A Cuban teenager unwittingly found himself on the front lines of the war in Ukraine after accepting a job offer he received on WhatsApp to do "construction work" for the Russian military, according to Time magazine.
Alex Vegas Díaz, 19, and a friend were taken to a military base, outfitted with weapons, and then sent to fight, according to Time, which reviewed social media footage posted by Vegas Díaz.
In one of the videos, dated August 31, which went viral, Vegas Díaz can be seen in a Russian hospital recovering from an unspecified illness. According to Time, he said he was due to be sent back to the front upon recovery.
From his hospital bed, he pleaded to "help get us out of here," adding: "What is happening in Ukraine is ugly—to see people with their heads open before you, to see how people are killed, feel the bombs falling next to you."
According to Time, Vegas Díaz said in one video: "There are dead Cubans, there are missing Cubans, and this is not going to end until the war is over."
He added: "We know that Cuba is aware and our advice to Cubans is not to come here. This is the craziest thing. Crazy. Don't do it."
Time reported that Vegas Díaz became part of a large operation that openly recruited hundreds of Cubans to join the Russian army to fight in Ukraine.
According to the magazine, the recruitment effort involved adverts for job contracts with the Ministry of Defence in Russia that began to appear on Cuban Facebook groups in June.
It said that recruits were offered 204,000 rubles, or $2,120 US dollars, to sign up.
Average monthly salaries in Cuba are dramatically lower, making it an enticing prospect.
Time reviewed the job contracts, which it said required a one-year commitment, but came with an enlistment fee and a payout for the families of recruits if they are killed in action.
The exact number of Cubans recruited through this initiative remains uncertain, with estimates provided to Time ranging from hundreds to more than a thousand
Though Cuba's foreign ministry described the recruitment effort as a "human trafficking network," four Cuba experts and former US officials expressed skepticism to Time
They said that the Cuban government, a long-standing ally of Russia, may be using such language to maintain the appearance of a neutral stance in the Ukraine conflict, Time reported.
Regardless of the nature or provenance of the recruitment drive, there is concern in the US that recruits such as Vegas Díaz may have been deceived into accepting job offers.
The State Department said in a statement provided to Time that "we are deeply concerned that young Cubans may have been deceived and recruited to fight for Russia in its brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and we continue to monitor this situation closely."
The US State Department did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.
Or call me when Russians start kidnapping children like the Americans did in..oh wait that's unique to Russia
How about when America stops using rape as a tactic in war..oh shit they did that a century ago but we are STILL WAITING FIR RUSSIA TO ABANDON RAPE AS A WAR TACTIC.
Both invasions were wrong and each side had unique crimes BUT Russia is committing these crimes against humanity right now.
We set up a pipeline for kidnapping Cuban children: Operation Peter Pan (Because, of course it was named that)
Not saying anything about the Russian/Ukrainian war but you are literally pretending that America didn't do these things.
Also, America absolutely raped a bunch of people in Iraq/Afghanistan, and outsourced child rape to the Northern Alliance (Warlords that we absolutely set up during the USSR/Afghanistan war). We, in fact, ordered soldiers to not interfere with the child rape, while they guarded the people doing the raping.
Let me fix that for you: Both invasions were wrong and have committed these crimes within the last 5 years.
You want to criticize these things? I'm right there with you. The second you only criticize enemies of the US State Department, then you've become nothing more than a nationalist propagandist.
Edit: Diction changes
While American soldiers absolutely rape and have raped people it is not the policy of the USA for then to do so and it is typically punished when evidence exists. The same is not true for Russia who is one of the few nations that does not address this.
It was absolutely policy to
CW
rape prisoners in abu graib and Guantanamo bayImagine thinking this
Provide any proof of these claims. I will likely dismiss what you provide if you do, but I promise to give good reason and dive deep into the sources first
It might be quicker to show that there is such a policy in place or else a de facto tolerance of it.
But we all know none of this is written in policies, which is why I'm asking for any sort of proof of follow-up on the tens of thousands of cases by American soldiers. Or any proof of a policy which is upheld by the American government. I can probably point to some CIA documents about the topic from Abu ghraib or such as explicitly done. But the major problem is that this poster believes in such things as "policies" as existing outside of the material existence of the actions, which is a super liberal viewpoint and which communists need to learn to rebut. America also has "policies" about addressing homelessness but homelessness is endemic and worsening.
I also don't believe they can prove anything about Russian cases being more widespread or tolerated
I understand where you are coming from. Edit: I mean with regards to why you're asking for the proof as you did.
If you don't mind indulging my question...
I found this interesting.
Can you expound on the connection between "liberal viewpoint" and this idea of "policies being relevant despite evidence of actual actions to the contrary" (my summary).
I guess I'm trying to understand what makes this a liberal viewpoint or why do you classify it as such? Or is it a consequence of the undue trust given to governments with said policies?
I guess I am just trying to understand the viewpoints of my communist fellow humans here on Lemmy.
In my mind, I call their viewpoint naive and what I would term de facto policy is something that comes from observation and accompanying cynicism. Maybe that's an engineering viewpoint or more likely a viewpoint a typical infosec person like me holds lol. It's just looking at how the world is and believing actions > words...
In other words I don't ascribe my viewpoint or theirs to a political ideology. Though I could see how some ideologies might tend to influence such viewpoints. Does that make sense?
I'm not the person you're responding to, but... A liberal viewpoint (in this context) is one that is idealist, not materialist. A liberal will point at a policy ostensibly drawn up to address some given issue, and whether that policy is effective or not, or even whether the policy is enforced, will claim that "something is being done" to address that issue. In a liberal framework, it is the policy itself that satisfies the condition that the issue has been addressed, not any actual action that makes a real material difference to solve or change the issue. Again, it's just idealism vs materialism. Liberalism is a philosophy based on the former, communism is (among other things) a philosophy based on the latter.
Better put than I did lol
Appreciate the clear explanation.
So liberalism as a philosophy is a complex topic, but it's one I indulge in often from an outside perspective (and we are forced to regardless of our desires, because it dominate global discussions). But what I was claiming, and what you unintentionally upheld in your comment, is that liberalism mistakes stated values for a limited group for the total fulfillment of those values. When Americans preach free speech, they don't think about it in terms of any real thing they can say or do which will ever make a difference. Valuing "human rights" means valuing those who oppose the stated enemies above those who oppose the state itself. It's because liberals base the philosophy in how the self (cogito, daarin, etc.) as an individual thinks outside of any context of society around them. It allows one to focus primarily on stated intentions rather than real effects
Liberals in history have made these mistakes over and over, and I don't believe and refuse to believe it's just naivety. It's because it works to support the status quo that so many come to the conclusion that this dynamic is correct, that values are primary and not the reflections of tje society. If it dkdntd maintain the status quo then it wouldn't be believed. This is again the same argument in form, where I don't think the way liberals see themselves has any primary position, but what matters is how their framing of the world influences it.
Also I'm an engineer too, but I have no idea why you think those connect here tbh . And you dont ascribe your position as political ideology because you swim in yours and can't see it. I see yours clearly and am forced to constantly confront my own with interactions outside of my framework
Engineers tend to think practically? Idk.
Anyway I appreciate the explanations. I mostly get it and have a sense of where to direct my subsequent investigations.
Cw: pedophilia, rape
If you plug your ears and say "lalala" you can ignore the mass kidnapping of vietnamese and cuban children. As well as refugee children that is still ongoing and is connected to pedophile rings.
They literally are still raping US female soldiers at ridiculous rates. What do you think they do to women they've been trained to dehumanize?
folks, this is the nerd who claims fascist states are freer than socialist states
Above is a person who does not know what "democracy" means
No this is the person who claims that it is possible to be freer in one authoritarian state vs another authoritarian state.
For example the DPRK and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, whoch were ostensibly socialist, were less free societies than Chile under Pinochett which was fascist.
But nuance seems to be lost on the cult followers here because so many here are uneducated in political philosophy like you have proven.
Lol they cited articles from AP proving you wrong in the modlog
Remember when Russia used their intelligence agency to kidnap 14,000 Cuban children and traffic them through catholic church adoption agencies?
Ah whoops, that was America doing operation Peter Pan in 1960. Of course Wikipedia frames it as totally a rescue and not CIA human trafficking bro, but of course there were loads of settled-out-of-court lawsuits for CSA by church officials and staff. The good guys, everyone!
That was also unacceptable but your whataboutism aside we are talking about what Russia is doing right now.
If your pronouns include "comrade" why are you defending Russia here?
You literally said this
And cried whataboutism when they pointed out you were wrong by bringing up what Americans did.
Its a knee jerk for them. They can't help it.
Whataboutism? What about deez nuts?
What the actual fuck is wrong with you. The US has had policies of child kidnapping in every single war zone it's been in for the last 50 years.
The evidence for this being a tactic that the Russians are using is that there is a lot of rape happening and that the Russian state does nothing to stop it. A measure by which of course the US has still not stopped either.
The US participated in a giant network of child trafficking for the purpose of child rape for decades in Afghanistan.
The USA did not kidnap those kids. They were typically orphans as a result of the wars but hey don't ket nuance get in the way.
Russia is kidnapping children right now. Their parents and families still live.
The history of rape as a tactic is pretty well documented. You must be poorly educated in history to not know this. When Americans rape people they typically get tried whereas Russia just lets it happen. It's almost as if one society doesn't view it as evil as everyone else.
The official policy was to not be involved ij Bacha Bazi so if you have a source that is not laughable (like Medium.com would be or a fanzine would also be) that proves that Americans did not look the other way regarding this practice I'd like to see it.
So if I shoot at random people on the street, and kill you, and decide your baby is cute and I want it. It's not kidnapping, because that was just an orphan bro, that baby's parents were dead.
Nah, if country A precipitates a war on Country B, people die, and then you started adopting their orphaned children out, back to County A, and not within their county of origin... That feels an awful lot like kidnapping. In fact, it feels an awful lot like the definition of genocide
They LITERALLY kidnapped them you piece of shit. It's not a matter of nuance, it's a matter of you just being fucking wrong.
And I would laugh at the idea that the US prosecutes rapists in the armed forces, but it's too fucking tragic to laugh at.
And as for the US involvement in Bachi Barzi specifically, and how you don't accept sources on that. Well how about the fucking US fucking military itself https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/inspections/SIGAR%2017-47-IP.pdf