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.
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.