Cristina Escobar Criticizes Supporters of U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba

On Tuesday, journalist Cristina Escobar took to Facebook to express her disapproval of Cubans advocating for U.S. military intervention in Cuba. This response comes amid reports suggesting an increased likelihood of an American strike on the island.

The catalyst was an article from POLITICO, which highlighted growing tensions with Cuba, indicating that the Trump administration seemed "increasingly willing to attack."

Escobar's message was directed at those who, both inside and outside the island, are calling for military action as a means to achieve regime change. "Between power outages and the threat of bombs over my five-year-old daughter, I can't focus much on regime changes in Cuba," she wrote, setting a personal and emotional tone from the start.

She criticized what she called "armchair warriors, Facebook heroes," and artists who "voluntarily leave through the airport only to claim exile upon arrival." According to her, some use the pro-regime change rhetoric to gain fame: "If they didn't jump on that bandwagon, even their mothers would forget their names."

Addressing the potential aftermath of armed intervention, Escobar was unequivocal: "When bombs fall, when children die, when a foreign army bombs and kills people who had no say in the matter, the responsibility for every death, every loss, every tragedy will fall on you."

The Consequences of Military Intervention

Escobar also warned, "If you see the Cuban people as collateral damage, indifferent to their deaths for what you believe should happen here, take a look at yourself, and hope the bomb doesn't fall on your mother or grandmother. There's no coming back from that."

In response to the notion that violence is the only solution, she argued pragmatically: "To change governments, you need to be alive. Even to overthrow a regime, you need fuel, food, light," deliberately avoiding labeling Miguel Díaz-Canel a "tyrant."

However, the Venezuelan case is pertinent to this discussion: political change there — including the fall of Nicolás Maduro — occurred without bombings or direct military intervention, reinforcing the argument that transformation is possible without violence.

Polarization Among Cubans

Escobar's post comes at a time of intense polarization among Cubans.

In recent months, discussions about the island's future have split between those who see military pressure from Trump as the only viable escape from decades of dictatorship, and those who reject this option due to humanitarian concerns.

This latter group, despite differing reasons, includes both regime supporters and government critics. Escobar falls into this category: once a presenter on Cuban Television, she critiqued state media in 2025 for its failure to report truthfully and noted in 2021 that "Cuban media did not cover the events" during the July 11 protests.

Her critics, however, view her as a voice that serves the regime's interests at a crucial time. Thus, her focus on a soft defense of the regime isn't surprising.

Escobar concluded her post with a statement encapsulating her entire argument: "Those who want bombs over Cuba do not care for Cubans. Everything else is demagoguery."

Yet, her words do not resonate with those scavenging for survival in Cuba. Many prefer the risk of change over remaining trapped in the regime's status quo. For them, unlike Escobar, transition is also a matter of survival.