Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cuba says it has run out of fuel, blames U.S. embargo

upi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 289 posts

Re: Cuba says it has run out of fuel, blames U.S. embargo

#221

Post by ceejayoz »

Manuel_D wrote: post #216
ceejayoz wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ships carrying oil are free to dock 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 w…

So:

Seizing ships isn’t a blockade.

Turning away ships isn’t a blockade.

The UN, Cuba, and major national and international news outlets considering it one doesn’t count.

Running out of oil and massive power outages doesn’t count.

Trump’s threats of strikes don’t count.

Apparently nothing does. The Cuban Missile Crisis doesn’t even meet your standard.

Re: Cuba says it has run out of fuel, blames U.S. embargo

#222

Post by thunky »

Manuel_D wrote: post #160
j_maffe wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/29/us-russian-o...

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.

> But it's cut off from oil because other countries refuse to trade with Cuba

Because of US pressure, yes?

If the police prevent all grocery stores from selling you food and you starve, who do you blame: the police or the grocery stores?

Re: Cuba says it has run out of fuel, blames U.S. embargo

#223

Post by beepbooptheory »

Manuel_D wrote: post #207
beepbooptheory wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

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"?

Re: Cuba says it has run out of fuel, blames U.S. embargo

#224

Post by Manuel_D »

dpark wrote: post #217
Manuel_D wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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” a…

"The US isn't going to sell oil to Cuba."

"The US will be Cuba's exclusive supplier of oil."

Are these not polar opposites?

Re: Cuba says it has run out of fuel, blames U.S. embargo

#225

Post by Manuel_D »

thunky wrote: post #222
Manuel_D wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> But it's cut off from oil because other countries refuse to trade with Cuba Because of US pressure, yes? If the police prevent all grocery stores from selling you food and you starve, who do you blame: the police or the grocery stores?

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.

Re: Cuba says it has run out of fuel, blames U.S. embargo

#226

Post by Manuel_D »

ceejayoz wrote: post #221
Manuel_D wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

So: Seizing ships isn’t a blockade. Turning away ships isn’t a blockade. The UN, Cuba, and major national and international news outlets considering it one doesn’t count. Running out of oil and massive power outages doesn’t count. Trump’s threats of strikes don’t count. Apparently nothing does. The Cuban Missile Crisis doesn’t even meet your standard.

> Seizing ships isn’t a blockade.

> Turning away ships isn’t a blockade.

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).

Re: Cuba says it has run out of fuel, blames U.S. embargo

#227

Post by Manuel_D »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #223
Manuel_D wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: Cuba says it has run out of fuel, blames U.S. embargo

#228

Post by Manuel_D »

dpark wrote: post #212
Manuel_D wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Cuba says it has run out of fuel, blames U.S. embargo

#229

Post by Sabinus »

dpark wrote: post #212
Manuel_D wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Cuba says it has run out of fuel, blames U.S. embargo

#230

Post by dpark »

Manuel_D wrote: post #220
dpark wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 turne…

Sorry, this is a blockade. The two terms are so indistinguishable here that I mixed them up.
Post reply on HN