Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

For years, the relationship between Mexico and Cuba was portrayed—when not deliberately minimized—as a low-intensity bond: a propagandistic mirage [1], symbolic, rhetorical, or, at best, consistent with a shared Latin Americanist diplomatic tradition upheld by governments of different political orientations during the authoritarian period and the democratic transition. Even under the governments of Morena, closeness with Havana was interpreted by broad sectors of public opinion [2] as an ideological affinity—celebrated or lamented—but largely harmless, devoid of deep material implications and far removed from the organic alignments Cuba maintained—and continues to maintain—with openly authoritarian regimes such as those of Venezuela and Nicaragua. That reading, however, has begun to crack. Amid recent developments, the debate over Cuban influence in Mexico has acquired unprecedented density. The capture of Nicolás Maduro and the evidence pointing to the active presence of Cuban agents within Venezuela’s intelligence and repression apparatus not only revived discussions about Havana’s role as an exporter of authoritarian know-how, but also forced a rethinking of its regional projection beyond the myth of passive survival. Added to this is the sustained increase in shipments of Mexican oil to the island, ordered by the government of Claudia Sheinbaum, which are increasingly being interpreted as a political subsidy to a failed regime rather than as a humanitarian or diplomatic gesture. It is no coincidence, in this context, that influential voices in Mexico’s public debate—such as Carlos Bravo Regidor [3] or Julio Patán [4]—have begun to point out the risks and contradictions of a foreign policy that, while brandishing a sovereigntist and democratic rhetoric, materially sustains one of the hemisphere’s longest-standing dictatorships. What for years was considered irrelevant, exaggerated, or ideologically biased is now beginning to be perceived as a real problem of political coherence and, more importantly, as an institutional risk. This shift in the public conversation is revealing—but also belated. Long before the oil subsidy placed Cuba at the center of the national debate, various analyses had already warned of a growing and multifaceted Cuban influence in Mexico. Authors such as Armando Chaguaceda and Johanna Cilano, in an article published in Letras Libres, [5] as well as multiple reports by the organization Government and Political Analysis A.C. (GAPAC), [6] had previously argued that the relationship between the self-styled Fourth Transformation and the post-Castro regime could not be reduced to symbolic gestures or historical affinities. On the contrary, they pointed to a dynamic of persistent influence across economic, cultural, and political spheres, anchored in material exchanges, institutional networks, and authoritarian promotion. Yet, as has happened for far too long with the disbelief—born of a mixture of naïveté and ideological affinity—toward the domestic reality and global influence of Castroism, no one was listening. [7] From this perspective, the question is not only why Cuba influences Mexico, but why—until now—that influence had been systematically denied, relativized, or normalized. The current conjuncture did not inaugurate the phenomenon; it merely made it media-visible. And in doing so, it forces a critical reassessment of a relationship that, far from being exceptionally innocuous, appears to fit within a regional pattern of authoritarian symbiosis.

The Oil Subsidy and the End of Assumed Irrelevance

The increase in shipments of Mexican oil to Cuba has functioned as a turning point in public perceptions of the bilateral relationship. For the first time in years, closeness with Havana ceased to be read exclusively in symbolic terms and began to be evaluated in terms of concrete material costs. In a country with severe energy shortages, a heavily indebted state-owned company, and wide unmet social demands, the decision to allocate strategic resources to sustain a foreign regime in crisis could hardly go unnoticed. The controversy lies not only in the volume of oil sent, but in the political meaning of the gesture. According to reports by the Financial Times, [8] Mexico has already become Cuba’s main supplier of crude oil, effectively displacing Chavismo—and other allies such as Russia and Iran—as the island’s primary energy lifeline. This shift is far from trivial: it entails assuming, consciously or not, a role of external support long played by Venezuela, and doing so in a regional context marked by the collapse of the Bolivarian axis and by growing evidence of Havana’s active role in preserving allied authoritarian regimes. With the added threat [9] of tariffs announced by Trump against countries that “sell or otherwise supply oil to Cuba, protecting the national security and foreign policy of the United States from the malign actions and policies of the Cuban regime,” Claudia Sheinbaum’s position becomes even more problematic, exposing Mexico to potential coercive measures by the U.S. administration should oil shipments to the island continue. This policy openly contradicts the Mexican government’s sovereigntist rhetoric. While foreign interference is denounced and national self-determination is invoked, a support scheme is maintained that props up the economic viability of a single-party dictatorship—while compromising national stability. The principle of non-intervention is selectively invoked and disappears when it comes to assisting an ideologically aligned regime. Oil, in this sense, has stripped the bilateral relationship of its rhetorical veil and placed it squarely in the realm of political responsibility.

An Influence That Goes Beyond Oil

Reducing Cuban influence in Mexico to the energy sphere would nonetheless be analytically insufficient. As recent research [10] has shown, Havana’s regional projection does not depend exclusively on material resources, but on a combination of political, institutional, and symbolic instruments that operate cumulatively and, in many cases, discreetly. One of the most sensitive areas concerns Cuban medical missions. Presented as a pragmatic solution to healthcare system deficits, these missions have been widely questioned for their implications of forced labor, wage retention, and political surveillance. In the Mexican case, the problem is compounded by the opacity of the agreements signed and by the normalization of practices incompatible with basic democratic and labor standards. Health cooperation is not, in this sense, a neutral technical exchange, but rather a mechanism with clear political implications. Added to this are the party-to-party ties [11] between the Communist Party of Cuba and Morena. These exchanges go beyond protocol gestures and constitute spaces of ideological affinity and mutual learning in matters of political mobilization, discursive hegemony-building, and power management in polarized contexts. That Mexico’s ruling party maintains organic relations with an organization that upholds a single-party regime is far from trivial, particularly in light of the growing disdain among some official sectors for institutional checks and balances. The academic and cultural sphere completes this web of influence, as documented by GAPAC. [12] Exchange programs, seminars, and institutional collaborations have at times served as platforms for legitimizing the Cuban model or relativizing its authoritarian nature. Authoritarian influence is rarely imposed abruptly; it more often filters through narratives and interpretive frameworks that gradually erode democratic consensus. The Venezuelan case offers a cautionary tale: for years, Cuban presence was dismissed as opposition exaggeration, until its role within intelligence and repression apparatuses became incontrovertible.

The Collapse of a Narrative

The renewed interest in Cuba’s influence in Mexico does not stem from a sudden revelation, but from the collapse of a long-standing narrative: that of irrelevance. The oil subsidy has acted as a catalyst, but the phenomenon is broader and deeper. What has now become visible is a relationship characterized by growing political symbiosis that contradicts both the sovereigntist rhetoric of the current Mexican government and its professed commitment to democracy. One in which the leaderships of a new authoritarianism—born of a successful populist and illiberal project—forge close ties with a veteran antiliberal autocracy, whose advisers, agents, and agitators are more than willing to export—chequebook in hand—their accumulated experience in indoctrination, repression, diplomatic influence, and social control. Recognizing this reality does not imply adopting alarmist positions or mechanically extrapolating foreign experiences. Rather, it requires abandoning comfortable myths and acknowledging that threats to contemporary democracy rarely appear abruptly. More often, they take root gradually and asymmetrically, shielded by discourses of solidarity, sovereignty, or social justice. In this sense, the influence of Cuban authoritarianism in today’s Mexico is not a speculative hypothesis, but an uncomfortable reality that demands public scrutiny and political coherence. To evade it is to repeat mistakes that, in other regional contexts, have already produced consequences that are difficult to reverse.