U.S. Military Threats Against Venezuela and Their Potential Impact on Cuba

Key Chapter Title List

1. Military Buildup and Immediate Causes: A Show of Force Under the Guise of Counter-Narcotics
2. True Strategic Objectives: Regime Change and the "Domino" Effect
3. The Venezuela-Cuba Alliance: History, Dependence, and Current Reality
4. Possible Military Action Options and Potential Resistance
5. Cuba's Vulnerability and Resilience: Economic Shock and Regime Stability
6. Regional Reactions and International Law Controversies
7. Geopolitical Consequences: Acceleration of Latin America's "Shift Away from the US and Towards China" Trend
8. Conclusion: High Costs and Uncertain Gains

Document Introduction

This report provides an in-depth analysis of the background, publicly stated justifications, and underlying strategic objectives of the large-scale US military buildup in the Caribbean region in late 2025. The report points out that although the US government publicly claims its actions are aimed at combating drug trafficking within Venezuela, characterizing it as an "armed attack" against the US, its deeper strategic intent is to promote regime change in Venezuela. Furthermore, by cutting off Venezuelan oil supplies, it aims to indirectly exert "fatal" pressure on the Cuban government, thereby achieving the long-held goal of some US politicians to overthrow the Cuban revolutionary regime.

The report details the US military forces already deployed (including carrier strike groups and special operations units) and the possible military action options, ranging from covert operations and targeted airstrikes to full-scale invasion, assessing the feasibility and risks of each option. The report specifically notes that the Venezuelan military has adopted the "people's war" asymmetric resistance strategy recommended by Cuba. Coupled with the presence of non-state actors like the National Liberation Army of Colombia, this could complicate and make any occupation operation prohibitively costly.

The core analysis section focuses on the special alliance between Venezuela and Cuba. The report reviews the cooperation model of "oil for medical services" between the two countries since the Chávez era. Simultaneously, based on data, it points out that due to Venezuela's plummeting oil production and low international oil prices, Cuba's actual dependence on Venezuelan oil has significantly decreased compared to a decade ago. Therefore, even if the US successfully facilitates a change in Venezuela's regime and cuts off oil supplies to Cuba, the impact on the Cuban economy, while still severe, may not be sufficient to cause the collapse of the Cuban regime. The report cites expert opinions suggesting that economic hardship does not necessarily translate directly into organized political resistance and may instead reinforce an internal siege mentality.

The report further explores the widespread controversy sparked by this US military action. United Nations officials, international human rights organizations, as well as some US Congress members and international law scholars have all condemned its actions as violations of international law. Public protests by leaders of countries like Mexico and Colombia reflect the deep-seated concerns of regional nations regarding unilateral US military intervention. Such concerns may accelerate a strategic shift among South American countries towards reducing dependence on the US and deepening cooperation with other major powers, such as China.

Finally, the report assesses the potential consequences of the military action. Beyond the possibility of causing significant casualties, triggering a new wave of refugees, and disrupting the global oil market, a prolonged conflict would further undermine regional stability in Latin America, damage the US's own long-term regional interests, and reinforce its historical image as a "hegemonic bully." The report's conclusion emphasizes that force cannot fundamentally solve the drug problem, regime change does not guarantee the achievement of expected political outcomes, and the geopolitical and economic wounds left by the action will be difficult to heal quickly.