On January 24 a Wall Street Journal editorial criticized Nicolas Maduro’s record in Venezuela and opined that the “crucial but underreported question now is whether dictator Nicolás Maduro’s protectors in Cuba and Russia will intervene to stop this democratic uprising.” (Emphasis added.) 
Cuba, says the editorial, is a key player in this drama because it “controls Mr. Maduro’s personal security detail and has built a counterintelligence network around the high command.” Thus, nations “that want better for Venezuela should focus as much on Havana as Caracas. If civilized countries want to end the starvation and mass migration of Venezuelans, they have to convince the Cuban regime to back off. That means targeting Havana with diplomatic pressure, as well as sanctions such as travel restrictions and frozen bank accounts.” (Emphases added.)
“The U.S. needs to make clear that if Mr. Maduro or his paramilitaries act against Americans, the Administration will hold Cuba responsible.” (Emphasis added.)
This essentially is the same message that Secretary of State Pompeo delivered to the Organization of American States on January 24 as reported in a prior post.
A New York Times’ editorial criticized the Maduro record and welcomed his leaving power, but recognized that “American intervention also carries risk . . . . [and] “[a]ny military intervention [by the U.S.] could prove catastrophic, especially if Russia, the primary arms supplier to Venezuela, stepped in.” The Times, however, had no harsh rhetoric towards Cuba with respect to Venezuela.