In what sense are landlords "providing" housing? Is there an argument around like, stabilizing a demand floor for new construction or something, or is this one of those weird in-group terms that cover over what might otherwise be seen as a relationship of power or dominance?
Either way, if I rent out my house and pull in $5k/mo but spend $2k/mo on principal, $2k/mo on interest, and $1.5k/mo on miscellaneous costs, that $500 "loss" translates into me paying $500 for $2k in principal value, all while gaining the benefits of solid inflation-indexed real estate growth AND assistance up the amortization schedule. So even cash-flow negative rentals are usually pretty long-run lucrative.
This sounds like an investment that didn't pan out - I've had one or two of those myself, never pleasant. But are they providing housing? I guess in my mind the builders, equity incentive assistors, re-zoning advocates, etc might be 'providing housing'. How is a landlord providing housing?
Cuba is a Criminal state, the smart ones already left for America several times, 10% of the population in 2022-2023.
So many false tears shed for doing a 100th of what the Cuban government has done to it's own people. Iran, the Houthies, Cuba in the 60s etc none of them believed in free trade, infact they expropriated billions in American owned assets.
As a sovereign country, Cuba has the right to nationalize economic activity if it deems it necessary. It compensated all countries whose businesses were nationalized, such as Switzerland, France, and Canada. Except the United States, which refused the compensation and began attacking its neighbor.
The new thing is the secondary sanctions, which penalize those other nations for trading with Cuba, and the threat of phsyically interdicting oil shipments from Mexico or others (though for some reason a Russian one was let through somewhat recently). We're using our economic and military weight to bully unrelated countries from trading with this tiny little island that poses zero threat to the United States. The result is a massive amount of needless human suffering.
Read it [0] and let me know if it really allows every other country to trade with Cuba, it effectively bars any company that wants to do business with the USA from trading with Cuba.
This was the situation in the past, but the US has now forced Mexico and Vueneusalia to not ship Cuba gas. Of course the cuban economy is so weak it can't afford solar which could solved this, largely due to their own failures
Even in the past there has been a bunch of nonsense "rules" that made other countries choose between trading with Cuba or the US, but not both.
To name one, if a ship docks into Cuba without filing paperwork requesting to do so from the US, it cannot dock into any of the US ports within 180 days of leaving the Cuban territory.
To name another one, if some product is made somewhere else, but contains >10% of US-made parts or materials somewhere in its supply chain, then as far as the US government is concerned it might as well have been 100% made in the US and therefore cannot be exported to Cuba. Otherwise, the company that sold it to Cuba risks being banned from operating in the US.
So the US is and has been pretty much tilting the scale against any other country in the world trading with Cuba, using its own purchasing power as a bargaining chip.
As for solar panels, they do not solve your inability to move cars around. They do reduce your need for fuel, but when you're 100% out of fuel, no car can move around and no amount of solar panels is ever going to fix that.
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.
In a vacuum sure, but the communists replaced Batista, who was arguably as bad or worse at the time of the revolution. In the long run they'd have probably been better under Batista because being America's bitch is better for the health of Caribbean nations than being the bitch of USSR/China and the enemy of America while you haul your goods home in a donkey cart like it's the 19th century. But it wasn't knowable at the time the die was cast.
The situation was also something created by the US: After taking power, Castro visited the US to try and set up friendly relations with them. The US president refused to meet him, sending the VP (Nixon, ugh) instead and generally giving them the cold shoulder and squeezing Cuba more and more. Khrushchev saw the opportunity the US had handed him on a silver platter, and the rest is history.
Important to point out that Batista was installed by the US.
There are only 2 countries in all of South America that DON'T have the experience of having a democratically elected leader ousted in a US-backed coup and replaced by a dictator.
Right because if we trade with the communists near us then people will start to realize that our government is made up of communism for corporations. Which is totally fine because we hide those communist ideas under “capitalism”. Let’s encourage the fed to buy more Intel shares and bailout big business (banks and PPP giveaways) but continue to wag the finger at communism in Cuba because it’s “bad” and the 1950s boomers got red scared!
Cuba let 20% of the population leave in 2020-24 so that they would have fewer dissenters in the country who might overthrow the government. Thats a higher rate of population per year than the peak of the great Irish famine
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.
> i'd love to see america "manage" the conditions america has imposed on cuba.
The single biggest problem would be rebuilding the US manufacturing base. Once that happens, the US would be fine. America's probably capable of autarky: it's got the natural resources, population size, and technology.
> so we would manage the conditions we've imposed on cuba by just simply not having those conditions.
The US didn't impose the condition of being a resource-poor island on Cuba, nor did it impose the condition of economic mismanagement on it (apparently so bad even the Soviets complained about it). The US imposed the condition of a trade embargo, and that's it.
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.
I can't find the article but I did read a few years ago most had left to either Mexico or the US. The US had a very favorable program for cubans to enter, work and stay in the country under the Biden admin.
The cuban government via National Office of Statistics and Information admitted it fell by at least 10%, but have not done a census in 15 years. Independent estimates range form 18-24%.
No. The fact that the Cuban authorities s decided that further impoverishing Cuba is worth preserving their single-party communist regime demonstrates that it is indeed a bad government.
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.
A boycott is a crime? The US has decided not the trade with Cuba, that's it. Cuba is still free to trade with any other country that's willing to trade with them.
5 minutes before this post you were saying it's an embargo, not a blockade. Now it's a 'boycott'. I don't trust people whose arguments constantly shift to meet the rhetorical needs of the moment.
You don't like the Cuban government because they're communists, OK fine. I don't like the American policy of starving people for years on end while making high-minded sermons about the moral imperfections of the Cuban government.
I should have been more explicit that I was using boycott as an analogy to an embargo, in contrast to a blockade which unilaterally prevents countries from trading through military force.
An embargo is analogous to a boycott: you and your friends decide not to shop at a given store. But people who disagree and still want to shop have the ability to do so.
A blockade is like people standing around the store with batons and pepper spray, promising to apprehend anyone who tries to shop at the store.
The latter is obviously a much more forceful move. In fact, it's an act of war.
But the US also limits their patronage of other businesses whose owners shop at the store. And because the US is such a rich and great customer, while Cuba is broke and their shop has empty shelves, other business owners generally avoid going to CubaMart.
It's not a blockade, and everyone involved is simply exercising their sovereign rights. But it is mildly coercive. Which, obviously, is the whole point.
Right, but the point is, it's not a blockade. Loads of people are calling it a blockade, and correcting that piece of misinformation is the root of this whole thread.
If people want to say that the embargo is coercive and bad, that's fine.
The USA, like all serious countries, seeks to defend and advance its interests. Those interests include the suppression of self-declared enemies like Cuba and Iran, or seeking regime change so they cease being self-declared enemies of the US.
The irony of your claim that the US is starving the Cuban people is that in fact, the US could go that far and it would actually end the enmity from Cuba. But they haven't and they won't. It would harm other interests, possibly engender enmity elsewhere, and outside of total war Americans don't play the game that dirty.
But if people widely believe that's what the US is doing anyway, and they're "doing the time" without having actually having "done the crime", then considering that actually doing it would end the enmity from Cuba, it starts to look awfully attractive to Just Do It. So claiming that they are, when they actually aren't, only makes it more likely that they will.
Anyway, given that both ex-communist states China and Russia have demanded economic reforms from the recalcitrant Cuban regime--which have not been forthcoming--and that food is not embargoed, I think the impoverishment and hunger of the Cuban people can't credibly be blamed on "el bloqueo".
Cuba now imports their sugar--from the US of all places! You really think that it's American policy starving Cubans?
> The USA, like all serious countries, seeks to defend and advance its interests. Those interests include the suppression of self-declared enemies like Cuba and Iran, or seeking regime change so they cease being self-declared enemies of the US.
1) I'm not aware of such a declaration coming from Cuba. Please give a link.
2) Are you sure it's USA's interests, not just a few very rich people from USA?
> 1) I'm not aware of such a declaration coming from Cuba. Please give a link.
> A speech by Raul at the University of Havana on 20 April [1959], however, attacked the United States as an "enemy of the Cuban revolution," in sharp contrast to Fidel's concurrent speeches during his visit to the United States.
> Cubans are admired for their spirit, for their deeds, for their courage, for their enthusiasm, because the Cubans are a people who, when they are told "it is necessary to meet to respond to aggression, to show the enemy of Cuba that the people are with the revolution, to show that the people have no fear, so that they can see that the people are ready to carry out their pledge of "homeland or death"!" (SHOUTS)
> And that is also our position on Laos, and North Vietnam, and South Vietnam. (Applause) We are a small nation, not too far from the shores of the imperialist homeland. Our arms are eminently defensive. But our men, wholeheartedly, our revolutionary militants, our fighters, are prepared to fight the imperialists in any part of the world. (Applause) Our country is a small one; our territory could even be partially occupied by the enemy; but that would never mean a cessation of our resistance.
> But the world is big, and the imperialists are everywhere, and for the Cuban revolutionaries the field of battle against imperialism takes in the whole world. (Applause) Without boasting, without any kind of immodesty, that is how we Cuban revolutionaries understand our internationalist duty. That is the way our people understand their duty, because they realize that the enemy is one and indivisible; the one who attacks us along our shoes and on our land is the same who attacks the others. Hence we say and we declare that Cuban fighters can be counted on by the revolutionary movement in any corner of the earth. (Applause)
> The enemy had to be shown and the enemy had to be taught that there can be no fooling around with the people. The enemy had to be shown that there can be no fooling around with the revolution. [applause] The enemy had to be shown that a people cannot be offered with impunity, [applause] that a people cannot be threatened with impunity. [shouts of `No"] And this image, this image is what they dreamed of destroying, the image of what the people are, the true revolutionary people, the proletarian people, the working people, the peasant people, the combatant people, the student people. [prolonged applause, indistinct chanting]
> Perhaps they thought the revolution has weakened and you can see what weakness of the revolution they have uncovered. [rhythmic applause, indistinct chanting] You can see what type of a revolution they have found. That is why it was necessary to wage this battle.
> As you know, over recent months our party and our people have been waging a tenacious and selfless struggle for exigency, to overcome inefficiencies, to overcome difficulties. This work was being done quietly and insistently for months. It could be said that our revolution, our people and our party were devoted to this work and to productive activities, especially the sugar harvest and the planting [of sugarcane], coping with the problems of the diseases of tobacco and sugarcane and the swine fever which mysteriously, mysteriously appeared almost simultaneously in our country. We were tackling various problems of our revolutionary process. We were struggling for development, struggling to improve everything within our material capabilities, and preparing for the congress of our party. We were involved in that task. But, why does this situation emerge? It is not a coincidence; it is not a coincidence.
> 2) Are you sure it's USA's interests, not just a few very rich people from USA?
First of all: This is just splitting hairs. A few very rich people from USA are in charge of US policy. And a few very rich people from Cuba and Iran are in charge of Cuban and Iranian policy.
When I say that Cuba and Iran are USA's enemies, I mean that in the geopolitcal sense. I don't mean that all citizens/residents of Cuba and Iran are enemies of all citizens of the USA.
Second: Significant fractions of both those countries' citizens are--unlike their few very rich policymakers--quite friendly to the US. This encourages US policy of regime change.
The misalignment of interests you point out cuts both ways.
i remember during covid china sent its vaccine to cuba and america captured it and siezed it. that's why cuba developed their own vaccines. another point on the "maybe the cuban communist party isn't so bad" tally.
This comment shows that you do not understand the basic facts of the situation or are willing to lie about it. No one should engage you until you put in the bare minimum effort to at least know what you're talking about.
The US is not enforcing a blockade, it's an embargo. The US and other countries are refusing to trade with Cuba, but plenty of other countries can and do trade with Cuba. Cuba is not entitled to trade with the US.
A blockade is when a country stops traffic, from entering a country's ports. It's an act of war, and a totally different thing from an embargo.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because of US economic pressure, yes. But that's not what a blockade is. A blockade is preventing trade through military force, physically seizing any ships that attempt to dock in the blockaded country.
> If the police prevent all grocery stores from selling you food and you starve, who do you blame: the police or the grocery stores?
Except that's not analogous to Cuba's situation. It's more like if the grocery store sells you food, the the grocery store is hit with a bigger tax bill. So the grocery store chooses not to sell you food.
The police preventing the grocery store from selling you food would be analogous to a blockade.
> It's more like if the grocery store sells you food, the the grocery store is hit with a bigger tax bill
And you also risk pissing off the mafia boss and will suffer the consequences elsewhere. It's not a simple choice to sell or not sell with no strings attached. Its one power drunk bully and everyone else.
I would further note that, if one is looking for something to dislike about the embargoes, being a blockade isn't necessary. In particular, (classical) liberals should be disturbed by countries forcing private shippers to participate in "their" country's embargo. E.g., would the US attempt to stop and American company from trading with Cuba?
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.
I'm trying to figure out your reason for saying this. You seem to be an adept mind reader so please forgive my mental torpidity, but are you saying that Cuba does not do bad by it's citizens? Or that they do, but are justified? And where exactly does "imperialism" come into the equation?
It's not about better or worse. I think it's important to understand the actual situation first so that we may argue the on the issue at hand. Embargo and blockade are at different levels of escalation. Now we can discuss that the embargo and advocate for de-escalation
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.
> 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.
> 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".
Your own link highlights the fact that this is not a blockade. The US threatened Mexico with tariffs if they didn't participate in the embargo against Cuba. Mexico decided that trade with Cuba isn't worth tariffs on Mexican exports to America. While the US is pressuring Mexico with the threat of tariffs it is ultimately Mexico's sovereign decision to stop sending oil to Cuba.
If Mexico decided to keep sending oil to Cuba, and the US started sizing ships carrying Mexican oil bound for Cuba that would be a blockade.
If I stand outside your house and threaten everyone who comes near with economic ruin, right after kidnapping your close friend and next-door neighbor using the world's most powerful military, you're gonna feel a little blockaded.
You seem very focused on some pedantic distinction here that just looks goofy from a practical standpoint. The US is intentionally cutting off oil supplies to Cuba. Call it whatever the fuck you want.
Threatening to tax people who enter your house is still vastly different from physically apprehending anyone who tries to enter your house even if they're willing to pay the tax.
The difference between a blockade and an embargo is not small: the former is an act of war. If you really think this is no meaningful distinction between a blockade and an embargo, then how about you just correctly refer to it as an embargo? If there really is no meaningful distinction then why not just use the right word?
> If you really think this is no meaningful distinction between a blockade and an embargo, then how about you just correctly refer to it as an embargo?
I think you're very focused on finding reasons the blockade isn't one, to the point of some severe contortions. I'm not sure why you think the US is leery of acts of war; we've committed a bunch in the last year, including multiple preemptive decapatation strikes of world leaders.
You think it's an embargo; I (and much of the world) think it's a blockade. Whoever's right, this'd be deeply shitty antisocial behavior if you did it to your neighbor, and likely to lead to blows.
The severe contortions are on the end of people trying to call this a blockade. These terms have long established definitions. A blockade is a unilateral action where a country seizes vessels that try to dock at the blockaded country. It's an act of war.
This is not what's happening in Cuba. Countries are deciding to participate in the embargo because they don't want to have their exports to the US tariffed. Emphasis on decided. These countries have the option to continue trading with Cuba and having their imports tariffed.
A blockade does not afford other countries that option. The Royal Navy seized any and all vessels bound to Germany during WW1. There was no option to simply accept a tariff and continue trading with Germany. Because this was a blockade not an embargo.
> we've committed a bunch in the last year, including multiple preemptive decapatation strikes of world leaders.
Correct, like a blockade, those are indeed acts of war. If the US was bombing Cuba, then the US would indeed be at war with Cuba. But that's not happening in Cuba.
You know this isn’t true, but continue to assert it. I gave you a link to a non-false flag tanker that was forced away by the Coast Guard and escorted out for several days.
As I explained in my reply, that tanker was not forced away. It lied and said it was headed to the Dominican Republic, but tried to sail to Cuba - presumably to surreptitiously sell oil without triggering retaliatory tariffs. When it realized it was being followed by the Coast Guard, it turned around and sailed to its stated destination.
The ship could have made port in Cuba and unloaded it's oil. But then Colombia would be hit with tariffs. The threat of tariffs made the ship turn around on its own volition, not because the coast guard deployed force to stop the ship.
If the vessels were legally flagged, both of these are indeed actions of a blockade!
You're just ignoring the fact that the ships the US seized were flying false flags and are subject to seizure regardless of the embargo.
And in the case of the Ocean Mariner, the ship wasn't forcibly turned away by the coast guard. They changed course to the Dominican Republic (which was its purported destination anyway...) on their own volition when the realized they were being tracked. The could have continued to Cuba if they wanted to, but that would trigger retaliatory tariffs.
> The Cuban Missile Crisis doesn’t even meet your standard.
Yes it was a blockade! The US military deployed its forces with orders to seize Soviet ships bound for Cuba (though they turned away before any ships were actually boarded).
> If the vessels were legally flagged, both of these are indeed actions of a blockade!
Where is “it’s not a blockade if the ships don’t have papers” set out in international law?
> Yes it was a blockade!
Funny. Kennedy tried your exact denialist tactic - they called it a quarantine.
History, of course, isn’t fooled.
> The US military deployed its forces with orders to seize Soviet ships bound for Cuba (though they turned away before any ships were actually boarded).
And you are somehow privy to the Coast Guard’s orders in the Ocean Mariner case? How do you know what would have happened if they made for Cuba?
In your view, what does this mean? The distinction seems important to you, but I am not sure if you have really gotten into the meaningful difference. If it is definitely not a blockade, and that is important to say, why is it important? Does it mean we should view the situation differently? Does it imply more/less culpability to one party or the other? Should we have more hope around the humanitarian crisis? Or less?
Being direct about these kinds of questions would maybe help us understand where you are coming from here.
A blockade is an act of war, carried out by military force. Saying the US is blockading Cuba is saying that the US and Cuba are at war. That alone is a pretty big reason to understand the difference between a blockade and an embargo.
The other important dimension is that countries participating in the embargo are choosing to participate in the embargo. This is distinct from a blockade which is done unilaterally. The Royal Navy didn't let ships into Germany ports during WW1 if they paid a tariff. No, they seized ships bound for Germany, because that was an actual blockade.
An embargo is when countries decline to trade with you on their own accord.
A blockade is when a country uses military force to physically stop other countries from trading with you, even if those other countries want to trade with you.
Is the meaningful thing you are trying to get across here something like: "everyone is saying USA is doing something really bad, but in fact they are not"?
Or maybe more: "ok USA might have it a little out for Cuba, but remember, everyone else hates them too, otherwise they would be trading with them"?
The meaningful thing is to understand the difference between a blockade and an embargo.
When people say that the US is blockading Cuba I'm not sure if they are genuinely misinformed and think that the US Navy and Coast Guard are physically apprehending any ships trying to dock in Cuba, or if they are just ignorant about the difference between a blockade and an embargo.
You all are. Why not just concede it's an embargo not a blockade and move on?
> Is the US preventing most oil from reaching Cuba or not?
Sometimes questions like that obscure more than they elucidate. If you're debating if a killing is murder or involuntary manslaughter, it doesn't prove your point to ask if the man is dead.
Ok but if it is a murder/involuntary manslaughter-esque distinction, why not just say that? I feel like I made it really easy to do that and wasn't couching it in an accusation or any kind of hyperbole.
Just, please, tell it to me straight, I'm a little slow. Is that what we are saying? That everyone is claiming murder, but actually it's more involuntary?
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
> At least one tanker turned away in the face of the threat from the USCG.
If you're talking about the Ocean Mariner, it was not threatened by the USCG. The ship was carrying Colombian oil, and if it docked in Cuba that would trigger tariffs on Colombian imports.
So the ship lied and said it was bound for the Dominican Republic and tried to sneak into Cuba. When it realized it was spotted by the coast guard, it turned towards its stated destination because they knew they were being watched and if they docked in Cuba then Colombia would be hit with tariffs.
If the ship continued to sail to Cuba and the coast guard sized the ship that would be a blockade.
> 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.
Nowhere did I argue that it isn't an embargo. I've been repeatedly explaining that it is an embargo, rather than a blockade. If you think I'm denying that this is an embargo, you've far off the mark of what I've been saying in this thread
If you genuinely think the two terms are in distinguishable, the why the stubborn insistence on calling it a blockade? Just use the correct term and call it an embargo, and you could've avoided this exchange. If you really think they're indistinguishable you should have no qualm about using the word embargo.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Anatoly Kolodkin did exactly that. Russian oil. Russian ship. Russian flag. Docked in Cuba and unloaded it's oil. It was the first oil Cuba had been delivered in 3 months.
Only because Trump waived sanctions and allowed them to dock.
Responding to reporters' questions on March 29 about whether the ship would be allowed to dock, Trump said, "We don't mind somebody getting a boatload...because they have to survive."
The ship would be allowed to dock regardless of what Trump decided. Just Because Trump gives permission doesn't mean Russia needs permission from the US. If the US boarded the Anatolky Kolodkin, that would be an act of war against Russia. That exactly why the Cuban Missile Crisis was so tense: if the US did stop Soviet ships bound for Cuba then that would be an act of war against the USSR.
Yes, a Russian flagged tanker can sail and land in Cuba. The Russian oil tanker Anatolky Kolodkin did, in fact, dock in Cuba and offload oil in March 2026.
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.
> The oil tanker seized by the United States off the coast of Venezuela this week was part of the Venezuelan government’s effort to support Cuba, according to documents and people inside the Venezuelan oil industry.
> Three days later, the U.S. Coast Guard intercepted a tanker full of Colombian fuel oil en route to Cuba that had gotten within 70 miles of the island, the data showed.
> The U.S. government called its 1962 policy a “quarantine” to avoid using the word “blockade,” which legally could be interpreted as an act of war. The Trump administration has also avoided using the word “blockade.”
The distinction seems to be mostly word games at this point.
The Ocean Mariner departed Columbia with the stated destination of the Dominican Republic. But it started sailing towards Cuba. When it realized that it was being tracked by the USCG, it changed course towards the Dominican Republic.
We don't know with certainty what it's intent was, but it's likely it was trying to sell oil to Cuba surreptitiously, so as to avoid triggering retaliatory tariffs against Colombia.
The ship was free to dock and offload in Cuba, but that would trigger tarrifs against Colombian exports the US. Which is why it turned around when it realized it was spotted. All the coast guard did was ensure that the ship docked at its stated destination.
It's amazing you're talking about international law, which US never respects anyway.
In fact, they are actively in the middle of an illegal war with Iran, never mind the fact of violating the ceasefire by causing a blocking.. I'm not going to go into details regarding the US record of breaking international law (which I'm sure you're aware of), but I digresses.
Meanwhile, you're lecturing us whilst completely disregarding the main focus of the article, which is the humanitarian crisis United State is causing across the world.
I, for one am proud of my country (Canada) for defying US "embargo". Canada is actively opposing its effects by providing humanitarian aid and maintaining normal trade/diplomatic relations with Cuba.
> 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.
It has taken on distinctly more "blockade-like" attributes.
A tariff is a tax that a country imposes on goods entering its borders. A country can impose a tariff on any country, at any time, for whatever reason (unless they've signed free trade agreements obligating them to refrain from imposing tariffs).
> What would your reaction be if China imposed tariffs on US-Canadian border crossings and seized American ships over it?
Again, the ships in being sized were flying false flags, which is illegal. If American ships decided to take this criminal act, then China is justified in enforcing the law.
Yes, they fly false flags to avoid triggering retaliatory tariffs. If country X sells oil to Cuba than country X's goods being imported to the the US will be subject to additional tariffs.
I can see how this wording makes it sound like the US is charging a tariff on the oil entering Cuba, but that is not the case. The tariff in that quote is referring to the tariffs the US is promising to place on counties that don't participate in the embargo.
Good question, and you'd be right that in that situation it wouldn't hold up to scrutiny. That's not what's going on, though. Instead, the tariff applies to trades American trade when it is determined that the other party is also trading with Cuba. The parent is correct; Mexico, or any other country, is free to trade with Cuba, but then it will be subject to American tariffs on American trade. It has to make the choice. There is certainly pressure, but it's on independent states to decide.
It always boils down to the US ignoring international trade and laws in their favor. As you said there is nothing illegal about two countries trading. The idea the US should have a say is deeply undemocratic and frankly anti-human as well, but that's just the US for you.
This podcast does a great job on highlighting how the media plays its role in justifying the imperialism too:
>there is nothing illegal about two countries trading
No, there isn't. There also isn't anything illegal about the USA threatening to tarrif it's own trade with countries that trade with Cuba. If a vessel fakes it's flag to avoid that attribution, it is then stateless, and the USA is allowed to board it.
By the same logic Iran is not blockading the strait of Hormuz — just send them 25 BTC and your oil tanker too can pass.
By the same logic the mafia aren't disrupting your business when they ask for a protection fee — just pay up and the same mafia won't empty a clip into your store during business hours.
By the same logic street muggers are not actually taking your stuffs by force — just hand them your wallet and you get to keep your jacket and your life.
No, that logic doesn't apply. The US will not sink ships that send oil to Cuba. Nor will they charge any fee to the country sending oil to Cuba. Unlike your examples, there is is no threat of violence at hand here.
What is being threatened is that the US will charge Americans higher tariffs on goods imported from the countries sending money to Cuba. Fundamentally, an embargo is an economic lever, whereas your examples are threats of military action.
There's a very substantial difference between:
"If you don't pay us money we'll shoot missiles at your ship and sink it."
and
"If you send oil to Cuba we'll charge tariffs when Americans import your country's goods."
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.”
I think the Iranian school bombing was pretty clearly a mistake, given its proximity to an IRGC base, and (IIRC) the previous usage of that plot of land for military purposes, suggesting an issue of outdated target intelligence. That compounds with the lack of a plausible motive, and numerous demotives for hitting it deliberately. Which is not to present the action as significantly less blameworthy; it's a heinous negligence. Gotta have dirty bits in your cache, so to speak.
I’m curious what the “demotives” are considered, since the strike killing hundreds of children happened on day 1 of the military strikes, and I haven’t seen any meaningful action to address the “mistake.”
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.
It was expensive but every day I am happy with my Rivian purchase. Great to have a vehicle where the actual users are obviously thought of (contra for instance the cybertruck where some variety 'cool factor' was obviously prioritized, resulting in finger crunching hoods and such).
'Elon Derangement Syndrome' as opposed to 'Elon dick ride syndrome'.
I see your type of people on Twitter all the time, they complain that someone was critical of Elon (and in this circumstance he wasn't even calling out Elon. He literally commented on a known flaw with the Cybertruck) yet people like you come out of the woodwork and defend everything. You've got yourself worked up about something that has nothing to do with Elon. I always like checking out those peoples profiles and their whole life revolves around Elon. That is a bigger disorder in my opinion.
There is so much misinformation in here, so densely packed.
Ivanpah is is not the largest solar power plant in California. It's an experimental solar-thermal plant. Talking about megawatts per year is not a meaningful term (megawatt-years would be). Ivanpah despite its much talked about failures delivers between 350 and 850GWh per year.
The largest solar plant in California is Edwards Sandborn, producing somewhere around 2500GWh per year (it's newer so numbers are less published).
Diablo Canyon produces around 18000GWh/year, which is huge.
But with all costs combined, Diablo's price per MWh is close to ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY DOLLARS off of a massive initial capex. Modern solar battery installs trend towards $30-60 for the same output.
So I'm sure your tour guide had some neat numbers but you should be careful not to repeat them verbatim (or unremembered).
It's not an issue of how - there's a great ADM with markup/down supported already, waiting for system prompts to be injected in realtime via the same online auction system that powers banner ads and smart tv content. There's got to be some latent resistance to the idea for now - but it's so easy to do, it'll happen.
There's a standardized, normal (in adtech) approach to building 'creative's (viewed/seen ads) around context-dependent scenarios. It's not hard to extend existing IAB primitives to include things like context-enrichment (system prompt augmentation in this case) or whatever. I don't want to malign my downvoters but suspect they're mad I'm pointing it out, rather than engaging with facts as they are. It's trivial for ads to interact with your(our!) AI usage.
To use agentic what? Off topic as heck but I really dislike this trend of coercing adjectives into true nominals - we're using programmatic! - like some sort of even-more-obnoxious variant on the verb to noun ('the ask') process.
In my experience, rate limits are more often per second. It's easy to talk about kilo or mega-units, so this isn't as big an issue as the awkwardness of talking about very very low volume services. Maybe those (generally) inherently don't care about rates as much?
In my perception there is a difference between 1req/s as a rate limit, and 60/min. The difference has to do with bucketing. If we agree that the rate limit is 1/s, I expect to be able to exactly that and sometimes 2 within the same second. However, if we agree on 60/min, then it should be fine to spend all 60 in the first second of a minute, or averaged out, or some other distribution.
This also helps with the question I always get when discussing rate limits “but what about bursts?”. 60/min already conveyed you are okay to receive bursts of 60 at once, in contrast to with 1/s.
In my experience it is exactly the low rate service that care about rate limits as they are the most likely to break under higher load. Services that already handle 100k req/s typically don’t sweat it with a couple extra once in a while.
An effective rate limiting system has multiple bases in my experience, depending on what the goal is. But I usually implement the configuration as a list where you can define how much requests are allow maximum per how many units of time.
E.g. to prevent fast bursts you limit it to 1 request per 1 second, but to avoid someone sending out 86400 requests a day you also cap them at 100 per 86400 seconds (24 hours) and 1000 per 3600 seconds (1 hour).
Whichever limit they hit first will stop it. That isn't hard to implement if you know how to deal with arrays and it allows long term abuse, while still along fast retries if something went wrong.
Hard to talk about favorites in books, but there was a solid decade of my life where I'd have probably said this was my favorite sci fi book. Highly recommend to anyone reading this.
Cool project, would make a good variable display in the home maybe; weather prediction but aesthetic
reply