Helen Yaffe – Nina Blodau
Photo: Bruno Rodriguez with Nina Blodau and Helen Yaffe.
In Havana in August 2026, Helen Yaffe and Nina Blodau interviewed Cuba’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bruno Rodríguez, for Cuba Analysis Podcast. Produced in collaboration with Belly of the Beast Cuba, the full episode is available via their channels and website. Below we publish a transcript of the interview.
Helen Yaffe (HY): Welcome to the Cuba Analysis Podcast. We are pleased to be here with Cuba’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bruno Rodríguez. Minister, thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to speak with us today. Nina will start with the questions.
Nina Blodau (NB): Minister, before we talk about international politics, I’d like to begin with you personally. You have been at the head of Cuban diplomacy for nearly two decades. You have represented Cuba during some of the most complex moments of its recent history. How did you come to assume this responsibility, and what has it meant to you personally to represent your country for so many years?
Bruno Rodríguez (BR): Too much time already. It has been many years indeed. And fortunately, there are many young people ready and prepared who could do it better than me. I do not usually speak about personal matters, but I was appointed to this responsibility, and I undertake it out of a vocation for service. Fortunately, there is such overlap between the principles of the foreign policy of the Republic of Cuba, its traditions, its founding principles, the instructions and guidelines of the Cuban Parliament and the President of the Republic and the government, that I am able to pursue them in accordance with my deepest convictions. So when one feels that their instructions coincide with one’s personal convictions, everything becomes easier. And it is a characteristic of Cuban revolutionary diplomacy.
HY: If you could set aside diplomatic language, for one moment and speak simply as a Cuban citizen, how would you explain, in the simplest way possible, what it means to live under an economic blockade for more than 60 years?
BR: I can do so with ease because Cuban diplomacy has deep roots and is closely tied to the people and because Cuban diplomats, myself and my family, live in the same circumstances as our people do. And because I have always lived under the US blockade. My son, who is now 26 years old, was also born under blockade conditions. It spans several generations. The country has suffered periods of extraordinary impact from the blockade, especially during the 1990s, which you know about, but there is no doubt that there has been a qualitative change in the impact of the blockade since 2019, and particularly since the executive orders of January and May 2026. The suffering of our people, of every Cuban, the deprivations, the anguish, are extreme, under a coercive mechanism that constitutes an act of collective punishment.
HY: We will focus on that issue later on. But the second part of that question is: What is your response to those who claim that Cuba’s difficulties are consequences of its political system and the inefficiency or corruption of its leaders?
BR: They lie, systematically. Over these six decades, various pretexts have been used to try to justify an act classified as genocide under international conventions and laws. It is extraordinarily cynical to try to blame the government, to blame the constitutional order that the Cuban people have freely chosen in repeated referendums, for the consequences of an extreme blockade that includes acts associated with wartime, equivalent to a naval blockade, such as, for example, the energy siege. Or acts that gravely violate international law, and recognised norms of international trade, such as the intimidation of shipping companies that transport goods to Cuba. Right now, more than 7,000 containers, containing mainly food, medicines and medical devices, are paralysed by this threat and intimidation in various ports, including some in our region, and cannot reach Cuban families.
Worst of all are the very serious humanitarian consequences, whose most painful and relevant figure is probably the doubling of the infant mortality rate: the rate of live-born babies who die as a result of the conditions caused by the blockade, despite having a public health system of recognised standing. This illustrates what is happening. The United States government and the State Department do not even treat this issue as so-called ‘collateral damage’, which itself is an unacceptable and criminal concept, because the humanitarian effects that these extreme blockade measures are causing are part of a deliberately, coldly calculated design. The Secretary of State, who has repeatedly lied by saying that the blockade does not exist and that the energy siege does not exist, just a few days ago declared that they will cut off any avenue out that the Cuban government may find, closing every valve that could ease the asphyxiation caused by the extreme conditions of the blockade. It is notoriously perverse to provoke these circumstances and then try to blame our government, our people, for the terrible humanitarian consequences they are causing.
NB: Each year at the United Nations General Assembly, almost all the countries of the world vote against the US blockade of Cuba. After each vote, we see a dozen diplomats approaching the Cuban delegation to greet them. What conversations do you have with them off the record? What prevents those countries from ignoring US sanctions, which are unilateral?
BR: There is a proven international sentiment expressed not only in these annual votes on a resolution that directly calls on the United States to unconditionally cease the implementation of the blockade. There are numerous expressions of opposition and rejection of this policy of hostility and blockade, worldwide and within the United States itself. It is well known that the majority of US citizens oppose the application of the blockade. In social conversation on digital networks, a study conducted in July shows that only a tiny minority support the energy siege or military threats against Cuba.
At the United Nations, and not only on the issue of the blockade, the Cuban delegation sometimes has the very serious responsibility of serving, in a way, as a spokesperson for the Global South, or for many other countries. Cuba can speak with complete freedom, it can conduct a foreign policy that is totally independent and sovereign, and it is often recognised for saying directly or more directly what many think, what the majority of UN member states believe. This happens in votes like these, or even in the one held more recently, the extraordinary session on July 7, to address this issue outside of the usual calendar. There is clear international recognition that the policy of the blockade is illegal, is criminal, has a genocidal impact on the Cuban people, is an act of collective punishment, violates international law, including international humanitarian law, and is obsolete. This policy is anchored in the foundations of the Cold War, it contradicts the will of the international community, contradicts the will of US voters and taxpayers, and also of Cubans residing in the United States. And since it has a clearly extraterritorial impact, it harms the sovereignty and independence of all states without exception. It not only affects the true national interests of the United States but also affects the interests of all nations and their businesses.
Early on, the European Union equipped itself with regulations and antidote laws that would oblige its governments to protect the interests of their companies from the illegal application of US laws or the extension of US court jurisdiction beyond its borders. However, it does not apply these decisively, nor do the European governments, which make up a community with weight in the international realm, apply the antidote laws that they have adopted. They defend very timidly, too timidly, their own interests in the face of their competitor’s aggression. What is worse, in my view, is that Cuba does not only have a certain symbolism but today represents an international crossroads in relation to the international order. If a nuclear superpower is allowed to try to destroy a small sovereign nation to change its political system, it would create conditions that would allow the same to happen to any state on the planet.
HY: As you mentioned, since early 2026, Trump issued two executive orders designating Cuba as a threat to US national security and effectively applying an oil blockade. How do you explain this increase in aggression against Cuba since 2026?
BR: You would have to ask the United States government. They try to justify that policy with pretexts and lies. If it did not have such serious humanitarian and economic consequences, it would not seem at all serious to claim that an island of this size could constitute a threat to the main nuclear power. The truth is that they lie. Cuba is not, and cannot be, a threat to the national security or economy of the United States; it is not an enemy, nor does it intend to become one. There are very deep cultural and multifaceted ties between the US and Cuban people. But this US government desperately needs to try to justify the atrocious policies it applies against our people.
The same happens with the accusations against Cuba of being a so-called “state sponsor of terrorism”. These acts show the lack of seriousness of the United States government. One president makes a decision, the current president reverses it in his first term and reclassifies Cuba this way, the next president does the opposite, and on his first day in the White House, the current president does the same thing again; a process that is supposed to be the result of inter-agency consultations and solid evidence. This represents not only a totally false argument but also has very serious consequences in political and national security terms for Cuba, and also in humanitarian terms. The whole world recognises its falsehood. And of course, it contributes nothing to the real national interests of the United States, which could benefit from a normal relationship based on good neighbourly relations, cooperation, trade and investment, with a small, close country.
NB: What has been the impact of these measures in economic and social terms, for example, on international trade and the health system?
BR: It is not just a single measure, but a series of coercive actions resulting from a historical accumulation spanning six decades that has caused extraordinary damage to Cuba’s small economy. Sanctions were tightened to extreme levels, particularly from the second half of 2019 onwards, although some measures came earlier. At the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, when the US government relaxed its sanctions regimes for practically all countries subjected to them, it nevertheless applied additional measures against Cuba, including obstructing the purchase of lung ventilators and medical oxygen. It took the virus as an opportunistic ally to tighten the blockade conditions.
January 2026 marked another significant change, when, in practice, the US government imposed an energy siege that is totally equivalent to a naval blockade, which is an act of war. Even before that, with the presence of military vessels and military threats against Caribbean countries, it had prevented fuel from reaching Cuba. If Cuba could acquire even minimal amounts of fuel today, power cuts could be reduced to 2 or 3 hours daily. Drinking water supply to the population would improve considerably. I have shown photos at the United Nations of a surgery in an operating theatre lit by medical staff’s mobile phones. The food situation would be much better.
They have consistently lied, particularly the Secretary of State, when he has said that Cuba was receiving free fuel. That is totally false. It is a lie. Cuba received fuel under normal international trade conditions, in some cases based on the export of medical services, and in others on acquiring fuel under worse conditions than in the international market, due to the risk to countries caused by US hostility. But today the reality is that the energy siege has extremely grave consequences for our people and our economy, and is now being accompanied by direct measures to prevent merchant ships from reaching Cuba, not only with fuel but with products and goods of any kind. Many of those products were bought and paid for by micro, small and medium Cuban private enterprises. The shipping companies that do not transport those containers to Cuba are flagrantly violating the contracts they signed and the commitments they made based on the payments they received for that transport. And those containers are linked to the socio-humanitarian conditions our people live in.
NB: The US government has threatened to attack Cuba militarily. Is this psychological warfare, or do you believe they are planning a military aggression?
BR: It is a threat that we take seriously, very seriously, and it is extremely grave. One would have to see what happens to the current international order if a nuclear superpower were allowed to attack a small island to change its political system, to change its government. Secondly, these are not just rhetorical actions. They are public. US leaders say it; the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, other US government figures constantly state that the military option against Cuba, a direct military aggression against Cuba, is among the options on the president’s desk for him to decide on. Although there are elements of propaganda and psychological warfare, it is public and well known real preparations are being made for a military aggression against Cuba.
Without doubt our people would defend at all costs, whatever the consequences, their independence, sovereignty and the territorial integrity of our homeland. It would be a truly tragic act that would cause the loss of life of Cubans and young Americans sent to a war that has nothing to do with them. It would cause a bloodbath and at the same time generate regional instability. The US would never be able to achieve its goal of occupying and pacifying and controlling our country, which would be impossible, as many serious US and European analysts recognise. It would also generate regional instability throughout the Caribbean Sea, in the Gulf of Mexico, in the trade routes, air routes, and for the countries neighbouring Cuba, not only for the United States. The US government would bear criminal and genocidal responsibility, a huge loss of credibility, and it would deepen the international isolation it faces for its blockade policy and hostility towards our country.
With all realism, we prepare for the defence of our nation, as is the Cuban tradition, and we hope it never happens. We work tirelessly to avoid any pretext, to prevent the US government from creating conditions that could lead to bilateral escalation. But at the same time, we have said, and we will do so with all firmness, we will defend our right to self-determination at all costs. It would be in the best interest of the United Nations organisation and of its Security Council. The General Assembly spoke out on July 7, in dozens of speeches by representatives of member states from all regions, against a military adventure against Cuba. They also demanded an end to the energy siege and to the persecution of maritime transport heading to Cuba.
I am convinced that the world needs, humanity needs, a broad-based articulation of the will of all honest people, of all governments, of all nations, to prevent the deterioration of the international order, from driving the planet towards a situation that humanity had overcome many decades ago; of plunder, of conquest, of territorial occupation, of occupation of strategic enclaves, of proliferation of highly lethal or autonomous weapons, of the development of the arms race against the interests of all peoples, of the risk of extending the arms race to outer space, and of the danger of a nuclear winter caused by the mere existence of vast nuclear arsenals. Even the explosion of one hundred nuclear warheads would cause the disappearance of the human species. I am convinced that the conjunction of international organisations, governments, parliaments, political forces, popular movements, civil society organisations, will gradually come together to stop this path that poses a real and extreme threat to human life on the planet.
Cuba has thus become a kind of symbol, despite being a small island. History turned it into an international symbol of independence, of rebellion against oppression and injustice, and also a symbol of solidarity. In dozens and dozens of countries, Cuba has given solidarity, during the Covid-19 pandemic, in Italy in particular, or in Andorra, for example. So we feel that Cuba is by no means alone, that the Cuban cause receives broad international solidarity, and we trust that the international community will stop any military adventure against Cuba and force an end to these policies that are also genocidal, that also cause deaths, that also kill, even if they are not bombs, including the energy siege, the total energy blockade, or preventing the arrival of essential goods for our population.
HY: The US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, is one of the main advocates of a harder line towards Cuba. Recently he told Axios: “Every time they create a new mechanism to try to escape the noose, we simply tighten it.” At the same time, he boasted that the US government has provided $100 million dollars in humanitarian aid to the Cuban people. To put that in context, Cuba reports that the US blockade costs the country between $7 and $8 billion annually. Could you comment on these contradictory positions?
BR: The blockade on Cuba has a daily impact of over $900,000, almost $1 million dollars. That is what each day of blockade costs Cuba. This is the same Secretary of State who, if you look at his recent statements, you will find claiming that the blockade does not exist and that the energy siege does not exist either. It is curious because he directly contradicted the US President himself, or the President’s spokesperson, on these issues.
Who would benefit from the destruction of the Cuban economy, from the destruction of our country? Only a small group of corrupt politicians, generally based in South Florida, driven first and foremost by a desire for revenge against the Cuban Revolution. They inherited ideas, they inherited the sins of those who served in Fulgencio Batista’s bloody dictatorship, those who stole hand over fist, those who benefited from the corruption of that era. A migration of numerous criminals, war criminals. Today they invoke reasons of revenge, vengeance, and of recovery and return of our country to the 1950s. They are the ones who embody the most radical and extreme positions. They are the ones who push hardest for a US military adventure against Cuba, without thinking of the terrible consequences it would have.
There are also politicians in the US who want to eliminate the alternative that Cuba’s historical experience represents in the face of savage capitalism and the most orthodox neoliberalism, as well as in the face of fascist and neo-fascist currents that are gaining ground in this era. They are bothered by the existence of an alternative model to the one they want to impose worldwide and have, in fact, imposed on many countries in recent years. Cuba represents the vision of a plurality of cultures, a plurality of thought, a plurality of political models according to historical circumstances, and the right of people to self-determination. Only that small clique could benefit, first from the current policies of the US government, and then from an escalation or worsening of the bilateral conflict. Because it is in the best interests of people in the United States, of its taxpayers, of those who elect its governments, and also of Cubans residing there, to advance a process of normalisation of relations based on eliminating the blockade and threats against our country.
About the humanitarian aid: we are a country that has provided significant international humanitarian cooperation and remain today a provider of international medical cooperation in diverse regions of the planet. Today, Cuba is probably the most important provider of international medical cooperation under South-South cooperation terms on the planet. This cooperation has also been atrociously persecuted for totally political motivations. Cuba has always accepted international cooperation and aid, which our people, in today’s very difficult circumstances, so badly need.
The announcement of the $100 million was made, as I recall, at the Holy See. But at that time, it did not exist. Neither the Cuban churches nor the Cuban government had been contacted at all. And it was stated there, at the Holy See, no less, that the Cuban Government refused to receive that $100 million in humanitarian aid. This had been preceded by an offer of $3 million in humanitarian aid, which was indeed delivered and helped alleviate the situation of a limited number of Cuban families, because we are talking about a large population. Then, an aid package of $9 million was offered, which was then said to be $6 million, of which only a tiny portion has so far been delivered. Of the $100 million, aid for only 700 families has been received – a small amount of assistance for 700 families. Humanitarian issues should never be used, least of all humanitarian aid, for political motivations and to generate manipulation and political situations. But our government, together with the Cuban churches, remains ready to facilitate the receipt of this aid for the benefit of our people.
HY: The US State Department recently published the report: Cuba, the Capital of 21st Century Communism, which describes Cuba as a global subversive force that has guided the US and international left for decades. This report is published in the context of the reaffirmation of the Monroe Doctrine and the return of right-wing governments elected in many Latin American countries. Several governments have broken diplomatic relations with Cuba. What are the implications of this rightward shift for Cuba and for the region? How do you respond to the State Department report?
BR: It is hard to give a serious answer to such a weak document. I would love to know which artificial intelligence application was used to produce that document. I have read its nearly 100 pages. It took me a tremendous effort to get to the end, because it is a mixture of lies, falsehoods, manipulations, produced with very poor craftsmanship, and a terrible lack of rigour. I am convinced that serious and professional diplomats at the State Department must be ashamed that their institution published such a libel. Many international analysts spare me from having to argue too much about the falsehoods it contains. But even amid the official statements of the US government, the conditions of the international order, and the proclamations in their national security and defence directives about who their strategic competitors are and who their strategic adversaries could be, presenting Cuba as the source of all evil and as the nation capable of overthrowing the US government does not allow for a serious conversation.
But in McCarthyism, and in the construction of the processes that led to the Second World War and the development of fascism, things as absurd as that were said and there were people who believed them. At the beginning of the 1960s, a CIA operation circulated the lie that the Cuban state was going to abolish parental authority over children. This led to 14,000 children being sent alone to the United States, to foster homes, to orphanages, based on an absurd lie. Yet there were people who believed it. So, one should not underestimate the Goebbels-style approach that the US government follows, relying moreover on its ownership and control of the big tech platforms that today have a tremendous impact not only on information but on behaviour and people’s capacity to think critically on a global scale. I have said that if young people and citizens in the US, received more truthful and accurate information, they would prevent these atrocious policies that their government applies against Cuba and elsewhere from happening.
I totally reject the claims made there, which have a very serious purpose: to justify, on the one hand, the military threat against Cuba; to justify collective punishment and the crime of genocide; and also to justify repression and persecution of US civil society organisations – some of which have been in solidarity with Cuba, some of which have organised trips to Cuba, and others not – within a policy that is essentially repressive, a violation of civil liberties and human rights. The US government not only prevents US citizens from travelling to Cuba, for example, curtailing their freedom to travel, but has also overseen an extraordinary level of recent repression in the universities, acts of great incivility against thought and against enlightened academic sectors in the US. So, it is a ridiculous and mendacious report. However, one must take seriously the objectives it serves, including a deeply rooted racism and xenophobia and persecution of immigrants, and the use of these McCarthyite and repressive tools by extreme right-wing forces, against progressivism in general and against the US people themselves.
It is true that history generates advances and setbacks, it is a kind of spiral. It must be analysed through a historical, dialectical lens. But one must never underestimate the historical accumulation in favour of progressivism, in favour of social justice, of overcoming neoliberalism and neoliberal globalisation, in favour of overcoming forms of production and consumption that are irrational and unsustainable and endanger the very existence of life on the planet. These rightward shifts occur over time, but I have the deep conviction, and I am optimistic, that a favourable historical accumulation is taking place. Under any circumstances, Cuba has maintained very deep relations with all Latin American and Caribbean peoples, because those relations are essentially cultural and based on bonds of affection. No political situation, no government – and all governments are temporary – can affect those deep ties. People will quickly realise how neoliberal, far-right governments dismantle social gains achieved in previous periods. Ultimately, they will end in utter disrepute.
We trust that our ties with all the Latin American and Caribbean peoples, and also with most of their governments, will continue to advance. There are countries with which Cuba has historically had, and still has today, a very close relationship. The Cuban people have similarly deep cultural ties and links with people in the United States and that cannot be ignored either. Some right-wing governments have acted in total subordination to this US government. They have acted against their own history, against their tradition, against the aspirations and sentiments of their peoples. They will soon be gone, and no one will remember them.
NB: When we talk about the blockade, we usually think only about the costs to Cuba, however, there are also losses for the population of the United States and the whole world. Could you speak about these losses?
BR: Well, I mentioned earlier that the blockade of Cuba harms the interests of everyone on the planet because it is a transgression of national laws, of the sovereign equality and independence of all states, because it damages the national interests of all countries without exception. It harms the interests of their business people, of their most diverse social sectors, cultural, academic, scientific, in all fields, and it also causes them economic damage. The US government frequently resorts to the application of coercive measures against other states, while preserving its capacity to develop economic exchanges with the very country it supposedly prevents from having ties with third parties. That is very symptomatic. In the case of Europe, for example, in the field of gas, of fuel, or other areas where the US has tried to appropriate and exploit geopolitical conditions in order to impose on European governments and people very harsh conditions. It has happened with tariffs, it has happened in various areas. So, I would say that for any nation there is damage – political damage, ethical damage, damage from the point of view of international and national law – in seeking to impose on another country the decisions of US courts in matters where they have no jurisdiction, or in trying to make companies or individuals from third countries abide by extraterritorial US laws. That causes real damage to those nations.
Secondly, in the case of the United States, for example, and many others, this deprives them of scientific advances – and I say this modestly – that are currently unique to Cuba: for example, in the field of therapeutic vaccines against cancer; in the field of new medicines and treatments against diabetes and diabetic foot ulcers; and for the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s. Why can’t people in the United States benefit from those treatments, which would also be much cheaper and are now shown to be more effective than those used in the United States? The US persecution of Cuba’s international medical cooperation seeks to deprive developed countries – where such cooperation exists – and Global South countries, specifically entire populations whose only medical services are those provided in remote locations and to low-income sectors by Cuban doctors.
Cuba today has one of the most modern and competitive industries in the world in the biomedical and pharmaceutical fields. How many European countries could rapidly produce their own vaccines against Covid-19, for example? Cuba, in record time and with minimal resources, was able to produce five vaccines. However, today US subsidiary companies in the medical and pharmaceutical sectors and generally those registered in Europe are forced to follow the blockade regulations against Cuba. Corporations with a global or international scale, likewise. So the extraterritorial nature of the blockade – which is genocidal towards the Cuban people, even without bombs falling, causing deaths, causing suffering – harms all nations on the planet. That is also why it draws practically unanimous rejection at the international level.
HY: We come to the last question. In nearly 70 years of conflict, every US president has tried to provoke regime change in Cuba. None has succeeded. What does this fact tell us about the real effectiveness of that policy, and about the resilience of the Cuban system?
BR: A well-known right-wing US senator questioned the policy of hostility and blockade against Cuba. He said – at that time it was 50 years – “Fifty years of applying a failed policy should make anyone think about finding another policy”. Because the reality is that the policy of hostility and blockade has not advanced the United States one millimetre in the objectives it has proclaimed, not of one kind or another, towards our country, towards Cuba. However extreme its measures may be, it will not work, and it will not bring the current government, nor any other, closer to the objectives it sets for itself, which are to regain domination over Cuba, to return Cuba to the worst years of a neocolonial and totally dependent capitalism, to hand the country over to US corporations, as it was for half a century. Or to allow the return to Cuba the Batista-era mobs of corrupt thieves and torturers, who ended up in South Florida. These are objectives that the US government will never achieve, no matter how hard it tries, despite the fact that we must recognise that it has the capacity to cause, as it is causing today, immense damage to our country.
Some US governments have tried to introduce modifications in the bilateral relationship. I do not want to mention particular presidents. I should say that those experiences demonstrated, first of all, that it is possible to advance in bilateral relations, to ease or end some of the most atrocious measures of the blockade against Cuba, and that it is possible to converse, to find solutions to some bilateral problems through dialogue and negotiation. It also showed that Cuba is a serious partner that honours its commitments, that keeps its word, that is a serious international actor. It also showed that there is broad consensus among the Cuban people and the US people in favour of overcoming these policies of coercion and blockade, and favouring ties of dialogue, trade and cooperation, which would benefit both populations.
We have repeatedly stated, and I reiterate, the Cuban government’s willingness to continue conversations with the US government on the bases established by international law: sovereign equality, equal footing, mutual respect, reciprocal benefit for both peoples, without interference in the internal affairs of either country and without preconditions. And those experiences in previous decades also showed that it yielded important benefits for the US government in relation to its own people. For example, 400,000 US citizens and a similar number of Cubans resident in the US came to visit Cuba in 2018. They had that experience first hand, they received direct and truthful information about the Cuban reality. This also drew broad support from the US population and Cubans resident in the US, including South Florida. So, I am convinced that the accumulation, the historical trend – well, if it is with this government, we would save time; if not, it will be with another. But, in the end, a civilised, productive and respectful relationship between both peoples will prevail, and it will also be expressed in ties between both governments.
NB: Before we finish, is there anything you would like to say?
I thank you very much for visiting us, and also for having shared our hardships during these days, and for taking such a deep interest not only in getting to know Cuba well, but also in making sure that citizens worldwide, particularly in Europe and the United States, receive truthful and complete information.
Helen Yaffe is a professor of Latin American political economy at the University of Glasgow. She is the author of We Are Cuba! How a Revolutionary People Have Survived in a Post-Soviet World, and Che Guevara: The Economics of Revolution and has co-produced several documentaries on Cuba. She is cohost of the Cuba Analysis podcast.
Nina Blodau has been involved in solidarity with Cuba for nearly three decades and currently chairs the Cuba Support Group Ireland and co-hosts Cuba Analysis podcast. She has also produced a documentary, Cuba: Growing Resilience, about Cuba’s sustainable development.