Coin Press - Cuban regime nears collapse


Cuban regime nears collapse




The communist regime founded by Fidel Castro and later inherited by his brother Raúl Castro is facing its worst legitimacy crisis in decades. The government of President Miguel Díaz‑Canel, who succeeded the Castro brothers, is under intense pressure from economic collapse, widening black‑outs and international isolation. For the first time since the 1959 revolution, senior Cuban officials have been drawn into secret talks that many interpret as negotiations for a managed surrender.

Fuel shortages and humanitarian collapse
In recent months, the United States has tightened its embargo on Cuba by interdicting shipments of Venezuelan crude oil, the island’s main fuel source. The action has crippled Cuba’s ageing power grid. In mid‑March, the national electrical system collapsed, leaving more than ten million people without power and forcing rationing and rolling blackouts. Without diesel for generators or petrol for transport, food prices have spiked and buses have stopped running. Even Cuba’s allies have sounded the alarm. UN Secretary‑General António Guterres warned that continued disruption of oil supplies could lead to a humanitarian “collapse” on the island. Mexico promised emergency shipments, but fears of U.S. tariffs have limited how much oil can actually be delivered. The United Nations reports that fuel shortages have forced hospitals to prioritise surgeries and that chronic medication shortages are reaching crisis levels.

Secret talks and political manoeuvring
Against this backdrop of scarcity, multiple sources report that the Díaz‑Canel government has quietly opened channels to Washington. In a press conference on 13 March 2026, Díaz‑Canel acknowledged for the first time that “processes of this nature require discretion” and said dialogue was taking place, though he refused to provide details. According to investigative reports, advisers to the U.S. Secretary of State have held informal meetings with Raúl Castro’s grandson, Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro (“Raulito”). The United States is reportedly pressing for Díaz‑Canel’s removal but wants to avoid a chaotic collapse. Cuba has responded with gestures meant to curry favour: it recently freed 51 political prisoners, announced it will allow Cuban‑Americans to invest in businesses on the island and has lifted restrictions preventing foreign residents from owning private enterprises.

Yet Cuban authorities publicly deny that leadership succession is part of the negotiations. Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Fernández de Cossio told reporters that Cuba’s political system is not up for negotiation. He characterised the U.S. pressure campaign as a “take Cuba” strategy and insisted that the country’s sovereignty will not be traded away. Such statements have not quelled speculation. Analysts believe that if Díaz‑Canel resigns in exchange for relief from sanctions and guarantees for the Castro family’s safety, power could pass to younger technocrats or a transitional council.

Public anger and calls for change
On the streets, patience is running out. Long queues for bread and sporadic electricity have eroded whatever legitimacy the revolutionary government still possesses. Many Cubans complain that after more than sixty years, the revolutionary rhetoric has produced little beyond a hereditary elite—a common criticism voiced by citizens and diaspora commentators. They argue that the Castro family, despite claiming to have built an egalitarian society, has effectively become a dynastic monarchy. Commenters on social media observe that while the government blames external enemies, ordinary people bear the brunt of shortages and crumbling infrastructure. Some express hope that the island could soon open to the world and that Cubans abroad will be able to return and rebuild a free country.

These sentiments find echo in protests. Over the past year, small but persistent demonstrations have erupted in Havana, Santiago and smaller towns, with slogans calling for “Libertad” and demanding an end to power cuts. Security forces have arrested dozens, but cracks are showing. Reports suggest that even within the ruling party there is discontent over the handling of the crisis. Younger officials complain that the leadership is out of touch and that the revolution has degenerated into bureaucratic stagnation. Rumours that a negotiated transition could avert a violent upheaval have gained currency.

A fragile transition
Whether the Castro regime will agree to surrender power peacefully remains uncertain. The humanitarian situation is dire, and regional actors such as Mexico and the United Nations are pushing for a resolution to prevent mass migration or state collapse. The United States insists that any easing of sanctions will be contingent on political liberalisation and free elections. Sources close to the talks claim that the parties are discussing a timetable for constitutional reforms, the integration of opposition figures and guarantees for members of the security services, but no agreement has been finalised. For now, Cuba teeters on the precipice between reform and breakdown. The coming months will test whether the revolutionary regime founded by Fidel Castro can orchestrate a controlled handover or whether the island’s deepening crises will force a more chaotic denouement.



Featured


Long live Ukraine - Хай живе Україна - Да здравствует Украина

Es lebe die Ukraine - Да здравствует Украина - Long live Ukraine - Хай живе Україна - Nech žije Ukrajina - Länge leve Ukraina - תחי אוקראינה - Lang leve Oekraïne - Да живее Украйна - Elagu Ukraina - Kauan eläköön Ukraina - Vive l'Ukraine - Ζήτω η Ουκρανία - 乌克兰万岁 - Viva Ucrania - Ať žije Ukrajina - Çok yaşa Ukrayna - Viva a Ucrânia - Trăiască Ucraina - ウクライナ万歳 - Tegyvuoja Ukraina - Lai dzīvo Ukraina - Viva l'Ucraina - Hidup Ukraina - تحيا أوكرانيا - Vivat Ucraina - ขอให้ยูเครนจงเจริญ - Ucraina muôn năm - ژوندی دی وی اوکراین - Yashasin Ukraina - Озак яшә Украина - Živjela Ukrajina - 우크라이나 만세 - Mabuhay ang Ukraine - Lenge leve Ukraina - Nyob ntev Ukraine - Да живее Украина - გაუმარჯოს უკრაინას - Hidup Ukraine - Vivu Ukrainio - Længe leve Ukraine - Živjela Ukrajina - Жыве Украіна - Yaşasın Ukrayna - Lengi lifi Úkraína - Lank lewe die Oekraïne

Stargate project, Trump and the AI war...

In a dramatic return to the global political stage, former President Donald J. Trump, as the current 47th President of the United States of America, has unveiled his latest initiative, the so-called ‘Stargate Project,’ in a bid to cement the United States’ dominance in artificial intelligence and outpace China’s meteoric rise in the field. The newly announced programme, cloaked in patriotic rhetoric and ambitious targets, is already stirring intense debate over the future of technological competition between the world’s two largest economies.According to preliminary statements from Trump’s team, the Stargate Project will consolidate the efforts of leading American tech conglomerates, defence contractors, and research universities under a centralised framework. The former president, who has long championed American exceptionalism, claims this approach will provide the United States with a decisive advantage, enabling rapid breakthroughs in cutting-edge AI applications ranging from military strategy to commercial innovation.“America must remain the global leader in technology—no ifs, no buts,” Trump declared at a recent press conference. “China has been trying to surpass us in AI, but with this new project, we will make sure the future remains ours.”Details regarding funding and governance remain scarce, but early indications suggest the initiative will rely heavily on public-private partnerships, tax incentives for research and development, and collaboration with high-profile venture capital firms. Skeptics, however, warn that the endeavour could fan the flames of an increasingly militarised AI race, raising ethical concerns about surveillance, automation of warfare, and data privacy. Critics also question whether the initiative can deliver on its lofty promises, especially in the face of existing economic and geopolitical pressures.Yet for its supporters, the Stargate Project serves as a rallying cry for renewed American leadership and an antidote to worries over China’s technological ascendancy. Proponents argue that accelerating AI research is paramount if the United States wishes to preserve not just military supremacy, but also the economic and cultural influence that has typified its global role for decades.Whether this bold project will succeed—or if it will devolve into a symbolic gesture—remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that the Stargate Project has already reignited debate about how best to safeguard America’s strategic future and maintain the balance of power in the fast-evolving arena of artificial intelligence.

Ukraine sends ground robots

Ukraine is putting ground robots to work on a scale that is beginning to change how its army supplies positions, evacuates casualties and conducts some of its most dangerous combat missions. The significance lies in the gradual transfer of battlefield exposure from people to machines. For a force under sustained pressure to preserve experienced soldiers, that change could matter well beyond the individual missions captured on video.The expansion is measurable. By early September 2026, Ukraine’s DELTA battlefield management system had recorded approximately 112,000 logistics and evacuation missions by ground robotic systems since the start of the year. The monthly total rose from 7,511 in January to 25,143 in August, an increase of roughly 3.3 times. These figures describe missions, not the number of robots deployed, and they should not be read as a tally of successful attacks or lives saved. They nevertheless show how far the technology has moved into routine military activity.Supply work explains much of its value. Ammunition, food and water still have to reach troops in positions exposed to surveillance and attack. Wounded soldiers still have to be brought out. A remotely operated vehicle can undertake part of that movement while its operator remains elsewhere. The load may be ordinary; the route is what makes the task dangerous. Repeated across many positions, reducing the number of journeys made by people can alter the daily burden on an infantry force.The strongest case for a robot is often the journey it allows a soldier to avoid. That changes the economics of military equipment. The purchase price matters, but so do the consequences of losing it. A destroyed machine consumes production capacity and money. A lost soldier also removes training, experience and relationships that cannot be replaced on a factory schedule. This is why an apparently modest cargo platform can have greater practical importance than a more spectacular experimental weapon.Combat applications are developing alongside that logistical role. Ukraine’s Third Army Corps includes NC13, a unit specialising in ground robotic operations. In September, corps commander Andrii Biletskyi described an ambition to replace around a third of the corps’ frontline personnel with robots by the end of the year. That remains an objective for a particular formation, rather than a demonstrated reduction across the Ukrainian army. It signals how seriously some commanders now regard the technology.There is a longer history behind the sudden attention. In December 2024, the Khartiia Brigade used a coordinated force of aerial drones and ground robots in an assault near Hlyboke in the Kharkiv region. More than 50 unmanned systems took part. The operation demonstrated that different remotely operated platforms could be combined for surveillance, fire support and attack. It also exposed the limits: ground conditions disabled some machines, and soldiers were still needed to secure and hold the territory afterwards.Those distinctions remain essential. An unmanned vehicle has no crew aboard; that does not make it an autonomous decision-maker. Remote operation, assistance with navigation and independent target selection are different capabilities. Much of the operational change visible in Ukraine concerns the first of these. Human operators, commanders and technicians remain central to making the equipment useful. Describing every remotely controlled vehicle as an artificial intelligence weapon obscures both its present strengths and its weaknesses.The physical environment imposes constraints that software cannot simply remove. A ground vehicle must negotiate soil, vegetation, rubble and obstacles that an aircraft may pass over. Its camera sees from a low position. Communications can be intermittent, and movement through complex terrain requires information that may be incomplete or already outdated. Research on small military robot teams has long identified the combination of restricted visibility, difficult navigation and unreliable communication as a central challenge. Ukraine is testing those problems under combat conditions.Scaling the fleet therefore requires a larger support system. More vehicles mean more operators to train, more repairs, more replacement components and a greater need to coordinate machines with the soldiers around them. The useful measure is how many tasks can be completed reliably over time. A large delivery of equipment can look impressive while leaving unanswered questions about serviceability, workload and availability after repeated deployments.Nor does removing a crew eliminate risk. Operators still work within a military system exposed to attack, and a machine that fails during an evacuation may leave a casualty in danger. Remote control changes where human vulnerability sits. It does not make the mission consequence-free. Reliability is particularly important when the payload is a wounded person rather than ammunition, and success in one role cannot automatically establish suitability for another.The likely effect on the fighting is therefore uneven. Robotic systems can ease dangerous supply tasks and support selected assaults while remaining poorly suited to others. Their value depends on the terrain, the communications environment and the organisation using them. A successful demonstration offers evidence of a capability; repeated use establishes whether a formation can depend on it.Ukraine’s developing robot force is best understood through that practical test. Can it keep a position supplied with fewer exposed soldiers? Can it bring someone back who would otherwise remain stranded? Can it reduce the personnel required for a dangerous task without creating a greater burden elsewhere? The answers will determine how much battlefield activity can move to machines. For the soldiers still holding the line, those gains are substantial enough without the promise of a war fought without people.