communist Party of Cuba, maintains that the attack was not merely a military operation but also a hegemonic initiative carried out with imperialist objectives. Granma further stated that the attack constituted a threat not only to Venezuela but to the sovereignty of the entire Latin American and Caribbean region.[iii]
According to the statement of the Cuban government published in Granma, the attack forms part of a long-standing “war campaign” pursued by the United States, the objective of which is to expand imperialist control, secure access to the region’s natural resources, and eliminate alternative models of governance. This perspective constitutes the core of the official interpretation within the Cuban press regarding the motivations behind the operation.[iv]
In official Cuban statements, the U.S. action is defined as a violation of international law, an attack contrary to the Charter of the United Nations (UN), and an intervention in the sovereignty of an independent state. While conveying the remarks of Díaz-Canel, the official news agency Prensa Latina emphasizes that the justifications advanced by the United States (such as “countering narco-terrorism,” among others) are entirely unfounded and that the attack has “no just or legitimate justification whatsoever.” The Cuban leadership further underscores that the operation constitutes not merely the use of military force, but also a political intervention aimed at regime change.[v]
Within this framework, the Cuban press views the attack as a threat to international peace and security. From this perspective, the incident is understood not only as an assault on Venezuela, but as a “new hegemonic attack” directed against the entire region. In Cuban publications, this discourse is presented through a lens that treats the attack not merely as a military move, but also as an ideological and economic project.[vi]
In order to underscore the tangible human cost of the attack, Cuba also brought to the fore the number and identities of Cuban nationals killed during the operation. The Cuban government announced that 32 Cuban soldiers and security personnel had lost their lives and declared a period of national mourning. Cuban state media interpreted this event as a moment in which “the blood of brotherly peoples merged in Venezuela,” thereby reinforcing messages of solidarity and shared commitment.[vii]
This dramatic element highlighted in Cuban sources demonstrates that the attack was not merely a political act, but also a real and severe tragedy for Cuban society. These losses have become one of the most significant arguments in Havana’s official narrative for emphasizing the humanitarian dimension of the attack.
Official assessments originating from Havana emphasize that the attack is driven by the United States’ pursuit of reasserting its regional hegemony. According to the official government statement published in Granma, the objective of the attack is defined not only as gaining access to Venezuela’s natural resources—particularly its oil reserves—but also as undermining solidarity with the Bolivarian and Chavista project. For this reason, the attack is interpreted not merely as a military action, but as a strategic assault.[viii]
Within Cuban political discourse, this attack is presented as a revival of the Monroe Doctrine and an attempt by the United States to reactivate its traditional mechanisms of influence in the region. Cuban media frame the attack within a historical context, interpreting it through the long-standing trajectory of U.S.–Latin American relations.
The Díaz-Canel administration has not limited itself to condemning the attack, but has also issued a call to the international community for a strong response and solidarity. Statements published by sources such as Granma and Prensa Latina have urged other states and international organizations to take “urgent action.” This appeal aims to ensure the protection of Venezuela’s sovereignty through the United Nations and other regional institutions.
Within this framework, Cuban media emphasize that the attack is not merely a conflict between two states, but rather an assault on regional peace and international law. Among the consequences of the attack, one of the most frequently reiterated themes is that it undermines the ideal of Latin America and the Caribbean as a “zone of peace.”
For Cuba, this attack has profoundly affected the balance of power and the mechanisms of solidarity in the region. In official media, the attack is presented as an act that tests the resistance capacity of both the Venezuelan government and its Bolivarian allies. This impact represents not only a military or economic challenge, but also a test of political solidarity and regional unity.
Cuban sources interpret this development by linking it to the anti-imperialist and integrationist policies they have long advocated. In official discourse, the attack is portrayed as an event that exposes the claim of the region being declared a “zone of peace” against external interventions as an illusion.
The unusually harsh language used in Cuba regarding the U.S. attack on Venezuela cannot be explained solely by ideological solidarity or alliance ties. Rather, this stance reflects a security perception rooted in Cuba’s own historical experience. Assessments originating in Havana interpret the United States’ interventionist practices in Latin America through the lens of the military threats, economic embargo, and regime-change efforts to which Cuba has been exposed since the Cold War. Within this framework, the attack on Venezuela is positioned, from Cuba’s perspective, not merely as a regional crisis but as a contemporary reminder of potential threats to its own sovereignty and political existence. Consequently, the harsh rhetoric in the Cuban press is shaped less by external solidarity than by a defensive reflex grounded in historical memory.
[i] “Cuba Denounced the Direct Attack Against Venezuela: It Is State Terrorism.” Granma – Official Voice of the Communist Party of Cuba, en.granma.cu/cuba/2026-01-03/cuba-denounced-the-direct-attack-against-venezuela-it-is-state-terrorism (Accessed: 11.01.2026).
[ii] Prensa Latina, “Cuba Denounces Attack on Venezuela as an Act of State Terrorism.” PL English, www.plenglish.com/news/2026/01/03/cuba-denounces-attack-on-venezuela-as-an-act-of-state-terrorism/ (Accessed: 11.01.2026).
[iii] Cubaminrex, “Cuba Strongly Condemns the Cowardly Aggression of the United States against Venezuela and Expresses Its Absolute Support for That Sister Nation.” Granma, en.granma.cu/cuba/2026-01-04/cuba-strongly-condemns-the-cowardly-aggression-of-the-united-states-against-venezuela-and-expresses-its-absolute-support-for-that-sister-nation (Accessed: 11.01.2026).
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Prensa Latina, ibid.
[vi] Granma, ibid., “Cuba Denounced the Direct Attack Against Venezuela …”
[vii] Granma. “Información del Gobierno Revolucionario sobre combatientes caídos en cumplimiento de su deber en Venezuela.” Granma, www.granma.cu/cuba/2026-01-04/informacion-del-gobierno-revolucionario-sobre-combatientes-caidos-en-cumplimiento-de-su-deber-en-venezuela-04-01-2026-19-01-40 (Accessed: 11 January 2026).
[viii] Cubaminrex, ibid.
