The US is not enforcing a blockade, it's an embargo. The US and other countries are refusing to trade with Cuba, but plenty of other countries can and do trade with Cuba. Cuba is not entitled to trade with the US.
A blockade is when a country stops traffic, from entering a country's ports. It's an act of war, and a totally different thing from an embargo.
They have been boarding ships that fly false flags. That is, they claim to be flying under the flag of some country. But when the US contacts that country to confirm that the ship is really registered there, the government of that country replies that the ship is not, in fact, registered. This is legal to do regardless of the embargo against Cuba.
There are plenty of ships that move good and resources to Cuba that don't get boarded.
Your comment makes it look like is a police action instead of interfering in the business of third countries in international waters, with the express goal of causing economic pain.
The two are not mutually exclusive: The US embargo is done with the goal of economically hampering Cuba. The ships that try to skirt their home countries' participation in the embargo by flying false flags are being subject to police action.
I think this attitude is why EU and other nations have started to realize that doing business with US and relying on them is not a good idea.
United States is still under the impression that it's post WWII era..
The good news is that American's grip is slipping and will no longer be able to exert the same level of power in the next decade or so.
You're right, no one is entitled to trade wit US but the US is not entitled to trade with the rest of the world either, including China, Russia, Europe and Middle East.
I think Americans should realize that the post WII era is well passed and "strong arming" nations isn't going to work.
Basically stateless ships don't have any international legal protections in international waters (at least according to the US's interpretation of the law).
By the plain text of international law a state cannot commit piracy since piracy specifically only applies to private actors.
> Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft...
It's legal because the ships were flying false flags. They claim that they're registered in country X, but when the US calls up country X they are told that the ship is not, in fact, registered there.
Maritime law exists, and enforcing it is not an act of piracy.
Maritime law alone isn't what justifies seizing of ships identified as stateless. Under maritime law ships properly registered to a state are only subject to that states laws when in international waters. But stateless ships can be subject to any states laws, however maritime law itself doesn't grant the right to seize even stateless ships. So the US seizing a stateless ship would have to justified under US law.
If you read the link closely, nowhere does it actually say the US is employing military force to stop ships from docking in Cuba - that's what a blockade is. The author of the piece is essentially trying to redefine "blockade" to mean "embargo".
Again, the ships that actually were boarded were doing illegal things like flying false flags to try and continue to trade with Cuba without triggering retaliatory tariffs.
> continue to trade with Cuba without triggering retaliatory tariffs
Why are there "retaliatory tariffs" in the first place? Why is the US forcefully inserting itself into affairs with which it should have no concern? Or are you saying it's the US's concern because... what? They're the world's watchdog and ultimate authority on right behavior? Other countries trading with the countries they've embargoed should rightly be penalized?
Because the US wants to economically isolate Cuba to prod the single party authoritarian regime into liberalizing. It's fine if you think that's a bad thing. My only point is that it's not a blockade, it's an embargo. Countries have the option to trade with Cuba and live with the additional tariffs on their exports to the US. Under an actual blockade, that option doesn't exist. The Royal Navy didn't let ships into Germany during WW1 and slap their flag countries with tariffs. No, they boarded and seized the vessels because this was an actual blockade.
As I said in my other reply to you, if it looks like a duck and act like a duck, it's a duck. Call it a de-facto blockade if you have to. Being this pedantic only serves to protect the image of a heinous crime.
But it doesn't look like a duck? There are ships docking and departing Cuba all the time. Your speaking as though Cuba is cut off from all maritime trade, which is not the case.
Contrast that with actual blockades: like the UK blockading Germany in WW1. Even if a ship was legally registered, the Royal Navy would still board and seize it if it tried to dock on Germany.
You're trying to call this a distinction without a difference, when the differences between and embargo and a blockade are stark.
it is cut off from oil. it is effectively an oil-blockade, except for the one shipment the US allowed through, as reported by the media. Sorry, I'm done talking with someone who's this pedantic, it's not good for my blood pressure.
But it's cut off from oil because other countries refuse to trade with Cuba. Not because the US Navy is blocking vessels (besides those flying false flags) from docking with Cuba.
If you really believe there's no distinction between an embargo and a blockade then you should have just correctly used the term "embargo". This isn't pedantry, this is the difference between an act of war and an economic move.
I would further note that, if one is looking for something to dislike about the embargoes, being a blockade isn't necessary. In particular, (classical) liberals should be disturbed by countries forcing private shippers to participate in "their" country's embargo. E.g., would the US attempt to stop and American company from trading with Cuba?
Well mostly because of the direction actions of imperialism causing the needless deaths of babies but seeing how you seem to be pro-imperialism you probably see this as a good thing for American hegemony. Right up there with bombing school girls in Iran. It's just good diplomacy at that point right?
Friendly reminder that the only people that majorly benefit from US foreign policy are the elites, most US citizens are left with a more dangerous world where they suffer against backlash, terrorism, and degrading life services.
I'm trying to figure out your reason for saying this. You seem to be an adept mind reader so please forgive my mental torpidity, but are you saying that Cuba does not do bad by it's citizens? Or that they do, but are justified? And where exactly does "imperialism" come into the equation?
It's not about better or worse. I think it's important to understand the actual situation first so that we may argue the on the issue at hand. Embargo and blockade are at different levels of escalation. Now we can discuss that the embargo and advocate for de-escalation
> The Trump administration had been enforcing what amounted to an oil blockade around Cuba since January, threatening nations that had been sending fuel to the country and, in one case, escorting a tanker heading toward Cuba away from the island.
> The United States began blocking oil tankers heading to Cuba in February 2026, targeting companies such as the Mexican state-owned Pemex and threatening the responsible countries with tariffs should they resist.
> After the ousting of Maduro, the United States began increasing its pressure on Mexico to reduce its oil sales to Cuba with President Donald Trump threatening tariffs against any country supplying Cuba with oil. Mexico temporarily halted shipments of oil to Cuba by 27 January and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said that the decision to halt oil deliveries was "a sovereign decision".
Your own link highlights the fact that this is not a blockade. The US threatened Mexico with tariffs if they didn't participate in the embargo against Cuba. Mexico decided that trade with Cuba isn't worth tariffs on Mexican exports to America. While the US is pressuring Mexico with the threat of tariffs it is ultimately Mexico's sovereign decision to stop sending oil to Cuba.
If Mexico decided to keep sending oil to Cuba, and the US started sizing ships carrying Mexican oil bound for Cuba that would be a blockade.
If I stand outside your house and threaten everyone who comes near with economic ruin, right after kidnapping your close friend and next-door neighbor using the world's most powerful military, you're gonna feel a little blockaded.
You seem very focused on some pedantic distinction here that just looks goofy from a practical standpoint. The US is intentionally cutting off oil supplies to Cuba. Call it whatever the fuck you want.
Threatening to tax people who enter your house is still vastly different from physically apprehending anyone who tries to enter your house even if they're willing to pay the tax.
The difference between a blockade and an embargo is not small: the former is an act of war. If you really think this is no meaningful distinction between a blockade and an embargo, then how about you just correctly refer to it as an embargo? If there really is no meaningful distinction then why not just use the right word?
> If you really think this is no meaningful distinction between a blockade and an embargo, then how about you just correctly refer to it as an embargo?
I think you're very focused on finding reasons the blockade isn't one, to the point of some severe contortions. I'm not sure why you think the US is leery of acts of war; we've committed a bunch in the last year, including multiple preemptive decapatation strikes of world leaders.
You think it's an embargo; I (and much of the world) think it's a blockade. Whoever's right, this'd be deeply shitty antisocial behavior if you did it to your neighbor, and likely to lead to blows.
The severe contortions are on the end of people trying to call this a blockade. These terms have long established definitions. A blockade is a unilateral action where a country seizes vessels that try to dock at the blockaded country. It's an act of war.
This is not what's happening in Cuba. Countries are deciding to participate in the embargo because they don't want to have their exports to the US tariffed. Emphasis on decided. These countries have the option to continue trading with Cuba and having their imports tariffed.
A blockade does not afford other countries that option. The Royal Navy seized any and all vessels bound to Germany during WW1. There was no option to simply accept a tariff and continue trading with Germany. Because this was a blockade not an embargo.
> we've committed a bunch in the last year, including multiple preemptive decapatation strikes of world leaders.
Correct, like a blockade, those are indeed acts of war. If the US was bombing Cuba, then the US would indeed be at war with Cuba. But that's not happening in Cuba.
In your view, what does this mean? The distinction seems important to you, but I am not sure if you have really gotten into the meaningful difference. If it is definitely not a blockade, and that is important to say, why is it important? Does it mean we should view the situation differently? Does it imply more/less culpability to one party or the other? Should we have more hope around the humanitarian crisis? Or less?
Being direct about these kinds of questions would maybe help us understand where you are coming from here.
A blockade is an act of war, carried out by military force. Saying the US is blockading Cuba is saying that the US and Cuba are at war. That alone is a pretty big reason to understand the difference between a blockade and an embargo.
Well recently Mexico and Venezuela. The rest are forced through the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, the U.S. can penalize any foreign company that does business in Cuba.
FTA: “U.S. President Donald Trump resumed ramping up a six-decade-old American ecomonic embargo on Cuba in January after cutting off its main supply of oil from Venezuela and threatening sanctions on Mexico, its second largest supply, and any other country that provided oil to the island.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Cuban_crisis: “ The United States began blocking oil tankers heading to Cuba in February 2026, targeting companies such as the Mexican state-owned Pemex and threatening the responsible countries with tariffs should they resist. […] On 29 January 2026, Executive Order 14380 was signed and entered into force on 30 January, declaring a national emergency in US and authorizing the imposition of additional tariffs on imports into the United States from countries that directly or indirectly supply oil to Cuba.”
No really, it's an embargo and a promise to tariff other countries that don't also embargo Cuba.
An embargo is like boycotting a store. A blockade is like standing around the store with a bunch of batons promising to apprehend anyone who tries to shop at the store.
But they're not blocking oil tankers from other countries, at least not ones that are operating legally. The only tankers that have been seized were flying false flags, which makes them legal to seize irrespective of the embargo.
They have been stationing coast guard ships as interceptors to stop other tankers from reaching Cuba. At least one tanker turned away in the face of the threat from the USCG.
The whole “false flags” argument is also a stretch given that these ships are flying false flags to avoid US sanctions. “We’re not embargoing, we’re just sanctioning” is kind of a nonsense statement when we seize sanctioned ships. The warrant to seize “Skipper” was issued because it was carrying sanctioned oil, not because of the flag it was flying.
This is an embargo, enforced with both economic and military strength. Again, the fact that you want to argue pointless semantics indicates you believe the embargo is not defensible.
The use of tools such as embargoes and threats of economic sanctions to prevent the flow of goods in and out of a set of ports needs to have a name, and “blockade” is as good as any other.
They can beat around the bush to pretend what is effectively a blockade to be anything but a blockade. Call it a de-facto blockade if you have to. You're using technicality as a crutch.
It's not a blockade. Any country around the world is free to sail their cargo ships to Cuba and trade with Cubans. This will in turn, trigger tariffs against them in the US, but if countries really want to trade with Cuba they can.
A blockade is carried out through military force. Under a blockade ships are physically prevented from docking with the blockaded country, even if they're legally registered.
If you want to decry what the US is doing to Cuba, go ahead. But it is an embargo not a blockade.
No, they are not blocking legally registered tankers from other countries. The handful of boarded ships were boarded because they were flying false flags, which is illegal and opens them up to being seized regardless of the embargo.
It is effectively an oil blockade, and it's illegal under international law. Being this pedantic about how the US justifies its actions shows zero understanding for how these things tend to be done. The purpose of a system is what it does.
No, it's not effectively an oil blockade. Countries have the option to trade with Cuba and risk whatever retaliatory tariffs the US promises to put on countries that ship oil to Cuba. These counties choose to refrain from trade with Cuba because the value they get out of exporting goods to the US exceeds the value of trade with Cuba. But if they decided otherwise, that option is available to them.
A blockade is an act of war where a country physically stops vessels from entering port in the target of the blockade. There is no choice in a blockade, the country enforcing the blockade is acting unilaterally
If you really think this is a distinction without a difference, then you could've just used the word "embargo" and avoided this exchange. But you didn't, you chose to call it a blockade, which is incorrect.
And if pretty much any other country in the world threatened tariffs if they traded, most countries would be "meh". The US is the global superpower and a vast player economically.
Pretending that what the US does here is the same as if any other country did it is disengenuous.
No doubt that America's embargo is more powerful because it's one of the largest import markets in the world. I'm not pretending that an American embargo is no more impactful than a smaller country carrying out an embargo. But it's unambiguously an embargo, not a blockade. These terms have long established definitions. A blockade is an act of war, carried out with military force. An embargo does not become a blockade by virtue of the fact that the country doing the embargo had a big economy.
If you think the embargo is bad, that's fine. What I'm objecting to is people calling it a blockade.
> The oil tanker seized by the United States off the coast of Venezuela this week was part of the Venezuelan government’s effort to support Cuba, according to documents and people inside the Venezuelan oil industry.
> Three days later, the U.S. Coast Guard intercepted a tanker full of Colombian fuel oil en route to Cuba that had gotten within 70 miles of the island, the data showed.
> The U.S. government called its 1962 policy a “quarantine” to avoid using the word “blockade,” which legally could be interpreted as an act of war. The Trump administration has also avoided using the word “blockade.”
The distinction seems to be mostly word games at this point.
The Ocean Mariner departed Columbia with the stated destination of the Dominican Republic. But it started sailing towards Cuba. When it realized that it was being tracked by the USCG, it changed course towards the Dominican Republic.
We don't know with certainty what it's intent was, but it's likely it was trying to sell oil to Cuba surreptitiously, so as to avoid triggering retaliatory tariffs against Colombia.
The ship was free to dock and offload in Cuba, but that would trigger tarrifs against Colombian exports the US. Which is why it turned around when it realized it was spotted. All the coast guard did was ensure that the ship docked at its stated destination.
No - they can just pay the tariff and continue to trade. The ships being seized are doing things like flying false flags, to try and trade with Cuba without paying tariffs.
A tariff is a tax that a country imposes on goods entering its borders. A country can impose a tariff on any country, at any time, for whatever reason (unless they've signed free trade agreements obligating them to refrain from imposing tariffs).
> What would your reaction be if China imposed tariffs on US-Canadian border crossings and seized American ships over it?
Again, the ships in being sized were flying false flags, which is illegal. If American ships decided to take this criminal act, then China is justified in enforcing the law.
Yes, they fly false flags to avoid triggering retaliatory tariffs. If country X sells oil to Cuba than country X's goods being imported to the the US will be subject to additional tariffs.
I can see how this wording makes it sound like the US is charging a tariff on the oil entering Cuba, but that is not the case. The tariff in that quote is referring to the tariffs the US is promising to place on counties that don't participate in the embargo.
Good question, and you'd be right that in that situation it wouldn't hold up to scrutiny. That's not what's going on, though. Instead, the tariff applies to trades American trade when it is determined that the other party is also trading with Cuba. The parent is correct; Mexico, or any other country, is free to trade with Cuba, but then it will be subject to American tariffs on American trade. It has to make the choice. There is certainly pressure, but it's on independent states to decide.
It always boils down to the US ignoring international trade and laws in their favor. As you said there is nothing illegal about two countries trading. The idea the US should have a say is deeply undemocratic and frankly anti-human as well, but that's just the US for you.
This podcast does a great job on highlighting how the media plays its role in justifying the imperialism too:
Paying a tariff to a third-party government doesn’t mean the third-party government is obligated to stop pirating ships under the guise of “flying false flags.”
Trade in US Dollars with other countries need to go through US banks, which can be subject to prohibitions, which can be done by political motivation.
Also, the issue of the PetroDollar complicates things internationally as well. US throws a tantrum when small countries (or countries it can bully) trade Oil in other currencies. That is very important to keep themselves relevant and with some control over international trades.
Yet another aspect is that if any goods, regardless of who is selling it, contains more than 10% of components, technology, produced by a US company, such seller requires an US Export license to trade such goods with Cuba.
> U.S. President Donald Trump resumed ramping up a six-decade-old American ecomonic embargo on Cuba in January after cutting off its main supply of oil from Venezuela and threatening sanctions on Mexico, its second largest supply, and any other country that provided oil to the island.
It has taken on distinctly more "blockade-like" attributes.
In a vacuum sure, but the communists replaced Batista, who was arguably as bad or worse at the time of the revolution. In the long run they'd have probably been better under Batista because being America's bitch is better for the health of Caribbean nations than being the bitch of USSR/China and the enemy of America while you haul your goods home in a donkey cart like it's the 19th century. But it wasn't knowable at the time the die was cast.
Cuba let 20% of the population leave in 2020-24 so that they would have fewer dissenters in the country who might overthrow the government. Thats a higher rate of population per year than the peak of the great Irish famine
if they don't let people leave to prevent total state collapse then they're starving their own people (by means of the american trade embargo); if they do let people leave, it's to tighten their stranglehold on the country.
Where does one go with one of the weakest passports in the world, no assets, no family connections, and probably only sporadically any skills capable of getting a work visa? I need to get on speed dial whatever immigration lawyer those people had.
I can't find the article but I did read a few years ago most had left to either Mexico or the US. The US had a very favorable program for cubans to enter, work and stay in the country under the Biden admin.
The cuban government via National Office of Statistics and Information admitted it fell by at least 10%, but have not done a census in 15 years. Independent estimates range form 18-24%.
No. The fact that the Cuban authorities s decided that further impoverishing Cuba is worth preserving their single-party communist regime demonstrates that it is indeed a bad government.
after a failed invasion to overthrow the cuban government, we spent a lifetime doing covert operations and using our economic dominance to try to starve cuba to death, but the problem is that cuba has resisted. i wonder if that'll still be your tune if america finds itself on the receiving end of that kind of treatment.
A boycott is a crime? The US has decided not the trade with Cuba, that's it. Cuba is still free to trade with any other country that's willing to trade with them.
5 minutes before this post you were saying it's an embargo, not a blockade. Now it's a 'boycott'. I don't trust people whose arguments constantly shift to meet the rhetorical needs of the moment.
You don't like the Cuban government because they're communists, OK fine. I don't like the American policy of starving people for years on end while making high-minded sermons about the moral imperfections of the Cuban government.
I should have been more explicit that I was using boycott as an analogy to an embargo, in contrast to a blockade which unilaterally prevents countries from trading through military force.
An embargo is analogous to a boycott: you and your friends decide not to shop at a given store. But people who disagree and still want to shop have the ability to do so.
A blockade is like people standing around the store with batons and pepper spray, promising to apprehend anyone who tries to shop at the store.
The latter is obviously a much more forceful move. In fact, it's an act of war.
But the US also limits their patronage of other businesses whose owners shop at the store. And because the US is such a rich and great customer, while Cuba is broke and their shop has empty shelves, other business owners generally avoid going to CubaMart.
It's not a blockade, and everyone involved is simply exercising their sovereign rights. But it is mildly coercive. Which, obviously, is the whole point.
Right, but the point is, it's not a blockade. Loads of people are calling it a blockade, and correcting that piece of misinformation is the root of this whole thread.
If people want to say that the embargo is coercive and bad, that's fine.
The USA, like all serious countries, seeks to defend and advance its interests. Those interests include the suppression of self-declared enemies like Cuba and Iran, or seeking regime change so they cease being self-declared enemies of the US.
The irony of your claim that the US is starving the Cuban people is that in fact, the US could go that far and it would actually end the enmity from Cuba. But they haven't and they won't. It would harm other interests, possibly engender enmity elsewhere, and outside of total war Americans don't play the game that dirty.
But if people widely believe that's what the US is doing anyway, and they're "doing the time" without having actually having "done the crime", then considering that actually doing it would end the enmity from Cuba, it starts to look awfully attractive to Just Do It. So claiming that they are, when they actually aren't, only makes it more likely that they will.
Anyway, given that both ex-communist states China and Russia have demanded economic reforms from the recalcitrant Cuban regime--which have not been forthcoming--and that food is not embargoed, I think the impoverishment and hunger of the Cuban people can't credibly be blamed on "el bloqueo".
Cuba now imports their sugar--from the US of all places! You really think that it's American policy starving Cubans?
i remember during covid china sent its vaccine to cuba and america captured it and siezed it. that's why cuba developed their own vaccines. another point on the "maybe the cuban communist party isn't so bad" tally.
Right because if we trade with the communists near us then people will start to realize that our government is made up of communism for corporations. Which is totally fine because we hide those communist ideas under “capitalism”. Let’s encourage the fed to buy more Intel shares and bailout big business (banks and PPP giveaways) but continue to wag the finger at communism in Cuba because it’s “bad” and the 1950s boomers got red scared!
The current advancement of technology and warfare has opened up fascinating opportunities for powerful nations (USA). For example, given the extremely sophisticated targeting capacities of Palantir, how out of realm would taking out the entire Castro family be? I'm not talking about the morality, but simply the military options now available to the President.
Cuba has received shipments of oil and humanitarian goods from Mexico and Russia just this year, and I don't believe that the US has done anything to stop that (although the US has heavily sanctioned Russia in general for years now). However, those good received this year appear to have been free of charge.
I'm wondering if the US is solely to blame for Cuba being completely unable to pay for the oil it needs. Obviously the US embargo on Cuba is devastating for its economy, but other states impacted by US sanctions in a similar manner seem to get by with essential good like food, oil, and medicine. Cuba is in a poor economic spot, but the US does not appear at all to be using its military to prevent them from trade with other nations.
The US has had an embargo on Cuba for a long time that exempted Food and Medicine, while other countries freely traded with Cuba.
However, under the Trump admin it has turned into a de-facto blockade of all fuel, which really isn't the embargo, it's a new blockade by the US against Cuba. So I don't get why we blame it on the embargo when the current problems are clearly caused by the blockade.
Cuba's previous economic problems are driven by a complete lack of economic reforms, as unnamed Chinese officials said in this FT article two years ago:
"China publicly supports Cuba’s right to choose its own path to economic development “in line with its national conditions”, but privately Chinese officials have long urged the Cuban leadership to shift from its vertically planned economy to something closer to the Chinese model, according to economists and diplomats briefed on the situation.
Chinese officials have been perplexed and frustrated at the Cuban leadership’s unwillingness to decisively implement a market-oriented reform programme despite the glaring dysfunction of the status quo, the people said."
I agree what the US is doing is horrible, but Cuba is not blameless on their overall situation
Other countries are in a Catch-22 situation regarding Cuba - for example in Canada, Canadian law penalizes companies that refuse to trade with Cuba in order to comply with U.S. sanctions, and U.S. law can penalize them if they do trade.
Yeah it's crazy when the CCP expresses frustration that you're not doing more capitalism...
As an aside, I'm surprised that computers wouldn't make centralized economies more doable. It might not be good but at least the people wouldn't be starving and dying because hospitals are out of electricity.
This was tried with computers, and failed. In Bolivia I believe.
I just watch a video on YouTube recently (don't have the link handy but a simple search should find it no problem) that explains why it's not a computational problem and when tried again with AI it still fails.
The embargo on Cuba is unbelievably silly in 2026:
- The Cold War is over and Cuba poses no security risk
- Florida is no longer a swing state and appeasing Cuban Americans is not a worthwhile political move
- We are willing to ally with much more oppressive regimes for less geopolitical benefits
- Cuba was in the process of liberalizing and developing an independent middle class for the first time in half a century before Trump's last crackdown.
The jury is out on whether the "regime change" (or more like, junior dictator promotion) in Venezuela was worthwhile. It's certainly looking like a quagmire in Iran.
By hardballing GAESA, we're probably shooting ourselves in the foot by making the Cuban population more resentful of the US. "Regime change" is a less likely positive outcome than it was 8 years ago.
But we have plenty of models of military dictatorships slowly opening up to becoming stable economies through trade and access. More or less that's what happened with Vietnam, to name one.
My impression is that while the final outcome is yet to be seen, Syria's current administration is a decent example of a government that one would naively expect to be fairly regressive recognizing the power and prosperity granted by liberalization.
The chinesse should just supply them with a shitload of wind turbines and solar panels. Syphillitic Mumm-ra is deathly afraid of those so he's likely to leave them alone.
It's been established many times in this thread that the US is not just refusing to trade but 1) Forcing trading partners to also not trade 2) Physically boarding and seizing ships that are attempting to go to the island with cargos of oil. Yet you just keep repeating the stuff about it being just about not trading with the US.
On the contrary, this statement about force and boarding has been repeated and also countered numerous times. For one, I've yet to see the "forced" claim elaborated. Leveraging retaliatory tariffs is not an act of force--that is the only "force" action I've seen mentioned so far. Furthermore, the boarding and seizing has been credibly described as a police action to enforce false flag laws, i.e. maritime impersonation.
The UN was designed to not bind the powerful nations. That's the point of the security council.
Granted, little weird Russia kept a seat when the USSR broke up.
Sure, they will work hard to be a real place for mediation between small countries and unimportant parties, but they will veto anything against their interests.
There's a sizable Cuban-American community that hates the regimes and wants to use the USA to overthrow it, and they're a swing voting bloc in Florida which has a lot of electoral votes. That's the point.
Deciding the Cold War is over, other countries get to decide their own political affairs, and normalizing trade with Cuba would benefit Americans.
That's also a minor gripe I have with the leftists who call this imperialism. Let's say it is. And it's benefiting me how? I thought imperialism was supposed to benefit the empire doing the imperialism-ing. (At least in theory.) This is costing us tons of money and international prestige.
(Not saying I support that kind of imperialism either, just making the point that this is lose-lose.)
And, for an encore - stop all the other stupid shit. The rest of the world (and the US) is paying the price for little trump-tantrums, like the one against Iran. He's not a good international leader. He's not even a reasonable at-home president.
They embarrassed us years ago by forcing out US capitalists exploiting them and sided with Russia during the Cold War. We won’t forgive them for 50,000 years now despite we work fine with Japan and Germany
"Would you tolerate" is kind of interesting phrasing.
It feels like there's no "one-size-fits-all" ideal level of intervention in a dysfunctional/repressive government. Sometimes if you just leave them alone, they "inevitably" liberalize, reaping the benefits. Sometimes if you just leave them alone they calcify, form coalitions, and actively interfere in Western democracies. Sometimes if you intervene a little, you can help support the people oust their rulers. Sometimes if you intervene a little, you just harm innocent civilians, and entrench the power of the regime. And so on and so forth for every possible level of intervention.
Sure, some of it is going to inherently depend on the actual level of the power disparity, on any counteracting support the regime is getting from your adversaries, on the particular details of your intentions and your intervention, on the timing, etc. But sometimes it really feels like nobody knows what they're doing with foreign policy, and sometimes you get lucky and the country where you literally nuke two major cities just sort of shrugs, shakes your hand, and becomes one of your closest allies with a great deal of goodwill between citizens, and on the other hand sometimes you put boots on the ground an funnel enormous sums of money and (at least hypothetically) try to maintain positive relationships with the locals in a huge nation-building project and after decades you end up with...nothing.
So, to go back to what you said, sometimes it feels like tolerating the fascist country in your backyard might be the best way to turn it into a non-fascist country. And, on the other hand, sometimes it might be the worst way. These things seem difficult.
The US could not care less about Cuba being communist.
They care a lot about Cuba being "open door communist bros" with the USSR, and now with China.
If China moves on Taiwan, and the US moves to defend, and then a bunch of Chinese missiles hit the East Coast, people will wonder what the government was doing letting China set up camp right on our door step.
It's about as ironic as defending your goal while also trying to get the ball in the opponents goal. I suppose in some way it's ironic, but it's also the only beneficial way to play the game.
As a nation, we're still pissed off that those uppity dark skinned people (/s) overthrew our businesses and replaced the corrupt politicians installed by our government/businesses. Generally, when other nations do that, we invade them. Repeating that pattern in Central America led to coining the phrase "banana republic" to describe it.
Whenever America acts "funny" (or irrationally, if you prefer) and does something politically/militarily that makes no sense to the average person, the answer is almost always "white supremacy". In the past, that could be waved away by mumbling "we're fighting communism", but after the collapse of the Soviet Union & Warsaw Pact, we needed a new excuse. Sometimes "fighting terrorism" is used instead, but the T-word never gets applied to white people.
> Therefore, the term banana republic is a pejorative descriptor for a servile oligarchy that abets and supports, for kickbacks, the exploitation of large-scale plantation agriculture, especially banana cultivation.
It's not like one needs to say blames here, as if it's just an accusation and there could be another cause for that.
We also have no reason to doubt that Cuba has run out of fuel as a result of an embargo on fuel when the officials say so. It's not a surprise; it was the expected outcome and the entire point of the embargo.
A better title would be: "Cuba jas run out of fuel due to the US embargo".
I believe the person you're replying to is criticizing the choice of title, by noting that the phrase "blames" is suggestive that there might be other causes, when there clearly is not (which they agree with you about).
functionally the same - and more accurate to use the original title, as Cuba is the one doing the blaming. I don't know why you're standing up for this - it's more bad behavior from a country that sells itself as the savior, and it's not new - they've been doing this (whatever they need to, to change regimes) in other countries for decades. It's shameless bullying, and completely contravenes "the rules" about how to interact with other countries.
Here are some facts about Cuba and oil. The Cuban government was getting free oil from Venezuella. That ended on Jan. 3rd. Cuba was taking that oil, and reselling most of it on the open oil market. Cuba also has their own oil wells, so they can produce oil if they need it. Cuba was also having power outages prior to Jan 3rd.
Cuba also used to have the best economony in the Caribbean prior to 1959 when the Castro's took over. They switched from a free market ecomony to a state run socialist economy.
What the US is doing to Cuba and has been doing to it for the past 70 years is a horrible crime.
What a lack of confidence in their own system to not allow fair competition between Cuban socialism and American capitalism.
It feels similar to Putin invading Ukraine because he didn't like the example of an EU-aligned country prospering next door and the populace starting to ask difficult questions.
>It feels similar to Putin invading Ukraine because he didn't like the example of an EU-aligned country prospering next door and the populace starting to ask difficult questions.
Ukraine was a much poorer state and is a much poorer state than Russia. Putin's invasion has nothing to do with "EU-aligning prosperity" that never happened, but with USA and EU overthrowing Ukrainian government and placing a puppet regime that turned Ukraine from a friendly-to-neutral state into an hostile one to Russia.
I can agree that the current de facto blockade of oil is an unwarranted act of aggression and that the embargo was bad policy but the embargo was hardly criminal. The premise of the embargo was that Cuba expropriated American property without compensation so congress was punishing the Cuban government in turn. Again, its bad policy but not really unusual or criminal per se. The embargo has also had a ton of carve out since the end of the Cold War and the US is the main supplier of agricultural good to Cuba.
The Cuban government has also engaged in a lot of bad behavior over the decades that warrants some sort of international sanction. They fueled the Angolan Civil War and made the broader conflict far worse (it was sort of their Vietnam). They prop up the worst security states around Latin America, like SEBIN in Venezuela until very recently. They were also involved in helping rig elections and suppress dissent in a number of Latin American countries.
> It feels similar to Putin invading Ukraine because he didn't like the example of an EU-aligned country prospering next door and the populace starting to ask difficult questions.
This is a misreading of Putin's motivation IMHO. He states clearly over and over again that it's about a historical concept of greater and historic Russia. He has even stated publicly it has nothing to do with NATO. So this is a false equivalence.
>He has even stated publicly it has nothing to do with NATO.
That's not true. It has always been about NATO absorbing Ukraine that is unacceptable to Russia. Putin warned about it since his Munich speech in 2007, that Georgia and Ukraine has to stay a military neutral countries or it'll result in a war with Russia. USA just decided that they may ignore it and do whatever they want anyway, pushing NATO in, after organizing "revolutions".
The US starves anyone it does not like from natural resources and subsequently makes them buy US natural resources. It has done this to the EU, now it is trying to do it to China and Cuba.
This is the exact opposite of what the US is doing to Cuba: The US isn't making Cuba by US resources, it's prohibiting Cuba from buying US resources and products.
They are threatening all other countries with secondary sanctions:
> "This dramatic worsening has a single cause: the genocidal energy blockade to which the United States subjects our country, threatening irrational tariffs against any nation that supplies us with fuel," Diaz-Canel wrote.
Once a regime change is accomplished, Cuba will buy US energy and not Iranian or Russian. So go the plans at least.
Yes the embargo is real. The point is, what the above commenter wrote:
> The US starves anyone it does not like from natural resources and subsequently makes them buy US natural resources. It has done this to the EU, now it is trying to do it to China and Cuba
is the complete opposite of an embargo. The US is not making Cuba exclusively purchase oil from the US, it's prohibiting US oil produces from selling to Cuba.
Whatever speculation about what the US will do following some hypothetical regime change is irrelevant.
The statement clearly is not that allowing Cuba to buy resources from the US would be an embargo. The statement is that the US is embargoing (de facto blockading) Cuba today in order to force them to buy from the US tomorrow.
As noted above: The US is threatening tariffs on any nation that sells oil to Cuba. That's quite different from simply refusing to trade with it, it's effectively preventing Cuba from buying oil from Mexico, among other sources.
also physically preventing ships from delivering fuel to the Island. It's all even more cynical and hypocritical when compared to the strait of Hormuz debacle, how can the US pretend that Iran must allow oil tankers unobstructed passage (international laws, ships at sea bla bla bla) when the US is deliberately preventing oil ships to travel to Cuba.
There is a point where you are so weak, and your opponent is strong, that the best outcome for everyone on the whole is for you to just capitulate. Surrender.
I don't know if there is something I am missing, but to me, the "bad guy" in a situation like this is the one holding onto power at everyone else's (extreme) expense, throwing their own team into the fire to keep their power in place as long as possible.
We should really be thinking of the situation in terms of individuals instead of nations. Whatever capitulation we're talking about, there's no reason to assume that the Cuban governments shares the same opinions as Cubans. The actions and interests of the government and Cubans are separate, and incur separate blameworthiness.
What we're doing to the Cuban people with this blockade is criminal. I don't expect to see justice in my lifetime. What a miserable state of affairs.
The US is not enforcing a blockade, it's an embargo. The US and other countries are refusing to trade with Cuba, but plenty of other countries can and do trade with Cuba. Cuba is not entitled to trade with the US.
A blockade is when a country stops traffic, from entering a country's ports. It's an act of war, and a totally different thing from an embargo.
The US has been seizing fuel shipments en route to Cuba. What do you call that, if not a blockade?
They have been boarding ships that fly false flags. That is, they claim to be flying under the flag of some country. But when the US contacts that country to confirm that the ship is really registered there, the government of that country replies that the ship is not, in fact, registered. This is legal to do regardless of the embargo against Cuba.
There are plenty of ships that move good and resources to Cuba that don't get boarded.
Your comment makes it look like is a police action instead of interfering in the business of third countries in international waters, with the express goal of causing economic pain.
The two are not mutually exclusive: The US embargo is done with the goal of economically hampering Cuba. The ships that try to skirt their home countries' participation in the embargo by flying false flags are being subject to police action.
I think this attitude is why EU and other nations have started to realize that doing business with US and relying on them is not a good idea.
United States is still under the impression that it's post WWII era..
The good news is that American's grip is slipping and will no longer be able to exert the same level of power in the next decade or so.
You're right, no one is entitled to trade wit US but the US is not entitled to trade with the rest of the world either, including China, Russia, Europe and Middle East.
I think Americans should realize that the post WII era is well passed and "strong arming" nations isn't going to work.
I’m curious how it’s legal to size a ship in international waters under any circumstances? We have a word for that - piracy.
Basically stateless ships don't have any international legal protections in international waters (at least according to the US's interpretation of the law).
By the plain text of international law a state cannot commit piracy since piracy specifically only applies to private actors.
> Piracy consists of any of the following acts: (a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft...
https://www.un.org/depts/los/piracy/piracy_legal_framework.h...
It's legal because the ships were flying false flags. They claim that they're registered in country X, but when the US calls up country X they are told that the ship is not, in fact, registered there.
Maritime law exists, and enforcing it is not an act of piracy.
Maritime law alone isn't what justifies seizing of ships identified as stateless. Under maritime law ships properly registered to a state are only subject to that states laws when in international waters. But stateless ships can be subject to any states laws, however maritime law itself doesn't grant the right to seize even stateless ships. So the US seizing a stateless ship would have to justified under US law.
"Legal" according to who's law?
The US? Then why does their law apply here?
International law? Like the ICC the US ignores? Or the climate agreements it breaks? Or the Geneva convention it runs afoul of?
Sure is convenient the US decided this one specific bit is to be taken extremely seriously.
Either way, it stinks of imperialism.
You're straight-up lying. Very shameful thing to do in defence of a heinous act.
UN experts condemn US executive order imposing fuel blockade on Cuba https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/02/un-experts-c...
If you read the link closely, nowhere does it actually say the US is employing military force to stop ships from docking in Cuba - that's what a blockade is. The author of the piece is essentially trying to redefine "blockade" to mean "embargo".
Again, the ships that actually were boarded were doing illegal things like flying false flags to try and continue to trade with Cuba without triggering retaliatory tariffs.
> continue to trade with Cuba without triggering retaliatory tariffs
Why are there "retaliatory tariffs" in the first place? Why is the US forcefully inserting itself into affairs with which it should have no concern? Or are you saying it's the US's concern because... what? They're the world's watchdog and ultimate authority on right behavior? Other countries trading with the countries they've embargoed should rightly be penalized?
Because the US wants to economically isolate Cuba to prod the single party authoritarian regime into liberalizing. It's fine if you think that's a bad thing. My only point is that it's not a blockade, it's an embargo. Countries have the option to trade with Cuba and live with the additional tariffs on their exports to the US. Under an actual blockade, that option doesn't exist. The Royal Navy didn't let ships into Germany during WW1 and slap their flag countries with tariffs. No, they boarded and seized the vessels because this was an actual blockade.
As I said in my other reply to you, if it looks like a duck and act like a duck, it's a duck. Call it a de-facto blockade if you have to. Being this pedantic only serves to protect the image of a heinous crime.
But it doesn't look like a duck? There are ships docking and departing Cuba all the time. Your speaking as though Cuba is cut off from all maritime trade, which is not the case.
Contrast that with actual blockades: like the UK blockading Germany in WW1. Even if a ship was legally registered, the Royal Navy would still board and seize it if it tried to dock on Germany.
You're trying to call this a distinction without a difference, when the differences between and embargo and a blockade are stark.
it is cut off from oil. it is effectively an oil-blockade, except for the one shipment the US allowed through, as reported by the media. Sorry, I'm done talking with someone who's this pedantic, it's not good for my blood pressure.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/29/us-russian-o...
But it's cut off from oil because other countries refuse to trade with Cuba. Not because the US Navy is blocking vessels (besides those flying false flags) from docking with Cuba.
If you really believe there's no distinction between an embargo and a blockade then you should have just correctly used the term "embargo". This isn't pedantry, this is the difference between an act of war and an economic move.
I would further note that, if one is looking for something to dislike about the embargoes, being a blockade isn't necessary. In particular, (classical) liberals should be disturbed by countries forcing private shippers to participate in "their" country's embargo. E.g., would the US attempt to stop and American company from trading with Cuba?
The Cuban government embargoes their own citizens. I don't understand why there isn't more criticism there.
Well mostly because of the direction actions of imperialism causing the needless deaths of babies but seeing how you seem to be pro-imperialism you probably see this as a good thing for American hegemony. Right up there with bombing school girls in Iran. It's just good diplomacy at that point right?
Friendly reminder that the only people that majorly benefit from US foreign policy are the elites, most US citizens are left with a more dangerous world where they suffer against backlash, terrorism, and degrading life services.
I'm trying to figure out your reason for saying this. You seem to be an adept mind reader so please forgive my mental torpidity, but are you saying that Cuba does not do bad by it's citizens? Or that they do, but are justified? And where exactly does "imperialism" come into the equation?
What does US imperialism have anything to do with the fact that the Cuban government refuses to allow their citizens to buy and sell goods freely?
Even the US government doesn't allow its citizens to trade freely, so what nonsense are you complaining about...
Serious posts are generally preferred on HackerNews, but jokes can be okay if they're funny.
> The US is not enforcing a blockade, it's an embargo.
Oh, so USA is only forcing their trade partners to embargo Cuba! That makes thing better, right?
It's not about better or worse. I think it's important to understand the actual situation first so that we may argue the on the issue at hand. Embargo and blockade are at different levels of escalation. Now we can discuss that the embargo and advocate for de-escalation
Which countries have US forced embargoes on Cuba?
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/29/world/americas/cuba-russi...
> The Trump administration had been enforcing what amounted to an oil blockade around Cuba since January, threatening nations that had been sending fuel to the country and, in one case, escorting a tanker heading toward Cuba away from the island.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Cuban_crisis
> The United States began blocking oil tankers heading to Cuba in February 2026, targeting companies such as the Mexican state-owned Pemex and threatening the responsible countries with tariffs should they resist.
> After the ousting of Maduro, the United States began increasing its pressure on Mexico to reduce its oil sales to Cuba with President Donald Trump threatening tariffs against any country supplying Cuba with oil. Mexico temporarily halted shipments of oil to Cuba by 27 January and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said that the decision to halt oil deliveries was "a sovereign decision".
Your own link highlights the fact that this is not a blockade. The US threatened Mexico with tariffs if they didn't participate in the embargo against Cuba. Mexico decided that trade with Cuba isn't worth tariffs on Mexican exports to America. While the US is pressuring Mexico with the threat of tariffs it is ultimately Mexico's sovereign decision to stop sending oil to Cuba.
If Mexico decided to keep sending oil to Cuba, and the US started sizing ships carrying Mexican oil bound for Cuba that would be a blockade.
If I stand outside your house and threaten everyone who comes near with economic ruin, right after kidnapping your close friend and next-door neighbor using the world's most powerful military, you're gonna feel a little blockaded.
You seem very focused on some pedantic distinction here that just looks goofy from a practical standpoint. The US is intentionally cutting off oil supplies to Cuba. Call it whatever the fuck you want.
Threatening to tax people who enter your house is still vastly different from physically apprehending anyone who tries to enter your house even if they're willing to pay the tax.
The difference between a blockade and an embargo is not small: the former is an act of war. If you really think this is no meaningful distinction between a blockade and an embargo, then how about you just correctly refer to it as an embargo? If there really is no meaningful distinction then why not just use the right word?
> If you really think this is no meaningful distinction between a blockade and an embargo, then how about you just correctly refer to it as an embargo?
I think you're very focused on finding reasons the blockade isn't one, to the point of some severe contortions. I'm not sure why you think the US is leery of acts of war; we've committed a bunch in the last year, including multiple preemptive decapatation strikes of world leaders.
You think it's an embargo; I (and much of the world) think it's a blockade. Whoever's right, this'd be deeply shitty antisocial behavior if you did it to your neighbor, and likely to lead to blows.
The severe contortions are on the end of people trying to call this a blockade. These terms have long established definitions. A blockade is a unilateral action where a country seizes vessels that try to dock at the blockaded country. It's an act of war.
This is not what's happening in Cuba. Countries are deciding to participate in the embargo because they don't want to have their exports to the US tariffed. Emphasis on decided. These countries have the option to continue trading with Cuba and having their imports tariffed.
A blockade does not afford other countries that option. The Royal Navy seized any and all vessels bound to Germany during WW1. There was no option to simply accept a tariff and continue trading with Germany. Because this was a blockade not an embargo.
> we've committed a bunch in the last year, including multiple preemptive decapatation strikes of world leaders.
Correct, like a blockade, those are indeed acts of war. If the US was bombing Cuba, then the US would indeed be at war with Cuba. But that's not happening in Cuba.
> A blockade is a unilateral action where a country seizes vessels that try to dock at the blockaded country.
Extensive evidence of this occurring has been repeatedly presented to you.
No, it hasn't. The ships that were seized were flying false flags. They're subject to seizure regardless of the embargo.
A thin layer of plausible deniability does not stop something from being a blockade.
What stops it from being a blockade is the fact that ships that are legally registered continue to dock in Cuba.
That’s disingenuous. The blockade is specific to oil.
In your view, what does this mean? The distinction seems important to you, but I am not sure if you have really gotten into the meaningful difference. If it is definitely not a blockade, and that is important to say, why is it important? Does it mean we should view the situation differently? Does it imply more/less culpability to one party or the other? Should we have more hope around the humanitarian crisis? Or less?
Being direct about these kinds of questions would maybe help us understand where you are coming from here.
A blockade is an act of war, carried out by military force. Saying the US is blockading Cuba is saying that the US and Cuba are at war. That alone is a pretty big reason to understand the difference between a blockade and an embargo.
Well recently Mexico and Venezuela. The rest are forced through the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, the U.S. can penalize any foreign company that does business in Cuba.
Right and there's no wars in Ukraine or Iran, they're 'special military operations' or 'excursions.'
FTA: “U.S. President Donald Trump resumed ramping up a six-decade-old American ecomonic embargo on Cuba in January after cutting off its main supply of oil from Venezuela and threatening sanctions on Mexico, its second largest supply, and any other country that provided oil to the island.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Cuban_crisis: “ The United States began blocking oil tankers heading to Cuba in February 2026, targeting companies such as the Mexican state-owned Pemex and threatening the responsible countries with tariffs should they resist. […] On 29 January 2026, Executive Order 14380 was signed and entered into force on 30 January, declaring a national emergency in US and authorizing the imposition of additional tariffs on imports into the United States from countries that directly or indirectly supply oil to Cuba.”
That’s a bit more than an embargo.
No really, it's an embargo and a promise to tariff other countries that don't also embargo Cuba.
An embargo is like boycotting a store. A blockade is like standing around the store with a bunch of batons promising to apprehend anyone who tries to shop at the store.
They are not the same.
Blocking tankers from other countries is a blockade. It’s in the name.
It’s interesting to see you argue semantics because it implies you agree that the blockade is wrong.
But they're not blocking oil tankers from other countries, at least not ones that are operating legally. The only tankers that have been seized were flying false flags, which makes them legal to seize irrespective of the embargo.
They have been stationing coast guard ships as interceptors to stop other tankers from reaching Cuba. At least one tanker turned away in the face of the threat from the USCG.
The whole “false flags” argument is also a stretch given that these ships are flying false flags to avoid US sanctions. “We’re not embargoing, we’re just sanctioning” is kind of a nonsense statement when we seize sanctioned ships. The warrant to seize “Skipper” was issued because it was carrying sanctioned oil, not because of the flag it was flying.
This is an embargo, enforced with both economic and military strength. Again, the fact that you want to argue pointless semantics indicates you believe the embargo is not defensible.
The use of tools such as embargoes and threats of economic sanctions to prevent the flow of goods in and out of a set of ports needs to have a name, and “blockade” is as good as any other.
They can beat around the bush to pretend what is effectively a blockade to be anything but a blockade. Call it a de-facto blockade if you have to. You're using technicality as a crutch.
Edit: corrected it to blockade
It's not a blockade. Any country around the world is free to sail their cargo ships to Cuba and trade with Cubans. This will in turn, trigger tariffs against them in the US, but if countries really want to trade with Cuba they can.
A blockade is carried out through military force. Under a blockade ships are physically prevented from docking with the blockaded country, even if they're legally registered.
If you want to decry what the US is doing to Cuba, go ahead. But it is an embargo not a blockade.
Literally they are blocking tankers from other countries.
No, they are not blocking legally registered tankers from other countries. The handful of boarded ships were boarded because they were flying false flags, which is illegal and opens them up to being seized regardless of the embargo.
So if Russia puts a Russian flag on a tanker and sails it to Cuba, do you suppose that the USGC will allow it to land?
Oh, wait. Those ships are all sanctioned so would be seized. Interesting conundrum.
It is effectively an oil blockade, and it's illegal under international law. Being this pedantic about how the US justifies its actions shows zero understanding for how these things tend to be done. The purpose of a system is what it does.
No, it's not effectively an oil blockade. Countries have the option to trade with Cuba and risk whatever retaliatory tariffs the US promises to put on countries that ship oil to Cuba. These counties choose to refrain from trade with Cuba because the value they get out of exporting goods to the US exceeds the value of trade with Cuba. But if they decided otherwise, that option is available to them.
A blockade is an act of war where a country physically stops vessels from entering port in the target of the blockade. There is no choice in a blockade, the country enforcing the blockade is acting unilaterally
If you really think this is a distinction without a difference, then you could've just used the word "embargo" and avoided this exchange. But you didn't, you chose to call it a blockade, which is incorrect.
And if pretty much any other country in the world threatened tariffs if they traded, most countries would be "meh". The US is the global superpower and a vast player economically.
Pretending that what the US does here is the same as if any other country did it is disengenuous.
It's an effective blockade.
No doubt that America's embargo is more powerful because it's one of the largest import markets in the world. I'm not pretending that an American embargo is no more impactful than a smaller country carrying out an embargo. But it's unambiguously an embargo, not a blockade. These terms have long established definitions. A blockade is an act of war, carried out with military force. An embargo does not become a blockade by virtue of the fact that the country doing the embargo had a big economy.
If you think the embargo is bad, that's fine. What I'm objecting to is people calling it a blockade.
Ok, a fair point, but ultimately in the context of what is happening to Cuba, a semantic one.
It feels like at this point you're splitting hairs on semantics when the effect is the same.
What is Cuba to do about this non-blockade, embargo?
Cuba can meet the US's demands that they stop being a single party communist state and liberalize their economy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/12/world/americas/venezuela-...
> The oil tanker seized by the United States off the coast of Venezuela this week was part of the Venezuelan government’s effort to support Cuba, according to documents and people inside the Venezuelan oil industry.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/20/world/americas/cuba-oil-b...
> Three days later, the U.S. Coast Guard intercepted a tanker full of Colombian fuel oil en route to Cuba that had gotten within 70 miles of the island, the data showed.
> The U.S. government called its 1962 policy a “quarantine” to avoid using the word “blockade,” which legally could be interpreted as an act of war. The Trump administration has also avoided using the word “blockade.”
The distinction seems to be mostly word games at this point.
This ship was flying a false flag [1], which makes it legal for governments to seize regardless of the situation with Cuba.
1. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-we-know-oil-tanker-the-ski...
And the Ocean Mariner, that they didn't seize, and just escorted out of the area?
The Ocean Mariner departed Columbia with the stated destination of the Dominican Republic. But it started sailing towards Cuba. When it realized that it was being tracked by the USCG, it changed course towards the Dominican Republic.
We don't know with certainty what it's intent was, but it's likely it was trying to sell oil to Cuba surreptitiously, so as to avoid triggering retaliatory tariffs against Colombia.
The ship was free to dock and offload in Cuba, but that would trigger tarrifs against Colombian exports the US. Which is why it turned around when it realized it was spotted. All the coast guard did was ensure that the ship docked at its stated destination.
When the Russian shadow fleet exports oil this way, the US turns a blind eye
The US has seized Russian shadow fleet vessels: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-seizing-venezuela...
Trump instituted tariffs on any country that sells oil to Cuba, it is effectively a blockade.
It’s also in fact preventing ships carrying oil to reach the island, using their military, I wonder if there is a term for that.
No - they can just pay the tariff and continue to trade. The ships being seized are doing things like flying false flags, to try and trade with Cuba without paying tariffs.
What legal justification could there possibly be for imposing a tarrif on Mexico-Cuba trade that doesn't involve the US at any point?
What would your reaction be if China imposed tariffs on US-Canadian border crossings and seized American ships over it?
A tariff is a tax that a country imposes on goods entering its borders. A country can impose a tariff on any country, at any time, for whatever reason (unless they've signed free trade agreements obligating them to refrain from imposing tariffs).
> What would your reaction be if China imposed tariffs on US-Canadian border crossings and seized American ships over it?
Again, the ships in being sized were flying false flags, which is illegal. If American ships decided to take this criminal act, then China is justified in enforcing the law.
> A tariff is a tax that a country imposes on goods entering its borders.
Yes. And that is not what happens here!
None of this oil is entering the US at all!
Correct. But the point remains, the US is free to impose a tariff on countries that sell oil to Cuba.
So it's not "a tax that a country imposes on goods entering its borders" now?
It seems fairly obvious that what happens is a tariff is applied to the items entering the US and not the oil going to Cuba.
If you trade oil with cuba, then any trade with the US will be subject to the tariff.
No, a tariff is indeed a tax a country imposes on goods entering its borders.
I'm not sure what in my comment you think contradicts this.
> The ships being seized are doing things like flying false flags, to try and trade with Cuba without paying tariffs.
Yes, they fly false flags to avoid triggering retaliatory tariffs. If country X sells oil to Cuba than country X's goods being imported to the the US will be subject to additional tariffs.
I can see how this wording makes it sound like the US is charging a tariff on the oil entering Cuba, but that is not the case. The tariff in that quote is referring to the tariffs the US is promising to place on counties that don't participate in the embargo.
"Criminal" according to who?
The US? Then why does their law apply here?
International law? Like the ICC the US ignores? Or the climate agreements it breaks? Or the Geneva convention it runs afoul of?
Sure is convenient the US decided this one specific bit is to be taken extremely seriously.
Either way, it stinks of imperialism.
> International law? The one the US constantly chooses to ignore?
It’s a little less two faced now though, as this administration ignores US laws too.
Good question, and you'd be right that in that situation it wouldn't hold up to scrutiny. That's not what's going on, though. Instead, the tariff applies to trades American trade when it is determined that the other party is also trading with Cuba. The parent is correct; Mexico, or any other country, is free to trade with Cuba, but then it will be subject to American tariffs on American trade. It has to make the choice. There is certainly pressure, but it's on independent states to decide.
If we're imagining a world where the US can't stop China from doing that, I'd probably go on the internet and complain about it.
It always boils down to the US ignoring international trade and laws in their favor. As you said there is nothing illegal about two countries trading. The idea the US should have a say is deeply undemocratic and frankly anti-human as well, but that's just the US for you.
This podcast does a great job on highlighting how the media plays its role in justifying the imperialism too:
https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/shadow-fleets-sanctions-w...
Paying a tariff to a third-party government doesn’t mean the third-party government is obligated to stop pirating ships under the guise of “flying false flags.”
It’s a shakedown, meant to harm Cubans.
What is the motive to harm Cubans?
Trade in US Dollars with other countries need to go through US banks, which can be subject to prohibitions, which can be done by political motivation.
Also, the issue of the PetroDollar complicates things internationally as well. US throws a tantrum when small countries (or countries it can bully) trade Oil in other currencies. That is very important to keep themselves relevant and with some control over international trades.
Yet another aspect is that if any goods, regardless of who is selling it, contains more than 10% of components, technology, produced by a US company, such seller requires an US Export license to trade such goods with Cuba.
So it's not as simple as that.
https://shippingsolutionssoftware.com/blog/products-subject-...
Regardless, it's evil and should be treated as evil.
> U.S. President Donald Trump resumed ramping up a six-decade-old American ecomonic embargo on Cuba in January after cutting off its main supply of oil from Venezuela and threatening sanctions on Mexico, its second largest supply, and any other country that provided oil to the island.
It has taken on distinctly more "blockade-like" attributes.
> The US is not enforcing a blockade, it's an embargo.
...just like the war in Iran isn't a war.
These important reminders brought to you by the Ministry of Truth.
The US has pressured other countries to stop trading with Cuba. That’s effectively a blockade.
They had 70 years to get rid of the communists. In the case of people living under dictatorships I am victim blamer.
Yet you guys were happy to open up to trade with China in 1972. Why the double standard?
So that the Capitalists could sell the industrial base of the United States of America to the Communist Party of China for 30 pieces of silver.
Cuba didn't have the ability to break the back of American labor. China did. That's the difference.
I’m not even left wing but I have to admit I’m pretty sure this is a correct analysis.
If collective punishment is the norm you want to apply, that rule may bite you back sooner than you think...
In a vacuum sure, but the communists replaced Batista, who was arguably as bad or worse at the time of the revolution. In the long run they'd have probably been better under Batista because being America's bitch is better for the health of Caribbean nations than being the bitch of USSR/China and the enemy of America while you haul your goods home in a donkey cart like it's the 19th century. But it wasn't knowable at the time the die was cast.
doesn't surviving a 70 year embargo make you question how bad the communists really are?
Cuba let 20% of the population leave in 2020-24 so that they would have fewer dissenters in the country who might overthrow the government. Thats a higher rate of population per year than the peak of the great Irish famine
if they don't let people leave to prevent total state collapse then they're starving their own people (by means of the american trade embargo); if they do let people leave, it's to tighten their stranglehold on the country.
Any way you slice it, such an exodus is never the sign of a well-managed country.
Where does one go with one of the weakest passports in the world, no assets, no family connections, and probably only sporadically any skills capable of getting a work visa? I need to get on speed dial whatever immigration lawyer those people had.
I can't find the article but I did read a few years ago most had left to either Mexico or the US. The US had a very favorable program for cubans to enter, work and stay in the country under the Biden admin.
The cuban government via National Office of Statistics and Information admitted it fell by at least 10%, but have not done a census in 15 years. Independent estimates range form 18-24%.
No. The fact that the Cuban authorities s decided that further impoverishing Cuba is worth preserving their single-party communist regime demonstrates that it is indeed a bad government.
after a failed invasion to overthrow the cuban government, we spent a lifetime doing covert operations and using our economic dominance to try to starve cuba to death, but the problem is that cuba has resisted. i wonder if that'll still be your tune if america finds itself on the receiving end of that kind of treatment.
It's not the Cuban authorities that are impoverishing Cuba, that's just victim blaming. It is American imperialism, at least stand by your crimes.
A boycott is a crime? The US has decided not the trade with Cuba, that's it. Cuba is still free to trade with any other country that's willing to trade with them.
5 minutes before this post you were saying it's an embargo, not a blockade. Now it's a 'boycott'. I don't trust people whose arguments constantly shift to meet the rhetorical needs of the moment.
You don't like the Cuban government because they're communists, OK fine. I don't like the American policy of starving people for years on end while making high-minded sermons about the moral imperfections of the Cuban government.
I should have been more explicit that I was using boycott as an analogy to an embargo, in contrast to a blockade which unilaterally prevents countries from trading through military force.
An embargo is analogous to a boycott: you and your friends decide not to shop at a given store. But people who disagree and still want to shop have the ability to do so.
A blockade is like people standing around the store with batons and pepper spray, promising to apprehend anyone who tries to shop at the store.
The latter is obviously a much more forceful move. In fact, it's an act of war.
But the US also limits their patronage of other businesses whose owners shop at the store. And because the US is such a rich and great customer, while Cuba is broke and their shop has empty shelves, other business owners generally avoid going to CubaMart.
It's not a blockade, and everyone involved is simply exercising their sovereign rights. But it is mildly coercive. Which, obviously, is the whole point.
Right, but the point is, it's not a blockade. Loads of people are calling it a blockade, and correcting that piece of misinformation is the root of this whole thread.
If people want to say that the embargo is coercive and bad, that's fine.
OK, then forget the sermons; how 'bout this?
The USA, like all serious countries, seeks to defend and advance its interests. Those interests include the suppression of self-declared enemies like Cuba and Iran, or seeking regime change so they cease being self-declared enemies of the US.
The irony of your claim that the US is starving the Cuban people is that in fact, the US could go that far and it would actually end the enmity from Cuba. But they haven't and they won't. It would harm other interests, possibly engender enmity elsewhere, and outside of total war Americans don't play the game that dirty.
But if people widely believe that's what the US is doing anyway, and they're "doing the time" without having actually having "done the crime", then considering that actually doing it would end the enmity from Cuba, it starts to look awfully attractive to Just Do It. So claiming that they are, when they actually aren't, only makes it more likely that they will.
Anyway, given that both ex-communist states China and Russia have demanded economic reforms from the recalcitrant Cuban regime--which have not been forthcoming--and that food is not embargoed, I think the impoverishment and hunger of the Cuban people can't credibly be blamed on "el bloqueo".
Cuba now imports their sugar--from the US of all places! You really think that it's American policy starving Cubans?
i remember during covid china sent its vaccine to cuba and america captured it and siezed it. that's why cuba developed their own vaccines. another point on the "maybe the cuban communist party isn't so bad" tally.
It's not a boycott. It's an embargo. The US is boarding and seizing boats with supplies headed for Cuba.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/12/world/americas/venezuela-...
These ships were flying false flags, which is a violation of maritime law. It's legal to board and size ships doing this, regardless of embargos.
Yet when Russia plays games with false flags and oil exports, American is too scared to act.
Even with Russia adding Iranian attacks on US bases, the US remains quiet.
It’s a strange world.
The US has in fact seized Russian shadow fleet vessels: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-seizing-venezuela...
one wonders why
Right because if we trade with the communists near us then people will start to realize that our government is made up of communism for corporations. Which is totally fine because we hide those communist ideas under “capitalism”. Let’s encourage the fed to buy more Intel shares and bailout big business (banks and PPP giveaways) but continue to wag the finger at communism in Cuba because it’s “bad” and the 1950s boomers got red scared!
Cuba went through something similar in 1991:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Period
Isn’t Cuba prime estate for solar, maybe wind too? A little gift from China could go a long way.
Already happening.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/article/as-the-us-starves-it-of...
The current advancement of technology and warfare has opened up fascinating opportunities for powerful nations (USA). For example, given the extremely sophisticated targeting capacities of Palantir, how out of realm would taking out the entire Castro family be? I'm not talking about the morality, but simply the military options now available to the President.
Cuba has received shipments of oil and humanitarian goods from Mexico and Russia just this year, and I don't believe that the US has done anything to stop that (although the US has heavily sanctioned Russia in general for years now). However, those good received this year appear to have been free of charge.
I'm wondering if the US is solely to blame for Cuba being completely unable to pay for the oil it needs. Obviously the US embargo on Cuba is devastating for its economy, but other states impacted by US sanctions in a similar manner seem to get by with essential good like food, oil, and medicine. Cuba is in a poor economic spot, but the US does not appear at all to be using its military to prevent them from trade with other nations.
The US has had an embargo on Cuba for a long time that exempted Food and Medicine, while other countries freely traded with Cuba.
However, under the Trump admin it has turned into a de-facto blockade of all fuel, which really isn't the embargo, it's a new blockade by the US against Cuba. So I don't get why we blame it on the embargo when the current problems are clearly caused by the blockade.
Cuba's previous economic problems are driven by a complete lack of economic reforms, as unnamed Chinese officials said in this FT article two years ago:
https://www.ft.com/content/9ca0a495-d5d9-4cc5-acf5-43f42a912...
I agree what the US is doing is horrible, but Cuba is not blameless on their overall situationOther countries are in a Catch-22 situation regarding Cuba - for example in Canada, Canadian law penalizes companies that refuse to trade with Cuba in order to comply with U.S. sanctions, and U.S. law can penalize them if they do trade.
Yeah it's crazy when the CCP expresses frustration that you're not doing more capitalism...
As an aside, I'm surprised that computers wouldn't make centralized economies more doable. It might not be good but at least the people wouldn't be starving and dying because hospitals are out of electricity.
This was tried with computers, and failed. In Bolivia I believe.
I just watch a video on YouTube recently (don't have the link handy but a simple search should find it no problem) that explains why it's not a computational problem and when tried again with AI it still fails.
Isn’t electricity a prerequisite for computing?
but what has changed right now in this particular situation, is the fact that they are blockaded since January.
I made sure to mention that several times while complaining about the cuban government overall.
The embargo on Cuba is unbelievably silly in 2026:
- The Cold War is over and Cuba poses no security risk - Florida is no longer a swing state and appeasing Cuban Americans is not a worthwhile political move - We are willing to ally with much more oppressive regimes for less geopolitical benefits - Cuba was in the process of liberalizing and developing an independent middle class for the first time in half a century before Trump's last crackdown.
The jury is out on whether the "regime change" (or more like, junior dictator promotion) in Venezuela was worthwhile. It's certainly looking like a quagmire in Iran.
By hardballing GAESA, we're probably shooting ourselves in the foot by making the Cuban population more resentful of the US. "Regime change" is a less likely positive outcome than it was 8 years ago.
But we have plenty of models of military dictatorships slowly opening up to becoming stable economies through trade and access. More or less that's what happened with Vietnam, to name one.
My impression is that while the final outcome is yet to be seen, Syria's current administration is a decent example of a government that one would naively expect to be fairly regressive recognizing the power and prosperity granted by liberalization.
The chinesse should just supply them with a shitload of wind turbines and solar panels. Syphillitic Mumm-ra is deathly afraid of those so he's likely to leave them alone.
From the perspective of a layman, isn't this bullying? Don't we suppose to have the UN where nations.. unite?
No, refusing to trade with an adversary nation isn't bullying.
It's been established many times in this thread that the US is not just refusing to trade but 1) Forcing trading partners to also not trade 2) Physically boarding and seizing ships that are attempting to go to the island with cargos of oil. Yet you just keep repeating the stuff about it being just about not trading with the US.
On the contrary, this statement about force and boarding has been repeated and also countered numerous times. For one, I've yet to see the "forced" claim elaborated. Leveraging retaliatory tariffs is not an act of force--that is the only "force" action I've seen mentioned so far. Furthermore, the boarding and seizing has been credibly described as a police action to enforce false flag laws, i.e. maritime impersonation.
Punishing others for trading with another nation is bullying.
The UN was designed to not bind the powerful nations. That's the point of the security council.
Granted, little weird Russia kept a seat when the USSR broke up.
Sure, they will work hard to be a real place for mediation between small countries and unimportant parties, but they will veto anything against their interests.
I don't really understand the point of the embargo. I am an American.
Picking on a tiny country like Cuba serves no purpose. The elites in Cuba are not going to suffer; the normal people will.
Instead of acting like a bully, I wish our government would be more magnanimous and just drop the embargo.
> I don't really understand the point of the embargo.
Making sure Florida's Cuban-American community keeps voting Republican.
The end result is going to be them being another China-dependent colony. https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/article/as-the-us-starves-it-of...
There's a sizable Cuban-American community that hates the regimes and wants to use the USA to overthrow it, and they're a swing voting bloc in Florida which has a lot of electoral votes. That's the point.
Deciding the Cold War is over, other countries get to decide their own political affairs, and normalizing trade with Cuba would benefit Americans.
That's also a minor gripe I have with the leftists who call this imperialism. Let's say it is. And it's benefiting me how? I thought imperialism was supposed to benefit the empire doing the imperialism-ing. (At least in theory.) This is costing us tons of money and international prestige.
(Not saying I support that kind of imperialism either, just making the point that this is lose-lose.)
There is a lot of spite involved in making this a "lose-lose" situation. Never underestimate the power of spite.
And, for an encore - stop all the other stupid shit. The rest of the world (and the US) is paying the price for little trump-tantrums, like the one against Iran. He's not a good international leader. He's not even a reasonable at-home president.
They embarrassed us years ago by forcing out US capitalists exploiting them and sided with Russia during the Cold War. We won’t forgive them for 50,000 years now despite we work fine with Japan and Germany
A political tactician would call it a Wedge Issue.
A human would call it generational depravity of the powerful.
can't have communists in the western hemisphere. They give up authoritarian communism, we will be magnanimous.
Communism must be absolutely incredible for such a small country to be such a threat to a superpower.
We must rhetorically cast our enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak."[1]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urfascism
Would you tolerate a fascist country in your back yard?
"Would you tolerate" is kind of interesting phrasing.
It feels like there's no "one-size-fits-all" ideal level of intervention in a dysfunctional/repressive government. Sometimes if you just leave them alone, they "inevitably" liberalize, reaping the benefits. Sometimes if you just leave them alone they calcify, form coalitions, and actively interfere in Western democracies. Sometimes if you intervene a little, you can help support the people oust their rulers. Sometimes if you intervene a little, you just harm innocent civilians, and entrench the power of the regime. And so on and so forth for every possible level of intervention.
Sure, some of it is going to inherently depend on the actual level of the power disparity, on any counteracting support the regime is getting from your adversaries, on the particular details of your intentions and your intervention, on the timing, etc. But sometimes it really feels like nobody knows what they're doing with foreign policy, and sometimes you get lucky and the country where you literally nuke two major cities just sort of shrugs, shakes your hand, and becomes one of your closest allies with a great deal of goodwill between citizens, and on the other hand sometimes you put boots on the ground an funnel enormous sums of money and (at least hypothetically) try to maintain positive relationships with the locals in a huge nation-building project and after decades you end up with...nothing.
So, to go back to what you said, sometimes it feels like tolerating the fascist country in your backyard might be the best way to turn it into a non-fascist country. And, on the other hand, sometimes it might be the worst way. These things seem difficult.
The US has a long history of installing fascists in South America in the name of fighting communism.
The US could not care less about Cuba being communist.
They care a lot about Cuba being "open door communist bros" with the USSR, and now with China.
If China moves on Taiwan, and the US moves to defend, and then a bunch of Chinese missiles hit the East Coast, people will wonder what the government was doing letting China set up camp right on our door step.
The irony of saying we should have the option to defend Taiwan but we can't tolerate China posing a threat in our backyard.
It's about as ironic as defending your goal while also trying to get the ball in the opponents goal. I suppose in some way it's ironic, but it's also the only beneficial way to play the game.
As a nation, we're still pissed off that those uppity dark skinned people (/s) overthrew our businesses and replaced the corrupt politicians installed by our government/businesses. Generally, when other nations do that, we invade them. Repeating that pattern in Central America led to coining the phrase "banana republic" to describe it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
Also, we're still pissed off at Iran for deposing (in 1979) the dictator that we installed in 1953.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
Whenever America acts "funny" (or irrationally, if you prefer) and does something politically/militarily that makes no sense to the average person, the answer is almost always "white supremacy". In the past, that could be waved away by mumbling "we're fighting communism", but after the collapse of the Soviet Union & Warsaw Pact, we needed a new excuse. Sometimes "fighting terrorism" is used instead, but the T-word never gets applied to white people.
Nice try attributing it to racism.
> Therefore, the term banana republic is a pejorative descriptor for a servile oligarchy that abets and supports, for kickbacks, the exploitation of large-scale plantation agriculture, especially banana cultivation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
> As a nation, we're still pissed off that those uppity dark skinned people
What? This is currently purely on Cuban-Americans as a voting bloc in Florida...
The recent escalation is due to Marco Rubio, a Cuban-American, being Secretary of State.
The humanitarian impact of this embargo is just one of the many stains on the USA that can never be removed.
It's not like one needs to say blames here, as if it's just an accusation and there could be another cause for that.
We also have no reason to doubt that Cuba has run out of fuel as a result of an embargo on fuel when the officials say so. It's not a surprise; it was the expected outcome and the entire point of the embargo.
A better title would be: "Cuba jas run out of fuel due to the US embargo".
Either way, no bueno.
>It's not like one needs to say blames here, as if it's just an accusation and there could be another cause for that
The US started the Oil Embargo and AFAIK it is still on-goimg. Cuba is running out of fuel. To me 2+2=4, so I say blame can be placed on the US :)
I believe the person you're replying to is criticizing the choice of title, by noting that the phrase "blames" is suggestive that there might be other causes, when there clearly is not (which they agree with you about).
The point is the headline makes it this subjective accusation for Cuba, rather than, you know, a cause and effect thing.
> Home burns down, residents blame a fire
functionally the same - and more accurate to use the original title, as Cuba is the one doing the blaming. I don't know why you're standing up for this - it's more bad behavior from a country that sells itself as the savior, and it's not new - they've been doing this (whatever they need to, to change regimes) in other countries for decades. It's shameless bullying, and completely contravenes "the rules" about how to interact with other countries.
Here are some facts about Cuba and oil. The Cuban government was getting free oil from Venezuella. That ended on Jan. 3rd. Cuba was taking that oil, and reselling most of it on the open oil market. Cuba also has their own oil wells, so they can produce oil if they need it. Cuba was also having power outages prior to Jan 3rd.
Cuba also used to have the best economony in the Caribbean prior to 1959 when the Castro's took over. They switched from a free market ecomony to a state run socialist economy.
What the US is doing to Cuba and has been doing to it for the past 70 years is a horrible crime.
What a lack of confidence in their own system to not allow fair competition between Cuban socialism and American capitalism.
It feels similar to Putin invading Ukraine because he didn't like the example of an EU-aligned country prospering next door and the populace starting to ask difficult questions.
>It feels similar to Putin invading Ukraine because he didn't like the example of an EU-aligned country prospering next door and the populace starting to ask difficult questions.
Ukraine was a much poorer state and is a much poorer state than Russia. Putin's invasion has nothing to do with "EU-aligning prosperity" that never happened, but with USA and EU overthrowing Ukrainian government and placing a puppet regime that turned Ukraine from a friendly-to-neutral state into an hostile one to Russia.
I can agree that the current de facto blockade of oil is an unwarranted act of aggression and that the embargo was bad policy but the embargo was hardly criminal. The premise of the embargo was that Cuba expropriated American property without compensation so congress was punishing the Cuban government in turn. Again, its bad policy but not really unusual or criminal per se. The embargo has also had a ton of carve out since the end of the Cold War and the US is the main supplier of agricultural good to Cuba. The Cuban government has also engaged in a lot of bad behavior over the decades that warrants some sort of international sanction. They fueled the Angolan Civil War and made the broader conflict far worse (it was sort of their Vietnam). They prop up the worst security states around Latin America, like SEBIN in Venezuela until very recently. They were also involved in helping rig elections and suppress dissent in a number of Latin American countries.
> It feels similar to Putin invading Ukraine because he didn't like the example of an EU-aligned country prospering next door and the populace starting to ask difficult questions.
This is a misreading of Putin's motivation IMHO. He states clearly over and over again that it's about a historical concept of greater and historic Russia. He has even stated publicly it has nothing to do with NATO. So this is a false equivalence.
>He has even stated publicly it has nothing to do with NATO.
That's not true. It has always been about NATO absorbing Ukraine that is unacceptable to Russia. Putin warned about it since his Munich speech in 2007, that Georgia and Ukraine has to stay a military neutral countries or it'll result in a war with Russia. USA just decided that they may ignore it and do whatever they want anyway, pushing NATO in, after organizing "revolutions".
The US starves anyone it does not like from natural resources and subsequently makes them buy US natural resources. It has done this to the EU, now it is trying to do it to China and Cuba.
This way they can control everyone.
This is the exact opposite of what the US is doing to Cuba: The US isn't making Cuba by US resources, it's prohibiting Cuba from buying US resources and products.
They are threatening all other countries with secondary sanctions:
> "This dramatic worsening has a single cause: the genocidal energy blockade to which the United States subjects our country, threatening irrational tariffs against any nation that supplies us with fuel," Diaz-Canel wrote.
Once a regime change is accomplished, Cuba will buy US energy and not Iranian or Russian. So go the plans at least.
The above commenter quite explicitly said that countries are being forced to buy resources from the US which is the exact opposite of an embargo.
You cannot be serious. Combining a shakedown with an embargo does not mean the embargo doesn’t happen.
The US is also not actually sending oil to Cuba so the scenario above is hypothetical, not real.
Yes the embargo is real. The point is, what the above commenter wrote:
> The US starves anyone it does not like from natural resources and subsequently makes them buy US natural resources. It has done this to the EU, now it is trying to do it to China and Cuba
is the complete opposite of an embargo. The US is not making Cuba exclusively purchase oil from the US, it's prohibiting US oil produces from selling to Cuba.
Whatever speculation about what the US will do following some hypothetical regime change is irrelevant.
Are you only here to nitpick semantics?
The statement clearly is not that allowing Cuba to buy resources from the US would be an embargo. The statement is that the US is embargoing (de facto blockading) Cuba today in order to force them to buy from the US tomorrow.
The US is explicitly not letting Cuba buy US goods, that's literally the only thing it's doing.
As noted above: The US is threatening tariffs on any nation that sells oil to Cuba. That's quite different from simply refusing to trade with it, it's effectively preventing Cuba from buying oil from Mexico, among other sources.
also physically preventing ships from delivering fuel to the Island. It's all even more cynical and hypocritical when compared to the strait of Hormuz debacle, how can the US pretend that Iran must allow oil tankers unobstructed passage (international laws, ships at sea bla bla bla) when the US is deliberately preventing oil ships to travel to Cuba.
And blockading Venezuelan oil from reaching the island. Don't forget that part.
> And blockading Venezuelan oil from reaching the island. Don't forget that part.
Is the new Venezuelan leader still trying to send Cuba oil? Or has she stopped that?
Shockingly they stopped sending oil after the US deposed their leadership and told them they better stop now “or else”.
It's so funny how much anti-americans cry about the US refusing to sell things to an adversary.
If you think that's the only thing going on, you are missing a lot.
There is a point where you are so weak, and your opponent is strong, that the best outcome for everyone on the whole is for you to just capitulate. Surrender.
I don't know if there is something I am missing, but to me, the "bad guy" in a situation like this is the one holding onto power at everyone else's (extreme) expense, throwing their own team into the fire to keep their power in place as long as possible.
Rapist mentality
Great victim blaming
We should really be thinking of the situation in terms of individuals instead of nations. Whatever capitulation we're talking about, there's no reason to assume that the Cuban governments shares the same opinions as Cubans. The actions and interests of the government and Cubans are separate, and incur separate blameworthiness.
The victims are the innocent people being shredded in the middle of it, I don't see where I am blaming them