Help arrives for Cuba in crisis, as most nations stand aside / By W. T. Whitney Jr.

_{^{Image via DW}}

_{South Paris, Maine}

Streets and hospital corridors at night in Cuba are dark. Cars and buses don’t move. Cubans walk or ride bicycles. Trash doesn’t move. Trucks lack fuel. Offices, production units, and hospital operating rooms are closed down. Older people and babies are dying.

Oil tankers had not arrived for over three months, especially after the U.S. government on January 29 imposed tariffs on nations sending oil to Cuba. The action tops off a long, cruel and illegal economic blockade aimed at removing Cuba’s government. That overnment had offended by saying “No” to oppression and exploitation, “Yes” to national independence, and by acting accordingly.

Crisis like no other was at hand. Cuban President Miguel Diez-Canel assured visiting solidarity activists that Cuba “would not abandon its socialist principles of sovereignty and dignity.” He told interviewer Pablo Iglesias on March 27 that, “I share with my family that we would give our lives for the revolution. … [W]e, as revolutionaries, always prepare for the worst-case scenario.”

Then a reprieve: news came on March 29 that the Russian tanker Anatoly Kolodkin with over 700,000 barrels of oil aboard would be arriving in Matanzas, Cuba, on March 31. The vessel, sanctioned by the U.S. government in 2024, had followed a wandering course on its way to Cuba, accompanied by media speculation.

Cuba has friends

Organizations and individuals worldwide have been responding. The UK’s Cuba Vive Medical Aid Appeal recently raised £250,000 for Cuba. Solidarity activists in Italy and Spain are sending aid. Those in the United States are campaigning for donations to allow Global Health Partners and Global Links to send medical supplies. The Hatuey Project and the Los Angeles Hands off Cuba group have sent supplies.

The international Nuestra América (Our America) Convoy arrived in Havana in the days prior to March 21. The Progressive International had conceived of and organized this gathering of hundreds of solidarity activists from more than 40 countries. They brought tons of humanitarian materials.

Speaking at a welcoming event for participants, Gerardo Pisarello, Spanish parliamentarian for the Sumar Party, stated that, “We are here today to give back to millions of Cubans what they taught us as they sent out doctors, teachers, and vaccines out to the most remote corners of the world.”

The Mexican tuna boat “Maguro,” renamed “Granma 2.0,” departed from Progreso, Yucatán and arrived late because of bad weather. Abroad were 25 solidarity activists, 30 tons of food, medicines, healthcare materials, and 73 solar panels. A Mexican Navy vessel and two smaller boats had accompanied the vessel.

Nations in solidarity

Some countries are reaching out. None have sent oil, until now. Spain’s government will be delivering food and medical supplies to Cuba via the United Nations system. Canada is donating $8 million (Canadian), also through UN agencies. South Korea’s agricultural ministry gave 24,000 tons of rice to Cuba in December, 2025.

The Red Cross in Vietnam transferred $15.1 million to Cuban officials in August 2025 and $23.3 million more in October. The Vietnamese private company Agri VMA, a rice grower in Cuba’s Pinar del Rio since 2023, delivered 250 tons of rice to Cuba’s Ministry of Agriculture on February 17. Brazilian social movements and oil workers mounted an “Oil for Cuba”
campaign aimed at pressuring Brazil’s government and its Petrobas oil company to send oil to the island.

Mexico and China are doing the most. Mexico’s government concentrates on food. Two Mexican Navy ships with food aboard, plus other supplies, arrived in Cuba twice during February and twice during March. They have brought 3125 tons of aid material in all.

Mexican President Claudia Scheinbaum, speaking to reporters on March 24, insisted that, “No one determines the fate of another nation except its own people … The self-determination of peoples is enshrined in our Constitution and is our firm conviction.”

Former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) on March 14 urged Mexicans to deposit funds for aid to Cuba in the bank account of the civil association “Humanity with Latin America” (Humanidad con América Latina). AMLO was endorsing the plea for funds published earlier by La Jornada news service and signed by over 200 activists, mostly journalists and academicians.

China lends a hand

China is Cuba’s other major supplier of essential goods. Cuba needs energy independence, specifically freedom from fossil fuels. The crude oil Cuba itself produces is insufficient, heavy, and difficult to use. Cuba’s oil-fueled generating plants are antiquated and break down frequently.

Cuba’s solar power capacity, amounting in early 2025 to only 5.8% of the island’s total energy need, now exceeds 20% of Cuba’s total requirement. That’s enough to supply almost 40% of the of Cuba’s electricity needs during daylight hours. China has supplied the credit, the photo-voltaic units, the associated equipment, and the technical assistance to make this happen.

As of late last year, 49 new solar parks were producing electricity. There will be 92 of them by 2028. The new installations account for 1000 megawatts of additional daily capacity, and after next year there will be 1000 more megawatts. According to energy analyst Jonas Muthoni. “Each megawatt of solar capacity installed represents approximately 18,000 tons of imported fuel no longer needed. If Cuba reaches its 2,000-megawatt target by 2028, oil blockades could become economically irrelevant.” Cuba must add “500-600 megawatts of battery storage” to meet that objective.

China’s government has provided individual solar systems for local use. Presently 5,000 solar systems are being installed throughout the island in 280 hospitals, 430 polyclinics, maternal homes, water pumping stations and telecommunications units. These are “2-kilowatt kits [with] solar panels, inverters, and storage batteries.” The goal is to eventually install 10,000 of these individualized photovoltaic systems.

China has provided Cuba with wind turbines. New wind farms will add to the island’s electricity-generating capacities. Cuba over recent years has obtained electric buses, replacement parts and miscellaneous equipment from Chinese companies. Many Cubans now use Chinese electric scooters, and tricycles. A few electric automobiles have appeared.

A Chinese shipment of 15,600 tons of donated rice arrived in Havana on March 25. An earlier shipment of 15,000 tons had arrived in January. China is providing technical help for increasing Cuba’s rice production.

Mexico’s dilemma

Cuba desperately needs oil now. China has provided none. In 2025, Mexico accounted for 44% of Cuba’s imported oil. The rest came from Venezuela, with a tiny bit from Russia. The U.S. oil blockade targets Mexico. Although President Claudia Scheinbaum fondly recalled that Mexico provided Cuba with oil in the past, she recently determined that sending oil to Cuba is inconsistent with contractual agreements of the state-owned Pemex oil company.

Mexico’s government seeks to preserve U.S.-Mexican trade and commercial relationships. And with good reason: Mexico is now the largest U.S. export market for the United States, and 80% of Mexico’s exports go to the United States.

Analyst Mateo Crossa points out that, “Mexico has become structurally integrated into the U.S. fossil energy regime, serving both as a major importer of U.S. natural gas and as a strategic conduit for U.S. energy exports, particularly to Asian markets via its Pacific coast.” He describes “Mexico’s energy sector …[as] fully aligned … with U.S. strategic interests.”

Additionally, Mexico’s government is negotiating modifications of the United States Mexico Canada Agreement on trade, which dates from 2020. Seeking to preserve a favorable investment climate and prosperous trade relationships, Mexico’s government would naturally enough seek to avoid offending its U.S. negotiating partner – for example, by sending oil to Cuba. Already there is friction over U.S. migration policies, U.S. threats of military action against drug traffickers in Mexico, and U.S. lust for Mexico’s strategic minerals.

It seems ultimately that U.S. energy blockade of Cuba is evolving and has its gaps. Reuters reported on March 25 that operatives inside the United States had shipped 30,000 barrels of fuel to Cuba’s private sector in February. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s explanation laid bare the blockade’s capitalist underpinnings. The U.S. purpose, he indicated, was “to put the private sector and individual private Cubans – not affiliated with
the government, not affiliated with the military – in a privileged position.”

The surprising arrival of a lot of oil from Russia offers Cuba a ray of hope. A large world power had not yet intervened, and U.S. decision-makers will surely be adjusting their calculations on that account. The outcome of this latest stage of U.S. anti-Cuba aggression is by no means clear. The continued insertion of international solidarity, especially of entities with resources and power, nations and governments in particular, will help determine what happens.

Cuba’s plight highlights the lack of an effective system of international governance and enforcement of internationally -accepted norms. Just as Cuba is a causality of U.S. imperialism, so too the United Nations system has run afoul of planetwide imperialist claims.

The response so far of almost all national leaders and spokespersons to the crisis in Cuba is telling. The silence of most nations as regards crisis in Cuba testifies to their timidity in confronting the U.S. blockade and U.S. narrative. Their total immersion in the globalized capitalist system is on display. The contours of their heartless and retrograde thought processes can hardly be imagined.

_{W.T. Whitney, Jr., is a political journalist whose focus is on Latin America, health care, and anti-racism. A Cuba solidarity activist, he formerly worked as a pediatrician and lives in rural Maine.}

_{^{Revised Mar 30, 2026}}

Vietnam Is Precedent as US Prepares for War with China / By W. T. Whitney

_{^{Near Da Nang, South Vietnam, Marines move through ankle-deep mud carry their poncho-covered comrade towards higher ground were, when the weather permits, he will be air-lifted to the rear areas, Jan. 16, 1968. (AP Photo/John T. Wheeler)}}

_{South Paris, Maine}

Popular struggle for national independence under socialism has regularly provoked U.S. war or hostile interventions, as with Cuba, North Korea, China, Vietnam and other nations. We explore both the extreme danger of possible U.S. war with China and also the changing U.S rationale for fighting wars. This shows in the difference between why the U.S. war in Vietnam was fought and why U.S. war with China may be on the way.

Vietnam recently commemorated agreements reached 70 years ago in Geneva that on July 21, 1954 ended war between Vietnamese revolutionary forces and the French military, defeated two months earlier at Dien Bien Phu. According to official media, the object of a “scientific conference” held on July 19 was “to emphasize the historical importance of the agreements for the struggle for national liberation of the Vietnamese people and the peoples of the world.”

Also on July 19, Nguyen Phu Trong died. Once chairperson of the National Assembly and president of Vietnam, this paramount leader, a student and teacher of Marxist theory, had long served as general secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam. His death is a reminder, if such is needed, that for Vietnam revolutionary socialism and national liberation were kindred struggles.

To prevent the unification of Vietnam as a socialist nation, the U.S. government went the last mile, first diplomatically and then militarily – from the 1954 Geneva agreements that established Vietnam’s national independence to the departure of defeated U.S. troops on April 30, 1975. The U.S. leadership class, involved in spreading U.S. power and influence across the globe, created and then defended South Vietnam, while attempting to defeat Vietnam’s Revolution, all at enormous human and material cost.

The enclave remaining after a U.S. victory might have ended up as a beachhead for counter-revolution and U.S. control in Southeast Asia. In their various situations, that’s the role performed by South Korea, Taiwan, and even Ukraine in relation to Russia, and Israel vis-a-vis the rest of the Middle East.

U.S. planners, in thinking about what to do about Vietnam, were not entirely devoid of reason. For U.S. imperialists, to beat back Vietnamese Communists – think “domino theory” – and heat up the Cold War against the Soviet Union had a certain logic, according to their own lights.

After the Vietnam disaster, official U.S. planning for war has built upon a variety of ostensible reasons for fighting. Having emerged from World War II well-resourced and strong, the U.S. government consistently demonstrated limited tolerance for the risings of oppressed, colonialized peoples. However, once newly formed independent states showed signs of strength, regional prominence, or even strategic rivalry, U.S. strategists turned to action.

War materialized as the ultimate U.S. fix, no matter the circumstances and under a variety of pretexts, as shown with U.S. war-making in Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The rationales for fighting were more diffuse. The threat of U.S. war now looms over Iran and, more ominously, over China. Each is under the gun because they are strong, assertive states.

Anti-communism was a safer kind of rationale. Vietnam won its “American War,” and the U.S. government backed off. That’s the story. Incidentally, the Vietnamese people scored a clear win. They live according to plans and socialist purpose in a free and independent nation.

Vietnam has established diplomatic relations with 190 countries. A Vietnamese writer cites “important achievements with infrastructure gradually meeting the needs of industrialization and modernization.” Since reforms in the 1980s, an economy resting mainly on foreign direct investment in manufacturing and tourism has expanded. Economic growth ranged between 9.5 and 5.5 percent between 1993 and 2022, save for sharp drops in 2020 and 2021. GDP rose 5.05 percent in 2023. By 2022, the poverty rate was down to 4.3%.

Vietnam’s government since 2008 has spent 20 percent of its budget on education. The same report mentions “high primary school completion rates, strong gender parity, low student/teacher ratios,” and school attendance rates that are high. The British medical journal Lancet indicates that, “Along with the economic growth, the health of the Vietnamese people has significantly improved between 1990 and 2020, whereby the life expectancy grew from 69 to 75 years, and the under-five child mortality rate decreased from 30 to 21 per 1000 live births.”

*_{^{Image credit: Friends of Socialist China}}*

Socialist China restored dignity to the vast majority of its citizens, has afforded them decent lives, and created a well-functioning state that responds effectively to the climate crisis and other challenges. It too warrants a pass from the U.S. government.

That’s not happening: the U.S. government, in the hands of a divided leadership class, deals only haphazardly with major problems afflicting U.S. society. It satisfies the material wants of the upper echelons, and presides over war preparations as part of what is, in effect, a new Cold War.

Indeed, the USA has accumulated over 750 bases in 80 countries and posted 173,000 troops in 159 counties. The U.S. share of global arms exports in 2019-23 was 42 percent, up from 34 percent during the previous four-year period, according to sipri.org.

*_{^{The US has two island chains around the coast of China. The stars indicate major US bases}}*_{^{| via solidarity.net.au}}

In the Pacific waters surrounding China, the United States has expanded the capabilities of its bases; it operates nuclear-equipped naval vessels, arranges for multi-national naval exercises, has vessels engaging in provocative “freedom of navigation exercises,” and will be introducing nuclear-powered submarines.

The idea of multiple and varied reasons for fighting wars, presented above, folds neatly into the overarching notion of a new Cold War, something that by nature is ambitious, far-reaching, and long term. Where is the justification for that?

Here is a guess: The United States decades ago turned to a great variety of activities related to military preparation, financing, and recovery. These now intrude massively in the U.S. economy and in society itself, so much so that, in theory, something has to happen to explain and justify such a state of affairs. War provides meaning, without which the whole apparatus might disappear. What then of the economy and of the collective experience of a U.S population variously oriented to the military?

The Costs of War Project of the Watson Institute of Brown University weighs in. Author Heidi Peltier points out that:

Federal spending on the military and on veterans makes up more than half of the federal discretionary budget. Employment in the federal government is dominated by civilian defense workers and uniformed military personnel. Because the majority of taxpayer dollars and federal resources are devoted to the military and military industries, and most government jobs are in the defense sector, the political power of this sector has become more deeply entrenched and other alternatives have become harder to pursue. Instead of having a federal government that addresses various national priorities … the U.S. has a government that is largely devoted to war and militarism.

Unfortunately, protecting both the U.S. economy and habituation to the military has its downside, specifically extreme danger to humanity itself. Writing in the most recent issue of Monthly Review magazine, John Bellamy Foster and Brett Clark explain, pointing to China. Discussing “Imperialism in the Indo-Pacific,” they state that:

“Most U.S. strategies for winning the New Cold War directed at China are aimed at a strategic-geopolitical defeat of the latter that would bring down Chinese President Xi Jinping and destroy the enormous prestige of the Communist Party of China, leading to regime change from within and the subordination of China to the U.S. imperium from without … (It) is the United States, which sees China’s rise as a threat to its own global preeminence, with the Indo-Pacific super-region increasingly being viewed as the pivotal site in the New Cold War, that is propelling all of humanity toward a Third World War.”

_{W.T. Whitney Jr. is a political journalist whose focus is on Latin America, health care, and anti-racism. A Cuba solidarity activist, he formerly worked as a pediatrician, lives in rural Maine. W.T. Whitney Jr. es un periodista político cuyo enfoque está en América Latina, la atención médica y el antirracismo. Activista solidario con Cuba, anteriormente trabajó como pediatra, vive en la zona rural de Maine.}