Dylan Burns

[The Gays From LA]

Dylan Burns caught misinforming his audience again: here he claims that no Americans have died in the war between Russia and Ukraine:

Every American Killed or Captured Fighting Russia in Ukraine

The U.S. State Department confirmed the death of Stephen Zabielski, the second American to have died in Ukraine. Others have reportedly been captured.

www.newsweek.com

Every Foreign Fighter Who Has Died in Ukraine War—Full List

So far, fighters from the U.S., the U.K. and Georgia are confirmed to have died fighting Russian forces and there are reports that at least one South Korean has also been killed.

www.newsweek.com

Dylan also falsely claims that the Americans fighting in Ukraine aren't there at the behest of the US government, and are just volunteers who went to Ukraine on their own:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/10/01/alex-drueke-andy-huynh-russian-prisoners/

The fact is that while the US has not sent its troops into Ukraine itself but into the surrounding countries of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania who are on standby, with nothing stopping them from crossing over to Ukraine if they wish or are called upon to do so:

President Joe Biden ordered American troops, attack aircraft and fighter jets into eastern Europe to reassure North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies and deter further aggression from Moscow. “As Russia contemplates its next move, we have our next move prepared as well,” Biden said at the White House Tuesday. “I have authorized additional movements of U.S. forces and equipment already stationed in Europe to strengthen our Baltic allies, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.”

The White House and European allies have scrambled to respond since Russia began massing more than 190,000 troops along Ukraine’s borders. For months, Biden has insisted U.S. troops will not fight in Ukraine, which is not a NATO ally, but he has redoubled defenses in surrounding countries by temporarily repositioning American forces from other parts of Europe. “These are totally defensive moves on our part,” Biden said Tuesday. “We have no intention of fighting Russia. We want to send an unmistakable message that the United States together with our allies will defend every inch of NATO territory and abide by the commitments we made to NATO.”

About 6,000 U.S. forces have already been sent to Germany, Poland and Romania. In Poland, U.S. paratroopers with the 82nd Airborne Division are setting up military facilities in preparation for processing thousands of refugees expected to flee across the country’s eastern border with Ukraine should Moscow launch a mass invasion. In Romania, which borders Ukraine to the south, Army Stryker squadrons consisting of 1,000 troops have moved from Germany to prepare for any frontier issues that might follow an escalating conflict. A battalion of 20 attack helicopters and two dozen fighter jets have been ordered to bolster aerial defenses in Eastern Europe.

...
The U.S. now has more than 90,000 troops on the continent, most of whom are positioned outside Eastern Europe. Over the past month, Biden has more than doubled the number of American ground troops in Poland, to around 9,000, and in Romania, to nearly 2,000.

The forces Biden announced on Tuesday include an infantry battalion task force of about 800 service members that will move from Italy to the Baltic region; up to eight F-35 fighter jets from Germany to unnamed bases “along NATO’s eastern flank;” 20 AH-64 Apache helicopters from Germany to the Baltics; and 12 other Apache helicopters from Greece to Poland.

U.S. Deploys Forces In Response To Putin's Ukraine Moves

Bolstering troops and equipment already sent to Poland and Romania, President Joe Biden announced further deployments to NATO allies in the Baltics.

time.com

Furthermore, the US openly admitted that there are 200 US troops in Ukraine, they just insist that they aren't there to fight Russia: "they're training and advising Ukraine's military"

President Biden’s decision to put 8,500 troops on high alert, potentially for deployment to NATO allies on Russia’s borders, has put the spotlight back on the uncomfortable fact that America already has military people in uniform inside Ukraine. Florida National Guard, to be precise.

They number fewer than 200 and aren’t there to fend off Russian troops — they’re training and advising Ukraine’s military. And they’re reportedly in western Ukraine, far from the eastern border, where Russian President Vladimir Putin has massed an I-can’t-believe-it’s-not-an-invasion-force.

There are already a small number of U.S. troops in Ukraine. They're from the Florida National Guard

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/27/there-are-already-small-number-us-troops-ukraine-they-florida-national-guard/

Dylan needs to understand that he can criticize Russia and the war without having to lie about casualties or downplay America's involvement. Especially given the fact that earlier in the conflict, Dylan Burns was tweeting out things like this:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1614118665590374400

 

[Firegirl26]

I think I saw on the news a few times were we US sending weapons of mass destruction to Ukraine.

 

[Empresa]

wasnt expecting to see dylan on the ip2 splinter board

soynic has been doing good since he banged laura. He is now doing podcasts about ukraine

PCM - The true home of IP2.

pcmemes.net

 

[The Gays From LA]

I think I saw on the news a few times were we US sending weapons of mass destruction to Ukraine.

What, you mean the cluster bombs? Both sides are using cluster bombs during this conflict.

Cluster munition - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Both the US and Russia want to use Ukraine as a convenient dumping ground for their respective stock of cluster bombs:

Here, watch this video, this will give you an idea of what the US (and the rest of the NATO allies) has actually sent to Ukraine, besides cluster bombs:

When Dylan Burns talks about the demining crews he never talks about them having to clear unexploded bomblets from clusterbombs. The way a clusterbomb spreads around (unexploded) bomblets over a large area could be seen as a form of "indiscriminate mining".

But Dylan Burns will only talk about how Russia using cluster bombs is bad, while making up excuses for America providing cluster bombs to Ukraine, admitting that these bombs are "widespread, they're not accurate":

I remember being in my early twenties during the War on Terror and learning for the first time what cluster bombs are. I was physically repulsed at the concept behind these weapons, like I literally frowned at the idea that someone would design something like that.

According to this video, every time Ukraine clears Russian mine fields, the Russians simply go in after they're cleared and place new mines.

So what does Dylan Burns have to say about the fact of Russians restoring cleared mine fields? Has he personally witnessed/filmed this phenomenon?

"These latest assessments represent a marked change from the optimism at the start of the counteroffensive."

 

[The Gays From LA]

Dylan Burns posted what he claims is an "uncensored interview" with a fighting member of Right Sector, a Ukrainian far-right militia fighting in the war.

 

[The Gays From LA]

Here's the real reason American soldiers aren't officially fighting along in the war in Ukraine, only in a "voluntary"/"consultatory" capacity: American volunteers who went to Ukraine to fight said that this conflict is worse than the ones in Iraq or Afghanistan:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1675248790482169859

And while the plan was to plug back in come January, Bam couldn’t bring himself to do it once he got to remove himself from the fog of war.

“When I came back in December it sort of gave me the distance, the space to sort of reevaluate everything that had happened because if I’m in charge of a whole team you don’t have time to really think about everything,” he said. “I kind of shut down a little bit, but it gave me the decompression space to reassess. And so I came to the conclusion that I’m not going to go back and fight.”

Bam is still working on helping the war effort from Kyiv through his work for The Weatherman Foundation, which has recently been working on locating and transferring the remains of Americans killed fighting in Ukraine.

Offenbecker is currently working on switching to a new team in Ukraine’s foreign legion, and has plans to continue fighting in Ukraine.

Americans Who Fought Putin Share 'Horrifying' War Surprises.

Americans Who Fought Putin Share ‘Horrifying’ War Surprises

David BramletteIn the days preceding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, David Bramlette found himself in a classroom in Washington, D.C. discussing whether Russia might invade Ukraine. He was in the middle of earning a master’s degree from Johns Hopkins in international affairs. At the time, he...

news.yahoo.com

Let me highlight this part again for Dylan Burns who claims that no Americans have died in the war in Ukraine:

Bam is still working on helping the war effort from Kyiv through his work for The Weatherman Foundation, which has recently been working on locating and transferring the remains of Americans killed fighting in Ukraine.

Maybe Dylan can research out to The Romulus T. Weatherman Foundation for a Livestream interview about the actual number of American casualties they had to transport - instead of just, you know, blowing smoke out of his ass on this topic to downplay American involvement in the conflict.

The Romulus T. Weatherman Foundation is a U.S.-based 501c3 operating foundation, dedicated to protecting children, defending human rights, and promoting democracy around the world. As the go-to organization for key stakeholders across the public and private sector for information, transformation, and large-scale influence, our team works flexibly and efficiently through partnerships to uphold democratic ideals. Below is a list of the Foundation’s achievements:
...
Repatriated multiple Americans killed or wounded in action fighting for freedom and democracy in Ukraine

Ukraine Mission - The Romulus T. Weatherman Foundation

weathermanfoundation.org

It's interesting that in the above page, the Ukrainian translation of above segment is longer than the American one. I put the Ukrainian segment into Google Translate, and here's what the untranslated part actually says: it names one of the Americans soldiers who died in Ukraine - you know, the very thing that Dylan Burns claims didn't happen:

Pепатрійовав численних американців, убитих або поранених у боротьбі за свободу та демократію в Україні, включаючи майже 7-місячну операцію з пошуку місця останнього спочинку підполковника Грейді Курпасі

Repatriated numerous Americans killed or wounded in the struggle for freedom and democracy in Ukraine, including the nearly 7-month operation to find the final resting place of Lt. Col. Grady Kurpasi

Decorated ex-Marine Capt. Grady Kurpasi named as third US vet missing in Ukraine war

Grady Kurpasi — who joined the Marines after witnessing the Sept. 11 terror attacks while living in New York City — was last in contact with his loved ones on April 24, a family friend, George Heat…

nypost.com

 

[The Gays From LA]

Wow, watching Libertarian politician Larry Sharpe lecture Dylan on the War in Ukraine is so satisfying:

Notice how Dylan's tactic is ignore the larger question of "War. what is it good for?" and to immediately pivot the discussion back to gearz, which is a plainly reductionist tactic. Dylan's sole interest and field of experise is the "toys that kill". We've already seen that giving increasingly advanced military gearz to the Ukrainians did not make a significant contribution because they simply lack the training and experience to use the gearz we gave them effectively. Giving them a quick 101 in the latest of military gearz on some Western base is not going to change the lack of training and experise on their part. In fact, it was the Ukrainians who said they preferred the old material because they have more experience using those, and those are easier to deploy and quicker to train someone to use because they're not high tech. Nerds basically can only design gearz that other nerds like themselves can use, and those are useless on the battlefield where people have to be able to learn to use something quickly and effectively, and don't have the time to go through the lengthy process of training that advanced gearz necessitate. This also demonstrates that the Bologna Process was a total joke and the homogenization of education in the whole of the European Education Area (which included Russia) that it sought to establish a piped ream.

Larry Sharpe was born in 1968, so he's a Gen Xer. Whenever a Gen Xer who was 1) an adult during the War on Terror and 2) actually knows his shit, comes on and lectures Dylan on the military industrial complex, all of Dylan's wise acre tactics go right out the window. Dylan just goes quiet and listens for once. Because he's really too young and really has no idea how the US MIC has conducted itself around the world before he was born. If Dylan was born a couple of decades earlier, if he was around at the time, he would understand why many Gen Xers are distrustful of the motives behind this present war, no matter how superficially just it seems to Dylan Burns. Even those of us who support Ukraine's right to defend itself do not trust the motives anyone else getting involved in this war. The most just cause can be exploited by the cynical to make it worse for their own profit. Gen Xers saw just how cynical those who are willing to exploit wars for their personal gain are during the War on Terror, and we have no reason to believe that it's going to be any different this time with this particular war.

When I first discovered Dylan Burns' content, one of his first debates that I watched was the previous debate he did with Sharpe. Every other debate I watched thereafter was inferior in comparison.
My impression is that Dylan Burns intentionally brings on the biggest dumbasses to debate, as opposed to people like Sharpe, because he wants to come out on top every time.

 

[thefrogninja]

My OF gf is always one step ahead of the curve she's so smart and cool and sexy

 

[The Gays From LA]

My OF gf is always one step ahead of the curve she's so smart and cool and sexy

As of today, Dylan Burns doesn't want me watching his Youtube videos with my adblocker installed. I'm not smart or sexy enough to figure out what to do about that, yet. Shall I go back to downloading Youtube videos to watch them ad-free, including his videos?

 

[The Gays From LA]

"They[Ukraine] have not been able to meet those goals and they're not on track to meet those goals."

And you make it sooo... oh, oh, ob-vi-ous!

Notice the weasely language here: "In this month or the next month, when winter sets in"... next month is September. September is the start of autumn, not winter. Winter is still 3 months away. Does Dylan not even know the seasons?

"They could flood troops", um, no they can't just "flood troops in". The Russian defense lines are 3 fold, we've all seen the maps from the military Youtubers discussing this set-up. It was reported months ago that Ukraine has barely managed to break through the first line of defense, that why they requested the cluster-bombs. Even if they were to break through that first line, the Russians have mined everything thereafter. Later, the article he's reading mentions this "phalanx of minefields and trenches.". You need to watch more Weeb Union instead of /r/femmeboys, Dylan.

Here's the thing: when RU is making advances, the pro-RU accounts on X/Twitter are exing/tweeting like crazy. When RU is doing badly, they just don't say anything, they go quiet. They don't actively put out delusional disinfo like the pro-NAFO accounts do. The pro-RU accounts have been very busy, and that's how you know Ukraine is losing.

Furthermore, comparing this conflict to Desert Storm and casting Ukraine in the role of the US in that conflict is utterly ridiculous (unless Dylan is admitting his guilty conscience here, that he views Ukraine as a proxy for the US and not a sovereign country defending itself.)

I am glad he's saying this because it seems to be finally getting through to him: nerds can only design tools that their fellow nerds can use. Soldiers aren't nerds, so they can't use that shit for the most part, because they don't think like a nerd. You can train inexperienced Ukrainians all you want in the use of this hi-tech state-of-the-art gear that the Pentagon loves dumping millions of $ into developing, they'll still get shot out of the sky the moment they're up there if the learning curve is too steep for using this nerd shit effectively.

Here you go: "They [Ukrainian] deminers are only getting a month of training... the war has made them go through a crash-course to get these skills quickly"... which are not skills you can get quickly because they require hands-on experience, preferably without getting the fresh post-grads to immediately blow themselves up. The American education system is shit because the US has for decades sacrificed proper pedagogy for the sake of efficiency... only to create more terminal inefficiencies down the line. You can't nickle and dime education, period.

Dylan then goes on to say that the MSM won't focus on Russian losses... when the main reason for that is that Russia has shut itself off to the foreign press, so they don't have access to inside source who would help them cover those issues. You can't blame the Western press for Russia kicking them out. Even before the war, a lot of the Western press started shutting down their foreign offices all over the world. One foreign media company that does retain a presence in Russia is the BBC and they have tried to compile data about war casualties:

And BTW, check out this part where Warographics admits that "training a single [military] pilot costs over 3 million US dollars":

Warographics, despite his hatred of Putin, is still cable of a level of empathy that I haven't seen from any of these bloodthirsty BreadTubers that Dylan Burns associates himself with:

As for this comment underneath Dylan's latest video:

Is there any actual official list of hard objectives anywhere for the current Ukrainian Counter offensive? Like one that pre-dates the counter offensive kicking off... Just so a goal and status on the position to goal can be established?

That's what Dylan and Larry Sharpe were arguing about the first time they had a public debate about the war on Sharpe's channel. Sharpe told Dylan back then, that it was immoral and conveniently deceptive for the US to go into the war without a list of objectives that eventual gains or losses could be held up against.

Here's the part from their previous debate where Dylan and Sharpe were arguing about this point:

"[America should only perform an intervention in a conflict] when there's a clear enemy, and a clear victory. Cos when we don't do that, and we do this authorization of military force garbage we always do, that just means literally 10s of 1000s of dead Americans in useless wars. And 100s of 1000s of dead civilians in useless wars. You have a group of people who want us there, and a declaration of war, I'm far more open to intervention. But that almost never happens."

"It fails the vast majority of the time, so why would I make interventionism, in any shape or form, part of my normal foreign policy when I know it's going to fail most of the time?"

"Let me give you my premise in general: I'm saying we're far too interventionalist. We need to cut back and our norm should be non-interventionalism. We should have very special cases to ever intervene, and if we do, Congress should have to declare actual war, and create standards of victory... or, no intervention."

"I have a 17 year old, I am concerned about that. I do not want to send my children to die for someone else's war. I was a marine for 7 years. I was a marine under Reagan. If Reagan had told me to go kill someone because he was the enemy, I would have done so. I would have taken an order to my own death. I wouldn't have thought twice, I would've done so. So were most of our military members. And I don't wanna send those people to their death, or worse, they come home blown to bits with TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) and PTSD, many of them would rather be dead which is why they take their own lives. (...) The only conflicts that I would want to do that is, if our representatives, li-te-ral-ly, state a declaration of war, and they take responsibility for their constituencies, to send their constituents' sons and daughters to die and worse. Then I accept that, even though I don't like it. But that's not what happened."

 

[The Gays From LA]

Dylan Burns says that the death of Wagner's leadership is going to "shake this war to its core":

The BBC claims that the FSB might have been behind the plane crash:

The BBC, in contrast to Dylan Burns, claim that Prigozhin's death isn't gonna make much of a difference to the war in Ukraine itself, as Wagner had already left Ukraine for Belarus after the mutiny, but it might make a difference in Africa where a lot of Wagner is still stationed.

 

[The Gays From LA]

I have been reading old Cato articles on Ukraine lately, and in the context of doing that, Dylan's latest video about how "the Republicans no longer support aid to Ukraine" video is particularly amusing:

I could ask Dylan Burns to just read this article, which dismantles the main argument of all his Ukraine videos - namely, that victory this conflict is just a matter of the West throwing more advanced military tech at the problem....

The war is destroying Ukraine. The war’s cost climbs daily, the economy is a wreck, the population has been depleted by mass refugee flows, the government survives only on Western handouts, the military has consumed much of its original Soviet‐era arsenal, as well as the technological menagerie gifted by the allies, and the army has promiscuously sacrificed manpower both trained and raw. Finding replacements is becoming difficult, with a declining population, corrupt recruiting officers, and determined draft evaders. For all the wishful Western talk of a Russian collapse, given Moscow’s evident manifold challenges, catastrophic failure seems more likely in Kiev. Washington’s objective increasingly looks focused on doing ill to Russia rather than good to Ukraine.

Despite Washington’s and Brussels’s continued determination to defend their increasingly bedraggled party line that Kiev will set its own political objectives, win the military fight, and determine the peace, dissent is increasingly emerging. Observed Ted Galen Carpenter: “As yet, there are only a few trial balloons conveying that message, but they hint at the onset of an effort to prepare the American public for possible abandonment of a U.S. client.”

Ukraine’s Vain Search for Wonder Weapons

https://www.cato.org/commentary/ukraines-vain-search-wonder-weapons

But I do want to address some of his claims more thoroughly.

If Dylan cares to take the time to read some of these Cato articles I've been reading for himself, he will see that the libertarian wing of the Republicans was always against any American involvement in Ukraine. It was some legacy neocons who wanted to revive Cold War hostilities towards Russia - and were looking forward to those lucrative post-war reconstruction deals - who were salivating at the idea of a conflict in Ukraine.

Here's Cato back in 2015 advising against any American involvement in Ukraine. It's tragicomic to read these articles 8 years after the fact. The language they use is unequivocal: "Kiev can't afford the war"

Stalemate is no solution either. Ukraine faces economic crisis. Government expenditures are up, revenues are down, and foreign investment is on hold. The economy has tanked. Ukraine needs to reform and rebuild, which will be difficult as long as the crisis persists.

Kiev can’t afford the war, which is costing $10 million a day. This year Kiev faces a $15 billion financing gap. Moody’s warned of a possible debt default. The head of Ukraine’s central bank spoke of a “full‐blown financial crisis.” Famed currency speculator George Soros argued that Kiev needed at least $50 billion in support. But neither America nor Europe is going to come up with anything close to that—they currently have offered about $4 billion total.

The allies hope that sanctions will force Russia to concede. Before Christmas Congress approved a new round of penalties without debate. The West’s sanctions have been painful for Moscow, especially combined with the fall in energy prices. Still, Putin won’t be retreating voluntarily. His term runs until 2018 and no one, in or out of government, appears able to challenge him.

Massive public discontent could spark a popular revolution. However, foreign sanctions more often cause people to rally around than abandon their governments. As of last month Putin’s popularity remained at 85 percent, with the majority of Russians opining that their country was on the right track. If Putin’s support starts to fall as the economy continues its downward slide pressure will rise on Putin to act. However, he is not likely to yield to the West, which would be catastrophic politically. He more likely would tighten authoritarian controls at home to stifle opposition activists and strike overseas to revive nationalist sentiments.

An extended conflict would continue to spread economic pain well beyond Russia, especially as European economies continue to stall. Some European states already are lobbying to lift or moderate sanctions. In early January French President Francois Hollande called for dropping the penalties. Last month Czech Finance Minister Andrej Babis complained: “It brings nothing, these sanctions. They will only have a negative impact.”

Perhaps even worse than sanctions which do not force Moscow to its knees would be those which do. The prospect of Weimar Russia should cause Ukrainians and their friends in the West to be careful what they wish for. Europe especially has much at stake in Russia economically.

Worse, there is little reason to expect a Russia in crisis to be democratic and docile. Greater nationalism at home and adventurism abroad would be more likely. Western‐style liberals would not be the natural beneficiaries of an implosion at home.
...
Thankfully the ongoing battle doesn’t much threaten America. But the U.S. still would benefit from peace between the two. As would the Ukrainian people, in particular. Instead, of acting as a belligerent party, Washington should focus on shaping a diplomatic solution. Doing so won’t be easy, but the Obama administration should make the attempt.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/ukraines-conflict-russia-isnt-americas-fight-part-2

TLDR, the libertarian wing of the Republican party who are Cato devotees already knew that Ukraine could not afford a war with Russia 8 years ago. They also correctly predicted that economic sanctions would do nothing against Russia. They correctly warned that a Russia in crisis would resort to "Greater nationalism at home and adventurism abroad".

I know Dylan as a Dem doesn't want to hear this, but it was Donald Trump, as Republican president, who sent US military aid to Ukraine, where Obama seemed to be more cautious about getting involved:

Unfortunately, Obama’s successors were not as wise or as cautious. Despite the pervasive canard that Donald Trump was soft on Russia, his administration executed multiple arms sales to Ukraine. In both 2017 and 2019, those packages even included sophisticated Javelin anti‐tank missiles, over Moscow’s vehement protests. Similar generous arms sales have continued under Biden.
...

Washington and its NATO partners need to back away from their increasingly dangerous policies. The Kremlin has made it clear multiple times that it regards Ukraine as a core Russian security concern, and that efforts to make that country a Western military ally risk crossing a bright red line. Adopting measures that encourage a volatile client to engage in provocations that it can’t sustain if its stronger adversary responds by escalating the confrontation is egregious foreign policy malpractice. Arming Ukraine with sophisticated weaponry is a textbook example of such folly. The United States, Turkey, and Kiev’s other enablers need to change course before they turn the simmering Ukraine conflict into a conflagration.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/nato-arms-sales-ukraine-spark-starts-war-russia

Dylan Burns says that it's hypocritical for Republicans to argue that the US just doesn't have any money right now to give to Ukraine, when they've been spending so much money on other military conflicts since forever. This is truly an addict's reasoning: once you get started, why stop now, why not take that deficit all the way to the absolute rock bottom?

Cato argued that, since Ukraine is of greater importance to Russia than it is to the US, Russia would always be willing to pay a greater price for Ukraine than any of Ukraine's allies, no matter how richer or more resourceful than Russia those allies individually or collectively are:

Since Russia has far more at stake in Ukraine’s orientation, the former will devote far greater resources and take far greater risks than will the allies. Ukraine is a minor economic and security issue for Europe and marginal concern for America. That’s why no allied government is prepared to take military action in Ukraine. In fact, Kiev can expect only limited financial transfers along with financial sanctions against Russia. In contrast, the Putin government has accepted financial losses, economic isolation, human casualties, and political hostility.
...

It’s impossible to blame Kiev for wanting the West to protect it. But it makes no sense for the allies to do so. Indeed, Washington has played the sucker throughout NATO expansion. Adding new nations did not make America more secure. Rather, the U.S. treated its premier military alliance like international charity, bringing in nations that amount to security black holes. Washington paid to upgrade small militaries with minimal capabilities while promising to protect new members from threats irrelevant to America.

Adding Ukraine (and Georgia) would be even more dangerous. Both have been at war with Russia. Both have had irresponsible political leadership. Both have an incentive to entangle the globe’s superpower in their territorial disputes. Bringing them into NATO would dramatically degrade U.S. security by transforming minor conflicts irrelevant to Washington into potential military disputes between America and Russia.

However, these Cato articles argued that Republican aversion to an American involvement in Ukraine wasn't just with regards to the US's own military budget or deficit, but rather with regards to the wider economic effects of the conflict resulting in economic blowback for all NATO countries:

The problem here isn’t helping Ukraine, it’s pretending the help is unconditional.
...
The idea that nations can heavily contribute to a war effort without any say in its execution is offensive. Those arming Ukraine may not be risking enough to suit Ukraine, but they aren’t risking nothing — the danger of Russian retaliation remains. And sanctions entail economic pain for those sanctioning as well as the sanctioned.

Moreover, the terms and timing of war‐termination will affect NATO countries too, determining the extent and severity of economic blowback, as well as the likelihood of another invasion and resulting crisis. Surely Western leaders have a right — even a responsibility to their constituents — to determine how to use their military aid and economic sanctions in ways that also serve their interests, not just Ukraine’s.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/were-not-all-ukrainians-now

Even on the eve of the present conflict, the Cato institute backed in 2021 argued for deescalating what they clearly saw as a "reckless strategy" on the part of the West:

The United States and its NATO allies are busily arming Ukraine and engaging in other actions that encourage the leaders in Kiev to believe that they have strong Western backing in their confrontation with Russia and Russian‐backed separatists. The conflict between the Ukrainian government and separatist forces in the Donbass region, which has remained at a low simmer in recent years, thanks to the fragile Minsk agreements, shows unmistakable signs of heating up. That development is exacerbating already dangerous tensions between Kiev and Moscow. There is growing speculation that Russia might even launch an invasion of Ukraine.

Western leaders are pursuing a reckless strategy that is generating increasingly pointed warnings from Kremlin officials. On two occasions since early April [2021], Russia also has made ominous military deployments near its border with Ukraine. Shortly before the earlier episode, the Biden administration had announced a new $125 million arms sale to Ukraine. Although the transaction was put on hold temporarily in June, $60 million of that package was delivered during U.S. secretary of defense Lloyd Austin’s visit to Kiev in late October.

The United States is not the only NATO member that has made destabilizing arms sales to Ukraine. Turkey is equipping the Ukrainian military with drones, and in late October, Kiev’s forces launched a drone attack that destroyed rebel artillery batteries in the Donbas. Moscow issued strong protests about the escalation to both Ukraine and Turkey. A new deployment of Russian forces near the Ukrainian border also followed, and U.S. secretary of state Antony Blinken expressed concern that Russia might execute a “rehash” of its 2014 military offensive when Vladimir Putin’s government seized Crimea and then provided military support for secessionists in eastern Ukraine.

This article appeared in National Interest (Online) on November 11, 2021.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/nato-arms-sales-ukraine-spark-starts-war-russia

Cato correctly predicted that the US getting involved in the Russian-Ukraine conflict would cause that conflict to escalate beyond Ukraine, as we're know seeing in Africa; two of the countries involved in that emerging conflict are Russian backed allies. Cato argued that if America agreed to get involved with every conflict it's called upon to address, it would be spreading itself thin and would thus lose its main military focus, which should be China joining forces with Russia to form a "Eurasian hegemon":

Critics will charge that this course sells out Ukraine, rewards Russian aggression and nuclear brinksmanship, and does nothing to prevent Russia from biding its time before re‐invading Ukraine. These charges are at least partly true. Still, two points are important. On one level, again, the United States has minimal interests in what happens in or to Ukraine per se; if Ukraine were central to the balance of power, this would change—but it isn’t. Accordingly, as tragic as it would be to witness future Russian aggression against Ukraine, it would be a still greater tragedy if the United States ends up in conflict with Russia or facilitating the rise of a true Eurasian hegemon by misallocating its time and resources.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/what-americas-interest-ukraine-war

However, Moscow can cause significant trouble for Washington in a number of areas. And treating Russia as an enemy risks turning it into one. For instance, in mid‐December the Putin government ended the U.S.-funded nuclear security program, which helped prevent loose nukes after the break‐up of the Soviet Union. In January Russia signed an agreement with Iran for expanded defense cooperation, reportedly including long‐delayed delivery of the S300 missile air defense system. This weapon could greatly complicate plans for an American or Israeli military strike on Iran.

This might be just the start. The Putin government could arm Syria with advanced missiles, defend Tehran against American and European pressure over its nuclear program, impede U.S. logistical operations in Afghanistan, provide advanced arms to North Korea, and transfer military technologies to China. Worse, Russia is pursuing a closer relationship with China; should that evolve into a serious anti‐American axis, despite serious differences between the two states, much harm could result.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/us-should-stay-out-russo-ukrainian-quarrel-why-conflict-ukraine-isnt-americas-business

The libertarian wing of the Republican Party was never a fan of this war. If Republicans in general have become more vocal in their opposition to the war right now, that was only to be expected, since this conflict at best had no relevance to America whatsoever, and, as far as their think tanks were concerned, would likely get the US dragged into an ever escalating conflict with tremendous blowback.

 

[The Gays From LA]

Dylan Burns has been reading my posts about his videos on his forum, because literally after I posted my article about that stupid anti-Elon Musk article by Ronan Farrow, Dylan decided to feature it on his Livestream:

No Dylan, Elon Musk is not "Putin's paypal". Wow, this video is some straight up bullshit conjecturing with some Elon Musk/Putin steamy hot phonesex slashfic thrown in for spice. A lot to criticize and debunk here.

Elon talk to Putin before it's too late!
Before it's too late!
Before it's too late!
Before they blow up the world!

Question: would Dylan have been a fan of Elon Musk, if Elon Musk had agreed to remotely turn off all Teslas in Russia?

Elon Musk has been asked to “turn off” Teslas in Russia as he has made superchargers free for people fleeing Ukraine in electric vehicles.

The entrepreneur was inundated with requests from his Twitter followers to shut down his company’s electric vehicles in the country as Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked attack on Ukraine continues.

Mr Musk’s Twitter account is just one of 22 that is followed by the Kremlin’s own official account on the social media platform.

“Dear Elon Musk, can you deactivate all Teslas in Russia, please?” one Twitter user asked him.

And another user added: “(Elon Musk) maybe it’s time to disable all Teslas in Russia and Belarus?”

Elon Musk asked to ‘turn off’ Russian Teslas as he makes superchargers free in region

Entrepreneur is one of just 22 Twitter accounts followed by Kremlin

www.independent.co.uk

But now a more serious question for Dylan: how do you know that Elon Musk is posting on his Twitter X account himself personally? How do you know he's the person actually typing out those tweets Xes? Wouldn't someone as busy and as rich as Elon Musk just hire someone to manage his Twitter X account for him, while appearing to be speaking as Elon Musk in the first person? Remember, Madonna had a voice double who would do interviews in her place when she lost her voice, and a lot of famous world leaders are known to have body doubles who appear in public when they don't want to. On Twitter, no one knows you're a dog, or Elon Musk's double for that matter. I swear, look at when Elon Musk is livestreaming (which he almost does on a weekly, sometimes daily basis), and look at when shit gets posted to his account. OBVIOUSLY it's not him posting it.

Furthermore, as I pointed out here, Putin is threatening to kill Elon Musk. Elon Musk has been threatened by Russians over SpaceX and Tesla for years. Elon Musk mentioned in this in his authorized 2015 biography.

Here is the Harvard Business Review Livestream with Ian Bremmer (leader of the Eurasia Group risk assessment group) that Dylan Burns is referring to in his video. Ian Bremmer at the time claimed that Elon Musk is a "potentially disruptive rogue actor", thus opening the door for the ridiculous attacks you see on Musk today:

When we think about people with incredible control over their institutions and no checks and balances, we often think of classic rogue actors like Russia’s Vladimir Putin. But Ian Bremmer, founder and president of global risk research consultancy Eurasia Group, would also include business leaders like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk. They’re not dictators of countries, but they do control, truly control, immensely powerful global platforms that operate with some level of sovereignty outside the power purview of governments. “And I think that the disruptive implications of that for good and for bad are also unprecedented.”

You can tell this Ian Bremmer guy lives in a bubble on the basis of such statements:

Everyone out there opposes Putin in the West. I mean Tucker Carlson and Noam Chomsky are about the only well-known Americans you can find that are willing to actually sorta publicly take and say: "Well, maybe, actually, Putin has a point.". Nobody else. So it's very easy for corporations to make that call on Russia.

As for his Statements that no one in the US government is saying that the US is in a Cold War with China, Ian Bremmer clearly needs to watch more news:

Another thing I want to point out is the fact that we were all initially told that this war was going to be temporal. Perhaps Elon Musk was told something like that in order to get him to agree to fund Starlink out of his own pocket. It's possible that, when Elon Musk realized that he was lied to, and that the proxy war was supposed to be long war of attrition, that he felt cheated and decided to pull Starlink because he only agreed to provide it under the impression that it was only for a short while.

Dylan then claims that Elon Musk "can bear the cost" of providing Starlink to Russia indefinitely because he's a multi-billionaire... conveniently leaving out the fact that Russia has space wars weapons and can literally knock Elon Musk's Starlink satellites right out of orbit if he doesn't do what they tell him.

Elon Musk might be able to lose some Starlink disks on the ground without feeling the financial sting of that loss, him losing a whole-ass satellite because Russia got mad and pointed their starwars lasers (or let loose the "debris cloud" for that matter) at his sats, that is whole other matter. Dylan won't even bring this up as a possiblity, even as he surely knows that Russia has been threatening Elon Musk.

BTW, if Elon Musk had decided to stick it to Russia and Russia had space war lasered one of his satellites out of orbit, you know people like Dylan Burns and Ronan Farrow would've simply used that to attack Elon Musk, saying he's reckless and a blowhard. It's "damned if you do, damned if you don't" with someone like Musk, so his first priority is himself and the safety of his business assets.

Dylan then makes a big deal out of the claim that Elon Musk has spoken to Putin personally, which Elon Musk has apparently denied doing. I don't find this alleged direct contact between Musk and Putin strange, because let's not forget that Musk originally wanted to set up a Tesla factory in Russia.

Analysis: Ukraine invasion sets back Musk's dream for cheaper EVs, for now

Surging raw materials costs, made worse by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, could set back the dream of Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk and other auto executives to roll out more affordable electric vehicles.

www.reuters.com

As for that contract with the Defense Department, I bet part of that contract was the promise that NASA would protect his Starlink sats if they're targeted by Russia. Which of course Dylan and Ronan Farrow would use to argue that Elon Musk is "dragging NASA into a star war!"

 

[The Gays From LA]

Dylan Burns briefly allowed this article to flash across his screen, only to immediately click it away:

Here's the segment where he briefly flashed this article:

I wonder what this means... I know he's on the WhiteLeaf platform, the name of which platform is likely a direct reference to the owner's very public cocaine addiction.

Here is Youtuber's ShortFatOtaku's video about WhiteLeaf and WhiteNervosa/McKenzie, where he goes into Kenzie's very public cocaine addiction:

I know Dylan is buddies with Keffals who's another very public coke addict from the same milieu... so why is Dylan reading about coke?

 

[The Gays From LA]

I am definitely gonna respond to this latest Dylan Burns video, cos this contains probably the most baffling take I've seen from Dylan Burns since I started watching his videos:

I had to LMAO at Dylan's insistence that it would be better to take Ukrainian war orphans to Turkey as opposed to Russia, and that Russia is effectively stealing these Ukrainian children by refusing to bring them to safety (LMAO) in the totally neutral bystander country of Turkey (LMAO).

I wonder, has Dylan ever seen footage of refugee centers in Turkey are really like? Especially after the recent earthquakes?

Here's some French film footage of Syrian refugee women in Turkey crowding a center where they're given free bread. Dylan would love to see some small unaccompanied starving Ukrainian children begging for some flat bread among the veiled women:

Hmmm, I wonder where some of those "lost" drones that were sent to Ukraine but ended up being sold on the black market eventually ended up... perhaps here?

Imagine being a Ukrainian orphan refugee in some Turkish refugee camp and ending up getting drone-bombed by the very American drones that were originally sent to your home country to drone the Russians... that would be some peak irony right there.

Some refugees in Turkey got fed up and decided that returning home to war torn Syria was still less dangerous than staying in Turkey (this is from 6 months ago):

Suffice to say, Turkish refugee centers are so abysmal, substandard and plainly dangerous that refugees in Turkey will pay their human traffickers a high price for a place on an overcrowded boat, and would rather risk drowning in the Mediterranean than stay at those disgusting dangerous Turkish refugee centers one day longer. Still, Dylan thinks it's sooo much better to put hundreds of Ukrainian war orphans in these hellish overcrowded camps that are drone targets, just because some Convention-drafting international lawyer egg-head thought so.

Apparently Dylan Burns thinks it's so much better and safer to send Ukrainians children to such a place as opposed to a Russian orphanage.

It's plainly ignorant for Dylan to claim that Ukraine didn't have a human trafficking problem before the war started. Almost every country has a trafficking problem nowadays, internal or external, due to the simple fact of mobility and highway roads. Wikipeda is wiser on this topic than Dylan Burns:

Ukraine is a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children trafficked transnationally for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation and forced labor.

Ukrainian women are trafficked to Russia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Turkey, Austria, Germany, United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, China, the United Arab Emirates, Portugal, Greece, Israel, Spain, Lebanon, Hungary, Slovak Republic, Cyprus, Netherlands, Serbia, Argentina, Norway, Iran, and Bahrain. The majority of Ukrainian labor trafficking victims were men exploited in Russia, the Czech Republic and Poland, primarily forced to work as construction laborers, sailors, and factory and agriculture workers.

There are indications Ukraine is a destination for people from neighboring countries trafficked for forced labor and sexual exploitation. In addition, trafficking occurs within Ukraine; men and women are trafficked within the country for the purposes of labor exploitation in the agriculture and service sectors, commercial sexual exploitation, and forced begging. Ukrainian children are trafficked both internally and transnationally for commercial sexual exploitation, forced begging, and involuntary servitude in the agriculture industry. An IOM survey released in December 2006 concluded that since 1991, approximately 117,000 Ukrainians had been forced into exploitative situations in Europe, the Middle East, and Russia.

In 2008 the Government of Ukraine did not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking; however, it was making significant efforts to do so. While there was little evidence of efforts to curb trafficking complicity of government officials and of concrete steps to protect and assist trafficking victims at the national level, local governments made some progress on victim assistance. The government also made modest, but tangible, progress in improving the punishment of convicted traffickers, prosecuting labor trafficking, training the judiciary, and carrying out prevention activities.[1] The U.S. State Department's Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons placed the country in "Tier 2" in 2017.[2]

Human trafficking in Ukraine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Indeed, the facts listed in the Wikipedia article plainly demonstrate why Ukraine is an inadequate environment for the human trafficking victims there:

Ukraine's prevention efforts remained heavily reliant on international donor funding. Law enforcement agencies referred 456 victims to NGOs for assistance. Through donor-sponsored programs and some government services, foreign and domestic victims of trafficking in Ukraine receive shelter, medical, psychological, legal, and job placement assistance. The national government did not increase funding for victims, and there has been uneven support offered by local governments. The Kherson regional government allocated $20,170 to anti-trafficking activities including support of a reintegration center; however, the trafficking victim shelter in Lutsk is on the verge of being closed due to lack of government support.

Ukraine does not punish victims for unlawful acts committed as a direct result of being trafficked, but sex trafficking victims' rights are incorrectly characterized as "willing prostitutes" and denied confidentiality. Although more victims are reportedly willing to participate in investigations against their traffickers, a weak witness protection system and a bias against sex trafficking victims still discourage many from testifying in court. Courts in the Ivano-Frankivsk region are implementing a pilot program to develop a modern witness protection program. The government does not provide foreign victims with legal alternatives to removal to countries in which they may face hardship or retribution.[1]

Yet this is the country that the US insists is part of the same "law based international order" as the US.

Perhaps instead of "killing the messenger" and ranting about the QAnon types that have brought this tragic reality to Dylan's attention and then doubling down on the denial that Ukraine really was and still is a human trafficking hub, Dylan can fundraise to keep that center Lutsk open. You known, instead of fundraising to buy drones to kill Russians with.

I also want to address the 700k figure that Dylan gives in this video. According to this BBC article, the UN estimates that about 1,4 million Ukrainians have fled to Russia since the war began. Presumably that 700k figure in the article that Dylan was reading is in reference to the 1,4 million Ukrainians who fled to Russia, which included many women and children. The US State Department, which is where Dylan Burns gets his talking-points from, claims that between 900k to 1,6 million Ukrainians were "forcibly deported to Russia", but neglects to specify if this figure includes the above 1,4 million refugees or if this is a separate figure. If we assume this is another figure, and we add the number giving by the BBC to the number of forceful deportations given by the US State Dept, then there must be about 3 million Ukrainians presently in Russia, both those who voluntarily fled there and those who were "forcefully deported".

How many Ukrainian refugees are there and where have they gone?

The UN says more than 12 million people have fled their homes since the Russian invasion.

www.bbc.com

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-war-refugees-russia-1.6569690

And here is where we bring up Dylan's and others' insistence that Russia wants to genocide Ukrainians because they don't recognize Ukraine as a real country, and that the kidnapping and patriotic brainwashing of Ukrainian children in Russia is part of that genocidal strategy. If Russia really wanted to ethnic cleanse Ukrainians, why weren't the 1,4 to 3 million Ukrainian refugees and/or deportees presently in Russia all rounded up and executed, along with their children?

America clearly has more than enough space for those 900k Ukrainian, excuse me, I meant to say "American" children. All joking aside, that's still immensely better than dumping them in those drone-bombed earthquake shattered Turkish refugee camps that Dylan would like to take them to, because "Convention ist Convention".

 

[The Gays From LA]

I wonder when Dylan Burns is gonna make a video about this: Ukraine has apparently asked Poland to arrest Ukrainian men who fled to the EU to request war refugee status there, asking Poland to round them up and deport them back to Ukraine to fight in the war:

 

[The Gays From LA]

Dylan Burns claims that a Russian drone detonated in Romania on September 4th:

Dylan says that people aren't reporting on this, but I am seeing items from several mainstream media outlets including American and British media:

This CNN item has over half a million views:

Here's yet another CNN item about the alleged drone debris in Romania:

So no, this alleged incident was definitely not covered up or ignored by the mainstream media. They're just waiting for Romania to do their research into the incident with their own official findings about what it was.

 

[The Gays From LA]

I wonder what it will take for Dylan Burns to let go of his obsessive "Elon Musk is a Russian asset being whispered to by Putin" slashfic. Will Russia shooting Starlink satellites out of the sky do it? And how does Dylan Burn know that Putin was debate-bro-ing Elon Musk over the phone? Maybe Putin was threatening him again. Maybe Putin was threatening him about shooting Starlink sats out of the sky. Maybe Putin was threatening him about Kremlin hackers hacking Starlink stats to intercept secret Ukrainian military communications, and then blame the hack on Elon Musk for not securing his sats enough to prevent such a hack. Maybe the Pentagon told Elon Musk to accept these phonecalls from Putin and to appear neutral on the phone, so the Pentagon can eavesdrop on those private calls to see if Putin might suggest something to Elon Musk he hasn't yet disclosed to anyone else. Don't be writing slashfic when you don't know what was discussed between them:

Notice how Dylan is flip-flopping here: first he claimed that this conflict would escalate beyond Ukraine, now he claims that Russians are so incompetent in Ukraine that it's impossible for this conflict to escalate to other countries. That's cognitive dissonance. Either you believe that Russia has the might to involve other countries in this conflict, or you think that they're so bumbling and incompetent that they can't maintain what they've invaded in Ukraine.

Here Dylan Burns admits that Ukraine has become so reliant on Starlink that it cannot just ditch Starlink and replace it with something else. Beggars can't be choosers, so why continue to antagonize Elon Musk and falsely accuse him of being a Russian asset who set out to "undermine the Ukrainian effort" with no proof?

 

[The Gays From LA]

Maybe Dylan can ask his handlers at the State Dept to send over some of these mine sniffing rats to Ukraine?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1309475259620433921

 

[The Gays From LA]

LMAO, I agree with Dylan Burns on something?!

This part is funny, he gets called out by the other gays for being an LA gay:

During this part, Dylan insists that TRAs are the same as gay rights activists and claims he doesn't know what the conservative gays mean when they say that the gay community is being taken advantage of by the TRAs:

Dylan can start here if he wants to see how this con-job that roped along the gay community was perpetrated:

Another set of videos Dylan Burns needs to see:

The gay community has absolutely been taken advantage of and fucked over by TRAs. No doubt about that.

Futhermore, a lot of troons are straight men LARPing as lesbians. They have no place in the gay community.

Dylan is asked to "make a gay face for the thumbnail", LMAO:

Dylan, who is a bedroom racist browsing r/Ebony in his free time, admits that he has been turned down by blacks he hit on, and he just moved on:

The rest of the Livestream is extremely disappointing. Dylan Burns is clearly completely and utterly uninformed when it comes to detransitioners. If any detransitioners are reading this, please reach out to Dylan Burns and debate him on topic, he is shockingly ignorant on this topic. He literally has no idea. He also has no idea what's been happening all these years with so-called "drag kids".