The regime demands names and positions… but conceals them: The contradiction behind the meeting with the U.S

The Cuban regime has ended up trapped in its own narrative. While it discredits international media for not providing “dates, names, or positions” regarding its contacts with the United States, it is the official apparatus itself that confirms those meetings did take place… but deliberately withholds that same information.

The contradiction is not minor. It is at the heart of the problem.

On one hand, Granma, the official publication of the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC), acknowledged that “a meeting was recently held” in Havana between delegations from Cuba and the United States.

The confirmation is clear. It even adds that “Deputy Secretaries of the State Department” participated, in plural, and Cuban officials at the vice-ministerial level.

But that’s where the information ends: there are no names, no exact dates, no verifiable details. Everything, moreover, is under an explicit justification: it is a “sensitive” issue that is handled with “discretion.”

On the other hand, Razones de Cuba, part of the same political-communication apparatus, discredits the original information published by precisely because —as it claims— “no dates, names, or charges are mentioned”.

That is to say, he uses the lack of concrete data as an argument to question the reports about those meetings. This is where the discourse breaks down.

Because it’s not about two independent voices, but rather the same system communicating in parallel.

The regime questions the lack of information… while concealing exactly those data in its official version. It denies credibility to others for not providing information that it itself chooses not to reveal.

The inconsistency is evident: if the Cuban government has already confirmed that a meeting took place, why doesn’t it publish the information that it demands from others? Who were those “deputy secretaries”? How many participated? What positions do they hold? When and where exactly did the meeting occur?

None of that has been answered.

Appealing to “discretion” does not resolve the contradiction; it reinforces it. It turns confirmation into an incomplete act: the fact is acknowledged, but any possibility of independent verification is obstructed.

Moreover, this ambiguity allows the regime to maintain a dual position: acknowledging the inevitable to avoid deepening its discredit, while simultaneously controlling the political impact of information by concealing key data.

And there are many topics on the table: the release of political prisoners, compensation for expropriations, internet via Starlink, among other matters that have shaken the regime’s board.

But that strategy has a clear limit. If the regime considers that external reports lack dates, names, and positions, it has a direct way to dismantle them: make them public.

It does not do so, just as it does not recognize —it cannot, it has no way to justify it— that the Castro family is the one that truly holds the power and determines the fate of the nation.

And in that silence—more than in any leak—is where the true contradiction becomes evident, along with the regime’s intimate nature: a dictatorship that for over 67 years has seized national wealth, taken control of the country, and subjected Cubans through the terror of a totalitarian state.…Read more by CiberCuba Editorial Team