Would it have really? I'm not particularly up to speed on the situation in Cuba, but there are a lot of awful regimes on this planet that remain in power simply because they have all the guns. These regimes are unpopular, they govern poorly, but no one can do anything about it, because the guns, tanks and soldiers are all under their control, and they've decided that a peaceful transition of power is not an option they wish to entertain. It's entirely possible for this to be a stable state that lasts for a lifetime.

>> a stable state that lasts for a lifetime.

This particular stable state has lasted more than a lifetime. The average age in Cuba is 40, which while higher than many countries still means that the average Cuban has no living memory of any of the events that lead to the sanctions, much less could they have participated in them.

The Cuban regime has been able to produce an aura of legitimacy around itself through its history of resistance to US imperialism, or that's how it's framed, whether you take that at face value or how you interpret it is up to you.

If the brutal ugly side of US imperialism (in the form of military aggression or intense actually-illegal unitary sanctions etc) goes away, so does the legitimacy. People will be asking "why" they can't buy basic consumer goods, and the answer will not be believable in the slightest.

Cuba is not North Korea. It's not isolated in that way. Nor does it have a Juche style cult of self-reliance. It is heavily dependent on tourism for its economy. Even its official communist ideology emphasizes internationalist linkages and outlook.

The sanctions are counterproductive and unjust.

The only people who find the Cuban regime legitimate would find an excuse to promote its legitimacy with or without sanctions. Trade would benefit the government of Cuba as it did with China and helping nations with totalitarian dictatorships is a failed strategy.

As the communists like to say "The capitalists will sell us our pitchforks".

No, we don't have to.

Trade almost always undermines the despotic regimes. Corruption results in inefficiencies which can be exploited through trade by those wishing to compete with the regime, even for their own corrupt reasons. Fostering competition between corrupt entities. Sanctioning takes away these alternative sources of power and consolidates it entirely within the regime.

For example, Russia would have had a hard time policing their rambunctious oligarchs who would have used corruption to undermine the Putin regime to obtain more power for themselves - perhaps they could have supplied backing to Prigozhin with an offer that they could replace the Putin regime with something better. By sanctioning the oligarchs it forced all of the oligarchs to abandon any hope of competing with Putin and greatly strengthened Putins grip on power. Sanctioning polices the behavior of the Russian oligarchs much more effectively than Putins regime could have done, effectively outsourcing the cost of compliance to less corruptible 3rd parties.

Do I need to bring up the obvious counterfactual in China? I also disagree with your analysis on Russia, Putin's grip on power has not meaningfully changed due to sanctions. What has changed is Russia's ability to fund its war.

I see the same efforts to sanction China, especially with Chips as beneficial to China as continued trade would undermine their efforts to create an indigenous chip industry.

I guess you're referring to how trade has not lead to liberalism of the Chinese and I wasn't suggesting it would. There are plenty of elite in China who have benefited from trade outside of the regime and that's probably still one of the biggest threats to the regime within China. As soon a China loses the 'mandate from heaven' we could see the alternatives move in.

In case anyone else was confused, “mandate from heaven” is a Chinese political ideology. It is like the western concept of “Devine right” for kings, except that if your reign gets end by a revolution, it means you lost your mandate from heaven.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven

Not to be confused with the American Revolution era Navy flag that has a pine tree and the motto “an appeal to heaven”. That flag was recently in the news because the wife of a Supreme Court justice flew it at their house.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Tree_Flag

Coincidently, both “mandate from heaven” and “an appeal to heaven” define a right to rebellion.

Complete nonsense. The policy has failed. The regime is still there after over half a century. Meanwhile the Cuban people suffer.

Maybe those words make you feel smart or strong or reinforce your ideological positions... but they're bad policy. Unless you cover your eyes and ignore evidence.

How has the policy failed? The regime is completely destitute. If we use China as the counterfactual, imagine the disaster of having a rich dictatorship aligned with our enemies right at our border.

Your mindset is that Cuban suffering is because of US sanctions. How about having the mindset of the leaders looting the country causing Cuban suffering?

As someone that is self-admittedly a leftist, why do you put 0 agency or blame on the leaders of Cuba? All they need to do to have trade with the US is to have free and open elections.

> All they need to do to have trade with the US is to have free and open elections.

That is truly hilarious. There are numerous countries, especially in Latin America, that can tell you a story or two about what happens when free and open elections fail to lead to the USA's chosen candidate winning. It's not sanctions being lifted, that's for sure.

Not to mention the US has made it very clear that it wants all confiscated property (from, uh [does math] 60-70 years ago) returned. Free elections won't do shit to satisfy prominent ex-pat groups.

Your point is a few decades out of date. If Cuba became democratic the US would reestablish relations.

Tell that to Bolivia.

No, it would not. Cuba has been a thorn in the USA's side since Teddy Roosevelt. I guarantee you that 200 years of history would not suddenly change if Cuba, say, democratically elected a pro-Russian socialist.

Also,the USA cares absolutely nothing about democracy in their partners. Never has, still doesn't. One of the USA's biggest curent allies is Saudi Arabia, one of the least democratic nations on Earth.

You didn't read what I wrote above, you're just creating a strawman out of me. Go get your own thread to grouse on if that's what you're going to do.

I said exactly what you said: the regime is fucked and the economy will suck and things will be oppressive even without the sanctions.

But they use the sanctions to legitimize themselves. I've heard it directly from Cuban apologists... And in the meantime Cubans suffer.

Regime change via sanctions isn't going to work. 50 years of evidence can show you that. So what are they for?

Removing the sanctions removes one excuse among many that the dictatorship uses.

This isn't China. It's a tin-pot dictatorship on a tiny island right off the US, dependent on tourism.

Where you and i disagree is that regime change is the sole goal of these sanctions. The purpose is to not help an enemy.

As for your argument around legitimacy, it does not matter. They will find an excuse to legitimize the government no matter what. See what venezuela did when we still had relations with their government.

All this talk of legitimacy actually just does not matter. Cuban people know their government sucks and if they havent realized it already they are too deep in the propaganda to ever be convinced

edit: Also out of curiosity, if this was a fascist dictatorship on the border would you advocate free trade?

If we assume that sanctions are the major barrier to Cuba's prosperity, a competent government that governed with the best interest of its people in mind would have been working for the past half century to try and convince the United States to lift those sanctions.

You would think that being less than 500 miles off the coast of Florida that Cuba would want to have strong relations with the USA rather than Russia over 6,000 miles away.

The Soviet Union fell in 1991. It should have been clear since then which horse Cuba should be betting on. Cuba has had 33 years to figure out that their revolution was dead. Their lack of success warming up relations with the USA and their failure to do so is on them.