Lithuanians bid farewell to 4 US soldiers who died during training exercise
Government officials and religious leaders are expected to pay their last respects before the bodies are taken to the airport to be returned to the U.S.
The soldiers, part of the 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, were on a tactical training exercise when they and their vehicle went missing a week ago, the Army said.
Lithuanian, Polish and U.S. soldiers and rescuers searched through the forests and swamps at the Gen. Silvestras Žukauskas training ground in the town of Pabradė, 6 miles (10 kilometers) west of the border with Belarus. The M88 Hercules armored vehicle was pulled from a peat bog Monday and the final body was recovered Tuesday.
The U.S. Army has identified the four as Staff Sgt. Troy S. Knutson-Collins, 28, of Battle Creek, Michigan; Staff Sgt. Jose Duenez Jr., 25, of Joliet, Illinois; Staff Sgt. Edvin F. Franco, 25, of Glendale, California; and Pfc. Dante D. Taitano, 21, of Dededo, Guam.
Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda, the defense minister and the Vilnius archbishop are expected to attend Thursday's ceremony.
An honor platoon from 3rd Infantry Division will also pay tribute to the soldiers, Maj. Nicholas Chopp, the deputy media chief for U.S. Army Europe and Africa, told The Associated Press.
A Lithuanian nonprofit that helps Ukrainian war refugees has asked residents of Vilnius to attend the ceremony and pause for a moment when the coffins pass by to pay their respects. 'Even though it's a workday, let's not remain indifferent … bow your head, and honor the US soldiers who lost their lives during training while preparing to defend our freedom, standing true to their oath, giving their all, to the very end,' Stiprus Kartu, or Strong Together, wrote on Facebook.
About 3,500 soldiers from the 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team deployed in January to Poland and the Baltic states for a nine-month rotation as part of Operation Atlantic Resolve, which supports NATO allies and partners following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
25 minutes ago
- Politico
Inside Trump world's reaction to the Zelenskyy reset
3. Trump offered to go straight to a trilateral meeting. The senior administration official told POLITICO that when Trump called Putin to offer his presence at a meeting between Zelenskyy and the Russian leader, Putin said, 'You don't have to come. I want to see him one on one.' Trump's team 'started working on that,' the official said. 'Steve Witkoff has the assignment to get it figured [out].' 4. Alaska paved the way for the 'security guarantees' discussion. If there was any concern within the administration about how the Putin meeting in Anchorage went down, Monday all but evaporated it. 'After Alaska, we were excited that Putin was at least talking and there were signs we could negotiate,' a second senior administration official told POLITICO. One of those signs came on the topic of security guarantees: Putin was 'engaging on a conversation about security guarantees instead of, 'Nyet, nyet, nyet,' this second official said. 'If Alaska was not successful and Putin didn't give us a little bit of an opening, we wouldn't have [had] the Europeans at the White House.' Of Putin: 'He'll drive a hard bargain, but that opening is huge.' 5. Those security guarantees could be a sticking point internationally. It remains unclear just how big a commitment the U.S. has on the line here. 'We haven't even started [that discussion] other than a commitment,' the first senior administration official told POLITICO. 'The question is, 'Who participates to what percentage?' But the president did commit that we would be a part of it. No specifics. And then he said he would also help it get organized. And he alone could sell that to Putin. I don't think Putin would pay any attention to the others, and I'm not sure the others would do it without him.' 6. And those same guarantees could be a problem for Trump domestically. Does the administration have a red line when it comes to committing U.S. troops to keep a peace in Ukraine? 'I don't think there's a red line,' the first senior official told POLITICO. 'So I think it just kind of remains to be seen. [President Trump] would like the Europeans to step up. But I think if the last piece of the puzzle was for a period of time to be a part of a peacekeeping force, I think he would do it.' Meanwhile, as European leaders arrived at the White House, MAGA coalition minder Steve Bannon took to his influential 'War Room' podcast to warn about the U.S. security guarantees in Ukraine. 'I'm just lost how the United States offering an Article 5 commitment for a security guarantee to Ukraine is a win for the United States,' Bannon said on his show Monday morning . 'President Trump has done more than enough to bring the parties together,' Bannon told POLITICO late Monday night. 'Once again, this is a European problem; we have all the leverage here. If we don't fund this, it stops happening. The only way this goes forward — the only way this continues every day — is American money and American arms. The Europeans don't have enough either military hardware and/or financial wherewithal.' Bannon said he hopes Trump 'eventually stops listening to the [Sens.] Lindsey Grahams and Tom Cottons and the Mitch McConnells, and realizes that there can't be any guarantee here from the United States, because that's going to inextricably link us to this conflict.' In a Truth Social post on Monday about the next steps, Trump said 'Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, are coordinating with Russia and Ukraine.' That callout was striking. 'That's the first time JD and Marco have been dragged into a big foreign policy issue together,' the second senior administration official told POLITICO. 'If it's JD and Marco and Witkoff, who gets the credit and who gets the blame if it fails? This could be the first test of 2028.' Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO's Playbook newsletter.
New York Post
26 minutes ago
- New York Post
Putin and Zelensky could meet within next two weeks thanks to Trump's attempts to end brutal war
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky could meet within the next two weeks thanks to President Trump's efforts to bring an end to the war, according to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Putin agreed to the potential meeting, which would take place at a location to be determined, during a phone call with the president on Monday, said Merz, who was among a delegation of European leaders who met with Trump and Zelensky in Washington to pledge their support for Ukraine. During a break in the discussions, Trump called Putin who 'agreed that there would be a meeting between the Russian president and the Ukrainian president within the next two weeks,' Merz told reporters. 4 Zelensky visited the White House for a meeting with Trump on Monday, August 18, 2025. 4 Vladimir Putin meets with Yury Slyusar on August 18, 2025. He traveled to Alaska on Friday, August 15, 2025, to meet with Trump. 4 Smoke rising over Kremenchuk, Ukraine, following a Russian attack. via REUTERS Trump proposed such a meeting so that peace negotiations could 'truly begin' three-and-a-half years since Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine, added Merz. 4 Trump greets Zelensky at the White House on Monday, August 18, 2025. REUTERS However, the announcement about a possible meeting between the warring world leaders comes as Russia unleashed its largest drone attack on its neighbor this month Monday night, sparking concerns that Moscow is not ready for peace. With Post Wires
Chicago Tribune
26 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Jonathan Zimmerman: Liberals have also censored history
In 1874, during the brief era of Reconstruction, white people staged a racist uprising in New Orleans. Angered by the presence of African Americans in law enforcement and other government posts, members of the Crescent City White League stormed the local customs house and killed 11 police officers. Two years later, a contested presidential election led to the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the South and the end of Reconstruction. In 1891, New Orleans erected a memorial to White League members who died in the 1874 riot. And in 1932, the city affixed a plaque to the memorial stating that the 1876 election 'recognized white supremacy in the South and gave us our state.' But you can't see the memorial — or its plaque — in New Orleans any longer. It was taken down in 2017, following years of protest by civil rights advocates. I've been thinking about that episode over the last few months, as President Donald Trump's administration steps up its efforts to purge our historical landscape of anything remotely negative about the United States. In March, it ordered the Smithsonian Institution to eliminate 'improper, divisive or anti-American ideology' from its museums. And in my hometown of Philadelphia, over a dozen displays about slavery at Independence National Park — including an exhibit describing George Washington as an enslaver — have been flagged for review. Like other liberal historians, I'm outraged by Trump's cowardly attacks on our guild. A nation that really believed in its 'greatness' — a term the president loves to use — wouldn't be afraid to confront its worst chapters. But I think my fellow liberals have been complicit — to borrow the term du jour — in historical censorship too. Nobody on my side of the political aisle objected when the New Orleans monument came down. Instead, we celebrated a victory over hate and bigotry. I'm not saying that racist memorials should remain on their pedestals. But when they're pulled down, they should be placed somewhere else where we can see them. Otherwise, we won't learn the awful history they embody. Consider the fate of Silent Sam, the Confederate statue that stood for over a century on the campus of the University of North Carolina. It, too, was built to extol white supremacy: At its unveiling in 1913, a UNC trustee said that Confederate soldiers had 'saved the very life of the Anglo Saxon race in the South.' But in 2018, demonstrators pulled down SIlent Sam. And when UNC Chancellor Carol Folt proposed that the statue be displayed in a museum, the university erupted in yet more protest. In a statement, the university's psychology department said that preserving Silent Sam in any form on campus would 'create a hostile learning environment for black students.' The monument 'undermines our shared community values of equality, respect, and acceptance of all people,' the department added. A few months later, Folt caved and declared that Silent Sam would be removed from campus. Its presence at UNC — even in a museum — posed a threat to the 'well-being of our community,' she said. Sound like anyone you know? In his fulminations against allegedly 'divisive' history, Trump insists that it threatens the entire American community. By casting the United States 'in a negative light,' Trump warns, historians are promoting 'a sense of national shame.' Instead, we should be 'instilling pride in the hearts of all Americans.' In other words: smiley faces only, please. Some things are just too troubling to see. So let's take them down, or blot them out, so we can all feel better. False equivalence alert: Trump is clearly seeking to suppress knowledge of white racism, while the statue protesters were trying — in good faith — to protect nonwhite races from hateful symbols. And he's the president, of course, so he has vastly more power than anybody else. But the upshot is exactly the same: History gets censored. And we condescend to Americans when we imagine they can't handle it. We see a similar dynamic in the ongoing debate over book bans in schools and libraries. I am appalled by recent efforts by right-wing ideologues to remove works by Toni Morrison, Maya Angelou and many others. But where were my fellow liberals when schools were dropping 'The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn' because it uses the N-word 200 times? Sitting on their hands or cheering from the sidelines, as another reminder of racism bit the dust. That was the 'good' kind of censorship, because we did it. And we are good. But every act of historical suppression is bad news, for all of us. That's why I was glad to read that the New Orleans monument will be part of forthcoming exhibit at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles. The exhibit 'reflects on the histories and legacies of post-Civil War America as they continue to resonate today' by displaying 'monuments in the exhibition will be shown in their varying states of transformation,' a museum news release declares. That's precisely why we need to see these symbols: to understand who we are, how we got here and where we need to go. We are in a state of transformation, too, and we must not look away. That's what Trump wants us to do.
