Talk:Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces

Small Arms
Just a note, I doubt they use the Mac-10, Beretta M9, or the Uzi. Mac-10 is an american made weapon which wasn't designed until years after the revolution, Israel, which makes the Uzi, is a close american ally, and Beretta M9 is the sidearm of the united states armed forces, it's unlikely they would have gotten that contract had they been supplying to Cuba. If someone could post some sources I'd very much appreciate it. 68.0.144.113 (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

i made some changes about the Ochoa's case, for a more NPOV, and i have another doubt but i am not sure if it is ok to change that: the phrase "REPRESS DISSENT" doesnt seems very "neutral" maybe "control" dissent, or something like that... --Gotten 23:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

repressing dissent
I've changed to "suppressing counter-revolution". As a Communist, I think it's an accurate description and about the most impartial way of describing the imprisonment (and formerly execution) of political enemies. --Dafyddyoung 19:00, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That edit has been revised again since January, I've now made it something that should work for everyone with the intention of keeping Wikipedia neutral. Eyeflash 13:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The statement that "the military is also Raúl Castro's base" is rather colloquial and unencyclopaedic. I suggest instead "power base".

Compulsory?
Can someone add to the article wether or not military service is compulsory? I've been wondering. PHF 00:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * See --Zleitzen 00:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess you could add more information to this page, end real information. If you allow me, I can help you in many ways. The information displayed it´s not totally wrong, but is a little distorted.

Military History
Would this be the right Cuba sub-page to present the history of Cuba's foreign interventions, such as their dogfights with the South African airforce during the Angola campaign? If not, where? - Eric (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The article
is badly lacking, citing information from 80's or at best from 90's also like said the list of equipment is also badly misinformed. Also it seems most of the "information" on this page seems to come from couple of anti-Cuban pages anyhow.

Futhermore i wonder like somebody else, why isnt the marvelous history of Cuban military featured in this article? As for such small nation Cuba and its military has had a huge positive impact on world events.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.217.247 (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Military history
echoing comments above, military history is missing from this article for the most part. There was a sentence that I've removed, because it was out of place, that refers to this. I'm not sure if there is another article where the military history of Cuba is discussed. This is what I removed:

Wars involving Cuba's cumunist forces. Argelia (1963) Siria   (1973) Ethiopia (1978) Angola  (1975-1989) Nicaragua (1980's) El Salvador (1980's)

Siria would be Syria. Argelia is Algeria. There is an article, Cuban intervention in Angola. --Abd (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There is some information at, from 1988.--Abd (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Cuba has more militaries than Canada
This site: [Cuban Military Machine] talks about this subject. In fact, Cuba spents more in its militaries than a rich and big country such as Canada.Agre22 (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)agre22

Name Change
This article should be labelled Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces since that is the official name.

MiG-23BN in Cuban Air Force
There are no MiG-23BN listed in this article.

On Jun 6, 1978; 14 MiG-23BN arrived to Cuba, and it was the detonant to the MiG-23 crisis of the late seventies. On 1982 other 14 MiG-23BN arrived to Cuba and other 14 by 1985-1986

Miguel 200.55.142.140 (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Black Wasps
Avispas Negras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.148.202 (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://cubapolidata.com/cafr/cafr_military_regions.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210074214/http://www.cubapolidata.com/cafr/cafr_airforce.html to http://www.cubapolidata.com/cafr/cafr_airforce.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070515182708/http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/secciones/generales/ to http://www.granma.cubaweb.cu/secciones/generales/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609182120/http://www.cubapolidata.com/cafr/cafr.html to http://www.cubapolidata.com/cafr/cafr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI
according to the Cuban Constitution of 1976:

The President of the Council of State is Head of Government and is invested with the power to:
 * To perform the Supreme Chieftainship of all the armed institutions, and to determine its general organization; (Designation of commander in chief) 
 * To preside over the National Defense Council;

It's what the contitution says. Coltsfan (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The Miami Herald says otherwise, see here. Also The Atlantic, here. Also the New York Times, here Cambalachero (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, even if that was true (up for debate, at the very least), the Infobox states who officially occupy the position of "Commander in chief" and the constitution says it's the president. If it's an empty position, in name only, that's one thing, but, just like in every other country, we should go with what the law says, because the rest, what happens behind close doors, is conjecture, up for debate, like i said. For instance, the Commander-in-Chief of British Armed Forces is Queen Elizabeth II, even though who is actually in command is the Prime-Minister and his defense secretary. Coltsfan (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia describes the world as it is, not as it "should be". If the law says that something should be one way, but actual reality says that it is some other way, we describe actual reality. Cambalachero (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Like i said, this is up for debate. If what you say it's true, we should change the article of the British Armed Forces, of the Belgian Armed Forces, Spanish Armed Forces, the Indian Armed Forces... All these countries, the position of "Commander-in-Chief" is largely ceremonial, but their constitution states that the King/Queen or President is the "Commander", even though another person actually exercises the role of commanding and directing military duties. So even if, behind closed doors, the commander of the Cuban Armed Forces might be someone else, the job of Commander in chief, the ceremonial role in the very least, is exercised by the President, as the Constitution says. Coltsfan (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not what the sources say. They do not describe the office as "largely ceremonial", but as a powerful office, more so than that of president. And no, this is not up for debate: there is someone holding that office right now, and accoding to sources, that's still Castro. The way things are managed at other countries is not relevant here, each one has their own laws, statutes and customs. Cambalachero (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, those sources, although with their merit, are themselves opinion articles. They are the opinion of the people who wrote them. Second, the country has a Constitution, which, like in every other nation, is the supreme law, and the current law of that country states pretty clear who is the Commander in Chief. If some journalists believe otherwise, it's their opinion against the Constitution of a nation. As WP:NEWSORG says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact". Coltsfan (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And law themselves, even the constitution, are primary sources. They describe the way things are meant to happen, not the way they actually happened. Do you have some secondary source that works with this event and says that Diaz Canel has become the commander-in-chief of the Cuban armed forces? Cambalachero (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How about i use The New York Times as well? It says: "While the new president is legally commander in chief, Raul's influence is imbued throughout the institution that he led as defense minister for nearly half a century". Sure, Raul will exercise influence on the job, but legally, for all intents and purposes, the president, ie Miguel Díaz-Canel, is the Commander in Chief. Coltsfan (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That one seems fine. Cambalachero (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Logo del Partido Comunista de Cuba.svg