[derefr]

You would think we'd want the contrapositive: to enrich them with global influx of capitalist market consumer demand, enough that they gain an independently self-stable economy, and stop feeling the need to rely on the support of Russia and China so much.

(Or, at least, offer subsidies to their government if they stop supporting Russian and Chinese spies with their numbers stations et al.)

[tgma]

This is a very naive way to look at the world. Even if theoretically they would be happy with such "self-stable economy" [they naturally won't—nothing prevents human desires to ask for more and try to build win-win friendships,] Russia and China are not sitting around; they would go and meddle with their affairs.

Mind you, I am not saying there is an existential possibility of a better policy, but the calculus would be nowhere as trivial as this.

[derefr]

> Russia and China are not sitting around; they would go and meddle with their affairs.

I mean, certainly, but it's like having a club on your car's steering wheel: it's not about creating perfect protection, it's about ensuring your car isn't the softest target for theft in the parking lot.

If Cuba had fewer reasons to talk to Russia and China, then Russia and China would have fewer reasons to talk to Cuba in particular, vs. other Caribbean and Central American nations. Which would, potentially, spread their resources thinner and decrease covert-ops ROI, as they'd be having to engage with several nations who only weakly want them there, instead of one nation that desperately wants them there.

(And yes, I do realize that these powers do already engage with other nations in the area, e.g. Nicaragua. But not in the same way / not for the same reasons.)

[SkyMarshal]

Given how badly that idea failed with China, I don’t see it happening any time soon with Cuba, a mere 90 miles from the US mainland. That proximity is a main reason why Cuba gets such special attention.

[derefr]

I mean, China has all the base resources to be a superpower — and has been a continent-spanning, colonizing empire many times in its past — so it's unclear what the US was expecting to happen there. (Probably something to do with short-term realpolitik "rock and a hard place" leverage.) Cuba has never and will never be a threat to the US, except insofar as they provide projection of strength for some other ally. A Cuba that sees itself as a sovereign nation would be a good thing, in the same way that ex-USSR satellites that see themselves as sovereign nations are a good thing.

Also, if you want to talk about countries that the US actually gives "special attention" to, I'd more compare/contrast to the relationship between the US and Panama.

[SkyMarshal]

> in the same way that ex-USSR satellites that see themselves as sovereign nations are a good thing.

Cuba would have do what those other ex-USSR satellites did and discard communism and authoritarianism in favor of democracy. Then, yes, seeing themselves as a sovereign state would be a good thing.

[chipsa]

It doesn't even have to discard the communism. Look it Vietnam: we fought a war against them in living memory, and we invite their people to go through our military training schools now so they can see how we do things.

[SkyMarshal]

Yeah that's an interesting comparison, though it's mainly b/c Vietnam sees China as its main adversary and threat, along with an opportunity to steal parts of the Asian manufacturing supply chain from China. The shared enemy and shared economic interests b/t US and Vietnam are pretty strongly aligned.

But I'm not sure if such an alignment could be created between the US and Cuba while Cuba remains a communist authoritarian hereditary dictatorship, since there's no shared enemy nearby and no strong shared economic incentive. Seems like the only real alignment would be Cuba becoming a democracy.

[whimsicalism]

We were happily allies with Mexico which was effectively a single-party dictatorship for most of the 20th century.