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.

"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.

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

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...

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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

What legal justification could there possibly be for imposing a tarrif on Mexico-Cuba trade that doesn't involve the US at any point?

What would your reaction be if China imposed tariffs on US-Canadian border crossings and seized American ships over it?

Paying a tariff to a third-party government doesn’t mean the third-party government is obligated to stop pirating ships under the guise of “flying false flags.”

It’s a shakedown, meant to harm Cubans.

Trade in US Dollars with other countries need to go through US banks, which can be subject to prohibitions, which can be done by political motivation.

Also, the issue of the PetroDollar complicates things internationally as well. US throws a tantrum when small countries (or countries it can bully) trade Oil in other currencies. That is very important to keep themselves relevant and with some control over international trades.

Yet another aspect is that if any goods, regardless of who is selling it, contains more than 10% of components, technology, produced by a US company, such seller requires an US Export license to trade such goods with Cuba.

So it's not as simple as that.

https://shippingsolutionssoftware.com/blog/products-subject-...

I’m not even left wing but I have to admit I’m pretty sure this is a correct analysis.

if they don't let people leave to prevent total state collapse then they're starving their own people (by means of the american trade embargo); if they do let people leave, it's to tighten their stranglehold on the country.

Where does one go with one of the weakest passports in the world, no assets, no family connections, and probably only sporadically any skills capable of getting a work visa? I need to get on speed dial whatever immigration lawyer those people had.

after a failed invasion to overthrow the cuban government, we spent a lifetime doing covert operations and using our economic dominance to try to starve cuba to death, but the problem is that cuba has resisted. i wonder if that'll still be your tune if america finds itself on the receiving end of that kind of treatment.

It's not the Cuban authorities that are impoverishing Cuba, that's just victim blaming. It is American imperialism, at least stand by your crimes.

"Would you tolerate" is kind of interesting phrasing.

It feels like there's no "one-size-fits-all" ideal level of intervention in a dysfunctional/repressive government. Sometimes if you just leave them alone, they "inevitably" liberalize, reaping the benefits. Sometimes if you just leave them alone they calcify, form coalitions, and actively interfere in Western democracies. Sometimes if you intervene a little, you can help support the people oust their rulers. Sometimes if you intervene a little, you just harm innocent civilians, and entrench the power of the regime. And so on and so forth for every possible level of intervention.

Sure, some of it is going to inherently depend on the actual level of the power disparity, on any counteracting support the regime is getting from your adversaries, on the particular details of your intentions and your intervention, on the timing, etc. But sometimes it really feels like nobody knows what they're doing with foreign policy, and sometimes you get lucky and the country where you literally nuke two major cities just sort of shrugs, shakes your hand, and becomes one of your closest allies with a great deal of goodwill between citizens, and on the other hand sometimes you put boots on the ground an funnel enormous sums of money and (at least hypothetically) try to maintain positive relationships with the locals in a huge nation-building project and after decades you end up with...nothing.

So, to go back to what you said, sometimes it feels like tolerating the fascist country in your backyard might be the best way to turn it into a non-fascist country. And, on the other hand, sometimes it might be the worst way. These things seem difficult.

The US has a long history of installing fascists in South America in the name of fighting communism.

The irony of saying we should have the option to defend Taiwan but we can't tolerate China posing a threat in our backyard.

You cannot be serious. Combining a shakedown with an embargo does not mean the embargo doesn’t happen.

The US is also not actually sending oil to Cuba so the scenario above is hypothetical, not real.

Shockingly they stopped sending oil after the US deposed their leadership and told them they better stop now “or else”.