It could even be another Vietnam, especially if Cuban society is mobilised in mass non-violent resistance to the occupier. Of course, much the same was said of Venezuela, before the US forced its economic will on Caracas after a fly-by military operation in which its president and his wife were abducted and 32 Cuban soldiers were eliminated.
Like Cuba, however, Vietnam is tough terrain to tame. Even an economically defeated Cuba may prove difficult to dominate. In a recent comment, NC reader Victor Sciamarelli recalled an episode from David Halberstam’s book “The Best and the Brightest”:
In a meeting with JFK and his advisors over invading Cuba, Marine General David Shoup, a WW2 veteran, brought with him overlay maps. Shoup first put down a map of the US, then an overlay of Cuba on top. To nearly everyone’s surprise Cuba was much bigger than most in the room imagined. Cuba extended from NY to Chicago more than 800 miles. Shoup then put down a single red dot. When asked he said that’s the island of Tarawa and it took us 3-days and 18,000 marines to take it.
Granted, the people of Cuba today are weakened — as one would expect after six and a half decades of US sanctions and five and a half months of a near-total energy blockade. But Cuba has faced and thwarted countless coup attempts and incursions. Put simply, it is built to resist, as even Chatham House senior fellow Chris Sabatini grudgingly admits.
“The Cuban regime, for all of its sins, has basically survived under a defensive crouch…. it is built to resist.”@ChrisSabatini on the nature of the regime in Cuba and its relationship with the United States. pic.twitter.com/RX3sohR7o3
— Chatham House (@ChathamHouse) June 7, 2026
“The US occupation of Afghanistan demonstrated that even relatively low-intensity insurgency can steadily impose casualties, financial costs and political exhaustion, reputational damage, and demands for expanding troop commitments over time despite overwhelming conventional military superiority,” Haig wrote in his recent post on Cuba.
As such, a US invasion of the island, rather than demonstrating hemispheric dominance, “could trigger hemispheric turmoil on a scale not seen in decades”:
A military operation against Cuba would immediately revive historical memories of gunboat diplomacy, regime manipulation, covert action, unilateral sanctions enforcement, and American-backed regime change operations throughout the hemisphere.
The political repercussions could spread rapidly throughout the hemisphere… Nationalist movements across the ideological spectrum could converge around fears of renewed hemispheric interventionism. Governments attempting to maintain cooperative relations with Washington would face growing domestic pressure to distance themselves publicly from the operation…
Migration pressure could further destabilize the regional environment. Large refugee outflows toward Florida and neighboring Caribbean states would create simultaneous humanitarian, logistical, and political pressures. Even limited maritime migration crises can rapidly consume coast guard, law enforcement, and emergency management resources while intensifying domestic political tensions within the United States and throughout the region.
This, lest we forget, would be happening as US forces are already significantly over extended and US military supplies significantly depleted. It is also happening as Washington works to destabilise other Latin American countries with somewhat sovereign-minded governments, including Mexico, Colombia and Nicaragua, Marco Rubio’s latest bugaboo, from which there will no doubt be additional blowback.
Meanwhile, the only thing that can stave off a disorderly collapse in Cuba and the creation of a security vacuum, or even outright war is, to quote Winston Churchill, more jaw-jaw. For the moment, there are little signs of progress. In recent days, Cuba has begun distributing weapons to civilians, urging them to prepare for an imminent US invasion, according to the Venezuelan newspaper Versión Final.
Trump’s recent statements about “dealing with Cuba” after the end of the conflict with Iran are also hardly encouraging. If recent developments in post-Maduro Venezuela are an indication, “Dealing with Cuba” essentially means forcing Havana to make huge economic concessions to Washington, opening the market to US investors and expelling US strategic rivals.
Lastly, it’s worth noting the recent words of Vladimir Putin at a meeting with the heads of foreign media on June 4. The Russian president acknowledged that he had spoken with President Trump on the issue of Cuba, but refused to disclose further details, mentioning only the dispatch of a Russian tanker there — presumably in reference to the Anatoly Kolodkin, which docked in Havana in late March. Since then, no other shipments of oil have arrived.
“Cuba is a friendly country, relations have traditionally developed for decades, the US administration knows this. Our contacts with Cuba continue,” the Russian president said.
Whether these words were intended as a veiled warning to the US or simply an acknowledgment that Moscow is engaged in negotiations with the Trump administration aimed at securing a gradual transition in Havana, it is impossible to say. On the surface at least, Moscow appears determined to deepen its economic ties with Cuba, even as the energy-starved island teeters on the brink of a US-engineered collapse.
Two days after Putin’s comments, Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Chernishenko reaffirmed Russia’s willingness to invest in Cuba despite the rising pressure from Washington. Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Chernishenko said that some 90 Russian companies are interested in exporting meat, dairy and fish products to Cuba, and that Moscow can offer Havana solutions in IT, cybersecurity, telemedicine and business automation.
By
