By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump stated he has “no problem” with a Russian oil tanker delivering relief to Cuba, which is facing a severe oil blockade implemented by the United States to pressure for regime change. Despite the tanker being sanctioned, Russia confirmed its arrival carrying humanitarian supplies of oil, a move previously discussed with the U.S. Trump emphasized his preference for allowing such aid to reach the Cuban people who are suffering from widespread blackouts and shortages, asserting that it would not significantly benefit Russian President Putin or alter Cuba’s current political trajectory. Meanwhile, civilian efforts to deliver aid to Cuba also continue, with sailboats from Mexico successfully reaching Havana after a temporary loss of contact due to adverse weather.
Read the original article here
The assertion that Donald Trump has “no problem” with a Russian tanker delivering oil to Cuba, even with the existence of a U.S. blockade, raises a complex set of questions and interpretations. It appears to suggest a willingness to overlook actions that might traditionally be seen as counter to American interests, particularly when those actions involve Russia. This stance seems to defy a certain logic, especially when contrasted with the perceived difficulty in securing assistance from allies like Mexico for Cuba.
The idea that Trump’s position is dictated by his relationship with Russia is a recurring theme. It’s suggested that this apparent lack of opposition to Russian involvement in Cuba stems from a directive from Vladimir Putin, implying a level of subservience or at least a shared agenda. This perspective paints a picture of Trump acting not in the primary interest of the United States, but rather in accordance with the desires of his Russian counterpart.
This perceived alignment with Russian interests fuels the argument that Trump is effectively a “Russian asset” or an agent working to “make Russia great again.” The observation is made that many of his actions and statements can be understood through this lens. The notion of Putin being Trump’s “handler” emerges, suggesting a power dynamic where Trump is controlled or directed by the Russian leader.
The contrast between preventing an ally like Mexico from assisting Cuba while being unconcerned about Russia doing so is stark. It highlights a perceived double standard, where actions by Russia are tolerated, if not actively facilitated, while similar actions by nations perceived as more friendly are obstructed. This leads to speculation about the underlying motivations, with some suggesting that personal gain or a desire to appease Putin are the driving forces.
Furthermore, the historical context of the Cuban Missile Crisis is invoked. The intense fear and near-catastrophe associated with the Soviet Union establishing a military presence in Cuba during that era are recalled. The current situation, where Russian oil is allowed to flow to Cuba, is seen by some as a dangerous repetition, potentially reintroducing a threat close to U.S. shores. This is viewed as a betrayal of American security interests.
The effectiveness and purpose of the U.S. blockade itself are called into question when Russian tankers are allowed to operate. This creates confusion and leads to the inquiry of what the blockade truly signifies if its intended impact can be circumvented with apparent ease by Russia, with the tacit approval of the American president. The distinction between an embargo and a blockade is even raised, suggesting a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of the U.S. policy.
The question of what leverage Russia might possess over Trump is also a point of discussion. The idea of *kompromat* or other forms of pressure is mentioned as a potential explanation for his seemingly compliant behavior towards Putin. This adds another layer of concern regarding the true independence of American foreign policy decisions.
There is a significant sentiment that Trump’s actions are not indicative of personal beliefs or principles, but rather of an obligation or directive from his Russian handlers. The idea that he is “bowing down to Russian handlers” or is “Putin’s bitch” reflects a deep skepticism about his loyalty and motivations. The suggestion that the U.S. itself might be effectively “Russian owned” underscores the depth of this concern for some observers.
The notion that Trump’s behavior is a betrayal of the United States is strongly articulated. The surprise that he has not faced more severe consequences for his perceived actions is expressed, highlighting a frustration with the political landscape and the perceived inaction of those who could challenge his authority.
The argument is also made that Trump’s power is not absolute and is enabled by his supporters and an obedient Congress. This perspective shifts some of the blame, suggesting that while Trump may be the figurehead, the systemic support he receives is crucial to his ability to act in ways that are perceived as detrimental to American interests.
Ultimately, the core of the discussion revolves around the assertion that Donald Trump has “no problem” with Russian oil reaching Cuba despite the U.S. blockade because his actions are not independent but are influenced, if not controlled, by Russia. This interpretation paints a picture of a foreign policy driven by external allegiances rather than national interests, creating a sense of unease and confusion about the direction of American foreign policy and the security implications for the nation.