Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Manuel_D 35 days ago
The fact that oil imports are being curtailed by an embargo rather than a blockade is not minor semantics. The former is when countries voluntarily cease to trade with someone. The latter is when a country deploys its military to seize vessels trying to reach the blockade target. It's also an act of war.

If people really think it's a minor semantics difference, then they should just be honest and correctly refer to the situation as an embargo, not a blockade.
1 comments
beepbooptheory 35 days ago
...so that is a 'no' to the question, right?
link
Manuel_D 35 days ago
No what? The US's embargo and threats to tariff countries that don't match this embargo is blocking most but not all oil bound for Cuba. Russia, for example, continues to trade with Cuba because it's willing to tolerate increase in tariffs (not that Russia is trading much with the US anyway).

If this were a blockade then the US would be boarding Russian oil tankers even if they're legally flagged as a Russian vessel.

If you really think the distinction between blockade and embargo is irrelevant then we can just acknowledge that it's an embargo, not a blockade, and move on.

link
beepbooptheory 35 days ago
Ok! So the answer is in fact 'yes', with once again the rider that it is not something we should call a blockade. That seems fine with me, I think we agree about the important thing here.
link