Havana Brands US Oil Blockade 'Collective Punishment' as Trump Says Cuba Deal Is Within Reach

HAVANA — Cuba's foreign minister used his address to the United Nations General Assembly to accuse Washington of deliberate cruelty against the Cuban people, calling the US oil blockade an "act of collective punishment" designed to provoke a humanitarian emergency. Bruno Eduardo Rodríguez Parrilla framed the measures not as a pressure tactic but as a policy aimed squarely at the civilian population, warning that the shortage of fuel and the knock-on failures in food and other essentials were pushing the island toward a crisis.

The Cuban statements came on the same day that US President Donald Trump, speaking to reporters at the White House, said he believed a deal between Washington and Havana was close at hand. "I would say that Cuba and us will make a deal," Trump said, according to the report from New York. "I don't think we'll need the military. Cuba is failing very badly. We want to help Cuba." The remarks placed a fresh tone of optimism on top of a confrontation that has escalated sharply over the past several months.

Tensions between the two countries have been particularly high in recent weeks. Earlier in the same week, addressing the assembly in his own speech, Trump described Cuba as an "absolutely failed state" and declared that "freedom will be coming" to the island. Cuban delegates responded by walking out of the hall, a visible rupture of protocol that underscored the depth of the diplomatic divide. The walkout also undercut any suggestion that the two sides were moving smoothly toward the agreement Trump appeared to foresee.

Despite the public barbs, Rodríguez Parrilla said Havana had not closed the door on engagement. He said Cuba had always been, and would always be, prepared for dialogue with the US government in a bid to find solutions to the accumulated bilateral disagreements between the two countries. He attached two conditions to any such process: that talks would have to be conducted on the basis of "sovereign equality," and that they would take place "without preconditions." Those terms amount to a direct response to US demands for political change in Havana.

Washington's conditions have been explicit. The Trump administration has previously said it seeks a change of government in Cuba, and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last week that Washington was open to talks — but only if Cuba's leadership changed. That framing sets up the central obstacle: Washington's precondition is the very thing Havana says must be absent as a precondition, and any negotiation would have to bridge that gap before substantive discussions could begin.

On the military question, Rodríguez Parrilla was direct and sombre. He said US military action against Cuba would produce enormous destruction, adding: "Let's hope that this never happens." His warning echoed Trump's own comment that he did not expect force to be necessary, but the two positions rest on very different assessments — Trump framed Cuban weakness as a reason to expect a deal, while Havana framed the same weakness as something Washington intended to exploit.

The material situation on the ground is what gives the dispute its urgency. The United States has maintained an economic embargo on Cuba for more than 60 years, and this year it added a further restriction: an oil blockade that officials in Havana say has pushed the country under severe pressure. The knock-on effects have included acute fuel shortages and repeated blackouts — including a major nationwide blackout earlier this month, after which authorities worked to restore power. Cuban officials have also said the blockade is complicating their ability to provide food and other basic needs to the population.

The US measures have drawn pushback well beyond Cuba itself. Brazil, Mexico and Pakistan have criticised Washington, calling for an end to both the long-standing embargo and the newer oil blockade, and opposing unilateral economic restrictions on the island. Their objections reflect broader discomfort among governments in the region and beyond at the use of economic coercion as a lever for political change, a practice they argue is counterproductive and legally questionable.

Cuba also retains a measure of international backing through a long-running vote at the United Nations. Since 1992, the General Assembly has overwhelmingly backed an annual resolution calling for the termination of the US economic, commercial and financial embargo on Cuba. That near-unanimous annual count is a source of legitimacy for Havana, but it has not translated into any change in the policy on the ground — a gap that critics of the embargo cite as evidence that the measure has outlived its usefulness and imposes its costs on ordinary Cubans rather than on the Cuban state.

Taken together, the week's events set up an awkward negotiating dynamic. Trump has raised expectations of an imminent agreement and insisted military action is unnecessary, while Rodríguez Parrilla has reaffirmed Cuba's readiness to talk but only on terms Washington has not signalled it will accept. The oil blockade and the resulting fuel and electricity shortages appear to be the strongest lever the US is currently holding, and they are also the measure most heavily condemned at the assembly where both leaders spoke.

Regional diplomatic traffic in the same period suggests Washington is pursuing a wider hemispheric agenda alongside Cuba. Rubio travelled to Ecuador, Colombia and Peru following right-wing victories in those countries, while his earlier comments on possible talks with Havana linked the Caribbean file to that broader regional posture. For Cuba, the priority is securing relief from the blockade and preventing a further slide in living standards; for the US, the stated aim remains not only a deal but political change in Havana. Whether those aims can be reconciled — and at what cost to Cubians in the interim — is the question both speeches left unanswered.