6 ms·
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
by Someone 5mo ago
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 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.
- Manuel_D 5mo agoNo 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.
- j_maffe 5mo agoThey 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
- Manuel_D 5mo agoIt'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.
- dpark 5mo agoLiterally they are blocking tankers from other countries.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- Manuel_D 5mo agoNo, 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.
- dpark 5mo agoSo 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.
- Manuel_D 5mo agoYes, a Russian flagged tanker can sail and land in Cuba. The Russian oil tanker Anatolky Kolodkin did, in fact, dock in Cuba and offload oil in March 2026.
- Sabinus 5mo agoThe Anatoly Kolodkin did exactly that. Russian oil. Russian ship. Russian flag. Docked in Cuba and unloaded it's oil. It was the first oil Cuba had been delivered in 3 months.
- dpark 5mo agoOnly because Trump waived sanctions and allowed them to dock. Responding to reporters' questions on March 29 about whether the ship would be allowed to dock, Trump said, "We don't mind somebody getting a boatload...because they have to survive."
- dpark 5mo agoBlocking 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.
- Manuel_D 5mo agoBut 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.
- dpark 5mo agoThey 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.
- Manuel_D 5mo ago> At least one tanker turned away in the face of the threat from the USCG. If you're talking about the Ocean Mariner, it was not threatened by the USCG. The ship was carrying Colombian oil, and if it docked in Cuba that would trigger tariffs on Colombian imports. So the ship lied and said it was bound for the Dominican Republic and tried to sneak into Cuba. When it realized it was spotted by the coast guard, it turned towards its stated destination because they knew they were being watched and if they docked in Cuba then Colombia would be hit with tariffs. If the ship continued to sail to Cuba and the coast guard sized the ship that would be a blockade. > 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. Nowhere did I argue that it isn't an embargo. I've been repeatedly explaining that it is an embargo, rather than a blockade. If you think I'm denying that this is an embargo, you've far off the mark of what I've been saying in this thread
- JKCalhoun 5mo agoIt 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?
- Manuel_D 5mo agoCuba can meet the US's demands that they stop being a single party communist state and liberalize their economy.
- cwillu 5mo agoThe 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.