Cuba didn't have the ability to break the back of American labor. China did. That's the difference.
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%.
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.
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.
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.
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?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/12/world/americas/venezuela-...
Even with Russia adding Iranian attacks on US bases, the US remains quiet.
It’s a strange world.
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.
There are plenty of ships that move good and resources to Cuba that don't get boarded.
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.
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...
https://www.un.org/depts/los/piracy/piracy_legal_framework.h...
Maritime law exists, and enforcing it is not an act of piracy.
The US? Then why does their law apply here?
International law? Like the ICC the US ignores? Or the climate agreements it breaks? Or the Geneva convention it runs afoul of?
Sure is convenient the US decided this one specific bit is to be taken extremely seriously.
Either way, it stinks of imperialism.
UN experts condemn US executive order imposing fuel blockade on Cuba https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/02/un-experts-c...
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.
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?
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.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/29/us-russian-o...
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 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?
> 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.
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 bully and everyone else.
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.
Oh, so USA is only forcing their trade partners to embargo Cuba! That makes thing better, right?
> 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.
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.
> 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".
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Extensive evidence of this occurring has been repeatedly presented to you.
You can call it a blockade a thousand times, that doesn't make it true.
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.
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.
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.
> 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).
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?
Being direct about these kinds of questions would maybe help us understand where you are coming from here.
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.
They're pretty substantially different.
An act of war also isn’t the same as being in one. It takes two to tango, to some extent. Many acts of war do not result in one.
Act of war, no war: https://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/02/18/britain.marines/...
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"?
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.
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.
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.
It’s interesting to see you argue semantics because it implies you agree that the blockade is wrong.
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.
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
The situation is a blockade which is a superset of an embargo.
Edit: corrected it to blockade
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.
Oh, wait. Those ships are all sanctioned so would be seized. Interesting conundrum.
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."
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.
Pretending that what the US does here is the same as if any other country did it is disengenuous.
It's an effective blockade.
If you think the embargo is bad, that's fine. What I'm objecting to is people calling it a blockade.
What is Cuba to do about this non-blockade, embargo?
> 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 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.
1. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-we-know-oil-tanker-the-ski...
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.
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 also in fact preventing ships carrying oil to reach the island, using their military, I wonder if there is a term for that.
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.
What would your reaction be if China imposed tariffs on US-Canadian border crossings and seized American ships over it?
> 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. And that is not what happens here!
None of this oil is entering the US at all!
If you trade oil with cuba, then any trade with the US will be subject to the tariff.
I'm not sure what in my comment you think contradicts this.
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.
The US? Then why does their law apply here?
International law? Like the ICC the US ignores? Or the climate agreements it breaks? Or the Geneva convention it runs afoul of?
Sure is convenient the US decided this one specific bit is to be taken extremely seriously.
Either way, it stinks of imperialism.
It’s a little less two faced now though, as this administration ignores US laws too.
This podcast does a great job on highlighting how the media plays its role in justifying the imperialism too:
https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/shadow-fleets-sanctions-w...
It’s a shakedown, meant to harm Cubans.
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.
So it's not as simple as that.
https://shippingsolutionssoftware.com/blog/products-subject-...
It has taken on distinctly more "blockade-like" attributes.
...just like the war in Iran isn't a war.
These important reminders brought to you by the Ministry of Truth.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/article/as-the-us-starves-it-of...
However, under the Trump admin it has turned into a de-facto blockade of all fuel, which really isn't the embargo, it's a new blockade by the US against Cuba. So I don't get why we blame it on the embargo when the current problems are clearly caused by the blockade.
Cuba's previous economic problems are driven by a complete lack of economic reforms, as unnamed Chinese officials said in this FT article two years ago:
https://www.ft.com/content/9ca0a495-d5d9-4cc5-acf5-43f42a912...
"China publicly supports Cuba’s right to choose its own path to economic development “in line with its national conditions”, but privately Chinese officials have long urged the Cuban leadership to shift from its vertically planned economy to something closer to the Chinese model, according to economists and diplomats briefed on the situation.
Chinese officials have been perplexed and frustrated at the Cuban leadership’s unwillingness to decisively implement a market-oriented reform programme despite the glaring dysfunction of the status quo, the people said."
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.
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.
I'm wondering if the US is solely to blame for Cuba being completely unable to pay for the oil it needs. Obviously the US embargo on Cuba is devastating for its economy, but other states impacted by US sanctions in a similar manner seem to get by with essential good like food, oil, and medicine. Cuba is in a poor economic spot, but the US does not appear at all to be using its military to prevent them from trade with other nations.
Granted, little weird Russia kept a seat when the USSR broke up.
Sure, they will work hard to be a real place for mediation between small countries and unimportant parties, but they will veto anything against their interests.
Picking on a tiny country like Cuba serves no purpose. The elites in Cuba are not going to suffer; the normal people will.
Instead of acting like a bully, I wish our government would be more magnanimous and just drop the embargo.
Making sure Florida's Cuban-American community keeps voting Republican.
The end result is going to be them being another China-dependent colony. https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/article/as-the-us-starves-it-of...
Deciding the Cold War is over, other countries get to decide their own political affairs, and normalizing trade with Cuba would benefit Americans.
That's also a minor gripe I have with the leftists who call this imperialism. Let's say it is. And it's benefiting me how? I thought imperialism was supposed to benefit the empire doing the imperialism-ing. (At least in theory.) This is costing us tons of money and international prestige.
(Not saying I support that kind of imperialism either, just making the point that this is lose-lose.)
A human would call it generational depravity of the powerful.
It feels like there's no "one-size-fits-all" ideal level of intervention in a dysfunctional/repressive government. Sometimes if you just leave them alone, they "inevitably" liberalize, reaping the benefits. Sometimes if you just leave them alone they calcify, form coalitions, and actively interfere in Western democracies. Sometimes if you intervene a little, you can help support the people oust their rulers. Sometimes if you intervene a little, you just harm innocent civilians, and entrench the power of the regime. And so on and so forth for every possible level of intervention.
Sure, some of it is going to inherently depend on the actual level of the power disparity, on any counteracting support the regime is getting from your adversaries, on the particular details of your intentions and your intervention, on the timing, etc. But sometimes it really feels like nobody knows what they're doing with foreign policy, and sometimes you get lucky and the country where you literally nuke two major cities just sort of shrugs, shakes your hand, and becomes one of your closest allies with a great deal of goodwill between citizens, and on the other hand sometimes you put boots on the ground an funnel enormous sums of money and (at least hypothetically) try to maintain positive relationships with the locals in a huge nation-building project and after decades you end up with...nothing.
So, to go back to what you said, sometimes it feels like tolerating the fascist country in your backyard might be the best way to turn it into a non-fascist country. And, on the other hand, sometimes it might be the worst way. These things seem difficult.
They care a lot about Cuba being "open door communist bros" with the USSR, and now with China.
If China moves on Taiwan, and the US moves to defend, and then a bunch of Chinese missiles hit the East Coast, people will wonder what the government was doing letting China set up camp right on our door step.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
Also, we're still pissed off at Iran for deposing (in 1979) the dictator that we installed in 1953.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
Whenever America acts "funny" (or irrationally, if you prefer) and does something politically/militarily that makes no sense to the average person, the answer is almost always "white supremacy". In the past, that could be waved away by mumbling "we're fighting communism", but after the collapse of the Soviet Union & Warsaw Pact, we needed a new excuse. Sometimes "fighting terrorism" is used instead, but the T-word never gets applied to white people.
> Therefore, the term banana republic is a pejorative descriptor for a servile oligarchy that abets and supports, for kickbacks, the exploitation of large-scale plantation agriculture, especially banana cultivation.
What? This is currently purely on Cuban-Americans as a voting bloc in Florida...
The recent escalation is due to Marco Rubio, a Cuban-American, being Secretary of State.
We also have no reason to doubt that Cuba has run out of fuel as a result of an embargo on fuel when the officials say so. It's not a surprise; it was the expected outcome and the entire point of the embargo.
A better title would be: "Cuba jas run out of fuel due to the US embargo".
The US started the Oil Embargo and AFAIK it is still on-goimg. Cuba is running out of fuel. To me 2+2=4, so I say blame can be placed on the US :)
> Home burns down, residents blame a fire
- The Cold War is over and Cuba poses no security risk - Florida is no longer a swing state and appeasing Cuban Americans is not a worthwhile political move - We are willing to ally with much more oppressive regimes for less geopolitical benefits - Cuba was in the process of liberalizing and developing an independent middle class for the first time in half a century before Trump's last crackdown.
The jury is out on whether the "regime change" (or more like, junior dictator promotion) in Venezuela was worthwhile. It's certainly looking like a quagmire in Iran.
By hardballing GAESA, we're probably shooting ourselves in the foot by making the Cuban population more resentful of the US. "Regime change" is a less likely positive outcome than it was 8 years ago.
But we have plenty of models of military dictatorships slowly opening up to becoming stable economies through trade and access. More or less that's what happened with Vietnam, to name one.
Cuba also used to have the best economony in the Caribbean prior to 1959 when the Castro's took over. They switched from a free market ecomony to a state run socialist economy.
What a lack of confidence in their own system to not allow fair competition between Cuban socialism and American capitalism.
It feels similar to Putin invading Ukraine because he didn't like the example of an EU-aligned country prospering next door and the populace starting to ask difficult questions.
Ukraine was a much poorer state and is a much poorer state than Russia. Putin's invasion has nothing to do with "EU-aligning prosperity" that never happened, but with USA and EU overthrowing Ukrainian government and placing a puppet regime that turned Ukraine from a friendly-to-neutral state into an hostile one to Russia.
> It feels similar to Putin invading Ukraine because he didn't like the example of an EU-aligned country prospering next door and the populace starting to ask difficult questions.
This is a misreading of Putin's motivation IMHO. He states clearly over and over again that it's about a historical concept of greater and historic Russia. He has even stated publicly it has nothing to do with NATO. So this is a false equivalence.
That's not true. It has always been about NATO absorbing Ukraine that is unacceptable to Russia. Putin warned about it since his Munich speech in 2007, that Georgia and Ukraine has to stay a military neutral countries or it'll result in a war with Russia. USA just decided that they may ignore it and do whatever they want anyway, pushing NATO in, after organizing "revolutions".
This way they can control everyone.
> "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.
The US is also not actually sending oil to Cuba so the scenario above is hypothetical, not real.
> 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.
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.
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).
"The US will be Cuba's exclusive supplier of oil."
Are these not polar opposites?
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.
Is the new Venezuelan leader still trying to send Cuba oil? Or has she stopped that?
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.