[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.

[jauntywundrkind]

When you have the force of negotiations & ability to cause mass ruin to any nation that engages with Cuba, when Cuba is literally without power, I think the violence & damage being done makes the extreme grandstanding nonsense you've spent hours and hours cooking up in this thread look extremely extremely wicked and hollow.

Whatever point you have was lost on me. The minute technical difference doesn't make a ton of difference when there is so so so much massive human suffering and death going on. Your cloak of obsfuscation is deeply deeply insulting to what is happening, and you had a relentless ability to steal all the oxygen from the room & leave no room for discussion again and again. I despise low power plays like this and I am insulted at how your trampled over everyone and the death and suffering that is being created by the US denying anyone's access to Cuba.

[Manuel_D]

As I've told others in this thread who purport to see no difference between an embargo and a blockade: if you really think there is no difference between a blockade and an embargo, then why not just correctly refer to this as an embargo?

[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.

[j_maffe]

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...

[Manuel_D]

But it's cut off from oil because other countries refuse to trade with Cuba. Not because the US Navy is blocking vessels (besides those flying false flags) from docking with Cuba.

If you really believe there's no distinction between an embargo and a blockade then you should have just correctly used the term "embargo". This isn't pedantry, this is the difference between an act of war and an economic move.