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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
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.
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".
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.
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.
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, they are not blocking tankers from other countries. The handful of boarded ships were boarded because they were flying false flags, which is illegal. Ships do in fact dock in Cuba .
You, and other commenters, seem to be in this alternate reality where Cuba is cut off from all maritime traffic. That is not the case.
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.
> 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.
Do you not realize that flying a false flag is illegal? It's the maritime equivalent of stealing another car's license plate and putting it on your car.
I'm seriously baffled at your attempt to equate boarding ships that are breaking maritime law with saying women invite rape by the way they dress.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The new thing is the secondary sanctions, which penalize those other nations for trading with Cuba, and the threat of phsyically interdicting oil shipments from Mexico or others (though for some reason a Russian one was let through somewhat recently). We're using our economic and military weight to bully unrelated countries from trading with this tiny little island that poses zero threat to the United States. The result is a massive amount of needless human suffering.
This was the situation in the past, but the US has now forced Mexico and Vueneusalia to not ship Cuba gas. Of course the cuban economy is so weak it can't afford solar which could solved this, largely due to their own failures
Even in the past there has been a bunch of nonsense "rules" that made other countries choose between trading with Cuba or the US, but not both.
To name one, if a ship docks into Cuba without filing paperwork requesting to do so from the US, it cannot dock into any of the US ports within 180 days of leaving the Cuban territory.
To name another one, if some product is made somewhere else, but contains >10% of US-made parts or materials somewhere in its supply chain, then as far as the US government is concerned it might as well have been 100% made in the US and therefore cannot be exported to Cuba. Otherwise, the company that sold it to Cuba risks being banned from operating in the US.
So the US is and has been pretty much tilting the scale against any other country in the world trading with Cuba, using its own purchasing power as a bargaining chip.
As for solar panels, they do not solve your inability to move cars around. They do reduce your need for fuel, but when you're 100% out of fuel, no car can move around and no amount of solar panels is ever going to fix that.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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’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.
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.
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...
> 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?
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.
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...
> 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".
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Literally they are blocking tankers from other countries.
No, they are not blocking tankers from other countries. The handful of boarded ships were boarded because they were flying false flags, which is illegal. Ships do in fact dock in Cuba .
You, and other commenters, seem to be in this alternate reality where Cuba is cut off from all maritime traffic. That is not the case.
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.
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?
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?
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...
Sure, and she was asking for it by wearing that short skirt.
Whatever rationalization y'all wanna tell yourself to sleep at night...
This is a ridiculous false equivalence and muddies the waters of any serious dissent.
Do you not realize that flying a false flag is illegal? It's the maritime equivalent of stealing another car's license plate and putting it on your car.
I'm seriously baffled at your attempt to equate boarding ships that are breaking maritime law with saying women invite rape by the way they dress.
Do you also not realize that starving people of life-saving resources is also illegal? https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/02/un-experts-c...
Right and there's no wars in Ukraine or Iran, they're 'special military operations' or 'excursions.'
> 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 has pressured other countries to stop trading with Cuba. That’s effectively a blockade.
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?
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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-...
> 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.
Allowing Cuba to trade with every other country in the entire world except the United States is criminal?
The new thing is the secondary sanctions, which penalize those other nations for trading with Cuba, and the threat of phsyically interdicting oil shipments from Mexico or others (though for some reason a Russian one was let through somewhat recently). We're using our economic and military weight to bully unrelated countries from trading with this tiny little island that poses zero threat to the United States. The result is a massive amount of needless human suffering.
We have seized and intercepted ships trying to do so.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/20/world/americas/cuba-oil-b...
We are threatening tariffs on any country that sells oil to Cuba, a country that uses oil for the vast majority of its electricity generation.
It might be legal but it also seems immoral.
This was the situation in the past, but the US has now forced Mexico and Vueneusalia to not ship Cuba gas. Of course the cuban economy is so weak it can't afford solar which could solved this, largely due to their own failures
Even in the past there has been a bunch of nonsense "rules" that made other countries choose between trading with Cuba or the US, but not both.
To name one, if a ship docks into Cuba without filing paperwork requesting to do so from the US, it cannot dock into any of the US ports within 180 days of leaving the Cuban territory.
To name another one, if some product is made somewhere else, but contains >10% of US-made parts or materials somewhere in its supply chain, then as far as the US government is concerned it might as well have been 100% made in the US and therefore cannot be exported to Cuba. Otherwise, the company that sold it to Cuba risks being banned from operating in the US.
So the US is and has been pretty much tilting the scale against any other country in the world trading with Cuba, using its own purchasing power as a bargaining chip.
As for solar panels, they do not solve your inability to move cars around. They do reduce your need for fuel, but when you're 100% out of fuel, no car can move around and no amount of solar panels is ever going to fix that.
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-...
[dead]
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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 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.
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.
Great victim blaming
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.
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.
From the perspective of a layman, isn't this bullying? Don't we suppose to have the UN where nations.. unite?
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.
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.
Punishing others for trading with another nation is bullying.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
A political tactician would call it a Wedge Issue.
A human would call it generational depravity of the powerful.
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
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?
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.
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.
[dead]
[dead]
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.
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.
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.