"Make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE"

"It is inconceivable ... that there is enough opposition in Cuba [to allow for a smooth regime change operation]."

"Since 1960 the U.S. has pursued a strategy to bring about the complete economic suffocation of Cuba in order to precipitate regime change."

"The Cubans wrote the rule book on resilience [and should not be underestimated]." 

Helen Yaffe, professor of Latin American political economy, University of Glasgow 

 

"[Maduro's forced exile to the U.S.] helps Cuba greatly."

"[The absence of a Venezuelan government that] funnels oil revenue into ... the dictatorship in Havana [used to] fill the coffers [of Cuban government functionaries and fund] repression ... against the Cuban people [would be a particularly positive development]."

Allan Collazo, executive director, Cuban Freedom March 

 

"[For] relations between the U.S. and Cuba to progress, they must be based on international law rather than hostility, threats, and economic coercion."

"We have always been willing to hold a serious and responsible dialogue with the various U.S. governments, including the current one, on the basis of sovereign equality, mutual respect, principles of International Law, and mutual benefit without interference in internal affairs and with full respect for our independence."

Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel 

People hold flags and light up their phones outside the U.S. consulate during a rally in support of nationwide protests in Iran, in Milan, Italy, January 13, 2026. REUTERS/Claudia Greco

Following the U.S. attack on Caracas, and the spiriting away of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the world waited with bated breath for the mercurial president of the United States to act on his implied threats to Cuba, who gloated that Cuba "now has no income", inferring a severe reduction of oil from Venezuela to Cuba. In the wake of the Trump warning that Cuba must "make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE", Cuba's president issued a number of brief statements. Making it clear that Cuba's dignity as a nation must be respected.

 

A delusional hope, in view of the character of the man whose respect for international norms in global relations between states he might hope to appeal to. Relations between socialist/communist-branded Venezuela and Cuba are guaranteed to become more bitterly soured given the new more forceful political climate exemplified by the U.S. administration, representing a due absence from regard as national governments to be respected by the U.S. government under President Donald J. Trump. 

 

Patriotic Cubans mounted organized large-scale protests encouraged by their government before the U.S. Embassy in Havana as President Diaz-Canel demanded the liberation of his Venezuelan counterpart from U.S. custody, calling for an end to "Yankee imperialism". An event and statement guaranteed to elicit contempt and anger from the  target of their criticism that would certainly not endear them to the man who potentially holds the direction of their near future in his irascible hands.

 

Despite decades of an economic strategy that has strangled the island state's finances, the country has still managed to forge neighbourly alliances with like-minded governments prepared to provide support both practical and sympathetically symbolic. The 35,000 barrels a day Cuba was receiving from Venezuela augmented by about 5,500 barrels daily from Mexico and about 7,500 from Russia certainly helped Cuba to scrape by. 

 

While deigning not to provide data on oil shipments or commit to increasing them to Cuba, Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum stated that aid from Mexico to Cuba "has been ongoing for a long time; it's not new". But it would newly place her and Mexico on Mr. Trump's crosshair sighting for possible reprisals, just as he has penalized countries committing oil transactions with Iran, with punitive increased trade tariffs. 

 

 Cuba's widespread blackouts resulting from fuel shortages despite the oil provided by its friendly allies, along with its aging electric grid, will now impact the country's economy even more stringently than previously. According to Cuba's own admission, U.S. sanctions have cost the country over $7.5 billion in the period between March 2024 and February 2025 alone. And no one can really discount the possibility of an invasion of some meaningful measure, given rising tensions between Washington and Havana.

 

Confirming that 32 members of its armed forces and intelligence agencies were killed in  the U.S. operation that captured the Venezuelan leader, elicited a response from President Trump: "Cuba lived, for many years, on large amounts of OIL and MONEY from Venezuela. In return, Cuba provided 'Security Services' for the last two Venezuelan dictators, BUT NOT ANYMORE! THERE WILL BE NO MORE OIL OR MONEY GOING TO CUBA – ZERO! I strongly suggest they make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE."

 

Getty Images

"Cuba has neither received nor ever received monetary or material compensation for the security services it has provided to any country."

"Unlike the U.S., we do not have a government that lends itself to mercenarism, blackmail, or military coercion against other States."

"Like any country, Cuba has the absolute right to import fuel from those markets willing to export it and that exercise their own right to develop their trade relations without interference or subordination to the unilateral coercive measures of the US."

"Right and justice are on Cuba's side. The US behaves like a criminal and uncontrolled hegemon that threatens peace and security, not only in Cuba and this hemisphere, but in the entire world."

Cuban Foreign Minister, Bruno Rodriguez

 

 

Acquiring Greenland: Coercion or Military Action

"RUSSIA AND CHINA HAVE ZERO FEAR OF NATO WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES, AND I DOUBT NATO WOULD BE THERE FOR US IF WE REALLY NEEDED THEM."

"We will always be there for NATO, even if they won't be there for us."

"We are going to do something on Greenland whether they like it or not. Because if we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor."

"I would like to make a deal the easy way, but if we don’t do it the easy way we’re going to do it the hard way."

"You defend ownership. You don’t defend leases. And we’ll have to defend Greenland. If we don’t do it, China or Russia will. Not going to happen."

"I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do with, you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document [expanding its leased military base in Greenland]." 

"We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark isn't going to be able to do it. It's so strategic."

U.S. President Donald Trump

 

"If the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops."

"That is, including our NATO and thus the security that has been provided since the end of the Second World War."

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen

 

"The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course,  utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the commander-in-chief's disposal."

"[The president and his national security aides are] looking at what a potential purchase would look like."  

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt 

The Aurora Borealis (Northern Lights) is seen behind a building with social housings with a mural in Nuuk, Greenland. REUTERS/Hannibal Hanschke/

 

Clearly, Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen's statement that the U.S. in agitating to take over Denmark's Greenland territory would result in the dissolution of the military alliance of NATO did not sit well with President Trump. There are dim echoes of his persistent declarations of security demanding U.S. total possession of the island -- not that its abundance of rich resources in rare earth minerals doesn't come far behind in a race with China over the wherewithal to produce electronics -- with the Third Reich's 1938 insistence that security and protection of German Sudetenlanders made it imperative to force its surrender from Czechoslovakia. When Europe, represented by Britain and France, boasted that by persuading Czechoslovakia to voluntarily hand it to Germany 'war was avoided'.

 

Fast forward to the present, and Europe is once again faced with a similar conundrum; avoiding military conflict to preserve the military alliance of NATO. And although a Europe, nervous in the wake of the U.S. night-time bombing of Venezuela and the scooping up of Maduro and wife, signalling that the U.S. is on a roll, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Britain and Denmark responded to the tense situation in support of Greenland and Denmark alone deciding the trajectory of their joint relations.

 

Now, discreet White House sources whisper of internal discussions with respect to the potential of 'buying' Greenland through lump sum payments, where guidelines revolving around $100,000-per-person payments which would cumulatively result in a total payout close to $6 billion may be a solution but one still in essence 'forced' on an obviously reluctant Denmark and Greenland. Greenlanders in particular are far more invested in their total independence, yet would still prefer a linkage with Denmark over the United States.

 

A woman walks near a church in Nuuk, the capital of Greenland. Photograph: Evgeniy Maloletka/AP

 

Although the White House has not totally discounted the possibility of 'military intervention', there are those who have declared a definite preference for paying for the island outright, if not acquiring it through diplomatic negotiations. Only one of which choices would force NATO to make good on its mutual-defence mechanism, Article 5. Its lone invocation and action took place after the shock waves of 11 September 2001. On such an occasion where a member of NATO -- its most powerful and influential member -- itself would take hostile military action against another member, the very thought of a unified reaction is out of the question, altogether neutering the group.

 

The always-mercurial Donald Trump remains aggrieved with another NATO founding member whose Nobel Committee deigned to overlook the American president's qualifications to be chosen as 2025's outstanding nominee for the Peace Prize; a "foolish" decision, he said scornfully. When Nicolas Maduro was captured by military force, Europe nervously eyed the potential for Mr. Trump's next acquisitive eye in his increasingly unrestrained willingness to deploy the U.S. military to achieve  his ends.

 

The joint warning issued by European leaders reminding the American president that the territorial integrity of Greenland and Denmark must be respected would no doubt have fallen on Mr. Trump's notice as a particularly grievous irritant. More so, the nudge to his consciousness that as part of the Kingdom of Denmark, Greenland falls under NATO's defence umbrella, with NATO allies collectively prepared to achieve Arctic security. 

 

Greenland and Denmark have rejected Trump's offer to buy the semi-autonomous territory   Reuters

 

 

Buying Bragging Rights

"It is noteworthy that he is the owner of one of these tech platforms and has been so out front and vocal for a specific candidate and prominent as a donor; you don't typically see that combination."

"It is a true disruption of campaign finance and how donors approach this."

EricWilson, Republican digital strategist, executive director, Center for Campaign Innovation

Elon Musk with his son X Æ A-12 on Capitol Hill. Samuel Corum/Getty Images

American politics was always funded by wealthy donors declaring their dedication to America as staunch patriots, with more than a soupcon of personal interest in deriving benefits from whichever party they supported that once in office might enact laws, rules and regulations impacting on their industries, incomes, lifestyles. In the past ten years or so, amounts have vastly ballooned. The jaded might feel that the presidency is for sale. Yet people of wealth and influence have always had the  upper track in political outcomes. It's just that in this particular election year that saw a Democratic president unseated and a Republican past-president returned to office, the scale of political donations was truly spectacular.

The choices were, to many voters, as lacklustre as the two elections that preceded this one. Candidates that in one way or another failed to reflect qualities that most reasonable people might expect of a president. Entitlements, corruption, character, background, reputation and past transgressions all pay a role in choices, and this election was no different, other than the fact that perhaps both candidates wore their negatives in the hope that their positives would outglow the other's.

The issue of political donations and their end effect on the final results of any election is controversial. As long as they're aboveboard and fall within the election laws to pass muster, there should be no issue. But this year it's the spectacular total of the donations to the Republic campaign in support of Donald Trump along with other candidates for the Republican party on the part of the world's wealthiest man who just happens to be an American whose celebrity owes to his wealth and his enterprises that has taken top news spots.

 

Still from video, ABC News

 

Most people still think that a million dollars is a lot of money, a sum that the average person could live comfortably on. The news that at least $277 million of Elon Musk's total wealth, the richest man in the world, went to support the Republican election campaign for 2024, revealed by findings of the Federal Election Commission still took the political world by surprise. Musk, who lacks little in his life, a bold entrepreneur with a wide vision in advanced technology in road vehicles and rocketry reaching for the stars, now has a star role in a new Donald J. Trump White House administration.

A Musk super PAC established to support Republican candidates received the lion's share of the multi billionaire's donations, giving it the financial impetus to operate a significant get-out-the-vote operation supporting Donald Trump. Musk has used his ownership of the social media platform, 'X' to boost support for Trump's presidential campaign, lauding his sterling qualities and presenting the man as the answer to America's ills -- primarily its move to quash the soft-woke left. 

 

Trump's America PAC received close to $45 million, presumably to handle election expenses. The outcome of the November 5 election was owed in some small part without doubt, to the vigour that $232 million pumped into the election campaign, with another $20.5 million to a PAC whose purpose was solely to assure voters that Donald Trump's signature would never grace a national ban on abortion.

 

Now, Elon Musk has been given a challenge in the incoming administration; his skill-set in business, technology, salesmanship, and investment successes certainly qualify him for a position as co-chair with Vivek Ramaswamy of a non-governmental commission named the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to develop strategies recommending paring down federal spending and regulations.

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk jumps on stage as he joins former US President and Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump during a campaign rally in Butler, Pa., on Oct. 5, 2024.   Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

So ... What Happened?

"We overcame obstacles that nobody thought possible and it is now clear that we've achieved the most incredible political thing, look what happened, is this crazy? But it's a political victory that our country has never seen before, nothing like this."

"I want to thank the American people for the extraordinary honour of being elected your 47th president and your 45th president."

"And every citizen, I will fight for you, for your family and your future, every single day I will be fighting for you with every breath in my body. I will not rest until we have delivered the strong, safe and prosperous America that our children deserve and that you deserve."

Former President/President-elect Donald Trump, 6 November 2024

President-elect Donald J. Trump with Susie Wiles at an election watch party in West Palm Beach, Fla., on Tuesday.    Credit...Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times

He is a man of impeachable coarseness, vain and intractable, convinced of his unerring ability to make the right choices in any situation. He is a felon, a braggart, a bully, a sexual predator and an adversary of anyone who might criticize him, his lifestyle, his personality, his business acumen, his lack of diplomacy, his belief that he is America's saviour. The world winced when he was first elected president of the United States of America; he was critical of all Western international organizations, and no one could predict how he would react to any given situation. And now, he's back.

 

He's back promising more of the same, but perhaps not quite more of the very same. The truth is, Americans -- enough American voters -- were fed up with the Democratic penchant to cater to those within their party steeped deep in Critical Race Theory, DEI and the wokeness that targeted the average American who got tired of accusations that being white was a crime against humanity and failing to believe that biology was out and LGBTQ-2 was very well established, despite which it needed constant catering to. 

The tide against a resurgent Trump presidency stumbled on the shoal of a replacement Democratic candidate to the incumbent Biden. There was an instant frenetic buzz and flyaway spirits of rejoicing when Kamala Harris was placed front-and-center in a campaign that raised an astonishing $1 billion electioneering war chest in a sweep of jubilant admiration for the new candidate. Airwaves and screens featured ebullient campaign ads partnered by a frenzied travel schedule throughout the nation.

Celebrities staged support for Vice-President Kamala Harris. Two social media giants joined the fray; Bill Gates gifted $50 million to the Harris campaign, while Elon Musk used  his social media platform to plump for Donald Trump. And Kamala Harris chirped happily about the ills of society that she was prepared to address and set on another, winning track. She promised the electorate that she would, as president, represent all Americans, 'even those who did not vote for me'. Isn't that the primary function of any chief executive in political power?

 

Trump Campaign Homepage

 

And, then ... a Republican victory, Kamala Harris fully rejected by an America that worried about the economy, about the never-ending surge of illegal migrants, about rampant crime. about involvement in foreign conflicts; none of which fundamental issues were ever seriously addressed by Kamala Harris. Three in ten voters expressed a wish to have the country's priorities undergo deep change, to address their real concerns. A survey of over 120,000 voters nationwide by AP VoteCast illustrated that voters were looking for substantial change.

Economic conditions, inflation and the illegal immigration file trumped abortion access and concerns over a sense of dwindling democracy. Trump supporters were convinced that candidate Trump was more likely to be capable of successfully tackling these challenges than his Democratic challenger. Three in ten voters  agreed that their financial situation was "falling behind". Although close to 50% of voters were "very concerned" another Trump presidency would bring with it authoritarianism, within that group one in ten voted for him.

 

Of the six in ten voters who felt Trump is dishonest and untrustworthy, two in ten in the group nevertheless voted for him.  Nine in ten voters responded very or somewhat concerned with the cost of food while eight in ten felt concerned about health-care costs, housing costs, and the cost of energy.  Almost half of voters under 30 cast their vote for Trump, a reversal from the past pattern. Young men and women differed on which candidate they would vote for; six in ten women aged 18 to 29 voted for Harris; over half of men in that age category backed Trump

Immigrants living illegally in the United States, according to four in ten voters, should be deported back to the country they emanated from. Trump's isolationist attitude found a corresponding echo in the general public. Four in ten voters support the U.S. taking a "less active role" in involvement in the world's problems. Discontinuing U.S. aid to Ukraine in its struggle against the Russian invasion is supported by most of Trump's backers. On the other hand, Trump voters in the majority favoured a continuation of aid to Israel in its war with Hamas and Hezbollah. 

So, that's what happened...