They are threatening all other countries with secondary sanctions:

> "This dramatic worsening has a single cause: the genocidal energy blockade to which the United States subjects our country, threatening irrational tariffs against any nation that supplies us with fuel," Diaz-Canel wrote.

Once a regime change is accomplished, Cuba will buy US energy and not Iranian or Russian. So go the plans at least.

▲

Manuel_D 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The above commenter quite explicitly said that countries are being forced to buy resources from the US which is the exact opposite of an embargo.

▲

dpark an hour ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

Manuel_D an hour ago | parent [-]

Yes the embargo is real. The point is, what the above commenter wrote:

> The US starves anyone it does not like from natural resources and subsequently makes them buy US natural resources. It has done this to the EU, now it is trying to do it to China and Cuba

is the complete opposite of an embargo. The US is not making Cuba exclusively purchase oil from the US, it's prohibiting US oil produces from selling to Cuba.

Whatever speculation about what the US will do following some hypothetical regime change is irrelevant.

▲

dpark 43 minutes ago | parent [-]

Are you only here to nitpick semantics?

The statement clearly is not that allowing Cuba to buy resources from the US would be an embargo. The statement is that the US is embargoing (de facto blockading) Cuba today in order to force them to buy from the US tomorrow.

▲

Manuel_D 32 minutes ago | parent [-]

In case you didn't notice, this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48138329 is a different user than the comment I first responded to.

▲

dpark 7 minutes ago | parent [-]

I saw where you insisted that instituting a blockade to force buying from the US wouldn’t be an embargo. And then I saw where you reiterated that again because you’re just nitpicking definitions.

Me recapping your chain of comments and to be low value for both of us, though. My point stands. Instituting an embargo and lifting it later once objectives are achieved doesn’t mean an embargo didn’t happen. “Yes embargo” and “No embargo” can both be true at different times. And “yes embargo” can be used to force a specific “no embargo” outcome (such as hypothetically depending on the US for resources).

	▲	5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]