The British newspaper describes Marco Rubio as “the political architect of the offensive against Maduro.”
MIAMI, United States – An analysis published by the British newspaper The Telegraph maintains that the offensive of the president of the United States, Donald Trump, against the regime of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela has a deeper strategic objective: to provoke a regime change in Cuba and end six decades of confrontation with Havana.
The article describes how the White House has turned the Venezuelan crisis into the privileged setting for a crusade against “socialism” on the continent. Trump, surrounded by hard-line advisors and influential Florida politicians, projects the fall of Maduro as a preliminary step to decisively weaken the Cuban government.
According to The Telegraphthe strategy towards Venezuela and Cuba is not understood without US internal policy. The newspaper emphasizes that the electoral calculation in Florida, a key state for any presidential campaign, is at the center of the White House’s decisions. The votes of Venezuelan and Cuban exiles weigh especially heavily in this logic, “for whom any gesture of hostility towards Havana and Caracas translates into enthusiastic support” for the president.
The text points directly to the current Secretary of State, the Cuban-American Marco Rubioas one of the figures who most influence Trump’s Latin American policy and describes him as “the political architect of the offensive against Maduro.”
From Caracas to Havana: cutting the oil cordon
The British newspaper insists that the fall of the Venezuelan regime is not an end in itself, but a means to suffocate Cuba. Remember that, thanks to the agreements signed during the government of Hugo Chávez, Havana has received subsidized oil for years in exchange for sending doctors, teachers and advisors. That exchange, the text points out, became “the umbilical cord that supported the Cuban economy after the disappearance of the Soviet Union.”
In this context, the imposition of sanctions against the Venezuelan oil industry and threats to further tighten the measures appear in The Telegraph as instruments to leave Cuba without its main fuel supplier. The article highlights that, if Washington manages to force a regime change in Caracas, “the first big loser will be Havana,” which would see crucial energy and financial support suddenly disappear.
The note highlights that the president and his officials have presented the confrontation with Maduro as a battle between “democracy” and “socialism” in the hemisphere. In this narrative, the Cuban regime appears again and again as the center of the problem. The article states that, for the White House, “Venezuela is the pawn; Cuba, the king that must be overthrown.”
The British newspaper also warns of the dangers of this strategy. He points out that the deployment of US military forces around Venezuela, the veiled allusions to a possible intervention and the explicit support for sectors of the Venezuelan opposition fuel a scenario of direct confrontation. On that board, Cuba would not only be exposed to new sanctions, but also to regional destabilization that could be used as a pretext for more aggressive actions.
The Telegraph remember that “the adventures of regime change” in other parts of the world have left a balance of prolonged wars, failed states and humanitarian crises. By extrapolating that experience to Latin America, the article suggests that a strategy of simultaneous overthrow of the regimes in Caracas and Havana could end in a “prolonged conflict” with unforeseeable consequences for the region and for the Venezuelan and Cuban population themselves.
Although the focus of the text is on the Washington-Havana relationship, the British newspaper places the crisis in a broader geopolitical framework. On the one hand, he points out that several European governments have shown reservations about the more bellicose rhetoric of the United States and are leaning towards a negotiated solution in Venezuela. On the other hand, he points out that Russia and China have invested resources in Caracas and have direct interests in ensuring that there is no regime change imposed from outside.
In this context, turning Venezuela into a spearhead to hit Cuba also implies, according to the analysis, measuring the response of Moscow and Beijing. The article warns that, although the possibility of a direct confrontation between great powers remains remote, the region may become a scene of growing rivalry, with Cuba and Venezuela at the center of the dispute.
For Cubans, the main conclusion of the text of The Telegraph is clear: the Island is once again at the center of United States power politics. The offensive against Maduro, the speeches about “socialism” and the sanctions are not only a response to the Venezuelan crisis, but part of a broader strategy to “end the Cuban regime once and for all,” as the British note summarizes.
