Ukraine

g under p

One question I've, when the Russian army goes in obliterates and brings the Ukrainian cities to ts knees then occupies the country implement the government Russia wants.....WHO 🇷🇺  is going to rebuild Ukraine and its people???

Peace ✌️ 

mickeyrat

whoa....

Fox News’s Jennifer Griffin fully loses her patience with Fox’s Ukraine punditry  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/28/fox-newss-jennifer-griffin-fully-loses-her-patience-with-foxs-ukraine-punditry/ 

Fox News’s Jennifer Griffin fully loses her patience with Fox’s Ukraine punditry By Aaron Blake February 28 at 10:33 AM EST Among the many times in which punditry can go very wrong, few rank as high as wartime. And nothing demonstrates that better than some corners of Fox News right now. Tucker Carlson has spent years suggesting maybe Vladimir Putin isn’t a bad guy. Several of its hosts wagered that the threat of a Russian invasion of Ukraine was manufactured to distract from the Biden administration’s domestic political issues — right before Russia actually invaded. A number of its pundits and hosts have seen their statements on issues like sanctions contradicted by the network’s actual reporting on the situation. Fox’s Jennifer Griffin seems to have almost completely lost patience with all of it. The Washington Post’s Jeremy Barr reported Friday on how the network’s respected longtime national security correspondent has repeatedly found herself in the position of fact-checking her network’s hosts and pundits. And it continued this weekend, with Griffin apparently becoming even more exasperated. She even went so far as to seemingly question the platform her employer has afforded some fringe figures. Barr last week recounted Griffin’s clashes with hosts of “The Five” who elevated into the manufactured-crisis conspiracy theory (she assured them this was “not some wag-the-dog situation”). When Sean Hannity pinned the blame for the situation on Biden, she assured this was a result of the policies of multiple recent administrations. She pushed back on “Fox & Friends” host Steve Doocy when he declared sanctions had somehow already proved a failure. Her biggest clash came with Harris Faulkner, who tried to end her segment after asserting the Biden administration could’ve done more, only to have Griffin cut in and note that bigger steps would mean bigger provocations of Russia. After Barr’s report, Griffin was asked about it Sunday on Fox’s “Media Buzz.” “I’m here to fact-check facts because I report on facts,” Griffin said. “And my job is to try and figure out the truth as best as I know it. I share those facts internally so that our network can be more accurate. That’s what I’ve always done. “There’s nothing different than what I’ve been doing for the last 26 years working for Fox.” If there’s one thing that’s different, though, it’s the terms in which Griffin is now talking about this. Bookending that appearance were arguably Griffin’s most exasperated fact-checks — not of her network’s hosts, but of the military pundits it has given platforms. On Saturday, retired Brig. Gen. Don Bolduc appeared on Steve Hilton’s show and leaned into more of a military presence. “This is not a time for pause right now,” Bolduc said. “We need to get in there, and we need to help them on the ground. … But we’re just sitting back and we’re not doing anything.” When pressed on exactly what he advocated, Bolduc said he was calling for “indirect fire” and “not boots on the ground, but putting great technical help on the ground.” Soon, Griffin appeared and suggested that Bolduc wasn’t qualified to talk about the things he had been invited to talk about. “I have to respond to something your previous guest, Brigadier General Bolduc, said, because he really was way off the mark in terms of talking about what the U.S. could do on the ground,” she began. She cited the fact that Putin has nuclear weapons, which is “why the U.S. military and NATO do not have troops on the ground inside Ukraine.” She concluded: “Clearly, Brigadier General Bolduc is not a student of history; he’s a politician, he ran for Senate in New Hampshire and failed. He’s not a military strategist, and to suggest that the U.S. would put indirect fire or special operations or CIA on the ground to give Putin any sort of excuse to broaden this conflict is extremely dangerous talk at a time like this.” By Sunday, Griffin appeared after as segment with retired Col. Douglas Macgregor, who went to the opposite extreme. He argued that the United States should “absolutely” just let Putin take what he wants in Ukraine — even calling for lifting sanctions. Macgregor said he was sure that Putin had “no interest in crossing the west” of Ukraine and would settle for the east. He cited Ukraine’s history of corruption and said that “more important, the population there is indistinguishable from [Russia’s]

Griffin came on and declared that she needed to correct Macgregor, “and I’m not sure that 10 minutes is enough time to do so, because there were so many distortions in what he just said.”

continues.....

Meltdown99

https://twitter.com/samramani2/status/1498684563136159753?s=21

mickeyrat

 

HughFreakingDillon

mickeyrat said:

whoa....

Fox News’s Jennifer Griffin fully loses her patience with Fox’s Ukraine punditry  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/28/fox-newss-jennifer-griffin-fully-loses-her-patience-with-foxs-ukraine-punditry/ 

Fox News’s Jennifer Griffin fully loses her patience with Fox’s Ukraine punditry By Aaron Blake February 28 at 10:33 AM EST Among the many times in which punditry can go very wrong, few rank as high as wartime. And nothing demonstrates that better than some corners of Fox News right now. Tucker Carlson has spent years suggesting maybe Vladimir Putin isn’t a bad guy. Several of its hosts wagered that the threat of a Russian invasion of Ukraine was manufactured to distract from the Biden administration’s domestic political issues — right before Russia actually invaded. A number of its pundits and hosts have seen their statements on issues like sanctions contradicted by the network’s actual reporting on the situation. Fox’s Jennifer Griffin seems to have almost completely lost patience with all of it. The Washington Post’s Jeremy Barr reported Friday on how the network’s respected longtime national security correspondent has repeatedly found herself in the position of fact-checking her network’s hosts and pundits. And it continued this weekend, with Griffin apparently becoming even more exasperated. She even went so far as to seemingly question the platform her employer has afforded some fringe figures. Barr last week recounted Griffin’s clashes with hosts of “The Five” who elevated into the manufactured-crisis conspiracy theory (she assured them this was “not some wag-the-dog situation”). When Sean Hannity pinned the blame for the situation on Biden, she assured this was a result of the policies of multiple recent administrations. She pushed back on “Fox & Friends” host Steve Doocy when he declared sanctions had somehow already proved a failure. Her biggest clash came with Harris Faulkner, who tried to end her segment after asserting the Biden administration could’ve done more, only to have Griffin cut in and note that bigger steps would mean bigger provocations of Russia. After Barr’s report, Griffin was asked about it Sunday on Fox’s “Media Buzz.” “I’m here to fact-check facts because I report on facts,” Griffin said. “And my job is to try and figure out the truth as best as I know it. I share those facts internally so that our network can be more accurate. That’s what I’ve always done. “There’s nothing different than what I’ve been doing for the last 26 years working for Fox.” If there’s one thing that’s different, though, it’s the terms in which Griffin is now talking about this. Bookending that appearance were arguably Griffin’s most exasperated fact-checks — not of her network’s hosts, but of the military pundits it has given platforms. On Saturday, retired Brig. Gen. Don Bolduc appeared on Steve Hilton’s show and leaned into more of a military presence. “This is not a time for pause right now,” Bolduc said. “We need to get in there, and we need to help them on the ground. … But we’re just sitting back and we’re not doing anything.” When pressed on exactly what he advocated, Bolduc said he was calling for “indirect fire” and “not boots on the ground, but putting great technical help on the ground.” Soon, Griffin appeared and suggested that Bolduc wasn’t qualified to talk about the things he had been invited to talk about. “I have to respond to something your previous guest, Brigadier General Bolduc, said, because he really was way off the mark in terms of talking about what the U.S. could do on the ground,” she began. She cited the fact that Putin has nuclear weapons, which is “why the U.S. military and NATO do not have troops on the ground inside Ukraine.” She concluded: “Clearly, Brigadier General Bolduc is not a student of history; he’s a politician, he ran for Senate in New Hampshire and failed. He’s not a military strategist, and to suggest that the U.S. would put indirect fire or special operations or CIA on the ground to give Putin any sort of excuse to broaden this conflict is extremely dangerous talk at a time like this.” By Sunday, Griffin appeared after as segment with retired Col. Douglas Macgregor, who went to the opposite extreme. He argued that the United States should “absolutely” just let Putin take what he wants in Ukraine — even calling for lifting sanctions. Macgregor said he was sure that Putin had “no interest in crossing the west” of Ukraine and would settle for the east. He cited Ukraine’s history of corruption and said that “more important, the population there is indistinguishable from [Russia’s]

Griffin came on and declared that she needed to correct Macgregor, “and I’m not sure that 10 minutes is enough time to do so, because there were so many distortions in what he just said.”

continues.....

how does someone like that work at that network? must be so frustrating to go to work every single day

mrussel1

It's time for non fighting residents of Kharkov and Kyiv to leave.. These cities are going to be demolished soon. And then this will turn into guerilla warfare very soon, asymmetrical style where it's squads moving through the streets.  This will be the long haul. 

Jearlpam0925

I still don't see any upside here at all. Like the short-term and long-term benefits are completely fucked for these idiots. Worst case scenario - sure, take an empty Ukraine, call it Russia or whatever you want to call it. Meld with Belarus, fine. But then you're completely shut off to the rest of the world (albeit with a few shady exceptions), your currency is garbage, and you can no longer trade nor access capital and investments outside of your own country? What's the upside to the filthy rich people there? Zero right? The only upside is Vlad being petulant.

23scidoo

https://twitter.com/MedvedevRussiaE/status/1498619523045511168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1498619523045511168%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reader.gr%2Fdiethni%2F404107%2Flive-polemos-stin-oykrania-lepto-pros-lepto-oi-exelixeis-meta-tin-eisboli-tis-rosias

23scidoo

https://twitter.com/aliostad/status/1497519061554630658?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1497519061554630658%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsauto.gr%2Fnews%2Fdite-pos-i-oukrani-trolaroun-ta-rosika-tanks-video%2F

https://twitter.com/olex_scherba/status/1498023662695419910?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1498023662695419910%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsauto.gr%2Fnews%2Fdite-pos-i-oukrani-trolaroun-ta-rosika-tanks-video%2F

mrussel1

Jearlpam0925 said:

I still don't see any upside here at all. Like the short-term and long-term benefits are completely fucked for these idiots. Worst case scenario - sure, take an empty Ukraine, call it Russia or whatever you want to call it. Meld with Belarus, fine. But then you're completely shut off to the rest of the world (albeit with a few shady exceptions), your currency is garbage, and you can no longer trade nor access capital and investments outside of your own country? What's the upside to the filthy rich people there? Zero right? The only upside is Vlad being petulant.

I definitely don't think he anticipated the response from the world, particularly Germany.  

23scidoo

A little while ago..

https://twitter.com/aldin_ww/status/1498680800572751875?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1498680800572751875%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gazzetta.gr%2Fplus%2F2094249%2Fpolemos-stin-oykrania-xekinise-o-bombardismos-sto-kiebo-oi-rosoi-htypisan-pyrgo

Jearlpam0925

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

I still don't see any upside here at all. Like the short-term and long-term benefits are completely fucked for these idiots. Worst case scenario - sure, take an empty Ukraine, call it Russia or whatever you want to call it. Meld with Belarus, fine. But then you're completely shut off to the rest of the world (albeit with a few shady exceptions), your currency is garbage, and you can no longer trade nor access capital and investments outside of your own country? What's the upside to the filthy rich people there? Zero right? The only upside is Vlad being petulant.

I definitely don't think he anticipated the response from the world, particularly Germany.  

I mean it's not good, because the logical thing to do I guess is pander to him and let him think he won something because otherwise he has every excuse in his pea brain to just start declaring war on the world because these idiots are fucked. If only I was guaranteed that non-Russian countries, or Anonymous or someone, had the definitive technology to "outgun" Russia on the tech side and disable all of their ICBM ignitions or something.

Anyway, I'm glad how we/the U.S., for the most part, have handled everything - ride in the backseat, provide guidance/defense/money to Ukraine and the EU and let them do the leading.

Jearlpam0925

OK looks like we're getting there - seems like a very big deal:

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1498695832568274946?s=20&t=4O3fXbwc-9LLbwWGah1kyA

OnWis97

HughFreakingDillon said:

he's nowhere near backed into a corner yet. he may be a bit nuts, but he's not stupid. I doubt he's going to off himself just to spite the world. 

I don't think offing himself is among the top ten things he'd do to spite the world.

Spiritual_Chaos

lastexitlondon said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

lastexitlondon said:

Of course its a possibility  this  guy is bat shit crazy. A strong possibility 

I don't think anyone has grounds for theorizing about and/or calling it "a strong possibility".

How isnt  it? He has loads and is backed into a corner. And mad

Not arguments... strong enough... to make it "a strong possibility" or not.

Spiritual_Chaos

https://twitter.com/YourAnonNews/status/1498337491056836610?s=20&t=vHux8ejJMFjdXBZiRq_k7g

https://twitter.com/YourAnonNews/status/1498405392203800583?s=20&t=vHux8ejJMFjdXBZiRq_k7g

lastexitlondon

Spiritual_Chaos said:

lastexitlondon said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

lastexitlondon said:

Of course its a possibility  this  guy is bat shit crazy. A strong possibility 

I don't think anyone has grounds for theorizing about and/or calling it "a strong possibility".

How isnt  it? He has loads and is backed into a corner. And mad

Not arguments... strong enough... to make it "a strong possibility" or not.

My opinion.  As are all of these. Opinions only

Spiritual_Chaos

lastexitlondon said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

lastexitlondon said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

lastexitlondon said:

Of course its a possibility  this  guy is bat shit crazy. A strong possibility 

I don't think anyone has grounds for theorizing about and/or calling it "a strong possibility".

How isnt  it? He has loads and is backed into a corner. And mad

Not arguments... strong enough... to make it "a strong possibility" or not.

My opinion.  As are all of these. Opinions only

Sure. My opinion is no one, especially in here, have enough data or knowledge to draw the conclusion on whether Putin is one to use a first-strike nuke or not being a strong possibility. 

History tells us no one has used one since the two in 1945.

Spiritual_Chaos

https://twitter.com/Conflicts/status/1498689718657204229?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1498689718657204229%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=

Jearlpam0925

Figuring a good way to ignore this stuff for a while, when I get home, is going to be to watch Everything Is Illuminated.  If you haven't seen it (maybe you've read the book) it's a great love song of a movie to Ukraine.