· 74 comments · Save ·
News & Current Events Mar 30, 2026 at 2:20 AM

Tanker carrying Russian oil enters Cuba's exclusive economic zone, ship data says

Posted by thejoshwhite

🚩 Report this post

74 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
DonALT_Trumb Mar 30, 2026 +126
Just another Trump day of international chaos ensuing while he's off playing golf.
126
alittledanger Mar 30, 2026 +147
Lol how are the Trumpers going to justify this one?
147
Gizmodod Mar 30, 2026 +94
The diehards won't even hear about it
94
No_Conversation_9325 Mar 30, 2026 +25
Papa Putin
25
Dull-Rutabaga8689 Mar 30, 2026 +6
0% chance this makes its way on Fox news.
6
skelletrex_scrooge Mar 30, 2026 +18
That's neat part...they won't!
18
space_wiener Mar 30, 2026 +3
Why would they care? Most maga people support Russia now
3
Objective-Amount1379 Mar 30, 2026 +1
I doubt this is on Fox so they have no clue it’s happening.
1
urbanacrybaby Mar 30, 2026 -11
The US cannot legally attack a foreign-flagged civilian ship that is sailing legally in international waters.
-11
GoBlueBeatOSU21 Mar 30, 2026 +51
Oh now maga is real worried about the law, huh?
51
fireky2 Mar 30, 2026 +7
America doesnt f*** with countries that have nukes, its why we are attacking iran and not north korea
7
DonALT_Trumb Mar 30, 2026 +6
The irony of incentivising countries to get nukes is lost on you!
6
fireky2 Mar 30, 2026 +14
It is not, any country that doesnt want to get invaded by the US or Russia should probably have them since that seems to be the only thing that stops them
14
urbanacrybaby Mar 30, 2026 -12
Maybe they don't but I do, and many reasonable people do.
-12
alittledanger Mar 30, 2026 +12
There we go, move those goal posts…
12
urbanacrybaby Mar 30, 2026 -8
Idk mate, the US shouldn't be attacking civilian oil tankers for no reason. And also it's not like Russia is getting money for the oil, so I am not getting why stopping the tankers is strategically beneficial to the US or European Allies.
-8
Important_Bit2139 Mar 30, 2026 +8
Then why did the U.S. not allow Mexican and Venezuelan oil through or literally any other country except for Russia?
8
urbanacrybaby Mar 30, 2026
Because threatening sanctions on Russia does very little since Russia is already under sanction.
0
Important_Bit2139 Mar 30, 2026 +4
Those sanctions were removed so Russia can profit from the sale. Additionally, for the first time since the war in Ukraine, republican Congress members hosted Russian politicians. Furthermore, US intelligence confirmed someone close to the administration was having conversations with Russian intelligence services. Finally, Trump released a statement claiming that we allowed the tanker through for humanitarian reasons, despite knowing our weeks long blockade would halt all power to the island. However, he all of a sudden cares about humanitarian aide? Occam’s razor would suggest that republicans are simply compromised and are aiding Russia while alienating everyone else.
4
urbanacrybaby Mar 30, 2026
My point is that no reasonable administration is going to stop the Russian tankers supplying oil to Cuba, nor should they. Because doing so 1) is illegal, 2) has very little strategic advantage to the US or its allies. Very few people believe it's worth escalating violence with Russia for the sole purpose of starving Cubans of fuel (since Russia is not paid for this oil). Maybe this is not the reason this behind administration actions, but it's still the right call.
0
Important_Bit2139 Mar 30, 2026 +2
Yes that I agree with you on. I would extend it though and say it’s not the US’s place to starve Cuba at all and that should have included Venezuelan and Mexican oil as well.
2
My_Soul_to_Squeeze Mar 30, 2026 +1
Tbf, there is reason. No matter how unethical or distasteful that reason is, it's there. Trump wants to topple the Cuban government and doesn't give a f*** about international law. The US also doesn't want to be made to look weak or foolish by letting its longtime geological rival ignore its threats. If economic coercion and the implicit threat of violent enforcement isn't enough, that only leaves one option.
1
urbanacrybaby Mar 30, 2026 -3
Significantly escalating with Russia with violence for the sole purpose of putting pressure on Cuba is not a prudent thing to do. Past US presidents have avoided direct confrontation with Russia for very good reasons, and I don't see why it should be different now. And even if you are willing to escalate with Russia, illegally attacking oil tankers merely because they are supplying oil to Cuba is not a great way to start and does not give the US a good image abroad.
-3
My_Soul_to_Squeeze Mar 30, 2026 +3
>~~you are willing to escalate with Russia~~ ~~That's not what I said, lmao.~~ (e: trying to tone down the sass be leave the context) >does not give the US a good image abroad We're well past that point in basically every way.
3
urbanacrybaby Mar 30, 2026 +2
'You' mean in a general sense someone who is willing to escalate, not you specifically. I apologize if that was unclear. On the second point, I would argue that attacking international trade using violence is actually a lot worse than normal military action far as international norms are concerned.
2
My_Soul_to_Squeeze Mar 30, 2026 +1
Fair enough. Sorry for getting sassy with you. I'm not sure if I totally agree on your second point, given the terrible risks associated with inter-state violence, but the US has jumped into a deep and dark no win situation on multiple fronts.
1
urbanacrybaby Mar 30, 2026 +2
We're good. Wars suck and the risks associated with inter-state violence is enormous. However, starting to attack international shipping of countries you are not at war with is something that leads to world war levels of international norm breakdown.
2
TheTonyExpress Mar 30, 2026 +1
Like fishing boats?
1
GoldenMegaStaff Mar 30, 2026 +1
What is funny is those international laws were made by the countries with the biggest ships. Now there are countries that may not necessarily agree with those laws and take exception to foreign ships sailing through their waters.
1
Miserable_Vehicle_10 Mar 30, 2026 +1
USA is Russia's little b****, it's laughable to even imagine they would attack their ship.
1
Mlmmt Mar 30, 2026 +26
From what I understand, a single tanker is literally a drop in the bucket compared to how much they actually need.
26
ghostfacekhilla Mar 30, 2026 +39
It's not about helping Cuba is a geopolitical test of trumps resolve. He has none. 
39
thejoshwhite Mar 30, 2026 +9
That is true. But maybe it will break the seal to some extent.
9
DonALT_Trumb Mar 30, 2026 +8
Then why allow it to sail through? It's a PR disaster. If it was for "humanitarian" purposes, send a US one!
8
Old-n-Wrinkly Mar 30, 2026 +8
Uh….the USA started this devistation.
8
TetyyakiWith Mar 30, 2026 +1
USA sending humanitarian aid to its enemy?
1
InternationalHair725 Mar 30, 2026 +1
Victim *
1
Virtual-Debate8066 Mar 30, 2026 +55
Trump is a p****
55
NTJ-891 Mar 30, 2026 +41
No, he's just compromised. Mexico isn't allowed, but his controller Putin can sell to Cuba.
41
Euromantique Mar 30, 2026 +2
I think it’s more that Russia is already under heavy sanctions for 8 years. There’s really not much that Trump can threaten them with that they will care about in that regard Whereas sanctions would be devastating for Mexico which is heavily economically integrated with the US
2
Beautiful-Tackle8969 Mar 30, 2026 +16
You’re a few days behind. Trump removed the sanctions on Russia selling its oil last week. The timing of the Cuba shipment isn’t a coincidence.
16
Odd_Reputation_4000 Mar 30, 2026 +6
Next will be accepting russian oil shipments into the USA.
6
fireky2 Mar 30, 2026 +1
They still have sanctions in other areas, re adding oil sanctions would be all they could do but it would f*** with gas prices more
1
Snatchbuckler Mar 30, 2026 +12
Must has sent Trump $1,000,000
12
lolalala1 Mar 30, 2026 +9
Trump has US doing Putin's dirty work.  Everything he's doing ultimately benefits Russia.  Think about it.
9
thejoshwhite Mar 30, 2026 +4
I can't believe how smoothly he removed sanctions on Russian oil. No one cares.
4
SorryWerewolf4735 Mar 30, 2026 +4
Trump boosting every economy but ours.
4
KloneRr Mar 30, 2026 +5
FREE CUBA!
5
mrflash818 Mar 30, 2026 +2
Taco. Taco. Taco. \_\_T\_A\_C\_O\_\_
2
Murky_Database_569 Mar 30, 2026
Rare W for Russia. People who are upset about this, don't really care about Cuba, are just weird NAFO freaks. Glad someone did the right thing.
0
funky_boar Mar 30, 2026 -2
Yeah, it's good that russians are getting MORE money to kill Ukrainians, that's a good thing!/s
-2
skredditt Mar 30, 2026 +1
Just want to make sure, there’s oil on that ship right?
1
VeganSuperPowerz Mar 30, 2026 +1
What if a torpedo hits it as soon as it arrives in port? That would be f****** insane.
1
Dauntless_Idiot Mar 30, 2026 +2
If the ship blows up in Cuban port then its a well documented false flag and Russia did it. History would really be rhyming if this happens.
2
BigFootisNephilim Mar 30, 2026 +3
USS Maine but Russia?
3
ghostfacekhilla Mar 30, 2026 +1
Trump has lost the Caribbean. 
1
vinnybawbaw Mar 30, 2026 +1
Russia took the bet and won. The US had 2 choices: kickin’ off hostilities with Russia by takin’ the ship down or looking like fools and a W for Cuba for letting them in.
1
donkeykong64123 Mar 30, 2026 -15
Listnook: "why is US starving Cuba! They need to allow them to trade and get energy needs" Also listnook: "lol trumps a coward why is he allowing one Russian tanker to give oil to Cuba!?"
-15
The_Navy_Sox Mar 30, 2026 +16
Why are you pretending listnook is a single individual to have a made up argument against?
16
donkeykong64123 Mar 30, 2026 -16
It's a massive anti us echo chamber
-16
schu4KSU Mar 30, 2026 +7
The US is doing awful things and only half the Americans and Israelis support those actions. That’s why it seems to be an echo chamber.
7
Whooshless Mar 30, 2026 +1
It's more "pro-sanity" but if you can't see that…
1
CJKayak Mar 30, 2026 +8
Both things can be true. A blockade of Cuba is dumbass and inhumane. But you also look weak af if you allow Russia to say "F*** your blockade, we're coming anyway." Amazingly, Trump has this uncanny ability to always f*** things up beyond normal fuckery.
8
RareBid Mar 30, 2026 +4
There should be no sanction son Cuba in the first place. Pretty pathetic how the US bully small countries who  stand up to it. I'm glad Cuba is  getting oil, it's disgusting what Trump has done.
4
donkeykong64123 Mar 30, 2026 -1
The US abs Europe have been seizing Russian oil tankers for the past several months. Implying Russia just passed "the blockade" without permission is moronic. This is you making assumptions
-1
My_Soul_to_Squeeze Mar 30, 2026 +4
I think those ships were generally flying false flags to skirt sanctions. Those ships give up direct Russian protection, and Russia gives up the right to b**** about it too much (if/when it goes wrong) in an attempt to confuse the international community into inaction long enough for the ship to do its business. Clearly it hasn't worked out perfectly for them. It's different when Russia sends a legally/ openly registered ship. Both Russia and Cuba are or were already under pretty strict actions, so there's no point in trying to hide the shipment. In fact, it's beneficial for them to do it as obviously as possible. Aura farming or something. I'm not saying it's right, just that maritime/ international law is super complicated, if anyone involved cares enough to pretend to care. Russia is more than happy to use international law/ western (whatever that means these days) reluctance for war to their advantage when it suits them.
4
donkeykong64123 Mar 30, 2026 +3
Great points. Thanks for the reply
3
PleaseGreaseTheL Mar 30, 2026 -7
The USA never blockaded Cuba. That is not what an embargo is. I don't know where this whole concept of a blockade came from on Listnook, that's not what's been happening.
-7
Beautiful-Tackle8969 Mar 30, 2026 +4
The trade embargo and the oil embargo are two different things. The trade embargo is actually a law passed by congress that is legally binding for US companies, but the oil embargo is something Trump made up all by himself in order to intimidate any and all countries into not providing oil to Cuba, solely as a punitive measure against Cuba. It has no basis in law and has the same effect of a blockade as no shipping company wants its oil tanker sunk or stolen by the US navy.
4
CJKayak Mar 30, 2026 +4
I know the NYT is fake news to you people but: [https://x.com/nytimes/status/2038367992715559000?s=20](https://x.com/nytimes/status/2038367992715559000?s=20) \>Breaking News: The U.S. will allow a Russian oil tanker to reach Cuba, letting critical fuel in **after months of what amounted to a blockade.**
4
PleaseGreaseTheL Mar 30, 2026 -5
"You people" Curious what group you think I'm part of? A journalist saying "embargo amounted to a blockade" is not a source. Do you know what the actual mechanics of what's going on, are? We place sanctions on entities that supply them with fuel. Oh hey... This *Russian tanker* is already sanctioned. So there's not much else to do. There has never been a physical blockade of Cuba, dude.
-5
My_Soul_to_Squeeze Mar 30, 2026 +3
Nobody said the blockade was physical. When the most powerful country in the world says "cooperate or we'll tank your economy, starve your populous, and destabilize your government" most countries just do it without testing it out. Not just because of the explicit threat, but because of the implication. Once upon a time, there very much was a physical blockade of Cuba. We almost ended the world over it only a few decades ago. The stakes are lower now. It wouldn't be that difficult to capture a single, un-escorted ship and try to sort it out diplomatically later. It would be a mess, but a totally foreseeable escalation the way things are going these days.
3
plebbit_delenda__est Mar 30, 2026 +1
>Nobody said the blockade was physical It's not a blockade then, which by definition involves physical prevention of goods reaching a certain location. Words have meanings, other dude is right.
1
ccoastie Mar 30, 2026
People are laughing as trump acts tough but it scared to stop Russian ships.
0
← Back to Board