The Cuba Thread

[TruckDriver9]

boarded under international law

I think You might have misspelled "under US law".
Cause international law is pretty clear on when ships may be boarded in international waters, and US sanctions enforcement isn't on the list. Not that it makes any difference, because, as mentioned earlier, US is not party to UNCLOS. And maybe that's what they're going for - send a "clean", properly registered, tanker with "humanitarian" oil, have it seized by the US Navy and make a scene out of it in the UN.

 

[TruckDriver9]

US Coast Guard blocked a fuel-laden tanker "Ocean Mariner" sailing from Colombia toward Cuba.

There is no official comment from the United States, but observers tracking Cuba believe a U.S. Coast Guard cutter intercepted a tanker bound for Cuba. It appears the presence of the USCG led the chemical/product tanker Ocean Mariner to alter course and sail away from Cuba.
(...)
The last shipment to Cuba was aboard the Ocean Mariner, a 13,000 dwt product tanker owned by Greek interests. The vessel registered in Liberia made a delivery to Cuba from Mexico on January 9. Reports suggest it was carrying 86,000 barrels of fuel.
The same vessel departed Colombia on February 5. Its AIS signal was saying, “for orders.” The ship, however, proceeded north. The tanker entered the Windward Passage between Cuba and Haiti, but its AIS signal shows a sudden U-turn. It went south of Haiti and along the coast toward the Dominican Republic.

 

[TruckDriver9]

Part of the reason the US has become more aggressive towards Venezuela and Cuba is that the Chinese were already starting to rebuild their infrastructure. In Cuba, new Chinese solar power projects already cover over a fifth of Cuban energy needs. At this rate, they will cover 80%+ of their energy needs in a couple of years, and start using Chinese EVs.

They don't have "a couple of years". There are blackouts all across the country, including the capital, happening now.

Blackouts surge in Cuba: Electric deficit rises from 1,500 to nearly 2,000 MW in one day

The Electric Union reported nearly 20 hours of power outages on Sunday, and the disruptions continued this morning.

en.cibercuba.com

 

[Cooper]

They don't have "a couple of years". There are blackouts all across the country, including the capital, happening now.

Blackouts surge in Cuba: Electric deficit rises from 1,500 to nearly 2,000 MW in one day

The Electric Union reported nearly 20 hours of power outages on Sunday, and the disruptions continued this morning.

en.cibercuba.com

They went through a far worse period after the fall of the USSR, when their foreign aid and subsidized oil imports were completely cut off in the early 90s. Their GDP collapsed by nearly 50%, they replaced their busses with improvised horse drawn carriages...

Special Period - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If the US enforces a strict blockade on Cuba against the wishes of local countries like Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil, and foreign powers like China and Russia, and perhaps EU countries like Spain, it's going to be a PR disaster for the US, will look like the USSR's 1961 attempt to blockade West Berlin. I predict Trump will back off, just like the USSR did.

 

[Pravoslavac]

They don't have "a couple of years". There are blackouts all across the country, including the capital, happening now.

Blackouts have been the way of life in Cuba for decades. They have blackouts more than not.

 

[TruckDriver9]

They went through a far worse period after the fall of the USSR, when their foreign aid and subsidized oil imports were completely cut off in the early 90s. Their GDP collapsed by nearly 50%, they replaced their busses with improvised horse drawn carriages...

Special Period - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If the US enforces a strict blockade on Cuba against the wishes of local countries like Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil, and foreign powers like China and Russia, and perhaps EU countries like Spain, it's going to be a PR disaster for the US, will look like the USSR's 1961 attempt to blockade West Berlin. I predict Trump will back off, just like the USSR did.

So far only Russia declared they're willing to send oil, but without any details on when, or how much they will send. Claudia backed out. Petro and Lula are missing in action. Spain's Sanchez was one of the first to buy Venezuelan oil from Trump - doubt he'll be making any waves. No idea if Xi plans on doing anything.

 

[RedLagoon]

So far only Russia declared they're willing to send oil, but without any details on when, or how much they will send. Claudia backed out. Petro and Lula are missing in action. Spain's Sanchez was one of the first to buy Venezuelan oil from Trump - doubt he'll be making any waves. No idea if Xi plans on doing anything.

"Buy Venezuelan oil from Trump"

Interesting.

 

[TruckDriver9]

"Buy Venezuelan oil from Trump"

Interesting.

A simplification on my part.
It's not like Trump personally sells Venezuelan oil. Rather than that, it's the US government that grants licenses (sanctions waivers) to western commodity traders to sell Venezuelan oil on global markets.

US Eases Venezuela Sanctions Through New General Licenses and FAQs

What Happened

natlawreview.com

 

[LaAguilaNegra]

I think You might have misspelled "under US law".
Cause international law is pretty clear on when ships may be boarded in international waters, and US sanctions enforcement isn't on the list. Not that it makes any difference, because, as mentioned earlier, US is not party to UNCLOS. And maybe that's what they're going for - send a "clean", properly registered, tanker with "humanitarian" oil, have it seized by the US Navy and make a scene out of it in the UN.

There are several UNCLOS clauses which state that ships trading under fraudulent registries, thereby lacking flag-state protection, are subject to boarding under the international maritime law. Same goes for AIS spoofing, lack of valid insurance and breach of safety regulations. Russia's economy is at this stage reliant on pirating, black market trade, sanctions evasion and ultimately playing dumb on world stage. Of course they'll use their illicit means to supply Cuba with a lifeline, and of course the US isn't going to put up with it - and rightfully so.

All of this is clearly laid out in Article 92 and 110 which makes the recent US+UK+France boarding of Russian and Iranian shadow tankers in the Caribbean and elsewhere a perfectly legal side hustle. Also notice how there isn't any legal or diplomatic pushback against this practice from either Moscow or Tehran, Iranians and Russians know they judicially don't have a leg to stand on ergo stick to cultivating (online) victimhood narratives instead.

https://news.usni.org/2026/01/22/u-s-targeting-shadow-oil-fleets-using-u-n-law-of-the-sea-convention-former-coast-guard-jags-say#:~:text=Tankers%20Seized%20Under%20U.S.%20Operation,Seizure%20location:%20Caribbean

https://safety4sea.com/windward-more-shadow-vessels-expected-to-re-flag-as-sanctions-tighten/#:~:text=Anchor%20Your%20Health-,Windward:%20More%20shadow%20vessels%20expected%20to%20re%2Dflag%20as%20sanctions,and%20France%20began%20in%20December.

 

[TruckDriver9]

There are several UNCLOS clauses which state that ships trading under fraudulent registries, thereby lacking flag-state protection, are subject to boarding under the international maritime law. Same goes for AIS spoofing, lack of valid insurance and breach of safety regulations. Russia's economy is at this stage reliant on pirating, black market trade, sanctions evasion and ultimately playing dumb on world stage. Of course they'll use their illicit means to supply Cuba with a lifeline, and of course the US isn't going to put up with it - and rightfully so.

All of this is clearly laid out in Article 92 and 110 which makes the recent US+UK+France boarding of Russian and Iranian shadow tankers in the Caribbean and elsewhere a perfectly legal side hustle. Also notice how there isn't any legal or diplomatic pushback against this practice from either Moscow or Tehran, Iranians and Russians know they judicially don't have a leg to stand on ergo stick to cultivating (online) victimhood narratives instead.

https://news.usni.org/2026/01/22/u-s-targeting-shadow-oil-fleets-using-u-n-law-of-the-sea-convention-former-coast-guard-jags-say#:~:text=Tankers%20Seized%20Under%20U.S.%20Operation,Seizure%20location:%20Caribbean

https://safety4sea.com/windward-more-shadow-vessels-expected-to-re-flag-as-sanctions-tighten/#:~:text=Anchor%20Your%20Health-,Windward:%20More%20shadow%20vessels%20expected%20to%20re%2Dflag%20as%20sanctions,and%20France%20began%20in%20December.

I already covered it in the Venezuela thread:

Post in thread 'The Venezuela Thread'

Jan 7, 2026

What rights does US have in international waters to seize a ship?

UNCLOS (law of the sea) grants warships the right to board vessels in international waters under certain circumstances:

All boarded tankers, including Bella1/Marinera before she registered in Russia, met the condition d - they were stateless vessels, sailing under a flag, without the flag state's permission.
That being said, at the end of the day the US is not party to UNCLOS, and we're not bound by its regulations. We're using our domestic laws (Treasury sanctions) and seizing these ships based on court...

• TruckDriver9

• 
• 
• 

But You're assuming they will send a tanker without proper registration. Seems unlikely after what already happened in the Caribbean with Venezuela-affiliated tankers.

 

[Cooper]

There are several UNCLOS clauses which state that ships trading under fraudulent registries, thereby lacking flag-state protection, are subject to boarding under the international maritime law. Same goes for AIS spoofing, lack of valid insurance and breach of safety regulations. Russia's economy is at this stage reliant on pirating, black market trade, sanctions evasion and ultimately playing dumb on world stage. Of course they'll use their illicit means to supply Cuba with a lifeline, and of course the US isn't going to put up with it - and rightfully so.

All of this is clearly laid out in Article 92 and 110...

"Lack of valid insurance" here means that they don't pay the Rothschilds/Lloyds of London for the privilege of sailing and trading on the other side of the world, those ((Londoners)) getting a cut of every item traded around the world. Nice little rackett they've had there for a couple of centuries., kind of similar to the SWIFT rackett where every interbank transaction around the world gets to be parked in their bank, and they charge you for that privilege.

And if you don't pay them, you get labeled as "pirate".

 

[Thomas More]

I think You might have misspelled "under US law".
Cause international law is pretty clear on when ships may be boarded in international waters, and US sanctions enforcement isn't on the list. Not that it makes any difference, because, as mentioned earlier, US is not party to UNCLOS. And maybe that's what they're going for - send a "clean", properly registered, tanker with "humanitarian" oil, have it seized by the US Navy and make a scene out of it in the UN.

The law of the sea is whatever the strongest power says it is. The British Empire used to push their own definition in defiance of other powers. China pushes its nine dashes policy in the South China Sea, and has a real chance of making it stick.

The US created the 200 mile sea boundary, when three miles had long been traditional. In the current situation, the US is determining what maritime law is. Time will tell how this holds up.

 

[LaAguilaNegra]

"Lack of valid insurance" here means that they don't pay the Rothschilds/Lloyds of London for the privilege of sailing and trading on the other side of the world, those ((Londoners)) getting a cut of every item traded around the world. Nice little rackett they've had there for a couple of centuries., kind of similar to the SWIFT rackett where every interbank transaction around the world gets to be parked in their bank, and they charge you for that privilege.

And if you don't pay them, you get labeled as "pirate".

As member Cooper waffles on about 'da Rothschilds' in a last ditch attempt to garner support (as if it matters) for the crumbling commie Cuban regime and their historical and current benefactor, the totally not commie Russians, it bears repeating that both Cuba and Russia have signed and ratified the United Nations Convention of the Law Of the Seas Treaty (UNCLOS).

You read that right, both the Cuban and Russian regime are in full support of the apparantly 'Rothschild begotten UNCLOS' and it's maritime insurance policies. Apparantly the big wigs in both Havana and Moscow are not aware, Western chuds who've been spoonfed slop for over decade once again living in coo-coo land. Both Havana and Moscow are also, unlike DC under Trump, fully committed to all other multilateral international frameworks under the United Nations. Meanwhile Trump has withdrawn or cut funding of at least 35 UN organizations, amongst others the WHO, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHRA UNPCC, UNFCC etc.

Total self-own. Not only did the chud dogwhistle not work, it also showed that the narrative presented, per usual, is horse puckey and intentionally pushed for maximum outrage.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Cooper]

The law of the sea is whatever the strongest power says it is. The British Empire used to push their own definition in defiance of other powers. China pushes its nine dashes policy in the South China Sea, and has a real chance of making it stick.

The US created the 200 mile sea boundary, when three miles had long been traditional. In the current situation, the US is determining what maritime law is. Time will tell how this holds up.

Agreed. The old order of world trading and finance is moving away from its unipolar moment.

 

[TruckDriver9]

"Lack of valid insurance" here means that they don't pay the Rothschilds/Lloyds of London for the privilege of sailing and trading on the other side of the world, those ((Londoners)) getting a cut of every item traded around the world. Nice little rackett they've had there for a couple of centuries., kind of similar to the SWIFT rackett where every interbank transaction around the world gets to be parked in their bank, and they charge you for that privilege.

And if you don't pay them, you get labeled as "pirate".

Lack of valid insurance in itself doesn't violate the law of the sea. Same goes for lack of valid service inspections or violating US sanctions. So under UNCLOS a ship can not be boarded in international waters for these infractions alone. Not when the ship has valid registration.
However, since these infractions are generally breaking the laws of the flag state, they can lead to the ship's de-flagging. And a stateless ship in international waters is fair game to anyone.

---

Off-topic
Russia actually benefits greatly from UNCLOS - so far, despite many attempts, none of their ships have been successfully seized by the Europeans. Just today France released the tanker "Grinch" after her owner plead guilty to breaking the French law (the ship was stateless and came under French law by default) and payed a couple millions in fines. Compare it with all the tankers seized by the US.

---

Back on topic.
If Russia actually sends a tanker to Cuba and the US decides to intervene, it will play out in one of the following ways:
1. The tanker is fraudulently registered and doesn't actually have a state flag - she can be boarded in international waters under international law.
2. The ship has a valid registration in a 3rd party state, but doesn't follow the flag state laws (no valid insurance for example):
a. the flag state is informed about these violations and gives the US permission to board and enforce the law
b. the flag state is informed about these violations and de-flags the ship. She becomes stateless and can be boarded in international waters under international law.
c. the flag state is informed about these violations but doesn't care about it and does nothing (highly unlikely) - she can not be boarded in international waters under international law, but we can still board her if we choose so, because the US is not party to UNCLOS.
3. The ship sails under the Russian flag. Russia doesn't give us permission to board her no matter the cause - she can not be boarded in international waters under international law, but we can still board her if we choose so, because the US is not party to UNCLOS.