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

231–240 of 289 posts

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

#231

Post by dpark »

Sabinus wrote: post #229
dpark wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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."

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

#232

Post by Manuel_D »

dpark wrote: post #230
Manuel_D wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

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

#233

Post by dpark »

Manuel_D wrote: post #224
dpark wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No. They are temporally distinct.

The statement (true or not) is that the US is imposing blockade so that Cuba is forced to cut ties with other nations and depend solely on the US. The blockade state is an embargo. They would no longer be embargoed in the end state where they depend solely on the US.

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

#234

Post by dpark »

Manuel_D wrote: post #232
dpark wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

The two terms are generally distinguishable. I said they are indistinguishable here. The situation here is not simply an embargo, which is the point.

The situation is a blockade which is a superset of an embargo.

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

#235

Post by swat535 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #61
ceejayoz wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/12/world/americas/venezuela-... > 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. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/20/world/americas/cuba-oil-b... > Three days later, the U.S. Coast Guard intercepted a tanker full of Colomb…

This ship was flying a false flag [1], which makes it legal for governments to seize regardless of the situation with Cuba. 1. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-we-know-oil-tanker-the-ski...

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.

You can expect many other nations to follow.

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

#236

Post by echoangle »

norwegiandemon wrote: post #166
simpaticoder wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it's crazy when the CCP expresses frustration that you're not doing more capitalism... As an aside, I'm surprised that computers wouldn't make centralized economies more doable. It might not be good but at least the people wouldn't be starving and dying because hospitals are out of electricity.

This was tried with computers, and failed. In Bolivia I believe. I just watch a video on YouTube recently (don't have the link handy but a simple search should find it no problem) that explains why it's not a computational problem and when tried again with AI it still fails.

This one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn

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

#237

Post by Manuel_D »

dpark wrote: post #231
Sabinus wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#238

Post by akramachamarei »

iAMkenough wrote: post #219
akramachamarei wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the motive to harm Cubans?

You’d have to ask them. Also curious about US motive behind blowing up fishing boats and school children.

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.

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

#239

Post by dpark »

Manuel_D wrote: post #237
dpark wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You might be right. Maybe Russia could actually deliver some more oil if they wished to.

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

#240

Post by WarmWash »

morkalork wrote: post #197
WarmWash wrote: post #84

There is a point where you are so weak, and your opponent is strong, that the best outcome for everyone on the whole is for you to just capitulate. Surrender. I don't know if there is something I am missing, but to me, the "bad guy" in a situation like this is the one holding onto power at everyone else's (extreme) expense, throwing their own team into the fire to keep their power in place as long as possible.

Rapist mentality

Maybe? Like the dictator will let their people suffer while having the power to stop it? I'm not sure I follow, but suppose it kind of fits
Post reply on HN