Smyrna
8053
If there’s US soldiers fighting in the Ukraine and especially if the Pentagon was telling the truth…that they’re unaware, is there not any laws in place stating that it had to have Congressional approval?
Smyrna
8055
I don’t remember reading that word in the article. Did you or is that your assumption?
Which article did you read? There wasn’t one posted here
The Pentagon lied about the number of US troops in Syria. They are very likely understating the number of number of US troops in Ukraine. Officially there are only a handful.
Of course, Russia missiles can hit command centers are that are hundreds of miles from the front lines. US troops can be injured even if they are not officially in combat locations.
As far as the report about the Leopard tank, it takes year or more of training for tank crews to be fully proficient. The idea that Ukrainians are trained and ready to launch an offensive in few months is not realistic. It is much more likely that NATO tanks have NATO crews even if they are nominally “contractors”.
During the Korean War, hundreds of thousands of Chinese “volunteers” pushed UN forces back from the Chinese border in late 1950. The Soviet Air Force secretly provided air support with hundreds of jets from bases in Manchuria.
Here are links to the Times article. It may have undergone some edits from the original.
The current version calls the American wounded “volunteers”. Of course, troops in the US Army can volunteer for a military assignment.
Which version didn’t call them volunteers
The first sentence of the two versions is different. Clearly the article has been revised.
US troops can volunteer. Calling them “volunteers” does not clarify whether they are officially in the US Army, are contractors, or are members of the Ukrainian military.
Likewise, if they are US citizens and fighting Ukraine they are “American soldiers” even if they are technically not in the US Army.
The version without a paywall, claims that the American soldiers are members of Ukrainian militia or are contractors with the Ukrainian Army.
When the war erupted in 2022, hundreds of Americans — many of them military veterans — rushed to help defend Ukraine. Nineteen months later, perhaps a few hundred are still there, volunteering for local militias or serving under contract with the Ukrainian national army.
An unknown number of them have been shot, hit by artillery, blown up by mines or otherwise injured in combat. About 20 have been killed. Most of the wounded have had to rely on a patchwork of Ukrainian hospitals and Western charities for help. Now, though, the Pentagon has stepped in to offer some of them the same care it gives to American active-duty troops.
The US is sending billions to the Ukrainian Army and militias, so the US is really paying for any “contractors” and militia fighters.
conan
8061
Is that why we can’t build weapons fast enough?
Right
So there is nothing bombshell about the fact that the volunteers are getting hurt fighting in the war
Nor is it evidence of “nato troops”.
The direct evidence of “NATO troops” would be the captured German tank crew who are reportedly saying they are part of the Bunderswehr and American news reports that admit that “small numbers” of US troops are in Ukraine.
TASS is reporting that the damage to the sub was relatively minor with only a small delay in the scheduled return to service:
MOSCOW, September 25. /TASS/. The damage received on September 13 by the Rostov-on-Don submarine of the Black Sea Fleet (BSF) is not critical and will not lead to a significant increase in the time it spends under scheduled repairs. A source in the military-industrial complex reported this to TASS. “The submarine has minor damage that did not affect its robust (hard–my note) hull. Eliminating them can only slightly increase the time the submarine is undergoing scheduled repairs,” he said.
That assessment agrees with Martyanov’s analysis from soon after the attack:
. . . ALL Russian SSKs of pr. 877 and 636, same as second and third generation of Russian nuclear subs have a TWO hull design–light (outside-лёгкий) and hard (жёсткий) hull, where all systems are. But, of course, neither Sutton nor Amick, who have zero knowledge and experience, unlike me, with Soviet/Russian SSKs can recognize the damage to the LIGHT hull which took the brunt of explosion . . .
Reminiscence of the Future... : Back To Rostov-on-Don.
The US government continues to win the (dis)information war in western media. Russia continues to win on the battlefield.
Reportedly saying… come on now
Who are these small numbers of us troops?
NATO “experts” are saying 
Two of the photos of alleged sub damage were most likely not even from Sevastopol:
. . . the cropping of surrounding in the photo, to avoid identification of the place which IS NOT Sevastopol–because it is photoshop. Russian submariners already pointed that out, especially this side “hole”, plus, the “base photo” is taken from… the dock in either St. Petersburg or Kronshtadt. There your go–the “price” of Western “naval experts”. Most likely the damage in a front of sail is the only thing which did happen, but I already elaborated on it. Reminiscence of the Future... : Update On Sub Damage.
https://twitter.com/markito0171/status/1703726257039413656
Minor damage to the pressure vessel. Lol
Love that you hedge. Most likely!
