5 ms·

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 co

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.

RobertoG 5mo ago
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.
- Manuel_D 5mo ago
  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.
  - swat535 5mo ago
    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.
mirzap 5mo ago
I’m curious how it’s legal to size a ship in international waters under any circumstances? We have a word for that - piracy.
- Manuel_D 5mo ago
  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.
  - voxic11 5mo ago
    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.
- voxic11 5mo ago
  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.htm https://www.un.org/depts/los/piracy/piracy_legal_framework.h...
j_maffe 5mo ago
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-condemn-us-executive-order-imposing-fuel-blockade-cuba https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/02/un-experts-c...
- Manuel_D 5mo ago
  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.
  - j_maffe 5mo ago
    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.
    - Manuel_D 5mo ago
      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.
      - j_maffe 5mo ago
        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-oil-tanker-cuba-blockade https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/29/us-russian-o...
vrganj 5mo ago
"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.
insane_dreamer 5mo ago
What right does the US have to do that?

RobertoG 5mo ago

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.

Manuel_D 5mo ago
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.
- swat535 5mo ago
  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.

mirzap 5mo ago

I’m curious how it’s legal to size a ship in international waters under any circumstances? We have a word for that - piracy.

Manuel_D 5mo ago
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.
- voxic11 5mo ago
  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.
voxic11 5mo ago
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.htm https://www.un.org/depts/los/piracy/piracy_legal_framework.h...

j_maffe 5mo ago

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-condemn-us-executive-order-imposing-fuel-blockade-cuba https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/02/un-experts-c...

Manuel_D 5mo ago
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.
- j_maffe 5mo ago
  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.
  - Manuel_D 5mo ago
    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.
    - j_maffe 5mo ago
      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-oil-tanker-cuba-blockade https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/29/us-russian-o...

vrganj 5mo ago

"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.

insane_dreamer 5mo ago

What right does the US have to do that?