In the United States and Cuba's strained relationship over the past 50-odd years, certain key flashpoints stand out: the Bay of Pigs incident and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
There are many more. December 17, 2014 can now be added to the list.
On that day, one of the most problematic issues in the relationship between the two countries was resolved when the US citizen Alan Gross, who had been imprisoned in Cuba for over five years for illegally importing satellite equipment to the island, was released from prison and allowed to return to the US, along with an unnamed US intelligence agent.
And in what very much appeared to be a prisoner swap, the remaining members of the "Cuban Five", a group of Cuban intelligence officers imprisoned in the US for allegedly infiltrating exile groups in Florida, were also allowed to return home.
But, above all, the US president, Barack Obama, announced a number of sweeping changes to Washington's Cuba policy.
These included:
* the start of bilateral talks to recommence diplomatic relations
* an examination of the reasons why Cuba remains on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism
* the relaxation of travel, trade and information flows between the two countries.
Mr Obama also said that he would welcome Cuba's return to the Organisation of American States (OAS).
This, of course, raises the question of why these unexpected events have occurred at present.
Put simply, change is in the interests of both countries. Cuba's main motive may be a base economic one: since the death of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez in February 2013, Cuba's supply of oil has been in jeopardy thanks both to Venezuela's unstable economy and the prospect of a post-socialist government in Caracas.
Meanwhile, the political influence that Cuba wields throughout Latin America has left the US somewhat isolated in the region.
Washington's out-of-date Cuba policy has only compounded this major political problem and has embarrassed the administration at crucial moments.
The recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa has shown just how damaging the situation is for the image of the US; Cuba has been a major player in the international effort against the disease, but Washington's unwillingness to work with Havana has come across as absurdly outdated Cold War rhetoric, and seemed ludicrous in the face of a desperate humanitarian crisis.
In addition, the composition of the highly important and influential Cuban American exile community within the US is changing, and its politics have changed too.
Whereas previous generations were traditionally Republican-voting and pro-embargo, younger generations have a far more circumspect stance.
The sudden announcements reflect the deep changes which have been taking place in Cuba, and particularly in foreign policy, since Raul Castro became president in 2008. They are also in accordance with President Obama's May, 2008 promise to reset relations with Cuba and Latin America at large.
Of course, real change to the American embargo against Cuba will be difficult. The freeze on trade and travel is codified in US law, and it will require a majority of the US Congress to vote in favour of overturning it.
This may be a major challenge, not least since Cuban-American members of Congress are unlikely to back the change.
Meanwhile, only days before the announcement, the former governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, said he was "actively exploring" becoming the Republican Party's presidential candidate in 2016. His brother, George W Bush, tightened the embargo during his presidency, and the expectation is that Jeb, too, would hardly be inclined to offer a friendly hand to Havana.
Still, this is not to detract from the truly historic events and announcements of December 17. At last, the remnants of the Cold War that remain in place across the Florida Straits are being dismantled, and that is a major cause for celebration.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article