On Wednesday, the United Nations General Assembly approved—for the thirty-fourth time—a resolution calling for an end to the economic, commercial, and financial blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba. The resolution passed with 130 votes in favor, 17 against, and 25 abstentions.
RELATED:
UN General Assembly Approves Cuba’s Resolution Against U.S. Blockade
During the debate, Mexico, Nicaragua, Egypt, Vietnam, India, Ghana, and Mozambique reiterated their support for the Cuban people and condemned unilateral coercive measures, which they view as contrary to the United Nations Charter and international law.
Mexico’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Héctor Vasconcelos, reaffirmed his country’s solidarity with Cuba and its rejection of any unilateral measures directed against the Cuban population. He maintained that the blockade, which has been in place for more than six decades, violates international law and is incompatible with the principles of the United Nations.
Vasconcelos noted that the sanctions constitute a structural obstacle to the island’s economic and social development. “Ending the blockade against Cuba is an urgent necessity and a humanitarian imperative,” the Mexican diplomat stated.
Mexico argued that dialogue, cooperation, and respect for international law should take precedence over measures that exacerbate the hardships faced by a population. It also called for the removal of Cuba from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism and urged that priority be given to channels of dialogue.
Meanwhile, Nicaragua’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Jaime Hermida Castillo, announced his country’s vote in favor of the resolution. He based this position on principles and values shared by the two nations and reaffirmed Managua’s support for Cuba in the face of pressure tactics employed by the United States.
Hermida Castillo condemned the 64-year-long economic, commercial, and financial blockade, describing these coercive measures as a systematic act of aggression and a violation of human rights. He asserted that such policies are intended to stifle Cuba’s scientific, cultural, and social development. The Nicaraguan delegation also questioned the inaction of the multilateral system in the face of the overwhelming opposition from governments to Washington’s unilateral actions.
¡VICTORIA DE CUBA!
— Bruno Rodríguez P (@BrunoRguezP) October 28, 2026
La Asamblea General de @ONU_es ha votado mayoritariamente contra el bloqueo de EEUU contra Cuba.
El gobierno de EEUU queda nuevamente aislado en su pretensión de continuar asfixiando al pueblo cubano y someterlo a un acto de castigo colectivo y de genocidio.… pic.twitter.com/MhnrjGnzSt
The text reads, “CUBA’S VICTORY! The General Assembly of @ONU_es has voted by a large majority against the US blockade against Cuba. The US government is once again isolated in its attempt to continue strangling the Cuban people and subjecting them to an act of collective punishment and genocide. Neither its most insane pretexts nor its pressures nor media circus will prevail over the force of facts and truth. #CubaNoEsUnaAmenaza The Blockade Is.
The delegations of Ghana and Mozambique concurred that the financial blockade violates the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law. They denounced the fact that these extraterritorial measures hinder Cuba’s economic, social, and cultural development—particularly in the areas of healthcare, education, and energy supply.
Mozambique highlighted Cuba’s historic contributions to South-South cooperation and its assistance in the fields of health and education across Africa. The representative from the African nation noted that, for more than six decades, the Cuban people have endured the consequences of the blockade—a policy that the General Assembly has repeatedly condemned.
Ghana stated that its support is rooted in the principles of sovereign equality, mutual respect, and peaceful coexistence among states. It warned that the extraterritorial application of the blockade imposes burdens on third countries and runs counter to the principles of fair and equitable international economic relations.
Egypt, for its part, called for action from the UN. Ihab Awad, Egypt’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UN, reaffirmed his country’s commitment to the principles of the United Nations Charter and demanded an end to the economic strangulation of Cuba.
“The negative repercussions of the economic, commercial, and financial blockade imposed on Cuba affect the Cuban people’s ability to meet their basic needs,” the Egyptian diplomat stated.
Meanwhile, Vietnam reiterated its support for the immediate lifting of the commercial and financial blockade. Its delegation expressed concern regarding restricted access to energy and fuel, as well as the adverse impact on hospitals, schools, water services, and trade relations with third countries.
The Vietnamese delegation called for respect for the right to self-determination—free from coercion—advocated for political dialogue in accordance with international law, and urged the removal of Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. It also requested international support to address the accumulated economic and social damage.
India endorsed the statements made by the G-77 and ASEAN against the blockade. Its representatives called for the immediate repeal of these measures in order to mitigate their impact on key sectors such as energy, health, food production, and education.
Furthermore, India highlighted the need to eliminate extraterritorial sanctions to create an environment that would allow for Cuba’s full participation in international trade.
There is something peculiarly unsettling about a world in which the leaders of three nuclear powers might gather to discuss the future of smaller nations without troubling to invite the nations concerned. It is a diplomatic arrangement with considerable historical precedent, although not necessarily the sort that ought to inspire confidence.
For Askold S. Lozynskyj, a New York lawyer, former president of the Ukrainian World Congress and regular contributor to EU Today, the prospect of Donald Trump sitting down with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping raises precisely this concern.
His latest opinion piece, The Thug Summit, published on 23 October, presents an uncompromising interpretation of the proposed trilateral meeting in China. In a wide-ranging conversation with EU Today publisher Gary Cartwright, Lozynskyj expands upon that argument, moving from the peculiarities of Trump’s political personality to the constitutional foundations of American democracy, the future of Europe and the increasingly precarious standing of international law.
The resulting discussion is occasionally caustic, frequently humorous and consistently concerned with a question that extends well beyond the current occupant of the White House: how resilient are democratic institutions when confronted by leaders who regard constitutional constraints as inconveniences?
Watch the full interview with Askold S. Lozynskyj and Gary Cartwright below.
The conversation begins with Trump’s political ascent, which Lozynskyj regards as one of the more extraordinary developments in modern American history.
Buddy Ebsen as Jed Clampett in the American television comedy The Beverly Hillbillies. Credit: CBS Television / Wikimedia Commons (1969 publicity photograph; US public domain).
He recalls the incredulity surrounding Trump’s original presidential ambitions and questions how a politician whose personal conduct had attracted considerable controversy managed to secure such enthusiastic support among conservative Christian voters.
Cartwright introduces a lighter comparison, recalling a photograph of Trump surrounded by his senior advisers in the Oval Office.
The only person missing, he suggests, was Jed Clampett, the fictional patriarch of the American television comedy The Beverly Hillbillies.
Lozynskyj is not inclined to defend the administration’s sophistication. Yet behind the humour lies a more serious argument about the disappearance of independent-minded advisers and the consequences of political loyalty becoming the principal qualification for high office.
“Donald Trump is not a conservative. Donald Trump is a thug,” he declares.
It is an unequivocal assessment, characteristic of Lozynskyj’s commentary, although his criticism extends beyond Trump himself to the Republican Party’s willingness to accommodate his leadership.
Much of the interview centres on the American midterm elections scheduled for 3 November.
Lozynskyj predicts that Democrats will regain control of the House of Representatives and potentially transform the remainder of Trump’s presidency through congressional investigations, subpoenas and impeachment proceedings.
His prediction is emphatic, although the eventual balance of power remains uncertain.
Control of the House would give Democrats substantial investigative authority, although the president would retain his executive powers. Removing him from office following impeachment would still require a two-thirds majority in the Senate.
Nevertheless, Lozynskyj believes the elections could fundamentally alter Washington’s political atmosphere.
“They will tie up Trump like never before,” he argues.
Cartwright raises a more disturbing possibility: could Trump manufacture an emergency to postpone an election or otherwise attempt to prolong his presidency?
“I think he could try, but I don’t believe that he will prevail,” Lozynskyj responds, expressing confidence that America’s constitutional institutions would ultimately resist such an attempt.
The exchange moves naturally towards the events of 6 January 2021, presidential immunity and the effectiveness of the checks and balances upon which the American constitutional system depends.
For Lozynskyj, whose public career has been closely associated with Ukrainian interests, the implications of Trump’s foreign policy are particularly troubling.
His central concern is that negotiations among Washington, Moscow and Beijing could revive the notion that major powers possess an informal entitlement to determine the political and territorial futures of their neighbours.
In his opinion piece, he raises the possibility that Ukraine and Taiwan could become bargaining instruments in a wider geopolitical settlement. These are his warnings about potential outcomes, not established agreements between the three governments.
Yet his criticism of Washington is accompanied by considerable appreciation for Europe’s role in sustaining Ukraine’s resistance to Russia’s invasion.
“Without Europe, Ukraine could never have survived as long as it has survived,” he tells Cartwright.
He also ventures into the British debate over European integration, arguing that the United Kingdom should return to the European Union.
It is an intervention likely to provoke disagreement, but it reflects his broader conviction that collective institutions provide an essential counterweight to unilateral political power.
The discussion also examines political unrest in Europe, changing national identities and the relationship between elected governments and the populations they represent.
Cartwright points to social tensions in European cities and the growing importance of regional identity, including the independence debate in Flanders.
Lozynskyj approaches these developments through the history of democratic protest, citing Ukraine’s Orange Revolution, the Revolution of Dignity and more recent demonstrations over the independence of anti-corruption institutions.
For him, public opposition to governments is not necessarily evidence of democracy’s failure. It can also demonstrate that political authority remains subject to popular consent.
The conversation concludes with international law, the International Criminal Court and the difficulty of enforcing common rules when powerful states refuse to accept external constraints.
Lozynskyj’s observations are deliberately provocative, and his forecasts will be tested by events. But the interview offers something more substantial than another exchange of opinions about Donald Trump.
It is a discussion about the relationship between power and restraint, the responsibilities of democratic institutions and the uncomfortable possibility that the international order may be entering another period in which military and economic strength increasingly determine political outcomes.
As the United States approaches its midterm elections and speculation continues over a possible meeting between Trump, Putin and Xi, those questions are unlikely to disappear.
The full conversation with Askold S. Lozynskyj is available in the video above.
Login