Russian oil tanker to be allowed to reach Cuba, despite blockade
Posted by ObjectiveObserver420@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 78 comments
Posted by ObjectiveObserver420@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 78 comments
Exostrike@reddit
The question is why.
Could be Trump doesn't have the mental bandwidth to fight Iran and conquer Cuba at the same time.
Alternatively he wants Cuba to submit, not implode. He doesn't want a humanitarian crisis of America's door step and a flood of refugees which wouldn't play well with his base.
kwonza@reddit
Because literally starving people into submission would be bad optics
tsardonicpseudonomi@reddit
Haha, no. We don't care about that in the US. We let our own go hungry and die rather than give minorities resources.
kwonza@reddit
Word(
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
Bad optics yet that’s been exactly the plan for the past 60+ years:
BendicantMias@reddit
Didn't matter when they did it to Iraq. Albright publicly said she thought starving 500,000 Iraqi children to death was "worth it".
cambeiu@reddit
Whatever the reason is, I am glad that Trump did not enforce the blockade. As much as I dislike the Cuban government, I dislike US meddling even more.
AlbinauricGod@reddit
Why would you care about government of some bumfucknowhere country?
loggy_sci@reddit
It’s 90 miles from Florida
AlbinauricGod@reddit
That makes much more sense now
moonorplanet@reddit
Why do you dislike the Cuban government?
chillichampion@reddit
Because he was programmed to hate it because it is “authoritarian”.
loggy_sci@reddit
“Anyone who disagrees with me is brainwashed”
Citizens should be in charged of their government and able to replace it. Single party rule with restricted civil liberties is bad, and it is perfectly fine to say so.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Whats he gonna do? Start a war with Russia/China while hes losing/retreating in the middle east?
Get real.
Trollimperator@reddit
Trump started this in jan26. He stated that everyone supplying oil to Cuba would be hit with tariffs. So, thats likely the action Trump would take, if he wanted to excalate.
I consider it possible, that Trump just had no rational string of policies there and acted day by day or/and irrational. The bad press made him reconsider.
My personal opinion would be, that everything Trump does deserves bad press and this administration should be stopped. He does enormous harm to the nation and the world.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
This actually all started when the west took Russian assets for an invasion when they do the same thing all the time but call it preemptive strikes.
It gave legitimacy to the idea of BRICS and more countries began to say "if they did this to Russia what is stopping them from doing it to me?"
It is not a coincidence that both countries hes invaded months into his second term are BRICS nations.
Trump continuing to escalate only ensures he continues to lose harder.
loggy_sci@reddit
Oh hey look it’s a BRICS bug in the wild.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Loggy nice to see you bud, havent been called by a bot by you for a few days, was getting worried.
America is losing their invasion, at least Russia is gonna win
loggy_sci@reddit
I’m just here to laugh at your goofy BRICS takes. Your cheerleading Russian invaders like they’re your favorite sports team is just the cherry on top. Keep working on your fan fiction.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
I look forward to seeing you on future threads about American loses/surrender
loggy_sci@reddit
Definitely. I always get a good laugh from your comments, Bendicant ;)
ThevaramAcolytus@reddit
But that's just it. There was no officially declared "blockade", to my knowledge. Mexico was dissuaded and pressured away from continuing to export oil to Cuba by the threat of major tariffs, as were presumably some others.
But Russia doesn't care about tariffs as it's already one of the most sanctioned countries in the world by the U.S. and Western bloc.
Trollimperator@reddit
Oh, they care about tariffs. Trump just allowed all russian tankers on sea to move oil. Thats why you dont hear news about the USA seizing shadow fleet tankers anymore.
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
Which is way more likely due to the U.S. Navy being extremely overextended, Venezuela, Iran, Houthis at the Red Sea, and probably some other hotspots I can’t think about right now.
Yes, the US military is expensive and big, but even an expensive and big military has its limits, and such limits can also become a disadvantage: When you are big you are also more exposed as you give more attack surface to the enemy.
Case in point: US military now having to station troops in hotels and offices as it lacks enough interceptor munitions to reliably protect its many bases in the region.
If it was only one or two bases this problem wouldn’t exist as much, air defenses and resources could be concentrated and pooled to defend them.
But dozens of different bases all also require their own air defenses and logistics, its spreading resources thin and wide.
Trollimperator@reddit
Erm, you dont need much of a Navy to seize those tankers. And in fact some of the work was actually done with the help of the UK navy transporting US boarding agents.
We arent talking about Hormuz here, we are talking about the Atlantic.
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
We are talking about the fact that no matter how big something is, there are always limits.
You insisting that “it doesn’t take much to intercept the tanker” while ignoring how the US Navy has most of its resources already bound in other places, does nothing to debunk any of that.
It’s basically just denial that the US navy could be stretched too thin: “It doesn’t take much, US navy is so much!”.
We are talking about the global US military presence, in particular that of the US Navy, and how its spread rather thin yet very wide because the US navy is not an organisation with infinite ships and personnel.
Trollimperator@reddit
You think, the US navy is stretched too thin, to provide a 10 man boarding team?
Are you for real?
ThevaramAcolytus@reddit
Yes, but Cuba was added after the fact to a small list of countries which were exceptions for permitting exports to, which included North Korea, I believe Iran, as well as all originating from Crimea and Russian-occupied/annexed eastern Ukraine.
BendicantMias@reddit
Well he can't really do much to Russia then. They're already sanctioned.
Trollimperator@reddit
Well, he just released some sanctions on them. Trump is just acting stupid and weak. Not that this is a bad thing, when he is trying to bully Cuba.
ParadoxPosadist@reddit
Russia can barely even take on Ukraine.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Russia is taking on all of NATO economically while they use their proxy, Ukraine for manpower.
You may not like it, but thats the reality we live in.
loggy_sci@reddit
The fact that this obvious Russia propaganda slop is upvoted in this sub is hilarious.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Bringing up valid points that make you uncomfortable doesnt make me a bot, you have no rebuttal other than bot because you lack the knowledge to make an informed reply.
loggy_sci@reddit
I didn’t call you a bot, just that your comment is pro-Russian cheerleader garbage.
Guaire1@reddit
No? Nato is barely giving any money to Ukraine. And any money sent is going down every year.
That is particularly silly to claim when russia has as small of an economy as countries like italy.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Their entire existence depends on NATO money
The size of russias economy doesnt really matter if they are taking you all on though does it?
Guaire1@reddit
Except that, once again, they arent taking all, they are taking a small part, and a small part that keeps shrinking every year.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
They are taking you all on, anything else is semantics.
Or do you think spanish soldiers will do better than Ukrianians?
loggy_sci@reddit
I’m almost positive this is BendicantMas’s alt account
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Check my steam on my profile for my full name and location
Guaire1@reddit
No its not semantics to say that russia is just fighting a very small part of Nato's material and economy, and struggling to win despite the fact that that small portion of help to ukraine is shrinking every year.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
They are taking on a coaltion and winning, when there is no more Ukrainians do you plan on pushing a trench?
Guaire1@reddit
Once again, no. Taking on a coalition is actually fighting all participants of the coalition. Not struggling to beat up a country barely armed by the coalition, and whom the coalition is giving even less money every year.
Hell, russia's losses have been so bad that in so bad than in some areas of the front thry are relying on horses.
When the west was interested in giving ukraine the resources they ask, ukraime beat back russia in almost every front. Dp you remember the failed march of kyiv? The reconquest of Kharkiv? Or the recapture of Kherson?
Hell, even after the west began losing interest in the war, as it became clear is not a threat to western countries, minor ukranian offensived still took place. Sometimes even into russian territory proper.
And honestly, you yourself have admitted that russia can only win this war through attrition. But any war of attrition would in fsct only be worse for russia even if it technically won it, as russia is a country actively losing population, whose invasion has only worsened their own demographic crisis.
The only way russia wins is by retreating and acting as if nothign ever happened, any other option is ruinous.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
If NATO was capable of sending a meaningful force to defend Ukraine they would have already, so either NATO doesnt care about Ukrainians or they are unable to defeat Russia, which is it?
ParadoxPosadist@reddit
Nato is being incredibly stingy with their money.they have sent some out of date versions of current western tanks and, F16, and some missiles. You are not seeing the western doctrine on air superiority at work. The war with Iran consumed more patriot missiles than the Ukraine war to date. Russia is holding on with a fully wartime vs a peace time nato that is willing to hand over some things.
chillichampion@reddit
What is western doctrine against entrenched Russian positions?
Could you walk me through how UK or France would break the surovikin line and reach crimea? Or liberate fortress cities of Donbas? I’m genuinely curious.
ParadoxPosadist@reddit
Western millitary doctrine and american in particular relies heavily on airstrikes after having established air superiority. It does rather poorly when the people are against you and can shelter anywhere. If we are actually liberating a country instead of "liberating" then the millitary blending in with the civilians is less of an issue. If they are aided by locals then this becomes a clusterfuck like afganistan and Vietnam.
Professional-Syrup-0@reddit
If any party is “stingy” with their money in terms of Ukraine then it’s the American party.
Meanwhile European NATO countries like France, UK and Germany all saw their governments implode during the last 4 years due to an inability to fill Ukraine-aid sized budget holes.
Ffs, Germany is still in its longest recession since WW2, and everybody is acting like nothing it wrong, Americans claiming we ain’t “paying enough” while they pay literally nothing.
And we ain’t just paying for Ukraine, we are also paying for expensive as sin American LNG, which is one of the few things still keeping the American economy barely growing.
European countries delivered hundreds of Leopard 1 and Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine, the U.S. delivered dozens of Abraham’s, out of date versions too.
Thanks for that post-factual take from an ocean away.
ParadoxPosadist@reddit
Well aware that that america stopped pulling its weight. I did not know germany's recession was that bad or even as bad as 2008.
And correct me if I am wrong but leopards are the ones germany sent while the britsh sent challengers, France did not send the Leclerc but those were a shorter production run.
Finally last I checked, all NATO nations are still in a peacetime economy. The have not turned lipstic containers over to bullet production, though you are seeing a modern equivalent to Lend Lease. Many of the NATO nations are ratcheting up their defence spending as the Peace Dividend is seen to be over.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
So why dont they send F35 and get it over with? Probably so it doesnt get downed multiple times by Russian equipment like the F117.
4 years and still no training? Can't use that excuse anymore.
Are you forgetting when Ukraine tried to use "western doctrine" in their counter-offensives like Kursk and got absolutely obliterated within days?
Ukrainian troops laughed at Polish/Czech troops when they asked them to stop using drones since it isnt fair and they should use more vehicles in their attacks as well as amphibious assaults.
Not realizing that there is HD footage everyday for the past 4 years on why that doesn't work when there is drone coverage over the entire battlefield.
Russia had an estimated 800+ air defense batteries before the invasion, which they have surely increased now, that is thousands upon thousands of radar/launch vehicles.
Russia is not Iran. There are levels to this.
You dont even have enough missiles for that.
The war with Iran consumed more patriot missiles than the Ukraine war to date. Russia is holding on with a fully wartime vs a peace time nato that is willing to hand over some things.
ParadoxPosadist@reddit
The western doctrine won't work because they don't have enough nor fancy enough aircraft to do SEAD/DEAD with them with acceptable loss rates. They don't have them because we don't want to give them F35 because the current American administration does not give a fuck about Ukraine. Under Biden they had just worked up the political will to give them F16.
As for the number of sam batteries I wouldn't be sure if they make them faster than drones remove them. Both Ukraine and Russia have been losing equipment and manpower for years now. You are absolutely right about NATO being unable to fight without a good cause though.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Oh please.. Iran took out your AWACS yesterday, 10% of your tanker fleet the day before.
Iran, not Russia or China but Iran who was under sanctions the past how many decades?
Please stop any other fairytale you have in your head, the days of American military might are over, you have been revealed as the paper tiger you are.
ParadoxPosadist@reddit
And the soviet unions ended in the 1990's Russia is a shadow of that. Military simulations for decades have shown that attempting to conquer Iran will be impossible, and we have a president dumb enough to ignore that, and an alcoholic former news anchor as secretary of war. It would not be a big ask for America's millitary to push Russia out of Ukraine, but fighting a guerilla war in a nation of ~80m people is not possible. As for Russia's actual territory any shenanigans with a nuclear power's territory risk a nuking. I hope our leaders still aren't that dumb.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
If America could easily save the Ukrainians but choose not to then who is the real monster?
ParadoxPosadist@reddit
Agreed
Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit
What are they going to do about Cuba? This isn't 1962, Putin isn't going to go to war to keep Havana friendly
PurpleMclaren@reddit
They are delivering oil, rice, solar panels among other humanitarian aid.
Why do they need to do anything else? What do you mean?
Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit
If the USCG did stop the tanker Russia could do nothing about it...
PurpleMclaren@reddit
The USCG does not have the capability to stop Russian/Chinese tankers alone, they have been fitted with weapons.
The coast guard relies on the navy for support; thats how they achieved the previous boarding operations.
The navy is a little busy retreating in the middle east right now.
Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit
Russian and Chinese civilian tankers do not carry weapons
Retreating from where?
PurpleMclaren@reddit
https://www.thedefensenews.com/news-details/Images-Reveal-Chinese-Container-Ship-Converted-Into-Modular-Missile-Platform/
whats going on with shipping video
Old_Wallaby_7461@reddit
This is not a tanker, this is demonstration model of a cargo ship refitted as a frigate.
You know there's another carrier going into the middle east now, right?
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Cargo ships can carry cargo like humanitarian aid, they have also been spotted with AA.
Is this before or after the newest "super duper" carrier had a "laundry fire" and is out of commission for 14+ months?
The entire fleet left the gulf, let alone getting near the strait.
AccurateLaugh50@reddit
You never answered people's questions and it's fun to watch lmao
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Did that make sense in your head?
AccurateLaugh50@reddit
Listen, next time people reply to you, answer them directly.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
You got offended that my reply to his rhetorical question wasnt answered earnestly? Youre american is showing.
Id be pissed too if my country spent all that money just to lose to cavemen, your anger is misguided, use those guns for what they are for.
AccurateLaugh50@reddit
Sir I'm not even an American. 傻逼滚一去
PurpleMclaren@reddit
This is a new one, usually just get called a bot, i appreciate mixing it up a bit at least
Kelor@reddit
If you were to be cynical about it Cuba is currently in an almost complete blackout of power. The lack of fuel means people can't get to work.
Probably really hard to coordinate a coup when everyone participating can't contact each other or travel where they need to be as a result of a lack of oil.
I'd love for it to be because seeing the volunteers in the aid flotillas have turned his heart, but I don't believe that's it.
In the mean time I'm glad Cuba will have some of the resources it's people desperately need and hope they can get a reliable supply going.
Boysandberries0@reddit
Sanctions harm the poorest in a society.
Sanctions are largely ineffective, especially if the sanctioned state can pivot around the Sanctions.
Most states will sacrifice every aspect of their citizens life to maintain power, locally and internationally.
Here, there is no reason to punish the people of Cuba, which a petrol embargo does.
They arent going to revolt. Not anytime soon.
_Antitese@reddit
but if you don't sanction a socialist country to death, it will eventually develop and you can't say "communism bad!"
PoppingPillls@reddit
And if they lift all the sanctions and let Cuba breath and not be stuck under 60 years of suffering caused by the sanctions then Americans might not see Cuba as the enemy anymore.
It's always funny to me as a lot of cubas have a better standard of in Cuba than many Americans poverty aside. As the government provides what they can and access to stuff like education is much better in Cuba.
GianfrancoZoey@reddit
The punishment of the people is the point. It's how the US and its allies operate. Sanctions are collective punishment and that's exactly why it's Western policy
Majestic-Effort-541@reddit
Trump doesnt operate on ideology so much as impulse + ego + whoever had the most expensive lunch meeting with him that week.
One week its “maximum pressure” next week its “actually let the tanker through” because the goal isnt consistency its optics.
He wants to feel like the guy who can starve a country… and then magnanimously decide not to. King behavior in his head
possiblecurb@reddit
Isn't there a horse story about something like this? I think the US and Russia had some issues over Cuba before, I'm sure tensions are way less between the two now.
AutoModerator@reddit
The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.