Why does Trump want regime change in Cuba?

After Trump's quick and painless (for him at least) invasion of Venezuela, most commentators believe that the hapless Caribbean island of Cuba is next on his list. Except, hold on, Venezuela has oil, lots of it; Cuba has a few bananas and some tobacco. What's in it for America?

Whether it makes sense or not - and, let's face it, much that Trump does makes no sense at all - Cuba does seem to be in his sights. Trump toy boy Marco Rubio, who also happens to be his Secretary of State, has been carrying on secret negotiations with figurehead Raúl Castro's grandson, who is also called Raúl Castro. We can call him Raúl Guillermo Rodriguez Castro to distinguish, or, better, "Raúlito", or Little Raúl, or even "El Cangrejo", the Crab, (due to a deformed finger, apparently). Take your pick.

Raúlito is a much more Americanized individual than most figures of any power in Cuba - young, business-minded, and sufficiently distanced from the revolutionary attitudes of his older family members, much like Marco Rubio himself. And there's the rub. You can see why Rubio is so driven to change the old Communist regime in Cuba (his parents fled the island, just before Fidel Casto's revolution), and you have to assume that Rubio is the one behind the push to make Cuba yet another American state (unofficially), with Trump just coming along for the ride. 

Rubio's negotiations with Raúlito (or "discussions", as officials insist they are better described) are not official policy, but Trump does openly talk about regime change in a Cuban context. Modern American hegemony, however, is much more about control than it is about conversion to democracy and regime change per se. As an authoritarian himself, Trump is much more comfortable dealing with other authoritarian states than with democratic ones that are beholden to the whims of their electorates.

It's noticeable that, in Venezuela, Trump left the Chavista totalitarian regime in place, rather than open it up to democratic elections. So long as he has effective control, that is the way Trump prefers it, and that is the way he would prefer it in Cuba. So, break the economy, soften up the people, groom a potential leader who could control the locals: that seems to be the plan. If "regime change lite" can be effected with a minimum of American official involvement, all the better.

As for why, most people have long since stopped trying to understand Trump and his motivations. Yes, he would like to assert control over a Communist island just 90 miles from Florida. That's all part of the Monroe (Donroe) Doctrine. Not that Cuba is in any shape to threaten the US in any way, nor are they a conduit for Russia (or China?), and haven't been for decades. I sometimes think that these are just games for Trump, little challenges he likes to amuse himself with, cheap thrills he derives from his ability to control the levers of power.

The US has kept up sanctions on Cuba for most of the last 70 years, and Trump has only strengthened them. Trump now controls Venezuelan oil flows, and he has stopped Venezuelan oil exports to Cuba, and threatened sanctions on Mexico, Cuba's other major supplier, if they continue to export to the island. It's power grid is failing, hospitals are in disarray, food and fuel are scarce, inflation is rampant, tourists are staying away, those that can are leaving the island in droves. The island is on the edge of collapse and a humanitarian crisis, all thanks to ideological action by the USA. Regime change (of some sort) can only be just around the corner. 

Whether you like Cuba's political system or not - and there's a lot to dislike - Trump must be discouraged from his games. Any ideas how we do that?

Why is chocolate STILL so expensive?

It seems like just a few months ago that everyone was kvetching about the record prices of cocoa and chocolate, and now a slump in prices has left warehouses in major producers  Ivory Coast and Ghana full of unsold and mouldering bags of cocoa beans.

Cocoa prices reached historical highs of $12,000 per tonne at the end of 2024, almost doubling during the year and raising Christmas chocolate prices to unheard-of heights. This was due, we were told, to diseased trees in West Africa, adverse dry weather conditions (and, of course, speculation). Demand fell precipitously as prices peaked, and the industry was in panic mode.

Now, we are told that prices have slumped to below $5,000 per tonne in early 2026. African cooperatives can't sell their stocks, partly due to falling demand, because the prices were so high just recently(!), but partly due to excessive supply, because the weather has improved, because the effects of swollen shoot virus are passing, and because of the explosion of Ecuador as a chocolate producer. Ecuador is now the No. 2 producer of cocoa globally. It has high-quality cacao varieties, sustainable and relatively equitable agricultural practices, and high yields, and it is rapidly leaving West Africa in the dust.

However, don't expect the price of your favourite chocolate bar to come down any time soon. Demand is on the increase again, particularly in Asia and the EU, and particularly for premium products - ethical, fair-trade, traceable, organic, low-sugar, etc - and that in itself would be enough to keep prices high. But also commercial chocolate-makers have long lead times and buy through long-term contracts, so their costs may still be relatively high. Furthermore, as they watch world prices slew around wildly, they will charge a premium for that uncertainty.

And anyway, the likes of Hershey, Mondelez and Mars are not charities, and if it looks like consumers are content to pay the higher prices, then those prices are not going to come down, ever. Super-premium brands like Lindt and Ferrero Rocher didn't really increase their already-high prices when cocoa prices went up, and by the same token they will not be reducing them now.

In fact, when was the last time you noticed the price of ANYTHING going down? That's not the way the world works.

Go ahead, coffee is probably good for you

Coffee must be one of the most-studied substances on earth. There are no end of articles and studies claiming to provide proof that coffee is good for this or that, or bad for the other. Often these claims are in direct conflict with each other, so we still don't really know if it's good for you or bad for you on balance. Most people probably have a vague idea that it's slightly bad for you, but not so bad that you need to give it up (maybe just limit it a bit). And that may be just about right.

While it's pretty much uncontested that coffee, and specially caffeine, stimulates the central nervous system and increases alertness, there is also some pretty convincing evidence that coffee is also good for long-term brain health and cognitive function and as protection against dementia. 

A recently-published large longitudinal study and meta-analysis out of Harvard suggests that a daily intake of two to three cups of caffeinated coffee or one to two cups of tea have a protective effect on the brain and result in statistically-significant reduced dementia risks and improved cognitive function. Decaffeinated coffee had no such benefits. Note that these are just observational studies, and so can only uncover associations and not definitive proof, but they are consistent with many previous studies and meta-analyses.

So, unless you suffer from caffeine sensitivity or acid reflux or are excessively prone to sleep disruptions, go ahead have a couple of cups of java (or tea). Don't get carried away, of course, but equally don't be swayed by some of the reports of coffee's more iniquitous effects.

The suggestion that Canada needs nuclear weapons is ludicrous

Luckily, hardly anybody listens to retired Canadian General Wayne Eyre these days. That's just as well because otherwise we may be tempted to take his advice on pursuing a home-grown nuclear weapons program, just in case, "if we decide to go that way", as he says. He says that Canada will never have true strategic independence without it own nuclear deterrent.

Boy and their toys, eh? Eyre clearly didn't spend too much time thinking about what would be involved in such an undertaking. Others have, and it's not pretty.

To acquire nuclear weapons, Canada would need a site for enriching uranium or (more likely) reprocessing plutonium, and build hightly secure factories there. Then, it would need huge investment in delivery systems (missiles), and a remote, geologically appropriate place to test the weapons, without which it would not be a credible deterrent. All this would costs hundreds of billions of dollars, and take many years, a project comparable to a moon landing program according to one American senior official.

But that's not all. Canada is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has a global reputation as an internationalist peace-keeping country. Pulling out of the NPT and developing nuclear weapons would radically re-brand the country, and put it in the company of countries like North Korea, Israel and South Sudan. Its reputation would never recover.

It's not even clear that nuclear weapons are such a good deterrent anyway. Nuclear capabilities have not stopped India and Pakistan from engaging in several border skirmishes over the years. Nuclear-armed Israel has (thankfully) not dared to use those nukes its military dealings with Palestine, Iran, Syria. All of Russia's many nuclear weapons have not stopped Ukraine from making incursions into the country, nor has it used them in Ukraine (and faced the worldwide comdemnation that would result). So, what use are nuclear arms really?

So, thanks for your input, General, but maybe in future, just keep it to yourself. And please, stay retired. Thankfully, Defence Minister David McGuinty was quick to dismiss Eyre's suggestions, and most other commentators seem to agree.

Hungary's Orbán says the EU is more of a threat than Russia

Victor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary, is on his heels just two months before the April 12 general election. Polls suggest that his anti-Europe Fidesz party is trailing the pro-EU Tisza party of Péter Magyar. Hungary has been a member of the European Union since 2004, long before Orbán came to power, but the membership has been far from cordial.

Orbán being Orbán, he is doubling down on his anti-EU campaign rhetoric and, during a campaign speech today, he went so far as to suggest that Russia is not Hungary's enemy, the European Union is: "We must get used to the idea that those who love freedom should not fear the East, but Brussels".

Orbán has long been an apologist of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and has even supported him in his occupation of Ukraine. He maintains that it is not clear who attacked whom in 2022. He has many times acted as a spoiler in UN decision-making, especially where financial support for Ukraine is concerned. He has also become a leading European acolyte of Donald Trump. In return, the EU has frozen billions of euros of funding to Hungary because of Orbán's dismantling of democratic institutions, his erosion of judicial independence, and the widespread corruption in the country that he has fomented.

Europe is desperately hoping that, come April, this ongoing thorn in their side will be banished once and for all. Anyone who can publicly claim that the EU is more of a threat to freedom than Russia is very much more than just a loose cannon.

Un-curling-like language at the Winter Olympics

I couldn't help but smile at the indignation and outrage at the Winter Olympics mens curling competition, as the Canadian team is once again accused of cheating by opponents Sweden.

Curling is still considered, I suppose, a gentleman's game, and has no truck with newfangled ideas like video replays and what have you (although the handles of the stones are now electronic and give a green light when the stone is correctly released before the "hog line"). But Sweden's Oskar Eriksson accused Canada's Marc Kennedy of "double-touching" the stone, i.e. giving it a little tap with a finger after release. 

Most curlers would say that there is little or no way this could actually help the shot - given that it is still 100 feet from the rings - but it is technically illegal if spotted. In this case, it was not spotted, and when the referees did spot-checks after the allegations, no transgressions were identified (surprise!). Canada went on to win 8-6.

As much as the allegations of cheating, though, the outrage was mainly for the "unsportmanlike" language used on the ice sheet. Eriksson's accusations were muscular and vigorous, but Kennedy's defence was events more so, concluding with "just fuck off" and "I don't give a shit". Most un-curling-like language!

Despite Kennedy's vigorous claims that he has never ever done such a thing, video replays do show him doing exactly that thing. The Switzerland team also accuses him of the same in a previous match. Hell, even the Canadian women's team is getting in on the act. Canada is definitely the bad guy here. 

Kennedy has since been given a verbal warning for his language, and umpires are paying special attention to possible cheat moves as the competition approaches its climax. It all seems a bit disingenuous, though. They should hear the language routinely used in the average hockey game!

Oh, how dating has changed!

Thankfully, it's been 40-odd years since I've had to anything that might be described as "dating". I'm not sure I could bring myself to enter into the modern way of doing it (i.e. using an online app).

I was a bit taken aback, though, at an article about how many women are approaching the process these days. Maybe this is sixth-wave feminism or something (is that where we are?), but it doesn't sound particularly healthy to me.

Apparently, many women, especially financially-independent women, now expect men to pick up the tab on the first, and even subsequent, dates. Gone are the days when women wanted to be seen as equal by paying, or at least splitting, the bill. (Other research suggests that 45% of Canadians expect the bill to be split evenly, with 24% expecting the man to pay, and another 24% saying it should be whoever initiates the date.)

This is nothing to do with traditional values and deferring to the stronger, wealthier sex, or anything like that. This is a purely transactional approach about seeing "what they're bringing to the table in a potential relationship". More specifically, these women argue that there is still a "gender wage gap" where men typically earn more than women and should therefore contribute more to a relationship, and there is still a "beauty tax" where women are expected to pay more to meet societal standards of beauty. They may (or may not) pay on a second or third date to "signal my interest back to him".

Wow. Now, call me old-fashioned, but personally, I'm not particularly sure I'd wanted to be dating a women who thinks that way. I'm not really interested in a woman who feels she has to meet societal standards of beauty, and wants to be subsidized for it. It seems like a very cold and calculating approach to something that should be warm and fuzzy.

However, the article does go on to question why such an attitude has come about, and the answer is probably dating apps. The ease and availability (and also the transactional nature) of app dating has led to a sea change in attitudes, compared to the happy-go-lucky approach of my day, where you just happened on someone in a pub or a party, or you trailed after someone for months on end like a love-sick puppy.

Frankly, it doesn't really surprise me that studies show that fewer people than ever - just 8% of over-18s - are actively dating. Among the reasons put forward are a challenging job market, especially for younger people (and the concomitant decision to focus.on careers first and relationships later), the cost of living in general, a genetal sense of hopelessness about the state of the world, and, yes, "dating app fatigue and choice overload". Quite.

I know I couldn't face it. Let's hope I never have to!

US businesses and consumers are bearing the burden of Trump's tariffs

Remember, when Donald Trump first started bringing in tariffs wholesale at the beginning of 2025? It seems like a lifetime ago, I know, but we were all trying to get out heads round why he would want to do that, and how it could possibly work out the way he say it would. In the end, we concluded that it just wouldn't, and that American industries and households would end up bearing the burden of what what were essentially just taxes under another name.

A year later and Trump is still singing the praises of tariffs, although he is now using them more as bully tactics to punish any country that disagreed with him on any issue, not just trade. So, American tariffs are less about the economy and more about, well, Trump, and his political agenda. But clearly they do have an economic impact too, even if it's not the one Trump describes. And who is beating the burden? Yup, American industries and households.

A comprehensive new report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York concludes that upwards of 90% of the tariffs imposed by Trump on imported goods are borne by American consumers and companies. So, unlike in Trump's version of the world, foreign exporters did not lower their prices at all, resulting in the whole incidence of the tariffs being borne by the USA. In the technical jargon of the report, "there was 100% pass-through from tariffs into import prices". 

An estimated 30% of the increases in import prices were absorbed by US businesses though reduced profit margins, but fully 70% were passed on to consumers in increased retail prices. According to Federal Reserve officials, much of the overshoot of the 2% inflation target can be laid directly at the door of Trump's tariff policy.

Surprised? Me neither.