You're pointing to the blockade of Venezuelan oil which just started. How does that explain the failure of Cuba to develop for the six decades before that?
> companies that do business with the U.S. which trade in Cuba do so at the risk of U.S. sanctions. The U.S. has threatened to stop financial aid to other countries if they trade non-food items with Cuba.
> The U.S. government has pursued extraterritorial measures to enforce its embargo. Cuban ambassador Ricardo Alarcón cited 27 recent cases of trade contracts interrupted by U.S. pressure to the U.N. in 1991. British Petroleum was seemingly dissuaded by U.S. authorities from investing in offshore oil exploration in Cuba despite initially expressing interest. In 1992, the U.S. State Department discouraged firms like Royal Dutch Shell and Clyde Petroleum from investing in Cuba.
It’s not like Cuba was working great until February 2026.
Thomas Jefferson
Geopolitical and sovereignty awkwardness aside (big aside I know)…. it’s obvious Cuba, and especially the average Cuban, would benefit immensely from the island becoming a US state, no?
If anyone thinks Cuba is better off in any metric now than they would have been in that alternate reality, I’d love to hear why.
I mean, pre-Castro Cuba was basically a playground for the US rich. Like, the whole revolution was about kicking those people out.
Personally, I think that's morally justified, but I don't agree that what the US has done to them since then is morally justified. Obviously people differ on their opinions of this stuff, but collective punishment (which is what the US embargoes are) is generally regarded as a war crime.
The definitions really keep mutating on the left don’t they. Economic sanctions are a “war crime,” “silence is violence,” etc.
Fuel for cooking food and providing heat is necessary for survival; deliberate prevention of this aid from reaching Cuba is a war crime.
You may have me confused with someone else, as I have never said anything about silence is violence.
Economic sanctions are definitely a method of waging war. The loss falls mostly on the ordinary people of the country, and as such are collective punishment and war crimes.
Now, is it better than bombing the people back to the Stone Age? Definitely in the short-term, but one look at what happened to Iraq after ten years of sanctions (everyone who could left) and the impact this had on post 2003 reconstruction would seem to suggest that it's the difference between acute and chronic illnesses.