Posts
It is truly amazing to watch the mainstream mudia and the U.S. imperial establishment jerk itself up into an hysteria of righteousness over the Ukraine. Simon Tisdall of the UK FemWoke Guardian, gives the issue the usual man-hate gender twist by calling Putin “a rogue male on the rampage, threaten[ing] to start a war no one wants.”
The actual rampage is the petard that Russia is threatening the “independence” of the Ukraine by massing 100,000 troops along its border with that country. Of course, it must be said in the name of equal petardism, that Russian pieties about troops just engaging in pic-nic's and manoeuvres don't hold much vodka. Nor the claim that what it does within its borders is its own business. Uh... mobilizations of troops tend to make everyone in the vicinity rather jittery as the “massing” of troops along various borders on 30 July 1914 rather proved.
But as usual, the U.S.U.K. has a truly marvellous capacity for tunnel vision and forgetting anything over two days old. Russian troops area amassing!! Yes; does anyone ask why? Of course they do, but their answer (hostile intent! and male rage!) ignores everything that has preceded in the past 30 years. Is the cabal that runs USUK really that stupid? No, of course not. They are just hoping everyone else will be.
As a premise, it will be understood that all states have “spheres of interests” -- geographical locations which are deemed critical to either their economies and/or military defence. Mexico is unquestionably within the U.S. “sphere of interest.” Can anyone imagine what the reaction would be in Washington it Russia started funding paramilitary militias in Mexico?
You would see Murka's political class swinging from the vines wildly shrieking like enraged chimpanzees.
The Ukraine is Russia's Mexico. Punto y Final.
Russia has always had an understood sphere of influence in Eastern and Southern Europe. No one in their right mind can doubt this. This sphere is grounded in ethnic affiliation (Pan Slavism), economic relations and military necessity. Russia is essentially landlocked and access to the Baltic Sea in the north and the Black Sea in the South have always been deemed existentially critical to Russia since the days of Peter the Great.
When the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917, there arose a fear in the West that Russia would use this sphere of influence as a politico-military springboard for “fomenting revolution” in the West. In other words, the fear was that Russia (now irreconcilably opposed to the liberal democratic money making way of life) would push its sphere of influence westward.
That fear was absolutely well grounded, especially after Stalin seized the reigns. Under the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Lenin had swallowed major territorial concessions as the price of getting some leeway to establish his New Communist Harmony in Russia proper. But the collapse of Imperial Germany, suddenly altered the equation. Where there had been a wall now their was an open path. Russia went to war against Poland. (It lost and if you ask any Pole he will tell you that Poland saved the West.)
(The Russian version is that it was only defending against subversive incursions by the West into its own territory, during the Red-White Civil War. This is true enough, but it also studiously ignores Comintern Doctrine calling for international revolution, next and most proximately in Europe.)
Once Poland had bought the West some Atmenraum (breathing room), USUK and France went to work building a cordon sanitaire against the Soviet Union. The idea was to put in place a string of authoritarian-fascio-monarchies from Finland to Roumania. And it was done.
In British and French planning this was a (mirabilis dictu) a two-way cordon. As the saying went: to keep the Americans in, the Germans down and the Russians out. The French in particular were intent on squeezing Germany from both the east and west which is why France occupied the German Rhineland and had defence treaties with Czechoslovakia and Poland. What could be more ideal?
However, when the West's economic house of cards collapsed, the policy required revision. Thanks to the West's own economic stupidity (and the Depression was the result of stupidity), the West in general and Germany and Spain in particular were now fertile ground for proletarian revolution. Now the policy became: keeping the Americans in, the Russians out, and the German people down. This is what is today inappropriately called appeasement.
Why did England and the France “turn a blind eye” to the Nazis? Let's review. They had a policy of keeping Germany “down” -- i.e. indebted and militarily weak. Now they suddenly supported a man who vowed to repudiate the debt and vowed to make Germany militarily strong. So... Whitehall and the Quai d'Orsay suddenly said: “Oh yeah.... we were wrong. A strong, threatening Germany is what we really wanted all along.” Really?
I have a bridge to sell you in case you were interested.
Better to support an anti-communist dictatorship in Germany than let the Reds get a foothold in the very centre of Europe. From the Allies' point of view Germany now became the key link in the chain of containment against Russia and Revolution. But the strategy had major and obvious flaws. France had promised to “defend” Czechoslovakia if the latter were attacked. But in the days before air lifts the only way she could do this was by marching through Germany, repeating 1914 all over again. Ooops. Daladier woke up to this harsh reality at the Munich Conference. Similarly, no one in England was very bothered by Hitler's talk about lebensraum in the East. The Commies under the German boot didn't sound so terribly awful after all. The only difficulty here was that before reaching “room” in Russia, Germany would have to march through Poland. Ooops, again.
No wonder Hitler called them “little worms”.
Germany always was and remains an astonishing, dynamic country. The calculation behind appeasement was that a strong Germany could be used as a bulwark against Russia but at the same time contain its strength 'more or less' within a sphere of influence somewhere in Central Europe -- that the revived giant could be kept within a box... or maybe a slightly enlarged box give or take a Czechoslovakia or two. Of course when the Giant-in-the-Box sprung out to help defeat the Commies in Spain, no one in England or France expressed much concern about that. Yeah... Spain wasn't central Europe but who cares about Spain anyways so long as it doesn't go commie.
Well... we all know where all of this led to. The Western Allies got their cordon sanitaire against the Soviet Union, and then some. Hitler did exactly what he could have been expected to do when and, when he didn't do it in the way Britain preferred, she declared war on Germany and precipitated the Second World War. (Yes, you read that right.)
After Germany and Russia both lay in ruins, Stalin rather obviously vowed never to allow Western strangulation again. The Soviet Union moved into and occupied all of Eastern Europe and the eastern half of Germany to boot. From the Russian point of view, it made absolute sense both economically and militarily.
Once again the cry of “Containment!” went up in the West. (George F. Kennan being the town crier this time around.) Only now the cordon sanitaire ran through France and the Low Countries plus Turkey, Greece and Spain. The idiocy of the Cold War is summed up in Churchill's famous “Iron Curtain” speech. Think about it. A curtain is not an instrument of aggression. It is a shield not a sword. So now we found ourselves building a chain of containment against Russia's shield of containment. Two sides buffering against one another. Poor France. Once a player now reduced to what was in effect America's Poland, a buffer state against Russia.
The United States and the Soviet Union, having each established their containment-buffer zones, as effectuated in the NATO and Warsaw Pact alliances, now went to work confronting one another along the periphery: Korea, Taiwan, Cuba, the Congo, and Vietnam. To a certain extent these peripheral confrontations were driven by access to resources but, for the most part, they were simply ideological. Each side believed they offered a better way of organizing society. Because capitalism is a system driven by the ideal of making money, Western “ideology” could never be entirely divorced from filthy lucre. Russia imposed a plunder economy on eastern Europe, but its support of Castro's Cuba was a net economic loss. Its aim was to undermine pro-U.S. regimes in Latin America and advance the communist revolution. Similarly there was no economic advantage to America's incursion into Vietnam. It was done merely to maintain “credibility.”
And so it went, until the Soviet Union seemingly collapsed virtually over night. In actuality, the its collapse began when Nixon and Khrushchev argued over a washing machine. In what was know as the “Kitchen Debate,” Nixon showed off the latest in consumer hardware to Khrushchev arguing that no one supplied the housewives of the world with better washers and kitchen appliances. Big Nikita had no ready answer. You could see it in his downcast face. When it came to providing its people with consumer junk, the Socialist Paradise failed. First to put a dog into space, yes! Last on the the spin cycle. Khrushchev returned to the Kremlin with new orders to beat the capitalist west at their own game. The Consumer Race was on.
The demise of the Soviet Union was inevitable. Simply put, socialism -- as a system -- is not designed to churn out an endless cycle of consumer goods for its own sake. It is typically said that socialism is not “as efficient” as capitalism. That is a canard. Capitalism is an incredibly wasteful and inefficient system. What capitalism is excellent at is shifting and hiding the costs. At this, socialism sucks. Cambodia's Pol Pot understood this which is why he made consumerism a capital crime.
Nevertheless from the late 50's to the late 80's the Party of Lenin struggled to produce Ozzie and Harriet on the Volga. It was a valiant effort, the way a hunchback trying to do ballet is a valiant effort. But what did the Soviet Union in was its inability to maintain an arms race and a consumer race going at the same time. Reagan set out to bankrupt the Soviet Union and because the Soviet system was lousy at shifting and hiding costs, Reagan succeeded.
In an effort to make socialism work more efficiently to better meet the needs of Soviet citizens the Soviet leadership began to adopt elements of liberal economics, by gradually unregulating the economy and, concomitantly, freeing up the political process. At the same time they sought a rapprochement with the West. It is difficult to imagine exactly what the leadership was thinking. Tolstoy would probably have said, that the leadership was simply following its own loosening grip. Certainly, one by one of the countries in Eastern Europe and one by one of the various Asian republics that had formed part of the Soviet Union, broke away and declared independence. Finally, the citizens of Russia themselves broke away.
If the Russian leadership was at a loss within circumstances beyond their control, the West most certainly was not. It played a long, multi-faceted game aimed at undermining the Soviet Union -- a game which took full advantage of a virulently anti-communist pope who all but acted as a one man Fifth Column in Poland. The countries within the Russian grip began to squirm and the more they squirmed, the more the grip loosened and the more it loosened the more they squirmed engaging in spontaneous emigration, labor agitation, political demonstrations and demanding economic liberalization. One would have to be a fool not to think that the U.S. was not covertly assisting these movements through the device of NGO's.
But Russia was not powerless. It still controlled the state apparatus, and there were those within the various governments, most notably East Germany, that demanded a more Stalinism, not less!! The Kremlin was stuck within a dilemma of alternatives.
The critical moment came in 1989 when the Deutsches Volkes demanded reunification. Autonomy for Azerbaijan or Poland was one thing, Germany was another for the simple reason that half of Germany belonged to NATO whereas no part of Azerbaijan or Poland did. Were Poland to leave the Warsaw Pact, it would become merely a militarily neutral buffer state. A united Germany within NATO meant the abandonment of the very foundation of Russian policy in Europe since the capture of Berlin in 1945
I have not read that Russia proposed the withdrawal of West Germany from NATO as the price of unification with East Germany. If it did make such a proposal it did not lift off ground. In the end, Russia simply agreed to German re-unification within NATO. Just as astonishingly it did so on the basis of a gentleman's assurance that “with this last demand” the West would not demand more. (Where oh where had that refrain been heard before?)
It is hardly surprising that Gorbachev was almost assassinated by the hard liners. But the denouement that followed was swift. Without the cornerstone of Soviet post war “architecture” the structure fell like the proverbial dominoes. One by one, in swift successions, the Baltic and Balkan states declared their independence. In Russia itself a power struggle ensued between Stalinist hardliners, Gorbacheffian socialist liberalizers, and Yeltsin's neo-liberal capitalists. That, in gross, is the struggle that ensued in all of the territories of the former Soviet Union.
James Baker had not lied. The U.S. did not demand “one inch eastward” only a mile. Corporate operatives, NGO's and the CIA all went to work “investing” in Eastern Europe and carving up the Russian turkey for themselves. They introduced “shock treatment” market reforms in Poland, Russia and elsewhere. After all freedom is not without pain! Yeltsin, now a clueless alcoholic played the role of Herr Professor Ratt to Bill Clinton's Blue Angel. Half clown, half puppet, he allowed Russia to become the West's plaything. The loss of state control was so bad that the United States enacted legislation to assist in restoring government control over Russia's nuclear arsenal, lest Russian scientists, desperate to pay for living expenses, barter away plutonium to shady operatives.
By the end of the 1990's Russia was indeed reduced to playing the clown on stage, crowing like a cock while eggs were cracked on its pate. But whereas Herr Professor Ratt stumbled in shock and shame back to his classroom and died, a man called Vladimir Putin walked on stage to restore Russia's resolve and dignity.
The New York Slime can prattle all it wants, but Putin will go down in history as Russia's saviour. It is not easy to bring order out of chaos and Putin had his work cut out for him. First he had to stop the plundering of the country by capitalist wolves (foreign and domestic). Next he had to stabilize living standards and pensions (at least somewhat). Last but not least he had to restore Russia's military competence (the Russian fleet had literally been reduced to an assortment of rusting hulks in the Crimea). Most importantly, he had to forge a new national consensus out of the ideological cacophony.
In this latter respect, Putin was brilliant, in effect composing a Parsifal out of the themes of Russian history. He acknowledged the “mistakes” of the Communist era but did not disparage it. He paraded the glories of Imperial Russia, but made the Communist victory over Fascism the cornerstone of his new Russian nationalism. Lastly he restored the Orthodox Church to its former privileges and married it to a restored military. Communism as religion was dead. When it came to the economy, Putin adopted the Chinese model of state-directed laissez faire.
That marriage between government and corporate power is, in fact, the model pursued by all governments in this new global, neo-liberal world. The differences are those of mechanisms and degree. When Putin speaks of “our partners in the West” he is not being polite. Even as the New York Slime rails about Putin's authoritarianism, his alleged poisonings and his “interference” in the sanctity of Murkan elections, Exxon Mobil and Gazprom are happily co-venturing in the Arctic. Putin understands business.
But for all his accomplishments, Putin's Russia is in a weak position. It is not the economic power house that China became and it is nowhere equal to the United States in military power. Although Putin has taken steps to insulate his country from Western sanctions, Russia is not immune to them. Thus, Russia under Putin has been surprisingly acquiescent about the West's inching eastward. And inching eastward is Murka's New Manifest Destiny.
Actually not so new. General George C. Patton got the drift back in 1945. He understood quite clearly that Germany was not a systemic adversary. Noxious as its social and racial policies might have been (at least to some), it was still a capitalist country within the capitalist orbit. The Soviets understood this. Even Churchill understood it. Most of Europe understood it which is why (if truth be told) the Nazis had significant anti-Bolshevik support throughout Europe, from Spain to Finland. If Patton was shit-canned six feet under, it was not because he harboured the wrong object of desire but because he was crazy enough to think that the U.S. could accomplish it.
Patton completely overestimated our capacities. The idea that Germany having shed its last blood amid a scene of utter devastation was in any way capable of suddenly rising up as a Phoenix and charging East was madness. The idea that the U.S. Army was capable of rolling back the Red Army was, to put it mildly, overweening pride.
In June 1944, 20 days after D-Day, the Russians launched Operation Bagration, their own final push against the Reich. The distance from Normandy to Berlin was 1,200 km/745 miles, which was the same as the distance from the Kiev longitude to the Oder River (60 km east of Berlin). But although both sides had a roughly equal distances to traverse, the Eastern Front was immensely broad. The distance from Riga in the north to Odessa in the south amounted to 1,500 km/ or 930 miles. The Russians amassed 2,3 million troops, the Allies 1.4 million, although this was later increased and does not count American forces in Italy. The Germans, with under half the men on either front, fought the advances for 10 months. Everyone was sick of war and the notion that the Americans could now somehow launch Operation Barbarossa II was, to put it mildly, lunacy.
But Patton, Himmler and like minds were right. The two systems were incompatible. That they were, for the moment, stalemated allies did not mean that, eventually, one would not have to give way to the other. Now in 1989, that the Soviet Union collapsed, the West (i.e. the U.S.) began where it left off in 1945. What are today called “Neocons” are really only the George Patton wing of the American Establishment.
The unification of Germany brought the NATO presence up to the Oder River and, with this much achieved, the Neocons went to work. First among them was the Russophobic Pole, Zbigniew Brzezinski whose geopolitical primer, The Grand Chessboard (1997), argued that the vast Eurasian land mass (from Portugal to the Bering Straights) was the field on which America's supremacy would be ratified and challenged in the years to come. Central to his thesis was the premise that no Eurasian challenger (read Russia) should emerge to dominate Eurasia and thus also challenge U.S. global pre-eminence.
The sorts of thing Brzezinski had in mind were evidence by the fact that it was he who convinced President Carter to give aid to the Taliban in order to suck the Russians into the Afghanistan trap. (They got sucked.)
Brzezinski's book was by no means the first to point to this game. Dick Cheney's 1993 “Defense Planning Guide” operated from the same premise of maintaining U.S. “pre-eminence” and advocated various strategic moves into Eastern Europe and the Baltic States, simultaneous with incursions into the Middle East. The mentality of the American military establishment was put on full display in the Neocon white paper Rebuilding America's Defenses (September 2000), published by the Project for the New American Century, a neocon think tank for the military-industrial complex.
"Retreat ... would call America’s status as the world’s leading power into question. As we have seen, even a small failure like that in Somalia or a halting and incomplete triumph as in the Balkans can cast doubt on American credibility. The failure to define a coherent global security and military strategy during the post-Cold-War period has invited challenges; states seeking to establish regional hegemony continue to probe for the limits of the American security perimeter.
“The pressing new problem of European security – instability in Southeastern Europe – will be best addressed by the continued stability operations in the Balkans by U.S. and NATO ground forces supported by land-based air forces. Likewise, the new opportunity for greater European stability offered by further NATO expansion will make demands first of all on Tomahawk cruise missiles have been the Navy weapon of choice in recent strike operations. ground and land-based air forces. As the American security perimeter in Europe is removed eastward, this pattern will endure, although naval forces will play an important role in the Baltic Sea, eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea, and will continue to support U.S. and NATO operations ashore.
The PNAC paper became wrapped into Bush's official National Security Policy of 2002. Could it be more clear in black and white? And that policy has been American doctrine for 20 years during which time the United States (and its Tag-along Allies) invaded Iraq (which had nothing to do with rooting out weapons of mass destruction), invaded Afghanistan (which had nothing to do with “smoking out” Al-Qaeda) and, one by one, incorporated the states of Eastern Europe into NATO and the global neoliberal economy.
One really has to wrap ones mind around the warped neocon mentality. The maintenance of American preeminence and credibility requires us to roam the world seeking to deter anything and anyone who might possibly present a threat to us at some future time. Preemptive deterrence. This is the “policy” of a school yard bully, plain and simple.
It is also important to recognize that current neocon full spectrum dominance includes everything from nuclear and conventional strategic was to secret black ops. And those black ops include ostensibly spontaneous “Orange Revolutions” organized at the grass roots by NGO's and the CIA. That is why Putin expelled Western NGO's. These subversive operations then get wrapped up in aspirational sentimentalities and peddled to a gullible public by the New York Slime.
That is what happened in the Ukraine. Anyone who swallows the New York Slime's version of the Maidan Revolution (Young Millenials singing “Love, Love, Love” -- I kid you not) should pursue a career in deep throating.
To say that the Ukraine had always been within the Russian sphere of influence would be a major understatement. As stated, the two countries have been tied together in much the same sort of way the United States and Mexico are bound together by geography, history and economics. Suffice to say that as of 2010, Russia was the Ukraine's principal trading partner. In that year, Victor Yanukovych was elected president of the Ukraine. The Great Obambi even hailed his free and fair election. This was the sweet talk the precedes a seduction. Previous governments in Kiev had been making overtures to the E.U., and Yanukovych was no exception. However, a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU would have impacted Ukraine's trade agreements with Russia and Yanukovych began treading water.
The situation was complicated by the fact that although the Ukraine might have been the bread basket of the East but it was a financial basket case. It needed loans; or more accurately said more loans. In 2013 the Ukraine asked for €20 billion (US$27 billion) in loans and aid from the EU. The EU counter offered €610 million ($838 million). Russia was willing to offer $15 billion, as well as cheaper gas prices. In addition, the EU demanded major changes to Ukraine's regulations and laws, but Russia did not.
When it was perceived that Yanukovych was inclining to accept the Russian offer, protests erupted in an early Spring. When the government suppressed the protests, the West imposed sanctions and things spiralled down from there. The West wanted Ukraine on the cheap and was prepared to use subversion to get it.
As Tolstoy observed, it is impossible to strategize history. There is never any one single motive or cause for a particular event or development. Rather history is an ineffable calculus of millions of individual impulses arising from their own reasons and coalescing or diverging in time. Although Ukrainians are part of the greater Slavic family of peoples, the nation itself is polyglot being formed by myriad migrations into the country. Over time it has been part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Russian Empire, independent, and part of the Soviet Union. It is religiously divided between western and eastern rite Christians. With such an amazingly complex and convoluted history it is no surprise that everyone can cite precedents back to 890 A.D. for whatever position they want to hold. That said, its principal division today is between Russophone Ukrainians in the east and Ukrainian speakers in the west.
In 2013, there certainly were peaceful protests, in the nature of public assemblies, on the part of western Ukrainians preferring affiliation with the E.U. But generally “overlooked” (i.e. suppressed) in the Western mudia was the fact that the strongest and most vocal among these pro West protestors were those Ukrainians who were so militantly nationalistic as to be easily confused with neo-Nazis. (And that's being as diplomatic as possible.) Chief among these were the Svoboda party, the descendant of WW2 collaborators with the Germans, Pravdi Sektor and, most recently, the Azov Brigade, the latter two being open and active militias, with a strong anti-semitic accent. (Unfortunately, in its crusade to sanitize reality, Youtube has taken down many of these “offensive” and “distressing” videos, meaning that one is forced to rely on official media slime for his dosage of “truth.”)
The European remembers of the EU and NATO were reluctant to push things too hard but the United States was not. “Fuck EU” said Undersecretary of State, Virginia Nuland, who funnelled support to anyone willing to take on Yanukovych by whatever means. Guess whom.
Once the “militants” physically toppled the government, Western technocrats and advisors came in to tidy up the situation by installing more “acceptable” puppets. No doubt western agents pulled some of the militants aside and strongly advised them not to flash 14-88 signs from within Parliament..... jeezus!
To anyone sitting in Moscow, the end-game of all this was clear. Ukraine was being dragged by force and violence into the EU/NATO sphere of influence, and with the dragging would come Crimea, home port of the Russian southern fleet. The Kremlin knew all about The Grand Chessboard and “pushing America's security eastward”. Putin reacted swiftly and unequivocally, as he should have. No leader anywhere can allow his country to deprived of its major naval installation.
Needless to say, the western mudia, particularly in the United States, went into paroxysms of hysteria about yet another Hitler threatening peace and democracy world wide. If anyone was threatening peace in the region it was the United States which managed to get people to forget that Yanukovych had been legitimately elected and now had been run out office in what was a violent coup spear-headed by neo-nazis who thereupon marched into Eastern Ukraine and burned down a building full of union leaders. Nice.
The United States (with its Euro Puppies wagging their tails in line) then proceeded to work on a soft-integration into NATO by supplying Ukraine with western technology and arms. One of the recipients of back-channel US funding was the Azov Brigade, which was told in so many words that needed to tone down its Nazi rhetoric (as in “if you want money from 'the Jews in Washington' you better be nice to the Jews in the Ukraine”.) Azov complied but no one in the Ukraine is fooled.
Ukraine is clearly in the sights of the neocons in Washington, as well as their puppies in Brussels. Incorporation of the country into the NATO “defence structure” is the next “inch eastward.” It is the next step toward amassing troops and missiles on Russia's border. Is it any surprise that Putin has amassed troops of his own?
According to USUK, Putin has a lot of cheek demanding assurances that Ukraine will not join NATO. Secretary Blinken piously states that as an independent and sovereign nation, the Ukraine is free to join or not join whomever and whatever it wants. Far be it for us to tell them what to do! That is true. Ukraine can apply to whomever it wants, but that does not mean that the application has to be accepted. NATO has its own “sovereign” right to decide who it wants to accept into its club and whose acceptance might be more trouble that it is worth.
People in the West, particularly in the United States, are very skilled at not putting two and two together. Just this past August, America withdrew from another one of its victories in a foreign land. No doubt the librul readers of the New York Slime heaved a sight of relief. “Ahh... at last we've learned to love peace and stay at home.” But what was it Biden said in announcing the withdrawal?
"And here’s a critical thing to understand: The world is changing. We’re engaged in a serious competition with China. We’re dealing with the challenges on multiple fronts with Russia. We’re confronted with cyberattacks and nuclear proliferation.
We have to shore up America’s competitive[ness] to meet these new challenges in the competition for the 21st century. And we can do both: fight terrorism and take on new threats that are here now and will continue to be here in the future.
New? Ha ha. He just paraphrased Dick Cheney's Defence Planning Guide and ZBig's Chessboard. There is nothing new in this. The Ukraine is a pivotal flank in this new upcoming contest for Eurasia.
None of this is necessary. It is the result of a nation that, drunk on power, has publicly proclaimed that it will brook no compromises to its preeminence. Restoration of sanity lies with the German government, which alone has the clout to put an end to the insanity and which, if it will only overcome its historical masochism, has every interest in promoting cooperation and not conflict with Russia.
©woodchipgazette 2022
Maps as per fair use and courtesy B.B.C.
No comments:
Post a Comment