Cuba, experiencing one of the most severe energy crises in recent years, presents a picture that reveals not only economic but also geopolitical fragility. US President Donald Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on countries selling or supplying oil to Cuba has been interpreted as a signal of “secondary sanctions,” increasing pressure on the island’s economy. Pemex, Mexico’s state-owned oil company, immediately halted crude oil shipments to Cuba following this threat, demonstrating that Washington’s message resonated at the regional level. However, during the same period, two Mexican navy ships delivered hundreds of tons of food and humanitarian aid to Havana, bringing to the fore a diplomatic maneuver that appeared contradictory at first glance.
Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel described Trump’s threats as an “energy blockade” and stated that it has had devastating effects on transportation, hospitals, schools, tourism, and food production.[1] Indeed, the announcement by airlines that they would be unable to refuel in Cuba due to fuel shortages and Air Canada’s suspension of flights demonstrate that the energy crisis is affecting not only the domestic market but also external connections. For Cuba, which is heavily dependent on tourism revenues, these developments mean a further reduction in foreign exchange inflows.
At this point, Mexico’s position is noteworthy. The Claudia Sheinbaum administration has avoided entering into a direct trade conflict with the US by suspending oil shipments on the one hand, while sending hundreds of tons of milk powder, legumes, and basic foodstuffs to Cuba on the other, sending a message of humanitarian solidarity. This two-pronged approach demonstrates that Mexico is pursuing a “policy of balance.” In other words, Mexico has chosen not to directly confront the economic pressure from the US, while also not completely severing its historical and ideological ties with Cuba.
When the assumption that halting oil flows aims to counter potential sanctions from the US is accepted, the question of whether humanitarian aid shipments will generate similar diplomatic tension becomes important. This situation can be explained by the difference between the legal framework of international sanctions regimes and their political implementation practices. The area threatened by the US is directly energy trade; that is, oil sales or supply have been made subject to economic sanctions. Humanitarian aid, however, is a category generally excluded from sanctions under international law. Mexico is consciously exploiting this distinction; by halting oil supplies, it minimizes the risk of sanctions, while continuing humanitarian aid, projecting a “solidarity-based” profile both to its domestic public and to regional actors in Latin America. This situation demonstrates that Mexico is maintaining its economic integration with the US while also symbolically continuing its traditional diplomatic support for Cuba.
However, it cannot be said that this strategy is entirely risk-free. It would be wise not to overlook the possibility that the Trump administration’s sanctions policy could expand and that humanitarian aid could be used as a means of political pressure. However, at this stage, Washington’s priority appears to be cutting off energy flows. This is because the most vulnerable point in the Cuban economy is energy supply. The decline in oil shipments from Venezuela and Russia’s reluctance to make a clear commitment have left Havana facing serious isolation.
On the Russian front, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov’s statement that “these issues cannot be discussed in public” shows that Moscow does not want to escalate tensions with the US through direct energy intervention.[2] This means that Cuba cannot obtain a clear energy guarantee even from its traditional allies. Therefore, Cuba’s immediate future can be said to depend largely on three factors: the scope of US sanctions policy, the room for maneuver of regional actors such as Mexico, and whether alternative energy supply routes can be found.
From an economic perspective, the restriction of fuel sales to 20 liters per person and the pricing in dollars demonstrates the deepening of a de facto dual currency system and income inequality in Cuba. While segments with access to dollars can purchase fuel, the general public faces long shortages and transportation problems. The reduction of bank working hours and the suspension of cultural events reveal that the state has adopted austerity and control policies in its crisis management. However, such measures may increase social discontent in the long term.
The first of the possible scenarios for the near future is that Cuba will turn to limited economic reforms in order to manage its energy crisis. Relaxing the state-controlled economic model, expanding the private sector in certain areas, and encouraging diaspora investments may be on the agenda. The second scenario could be the opening of indirect channels of negotiation with the US. Mexico’s emphasis on “peaceful dialogue” can also be interpreted as an attempt to create a platform for mediation between Havana and Washington.[3] The third and riskier scenario is that social unrest will increase as the energy shortage deepens.
Mexico’s decision to first cut off oil supplies and then send humanitarian aid can be described as a “dual message” strategy in this context. To Washington: “I understand the sanctions line and am not directly opposing it.” To Havana: “I am not leaving you completely alone.” This diplomatic balance is one of the increasingly common examples of pragmatic foreign policy in Latin America. The tension between ideological affinity and economic reality is clearly evident in Mexico’s moves.
However, it is clear that the energy crisis in Cuba cannot be explained solely by external pressures. US sanctions and secondary tariff threats have undoubtedly deepened the crisis; however, it is well known that the island’s economy has long faced structural inefficiencies, low production capacity, and chronic problems in its energy infrastructure. The central planning model’s inability to diversify energy supply, limited investment in renewable sources, and insufficient refinery capacity have increased vulnerability to external shocks. In this context, the current crisis is not only the result of geopolitical pressure; it also reveals the limitations of the economic model. If the Havana administration interprets this process solely through the lens of the “blockade” narrative and pushes the need for internal reform into the background, the crisis may recur cyclically. Therefore, the energy issue represents both a foreign policy and an economic restructuring test for Cuba.
Finally, Cuba’s immediate future will depend on whether it can stabilize its energy supply. If alternative sources cannot be found and sanctions are expanded, the island’s economy could enter a more severe contraction. However, if regional solidarity mechanisms and limited reform steps are implemented, the crisis could be managed in a controlled manner. Mexico’s humanitarian aid initiative shows that Cuba is not completely isolated, but it seems far from resolving the structural dimensions of the energy crisis. Therefore, Havana’s fundamental test in the coming period will be to develop economic flexibility and diplomatic maneuverability under external pressure.
[1] Rodríguez, Andrea, and Milexsy Durán. “2 Mexican Navy Ships Laden with Humanitarian Aid Dock in Cuba as U.S. Blockade Sparks Energy Crisis.” AP News, https://apnews.com/article/mexico-cuba-humanitarian-aid-havana-us-sanctions-52c44db94c9423511d67366662e78ac4, (Date Accessed: 15.02.2026).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
