[Manuel_D]

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.

[elmomle]

The US has been seizing fuel shipments en route to Cuba. What do you call that, if not a blockade?

[Manuel_D]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[vrganj]

"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.

[mirzap]

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

[voxic11]

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...

[Manuel_D]

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]

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.

[insane_dreamer]

What right does the US have to do that?

[j_maffe]

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...

[Manuel_D]

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.

[skeledrew]

> 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?

[Manuel_D]

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.

[j_maffe]

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]

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.

[TiredOfLife]

The US has been seizing ships sanctioned by US and EU that fly false flags and transport russian and iranian oil

[imvgikviktbt]

The Cuban government embargoes their own citizens. I don't understand why there isn't more criticism there.

[shimman]

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.

[akramachamarei]

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?

[imvgikviktbt]

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?

[OutOfHere]

Even the US government doesn't allow its citizens to trade freely, so what nonsense are you complaining about...

[akramachamarei]

Serious posts are generally preferred on HackerNews, but jokes can be okay if they're funny.

[ASalazarMX]

> 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?

[MSKJ]

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

[imvgikviktbt]

Which countries have US forced embargoes on Cuba?

[j_maffe]

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.

[ceejayoz]

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".

[Manuel_D]

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.

[ceejayoz]

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.

[Manuel_D]

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?

[anigbrowl]

Right and there's no wars in Ukraine or Iran, they're 'special military operations' or 'excursions.'

[Someone]

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.

[Manuel_D]

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.

[dpark]

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.

[Manuel_D]

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.

[dpark]

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.

[Manuel_D]

> 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

[j_maffe]

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

[Manuel_D]

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.

[j_maffe]

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.

[Manuel_D]

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.

[dpark]

Literally they are blocking tankers from other countries.

[Manuel_D]

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.

[cwillu]

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.

[JKCalhoun]

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?

[Manuel_D]

Cuba can meet the US's demands that they stop being a single party communist state and liberalize their economy.

[ceejayoz]

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.

[Manuel_D]

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...

[ceejayoz]

And the Ocean Mariner, that they didn't seize, and just escorted out of the area?

[Manuel_D]

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.

[lostlogin]

When the Russian shadow fleet exports oil this way, the US turns a blind eye

[Manuel_D]

The US has seized Russian shadow fleet vessels: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-seizing-venezuela...

[swat535]

It's amazing you're talking about international law, which US never respects anyway.

In fact, they are actively in the middle of an illegal war with Iran, never mind the fact of violating the ceasefire by causing a blocking.. I'm not going to go into details regarding the US record of breaking international law (which I'm sure you're aware of), but I digresses.

Meanwhile, you're lecturing us whilst completely disregarding the main focus of the article, which is the humanitarian crisis United State is causing across the world.

I, for one am proud of my country (Canada) for defying US "embargo". Canada is actively opposing its effects by providing humanitarian aid and maintaining normal trade/diplomatic relations with Cuba.

You can expect many other nations to follow.

[jasonlotito]

Regardless, it's evil and should be treated as evil.

[insane_dreamer]

> A blockade is when a country stops traffic, from entering a country's ports.

this is exactly what the US is doing

[legitster]

> 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.

[ricardobeat]

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.

[georgemcbay]

> 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.

[dyauspitr]

The US has pressured other countries to stop trading with Cuba. That’s effectively a blockade.