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 5 hours ago | parent [-]

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 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 3 hours ago | parent [-]

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 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

cwillu 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

j_maffe 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 4 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

dpark 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Literally they are blocking tankers from other countries.

▲

Manuel_D 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

	▲	dpark 37 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		So if Russia puts a Russian flag on a tanker and sails it to Cuba, do you suppose that the USGC will allow it to land? Oh, wait. Those ships are all sanctioned so would be seized. Interesting conundrum.

▲

4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

j_maffe 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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 3 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

MattPalmer1086 3 hours ago | parent [-]

And if pretty much any other country in the world threatened tariffs if they traded, most countries would be "meh". The US is the global superpower and a vast player economically.

Pretending that what the US does here is the same as if any other country did it is disengenuous.

It's an effective blockade.

▲

Manuel_D 2 hours ago | parent [-]

No doubt that America's embargo is more powerful because it's one of the largest import markets in the world. I'm not pretending that an American embargo is no more impactful than a smaller country carrying out an embargo. But it's unambiguously an embargo, not a blockade. These terms have long established definitions. A blockade is an act of war, carried out with military force. An embargo does not become a blockade by virtue of the fact that the country doing the embargo had a big economy.

If you think the embargo is bad, that's fine. What I'm objecting to is people calling it a blockade.

	▲	MattPalmer1086 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ok, a fair point, but ultimately in the context of what is happening to Cuba, a semantic one.

▲

JKCalhoun 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Cuba can meet the US's demands that they stop being a single party communist state and liberalize their economy.