|
Continuing a topic from the previous thread...Charlz Guybon posted:Can't he sell them the ships to someone else? Surely there's a market out there for them. India for instance has been greatly expanding their navy of late. Well, he's pulled the delivery of the sale, so who knows, maybe he will. To be clear, as I said in the previous thread, I'm glad Hollande said he couldn't deliver the ships that Russia bought. It was the right thing to do. But it's kind of dumb to condemn him for not doing it immediately when it probably is going to be the final nail in his political coffin.
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
Pakled posted:Zybourne Clock. The most infamous ill-fated goon project. As opposed to the most pervasive ill-fated goon project, ie: not dying alone.  Sergiu64 posted:Interesting article in Kievpost yesterday: Boy, this is bleak. Talk about dying for nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:The Russians don't seem to be in a hurry though, taking their sweet time going for Mariupol let alone down to Crimea or to Kharkiv. Yeah, I figured that was their strategy: create a permanent crisis in the region that the Ukrainian army can't put down on its own. It seems like the smart strategy - very Sherman-esque.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Present posted:I think he's referring to Russia's historical obsession with retaking and re-christian orthodoxing Constantinople. Given how dickish a lot of Turkish politicians have been about trying to turn Hagia Sophia back into a Mosque, it might be a lateral move. (there needs to be a crying Byzantine smiley here)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
vegetables posted:I take it "no Clancychat" means "don't discuss the possibility of Baltic incursion, despite this now being openly talked about in several mainstream news outlets" That says more about how dumb mainstream news outlets are, than about that actually being a likely turn of events.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
MODS CURE JOKES posted:I think there's a real difference between "THIRD ROME!!!! I'm still pretty firmly of the opinion that the environment hasn't changed all that much, actually, at least as far as Putin's objective is concerned. The idea was always to keep Ukraine from falling into the West's strategic orbit, particularly in the form of NATO. He has thus far been successful; now the best way for him to make sure that success sticks is to create a permanent crisis in the Donbas to make sure that Ukraine remains weak, divided, and "not NATO material."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2014 18:42
|
|
" and "Russia forming a corridor to their Ethnic exclave". Like, the sort of difference that bridges the gap between Tom Clancy and Real loving Life. How many of us were just so sure and so serious about Putin not openly invading Ukraine? This is a new environment, previous calculus is clearly irrelevant.
|
The New Black posted:Also discussing the weird fixation some Russians have with the Byzantine Empire is pretty interesting to me. Well, it's not THAT weird - the Russians had long-standing cultural ties to the Byzantines, and when Constantinople fell, Russia was the big Orthodox country that still stood. Since they genuinely believed that they had the true, legitimate, non-heretical version of Christianity, were the ones on the front lines of driving back the Turkic hordes, were connected through marriage to the last Byzantine ruling dynasty, and were continually getting stabbed in the back by Catholics to their immediate West, it seemed to them like a pretty clear analogy between them and Eastern Rome. Now, obviously, one can dispute how legitimate this claim to the Byzantine geopolitical/cultural inheritance is, but there's a reason why it's such a big part of the Russian historical identity. Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Sep 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Zohar posted:Agree with these. For example I'd say the idea of some sort of low-level Russian proxy incursion in the Baltics is, if not likely, at least within the realm of imagination, which is surely part of why the US and NATO are so interested in reinforcing their support for that region at the moment. Well, that and the joys of coalition politics. A Russian proxy incursion into Poland and the Baltics is extremely unlikely at this point, but it's tough to blame them for not feeling quite as assured by this. So they're screaming for more NATO reinforcements to make sure such an incursion stays extremely unlikely. Genuinely beautiful. God bless you.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Mojo Threepwood posted:-Does the Ukrainian Air Force operate against the Russian driven columns, or is their anti-air too good for that? The separatists already managed to take down way too many Ukrainian planes and helicopters on their own, so I imagine Kiev isn't going to send planes directly against the Russians anytime soon.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:The last Roman Emperor was Kayser-i Rum Mehmed VI Please. No true Roman Emperor would go out as pathetically as he did. Constantine XI went out like a badass, cutting down janissaries until he got dogpiled.  e: Also, this is a thing. And I have it, and it is glorious.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Present posted:I'm not going to split hairs. Bottom line is many people from the Donetsk/Lugansk region are literally afraid of getting murdered/raped/eaten by Kiev and by Ukrainian army and by Ukrainians from the western part of the country. And I get that it's not their fault, but when they pick up guns and start abducting people for having a Ukrainian flag decal on their lovely Soviet era car, well, then it gets me. I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that under Nunn-Lugar, Russia closed its last few plutonium-producing reactors back in 2010. The notion that this means the Russian nuclear arsenal has somehow expired is completely erroneous, though. e: 2010, not 2008. I think it was ordered closed in 2008, because I remember I wrote a paper on it. Majorian fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The fact that they may not be able to maintain them in the future however, is a fact. It's also a fact that it's going to be a while before they actually hit that point. e: I mean, I'm not happy about that fact, but it's kind of the truth, and it's wishful thinking to act like Russia isn't going to be a strategic power anytime soon. Majorian fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Ragingsheep posted:http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault It has been, but I don't think it's gotten the discussion it deserves yet. I think Mearsheimer goes a little overboard in saying it's "all the West's fault," but I also think it's intentional hyperbole, meant to underline his main point. Otherwise, he's 100% correct: NATO really did help precipitate this crisis. It was unbelievably stupid for the US and its European allies to think that expanding into former Warsaw Pact states wouldn't be considered provocative, and bring about unintended consequences. As he puts it: quote:Washington may not like Moscow’s position, but it should understand the logic behind it. This is Geopolitics 101: great powers are always sensitive to potential threats near their home territory. After all, the United States does not tolerate distant great powers deploying military forces anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, much less on its borders. Imagine the outrage in Washington if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico in it. Logic aside, Russian leaders have told their Western counterparts on many occasions that they consider NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukraine unacceptable, along with any effort to turn those countries against Russia -- a message that the 2008 Russian-Georgian war also made crystal clear. quote:But most realists opposed expansion, in the belief that a declining great power with an aging population and a one-dimensional economy did not in fact need to be contained. And they feared that enlargement would only give Moscow an incentive to cause trouble in eastern Europe. The U.S. diplomat George Kennan articulated this perspective in a 1998 interview, shortly after the U.S. Senate approved the first round of NATO expansion. “I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies,” he said. “I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anyone else.” When George loving Kennan is saying that, you should probably listen.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
Forgall posted:Was Ukraine actually going to join NATO? Yup-they made it to the Action Plan phase, with NATO officials outright saying "Georgia and Ukraine will join NATO."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:As for NATO expansion, just because something is provocative doesn't mean it is wrong. Russia has a lengthy history of aggression, oppression, and general misrule that made numerous countries want future protection against it. I don't blame them, but it's not like NATO was wise to let them in, or come so close, in Ukraine and Georgia's case - especially if its willingness to protect those states from an aggressive Russia would be in question. Plus, as Mearsheimer points out, the US would be alarmed if Mexico suddenly aligned itself with China.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Runaktla posted:While true about NATO threats to Russia, being a satellite nation to Russia does suck balls and if it takes joining NATO to get some protection from Russian influence well then so be it. Doesn't that cut both ways, though? If admitting Ukraine as a full member risks making Russia an enemy, perhaps it's in NATO's best interest to not do it?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
SoggyBobcat posted:What's Russia going to do about it? Attack a NATO member? Veto UNSC resolutions, more-openly sponsor regimes hostile to the US, build up their nuclear arsenal again, refuse to help us extract our troops in Afghanistan - these are all areas where it would be good to have Russia's cooperation. Also, the West royally hosed Russia over in the 90s, when they tried to play by our rules, so the whole "they should have behaved better" line isn't going to convince them. katlington posted:It is the west's fault for not rebuffing eastern europes attempts to extricate themselves from soviet hegemony. Yes, everything you disagree with is tantamount to rape/domestic abuse apologists. Thank you for trying to make a complex debate more black-and-white. Majorian fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
Malleum posted:Why does Russia have to answer for every sin of the Soviet Union? The Union collapsed. Russia is not communist. It is not the same government or people that it was 20 years ago. I can understand a country disentangling itself from the Soviet clusterfuck, but why does everyone want to be so brazenly antagonistic? Russians were victims of the Soviets too. I really wish somebody in NATO leadership, or the Clinton Administration, had asked that question 20 years ago. Nowadays I can't blame people for the comparison, since Russia is the clear aggressor in this case. But it does need to be understood that NATO blunders played a major role in getting us into this mess.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
SoggyBobcat posted:So a new Cold War then? Because Russia would lose (again), except this time it won't take forty years. That's not really the point, though - the point is nobody would benefit from that. (except for defense contractors)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:Hopefully today will bring an end to the violence. I would like that. I was pleased to see that the separatist leadership, such as it is, agreed to the ceasefire. Berke Negri posted:Obama's whole "reset" policy was an attempt to try and warm up relations with Russia with a more bi-lateral relationship but obviously it didn't pan out so well or was too little too late. I think it's more "too little too late" than anything else. Bush really, really, really hosed up the US' relations with Russia, and the fact that Obama kind of hemmed and hawed over the ABM sites in Eastern Europe didn't help.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
SoggyBobcat posted:I guess it really doesn't matter, since things seem to be heading in that direction regardless. I don't think it has to. If the US and its NATO allies would make an ironclad agreement with Russia that Ukraine and Georgia don't join NATO, and instead stay nonaligned, I think a new Cold War could be pretty easily averted.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
Typo posted:That being said, West Germany actually accepts German responsibility in WW2 and paid reparations, whereas the current Russian government basically don't seem to think there was anything wrong with Soviet foreign policy. They actually did seem pretty intent on turning over a new leaf on the foreign policy front in the early 90's. To the point where Yeltsin publicly stuck his neck out to try to join NATO, NATO blatantly snubbed him, and he had to backpedal humiliatingly. I honestly can't think of a better way to signal that trying to play by the West's rules would not work for Russia.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:A definitive statement like this would probably be almost as politically bad domestically as if Putin started acting in good faith in declaring not to invade Ukraine. Eh, I don't think it would be that damaging - most Americans aren't really interested in committing NATO troops and money to Ukraine, and most Russians would probably be content with not having NATO troops, nukes, and ABMs stationed along the Russian border. quote:By this point after everything Russia has done it is not really possible to back down in at least statements (even though the window for Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO was a decade ago It was actually more like four years, and that was mostly because Yanukovych managed to get elected. When NATO issues a statement that quite literally says "NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO," (at the 2008 Bucharest Summit) you can't blame Moscow for being a little concerned. SoggyBobcat posted:Russia doesn't want just a "non-aligned" Ukraine though, it wants a Ukraine that's politcally neutered and subserviant to it's interests - see all of Russia's rhetoric about "federalizing" Ukraine. There's no way Ukraine agrees to that, even if the West does. And NATO doesn't just want Ukraine non-aligned either. That's why it's a compromise. Ukraine may still want to join NATO, but guess what? It's not only up to Ukraine. It's up to NATO as well. Majorian fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
SoggyBobcat posted:What? How is this a "compromise" if Russia gets everything they want? Nope - they don't get Ukraine in their strategic orbit either. The Russian government would love to have Ukraine back as an integral part of the Russian Empire. If its status was codified to be more like Finland's, however, that would be a good compromise for both sides. quote:Ukraine will continue to drift towards the E.U. (because Ukrainians have voices too, you know), and it will do so even faster with Russia under direct control of the most pro-Russian parts of the country. And I think that's a good thing. The EU isn't the same thing as NATO. e: To elaborate, the EU isn't a strategic military alliance, as NATO is. It's political and economic, and it wasn't founded to be an anti-Russia coalition of states. It doesn't have the same baggage as NATO. Ukraine joining the EU is not nearly as provocative as it joining NATO. Sergg posted:If Ukraine didn't want me to hurt her, she wouldn't have looked at that other country like that. Yes, that's really what people are arguing here. Not that NATO promised too much to Ukraine and Georgia in the 90's and 2000's, and now should probably back off before it makes more unfulfillable promises. Majorian fucked around with this message at 08:57 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
SoggyBobcat posted:Majorian, you realize this whole crisis was caused by Yanukovych renegading on a deal with the E.U. and accepting an offer from Russia, right? Russia doesn't want Ukraine in the E.U. either. Yes, I do understand this, but it's not something about which they're as militant as they are with joining NATO. There was quite a bit of buildup to this crisis before Yanukovych reneged on the Maidan deal - you realize that, right? DarkCrawler posted:There's literally nothing "codified" to stop Finland from joining NATO right at this moment except that we don't want to. Russia doesn't want to give Ukraine even the choice which is loving ludicrous. Yes, Ukraine should have a choice in who it wants to align with, but other states should also have a choice in whether or not they want to align with Ukraine. If the smart move for NATO is to not accept Ukraine or Georgia (which it is), then it shouldn't accept them as members.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 09:32
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:Oil industry was cut between well-known Russian oligarchs, TNK became jointly owned with BP only in the 00s. Black metallurgy - same, cut between Russians, Severstal and Evraz became international companies with Russians at the head in the 00s. Chemical industry - the largest company, Sibur, was privatised in the late 90s with Gazprom in the lead; Uralkali - cut by Russians; Akron - by foreign investors. My Imaginary GF posted:Something like that, yeah. Wholesale Russian crony capitalism. Here's a really good op-ed from 1992 detailing the US' and IMF's role in pushing Shock Therapy on Russia. Imposing a rigid economic regime was a necessary condition of foreign aid. So no, you both are objectively wrong - the West actually did play a pretty major role in the Russian economic doldrums of the 90's. Majorian fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
Hambilderberglar posted:So because the IMF pushed shock therapy on Russia they're now entitled to behave as they do? Nobody here is saying that, and you know it. Or, if you don't, you should know it, because I've made it pretty drat clear that Putin and Russia are the bad guys in this situation.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
Hambilderberglar posted:So what is the purpose of pointing out that the West and IMF pushed shock therapy on Russia? It goes a long way in explaining why Russia is as mistrustful of interference in their traditional sphere of influence by the West. Many Russians genuinely feel like they tried to open up as a society after the Cold War, and play by our rules economically, politically, and geopolitically - and we just stabbed them in the back. Yes, there's plenty of responsibility to be doled out on both sides, but the point is, these are major blunders that the West doesn't tend to acknowledge all that much. We tend to see the 90's as a time in which we basked in victory over the Communist system, the prosperity that a globalized economy seemed to be affording us, etc. It's time for the West to gain a broader perspective on that era, if it hopes to understand (not justify) why Russia behaves as it does.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Foreign aid comes with conditions. If you don't want those conditions, you're free to not take the money. Ultimately, it was a Russian decision to take the aid and abide by the requisite conditions; there were plenty of other options for Russia to follow. Like what, exactly? e: Also, that's a pretty disingenuous argument you're making: "Oh, so what if Russia believed us when we told them they should follow our economic prescriptions? They shouldn't have believed us, the rubes!" Majorian fucked around with this message at 09:53 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Sell mineral rights to multinationals. Demilitarize while also increasing taxes upon the economic elites. Expand the independence of the judiciary and ensure timely civil servant payments. Increase taxes on luxury goods and impose strict and high sin taxes, collected by a bureaucracy which isn't stuffed with Soviet cronies, to curb alcohol consumption and reduce healthcare costs. Enter negotiations for a full nuclear disarmament. These are all interesting long-term ideas, but when your economy is cratering and you desperately need foreign aid to rebuild, they don't exactly cut it. quote:E: Well, that's great, but you have to understand - that's not how they see it. And they're the people we need to convince to stop invading Ukraine, not you.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Or, you can take the punch and accept a lower quality of life and higher taxes for everyone, including the elites. And actually have it happen. The IMF should have probably made those the conditions for badly-needed aid then, shouldn't they have? quote:You can't convince a side with whom you have no leverage. The only leverage we have with Russia is force, and the threats thereof. Wrong. We can promise that Ukraine will not be allowed into NATO. You're seriously deluded if you think we can force them to do much more than guarantee Ukraine's neutrality.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 10:12
|
|
|
orcane posted:You're laughable, as usual. For a start that's not our call to make. It sends the message that spheres of influence are an acceptable concept in 2014 and Ukraine (and whatever country Putin wants influence over next) has no agency and we should just back down whenever Putin's feelings are hurt. Actually, it is entirely "our" call to make. NATO decides who gets to join NATO, not Ukraine. Whether or not spheres of influence hurt your delicate sensibilities could not possibly have less relevance to this debate; major powers have spheres of influence. They always have, and always will. That doesn't make it okay, but endlessly bleating "Russia shouldn't have a sphere of influence!  " isn't going to stop Russia from having a sphere of influence - nor is there much the US can do at this point to stop them from having one.quote:Equally laughable is that you think this will solve anything. Putin the Strongman doesn't care about promises. He cares about facts and if he can just invade and occupy his neighbours why should he negotiate a contract. Because all available evidence suggests that he's not interested in rampant conquest - he's interested in having a weak, divided Ukraine that isn't part of NATO. Who would he try to conquer, anyway? NATO countries? He's not an idiot. e: Also, you don't get to call other people laughable when you make statements as idiotic as this: quote:We tried this in moderation and it didn't work, Yeah, no we didn't, actually. We put out a statement saying "These states [Georgia and Ukraine] will join NATO" and built ABM sites in Russia's backyard. Before the crisis even started, the National Endowment for Democracy's president, Carl Gershman, wrote this in the Washington Post: quote:“Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents. [...] Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.” Statements and actions like these may make you personally feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but acting like they won't have consequences is the height of idiocy. Majorian fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'd argue that spheres of influence are an increasingly outdated concept in an era of :friedman: globalization, and that their primary use is now rhetorical. It would be nice if they were outdated, but unfortunately, political development isn't always linear. States or regions sometimes move away from globalization and back towards protecting perceived regional and parochial interests. Plus, let's face the facts, a lot of "globalized" economic powers still have spheres of influence.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Sure sounds like appeasement. At least, as Kennedy argues, Chamberlain only appeased to give time to rebuild the military. We don't need to rebuild our military; we don't need to appease. We're not the ones invading another nation without a mandate after being warned not to. No, but we do need Russia's support on a host of other geopolitical issues. It would only be appeasement if we had other options beyond what we've been doing already, but we really don't. As powerful as we are, we can't actually project it that effectively into Ukraine without potentially triggering a war with Russia, and that would certainly be a worse outcome than anything we're looking at right now. quote:The more I think on it, why should we promise Russia anything? I was unaware that Russia had a voice in who NATO accepts as members. If they want that voice, perhaps they should apply for membership. Yeltsin actually really stuck his neck out to try to join NATO, and NATO snubbed him. It was a really big mistake on NATO's part.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Gorau posted:So if Google translate is any good (probably not) that article is saying that the FSB caught the guy inside Russia, yet we have evidence the guy was abducted. What the hell are they thinking in Russia? What good can come off this? TASS has an English translation of the piece now: quote:An officer of the Estonian security police was detained on Friday on the territory of Russia’s north-western Pskov region while he was conducting an undercover operation, the public relations center of the Federal Security Service told ITAR-TASS.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:To make a point, presumably. Yup: "Don't interfere directly, NATO." Finlander posted:This is an act of war, isn't it? And right after Obama promised to have Estonia's back. I guess we're really gonna see how well Article 5 stands. I think you may be overreacting.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:From @bishopk (BBC journo): For all my criticisms of NATO policy, let it never be said that I don't think the separatist leaders are truly awful people, because I definitely do. HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:As for calling Ukraine the Ukraine: It's not the Germany or the Poland, and it sounds just as stupid when you put that article before Ukraine. I knew I forgot to put something in the new OP yesterday. To be fair, that is the grammatically correct way to say it in Russian. But yeah, I try to call Ukraine what most Ukrainians want their country to be called.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Fabulous Knight posted:Itar-Tass: FSB arrested an Estonian security official in Russia, with pistol, money & spy gear. Estonia says he was abducted from Estonia. Impossible to know for sure, but given that it's the FSB...probably reasonable to be skeptical of their version. Lucy Heartfilia posted:Can someone finally assassinate Putin, please? Please don't wish this. He will almost certainly be replaced by someone much, much, MUCH worse.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
DrPop posted:No it isn't. There aren't any articles in the Russian language. No, but when using it with a preposition, it's "на Украине," ie: "on the Ukraine," which is to say "on the edge/frontier." It's not "in Ukraine."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
Finlander posted:Well, now that Putin's kidnapping people from across the border, in loving NATO COUNTRIES, no less, what's gonna be next? We don't know for sure that the guy was kidnapped across the border. It's still bad if the FSB arrested him in Russia for a bullshit reason, which is probably what happened, but it's not exactly Article 5-worthy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2014 17:46
|
|