Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

History

Donald Trump at G7: ‘Crimea is Russian because everyone there speaks Russian’

The Donald reportedly awestruck the G7 by what we all know – Crimea is Russia

Published

on

1,679 Views

Donald Trump just blew the minds of G7 leaders, when he, according to Buzzfeed, casually said:

“Crimea is Russian because everyone who lives there speaks Russian.”

That one sentence was enough to trigger lamentation, and impotent helpless rage in the stenographers union, also known as western media. Trump also allegedly said that Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

According to Transparency International, after more than 4 years from the “revolution of dignity” Ukraine has 130 rank in corruption perception, among 176 states, “out-performed” by such countries as Guatemala, Nigeria, Turkmenistan and Somalia.

This is something Ukrainians are all aware of, as they suffer daily under a government that literally tried to legalize corruption.

NO JOKE: Ukraine coup regime introduces bill to legalize corruption

Buzzfeed claimed that Trump told this to G7 leaders via “two diplomatic sources”, who just so happen to be anonymous. Half of the sources the corporate media uses these days have been anonymous lately.

Still, it’s no secret Trump has been known to, at times, say reasonable things about Russia, as he seems to understand at least in theory, that ‘getting along with Russia is a good thing’. He certainly says it many times, but the jury is still out on whether he means it, or is actually capable of achieving better relations. To be clear, it’s not Russia which has done anything to cause the bad relations.

While we don’t have a video of Trump saying those words, he has recently spoken on camera about Russia in relation to the G7.

Specifically, Trump said:

Russia should be in this meeting. Why are we having a meeting without Russia being in the meeting. I would recomend Russia should be in the meeting, it should be a part of it. Whether you like it or not, and it may not be politically correct, but we have a world to run, and at the G7, which used to be the G8, they through Russia out. They should let Russia come back in, because we should have Russia at the negotating table.

Trump was referencing the fact that Russia was expelled from the G8, which then became the G7, when Russia was accused of invading Crimea, even as it’s pro-Russian people voted to rejoin Russia in a democratic referendum. All that considered, Trump’s comment about Russia being in the G7, and his allegedly stating that Crimea is Russian, triggered the Western media, who just couldn’t handle the truth, and basic logic. Below is a tweet that sums up the western reaction:

Suffice to say, Trump saying that Crimea is Russian drove his haters, and the Russophobes crazy.

It must be remembered, however, that as of now, Buzzfeed is the original source for this story, even as it’s been reported on by RT, as well as many mainstream sites like The Hill, The Daily Beast, and others.

Ever still, without definitive proof, like a direct statement from Trump, or video evidence, we must remember that as of now, this is only based on reports.

It’s possible Trump said it, as he has been known to say surprisingly sober things about Russia occasionally, at least when compared to his colleagues.

It’s also possible it’s simply fake news, designed to get  #Russiagate cultists, and the #resistance movement “screeching”, as RT put it. Even if he said and meant every word of it, in this climate, and for that above reason, it’s highly likely he may deny it, or simply deny to comment on it, and so we may never know whether or not he said it.

Still, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s completely true. Crimea is Russia, however, Trump’s view seems to be only influenced by basic logic. He knows that the population of Crimea is mostly ethnic Russian, so it seems natural that Crimea is Russian, however there is more to it.

Ukraine itself, her people and her history, are in fact, Russian.

How are Ukrainians Russians?

And let me be clear, I am not saying that Ukraine is currently, or should (or should not) be a member of the Russian Federation. The only way for this to happen, is for the Ukrainian people to choose to join Russia, as Crimeans have already done. When I say Ukraine is Russian, what I am trying to say, is that it is Rusian.

Ukrainians are Rusians

Ukrainian cities, people, culture, and language are descended from Kievan Rus’, along with Russia and Belarus equally. These three peoples are all Rus’ folk. When I say they are Rusians, in this case, I do not mean Carpatho-Russian/Rusyn, though they to belong to Rus, but I am referring to the Ancient Land of Rus’, the first East Slavic State

Kievan Rus’ – ancient Russia

Ukrainians don’t deny that the ancient nation which existed on the territory of modern Ukraine was called Rus’. They claim it as their own, in fact, calling it Ukraina-Rus’ (adding the word Ukraine to it, which was not used historically for the nation).

The Borderland of Rus’

The word Ukraine, originally meant, and still means, borderland, a fact supported by even official Ukrainian language academic sources.

The word Ukraine even appears in a 16th-century translation of the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 19:1), called the Peresopnytsia Gospel, in which the word Ukraine refers to the shoreline, of either the Jordan River, or the Sea of Galilee.

Historically, the term for what Ukrainians considered “Ancient Ukraine”, but in reality was the motherland of Modern Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians equally, are Rus’.

Ukrainians do not deny their connection to Rus’, but they simply claim that they are true descendants of the citizens of this state, as opposed to Russians. That is absurd, if you think about it. The map below shows Kievan Rus’ was spread equally among the territories of the modern Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. How are Berlin folk more German than Bavarians?

Kievan Rus’ principalities in shades of green. Moscow is not yet a great city, but would be located near Vladimir-Suzdal.

If Ukrainians are Rusian, why are they called Ukrainian?

Ukrainians, or rather, the current forces in power, within Ukraine, claim that they are the true descendants of Rus, as noted, they think they’re more Rusian than the Russians. If one thinks about that for a moment, they realize it is ridiculous. If Rus’ is the state, then the obvious ethnonym for its people would be Rusian, or Rusky.

From Rus’ to Russia – Ot Rusi do Rossii

The extra s, in Russian, is a result of Russian people choosing to use the Greek spelling for Rus’ – Rossia, to reflect the belief that Moscow was (is) the Third Rome, when Ivan the Great married Sophia Paloelogos, the niece of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Emperor.

Eventually, the term Rus’ in Russian began to refer to the ancient period, before Ivan the Great in the 15th century, and Rossia began to be used for modern Russia, from the Renaissance period onward.

It is obvious, however, that Russia is related to the word Rus’, and likewise, Belarus is clearly related as well, but how do you get Ukraine from Rus? Simple…you don’t.

The Ukrainian identity was pushed on the native people of the modern Western Ukraine (Galicia and Bukovina provinces), who called themselves historically Ruthenians (which is Latin for Rusian), but were encouraged to replace this word entirely with Ukrainian.

This was part of the plot of the Austro-Hungarian government, with the aim to root out in those people, their self identification as closely related to Russians, and their growing aspirations to join Russian Empire.

The grim history of Ruthenian oppression before WWI, and their mass repressions and murders in 1914-1917 by Austria-Hungary is comprehensively described by Rostislav Ischenko in his book “Galicia vs Novorossia: the future of Russian World

Different parts of modern Ukraine, after the 1300s, were occupied and ruled by many different powers, especially Poland-Lithuania and Austro-Hungary. It was from these Empires, that some Ukrainians developed a mentality that they were different from Russians. It was an intentional plan – divide and conquer.

Before that came to pass, Ukraine was a part of the Ancient Rus’, however, it was the invasion of the Mongolians that began the division, when Kiev fell in 1240, ending the Kievan Rus period. The territory of what is now modern Russia remained under Mongol Yoke, while the territory of modern Ukraine and Belarus would be dominated by Poland and Lithuania, who by the 16th century, would merge into a single state – the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Europe in 1402

During the Mongol-Tatar Yoke (1237-1480)  Russians had to pay tribute to the Golden Horde (Mongols) and Russian princes had to receive as confirmation of their power “yarlyks” from Mongol khans.

Still, Mongols did not intermingle much with Russians, nor did they attempt to change their religion in a major way. Mongols were steppe nomads, and unlike Europeans, they had little interest in physically occupying and culturally/ethnolinguistically assimilating Europeans, like Russians, who were too foreign to them.

They left the Russians be, so long as they accepted this vassal relationship, but this also meant that Russians would still be able to think independently, not being ruled by a people who wanted to ethnically erase them. There was still room for Russian national development, so Russia eventually overthrew the Mongols, when the Moscowite princes managed to reunite other principalities of the former Kievan Rus.

Ukraine, however, was not so lucky to be occupied by an Empire that did not care to meddle in their internal affairs.

From Rus’ to Ukraine

Culturally similar Slavic Poles, and their Lithuanian partners heavily influenced the culture, and day to day life of Ukraine, as they ruled and occupied it. Ukraine, or rather, what was the central and western parts of Kievan Rus’, was partitioned into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and their self-rule ceased to exist completely.

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth ruled Ukraine, and began to try and change the people, to make them more similar to their Polish-Catholic overlords. This culminated in the Ukraine of Brest (1595-1596), a treasonous union, when the Vatican got some Orthodox Bishops to unite with the Roman Catholic Church, betraying the locals who were Orthodox Rusians (Ruthenians). They went to bed Orthodox, and woke up Catholic.

Reunification of Russia and Ukraine

Eventually, for this and many reasons, including severe economic oppression of Rusians, the Cossacks, Orthodox warriors who lived in the wild fields of Southern Ukraine united under Bogdan Khmelnitsky, and in 1654, drove the Poles away from the central Ukraine, and decided to pledge allegiance to the Russian Czar to reunite with Russia. When they resisted the West, and rejoined their people, Zaporozhian Cossacks (the ancestors of many Ukrainians), did in 1654, what Crimeans did in 2014.

Pereyaslav Rada of 1654, by Mikhail Khmelko “Forever with Moscow, Forever with the Russian People”

This map below shows the evolution of the Ukraine’s territory. Notice how Austro-Hungary eventually ruled far Western Ukraine, and the further west you go, the longer it was until union with Russia. Austro-Hungary kept control of Galicia and Bukovina, and it was from there, they forced many Ruthenians to identify as Ukrainians, in the 19th century, up until WW1. To be clear, there was no true ethnic difference between a Ruthenian or a Ukrainian, it was not like they were two separate nations.

The name Ukraine was rather a cultural project, designed to make Ruthenians forget their connection to Rus’, and make them more docile vassals of western powers.

They wanted them to forget all about ‘Holy Rus’, Great Rus’, Orthodox Rus’, and by extension, not wish to recreate Kievan Rus’, by joining with Russia.

This was described extensively by famous Russian-Ukrainian Saint Lavrenty of Chernigov.

Crimea

Crimea, which had been ruled by Tatars since the beginning of Mongol-Tatar Yoke, had never a part of Ukraine at any point in its history. It began as a Greek colony, and then became a part of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire.

In 1475, the Ottoman Empire conquered the Genoese colonies, and also the last bastion of the Byzantine Empire, the Principality of Theodoro, inhabited by Orthodox Christians (Greeks, Alans, Goths, etc.) by up to 200 thousand people.

The maps above shows the point at which Crimea was rejoined with Russia. Crimea’s history essentially goes, in a very abridged way:

  • Ancient peoples: Greeks/Scythians, Persians, 600 B.C to 63 B.C.
  • Roman Empire 63 B.C.
    • Eastern Roman Empire 800s to 1220s Mongol invasion. Tatars spread across all of the Pontic Steppe and Crimea.
  • Venise and Genose briefly rule in 13th century
  • Crimean Khanate begins in 1449, and continues until 1783
    • Between 1475-78, Ottomans invade, establish presence in what is now Southern Ukraine, Crimean khanate becomes vassal of Ottomans.
  • New Russian Period, Catherine the Great liberates Crimea in 1783, and Crimea joins the Russian Empire as a part of Novorossia.
  • Soviet period between 1921-1991
    • Khrushchev gives Crimea to Ukrainian Soviet Republic in 1954
  • Crimea becomes a part of independent modern Ukraine in 1991
  • Crimeans vote to rejoin Russia in 2014

In short, as you can see, Crimea was never a part of any Slavic country at all until 1783, when it joined the Russian Empire. Crimea certainly was never a part of Ukraine in old history.

It is also worth noting that the accession of Crimea in 1783 was peaceful, the result of diplomatic negotiations between Russia, the Ottoman Empire, and the Crimean Khan Girey.

New Russia (Novorossia)

Effectively all of the cities in Southern Ukraine, including Odessa, Mikolaiv, Kherson, as well as Crimean Sevastopol, Simferopol, Yalta, etc. were built in this period (late 18th century) by the Russian Empire. They were NOT part of Ancient Kievan Rus, and much like the concept of “Ancient Ukraine”, they did not exist.

They were not part of the old Russia, or the Ukraine occupied by Poland, but instead, they were cities built in the frontier, in the borderlands and Wild Field, that during the Ancient Rus period was raided by Polovtsians (Cumans), Khazars and Pechenegs, and became New Russia in the 18th century.

For this reason, the southern portion of Ukraine was called New Russia (Novorossia), to contrast with Little Russia (Malorossia), which is the term used for the central region which was formally Kievan Rus’ (Kiev, Cherkassy, Pereslavl, Poltava, Chernigov, etc.

Ukraine is Two Countries

In the most simplistic of ways, you can say that when talking about Ukraine, you are speaking about two different countries: the East and the West.

Ukraine was once divided during the Polish period, along the River Dnipro into left and right bank Ukraine for this reason.

In general, this is an accurate division, reflected in Ukraine’s demographics, and mindsets displayed broadly across these regions. Indeed, the country  is historically divided into East and West.

While the West is distinct from the East, this does not mean that historically speaking, the West, even Lviv was any less Rusian than the East. The West was simply occupied for the longest period of time by Poland and Austro-Hungary, so the Russian culture was persecuted and suppressed  there the most.

Still, in Galicia, the far western region, in Zakarpattya (Transcarpathia), we can see the suffering of Russians quite acutely, in the persecution of the Carpatho-Russians, also called Rusyns, and their intellectual movement, the Galacian Russophiles, whose feelings of brotherhood with Russians can be summed up in the words of Father Ivan Naumovich. This Carpatho-Russian Priest wrote a book called “A Glimpse into the Future” which reads:

The time has come . . . to cross our Rubicon and say openly so that everyone can hear it: We cannot be separated by a Chinese wall from our brothers and cannot stand apart from the linguistic, ecclesiastical, and national connection with the entire Russian world!

Carpatho-Russians were brutally persecuted by Austria-Hungary for their culture and even mere possession of Russian literature. They were often under forced pressure to convert from ancestral Russian Orthodoxy to the Uniate Catholic Faith, and to identify as Ukrainians.

History repeats itself. For centuries the Great Pochaev Lavra was a fortress of Orthodoxy under years of Uniate persecution. There, Saint Job of Pochaev, together with Polish-Lithuanian Prince of Ruthenian blood, Konstantine Vasil Ostrogski, fought to preserve the Church Slavonic language, by printing the first book in this old Slavic tounge, when Catholics were trying to force everything to be served in Latin.

Those events in Western Ukraine were in the 16th-17th century, but that persecution never ended, and continued under Austro-Hungary and even into the 21st century.

A perfect example of this suffering, is the life of Hieromartyr Saint Maxim Sandovich, a Priest born in Lemkivshina, a Ruthenian land now in modern Poland. He studied at the great Pochaev Lavra, showing how history repeats itself.

Pochaev continues to grow today, with a new MASSIVE cathedral built and finished a few years ago

I wrote about Saint Maxim here, in an article graciously republished by the wonderful people at OrthoChristian (Pravoslavie.ru).

He was murdered in front of his family, and pregnant wife by the Austro-Hungarian authorities, and his final words were

“Long Live the Russian People! Long Live Holy Russia and all Slavs! Long Live the Holy Orthodox Faith!”

His story is a microcosm of what happened to the Russian people, when the Carpathian Mountains in Galicia became like a Second Golgotha, when the Rivers Tisa and Bug flowed with blood like the Nile. There, the Russian spirit was kept in bondage, and it still suffers greatly to this day. Luckily, the Russian Spirit is among the few which knows how to flourish like a phoenix in suffering.

Far Western Ukraine, however, has always been more hostile to Russian culture, as it was the birthplace of the Uniate sect, and later, where the Austro-Hungarians began their policy of Ukrainianization from the 19th century until WW1.

Famous WW2 Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, who united with Hitler, was a Uniate, and he continued this legacy of purging Russian culture from Ukraine. His “Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists” (OUN) became the source of servicemen to Waffen-SS division Galicia.

Bandera envisioned the Ukraine as a classic one-party state, with himself in the role of führer (providnyk), and expected that a new Ukraine would take its place under the Nazi umbrella.

A declaration of Bandera’s union with Hitler

Bandera was officially proclaimed a Hero by the Ukrainian government in 2010 and idolized by ultra nationalists after the Maidan coup in 2014.

Uniates and Nationalists marching with Bandera portraits, and right sector (banned in Russia) flags, along with those of Sloboda party

It was the rise of this extreme neo-Nazism, which we saw in Korsun, Cherkasy region, in February 2014, when Ukrainian armed extremists attacked 8 buses with Crimeans, who participated in the anti-Maidan protests, and were returning home after the snipers massacre.

The Crimeans were brutally beaten, and the extremists allegedly killed some.

This was another event which caused Crimeans to want to leave Ukraine, and return to Russia.

It was the mass murder in Odessa, in May 2014, when scores of innocents, including pregnant women, were burned alive which convinced Crimeans that they made the right decision.

Four Years after Odessa Pogrom – Neo-Nazism still rampages in Ukraine

This form of extreme Ukrainian nationalism comes primarily from Far Western Ukraine (Galicia), and that is what makes the far west distinct from the near west and central regions.

Even to this day you can find people in Malorossia, and in Novorossia (a majority in Donbass), who feel they are brothers with Russians. Most speak Russian as a primary language anyways, and you’d be hard pressed to find someone who does not have some form of relatives in Russia.

I would argue from personal experience, that the people of these regions are merely being silent about what they truly feel about Ukraine and Russia, taking the attitude of “Moya hata za Krayu” (it’s none of my business).

Many would express Pro-Russian views if they felt safer. You can still hear people saying: Россия, Україна и Беларусь, вместе мы – святая Русь – (‘Rossia, Ukrainina, i Belorus’, vmesto my Svyataya Rus’) or Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, together, we are Holy Rus’.

I have believed this since my earliest memories, and this is confirmed by the words of Orthodox Saints like Lavrenty of Chernigov, who was born in 1868 in Chernigov, Russian Empire, and reposed (died) on the Feast of Theophany, 1950, Ukraine CCP.

These regions could theoretically, in the future, unite with Russia, however Galicia (and some in Malorossia today) may never want that.

Many Western Ukrainians, however, truly see themselves as different from other Ukrainians, and Russophilia has almost been completely erased from history there.

While Far Western Ukraine can still be grouped politically and culturally with central Ukraine, generally speaking, it is the only region where Uniates are a majority in some areas, and where the Ukrainian nationalist sentiment is the highest. Galicia is very different from the rest of Ukraine.

Ukraine is Three Countries

As a result, Ukraine is really, more like three countries, rather than two:

  1. Little Russia – Malorossia, Central Historical region of Rus’)
  2. New Russia – Novorossia was southern and eastern Ukraine)
  3. Galicia–Volhynia – the far west, the only region ruled by both Poland AND Austro-Hungary. This region includes Transcarpathia.

Three Ukraines: note the small Yanokovich voters in Zakarpattia (transcarpathia) in the far west, the blue beside the massive red

Ukraine is best understood as a merging of several historical regions, all of them related to an extent, but some having more in common with neighboring countries (Russia or Poland), than they do with other regions of Ukraine. Ukraine is not a united nation-state.

Ukrainians in fact, have the Soviet Union to thank, for repatriating Carpatho-Russians from Slovakia and Poland to Ukraine, and forming the Ukrainian state, which would not have existed were it not for the Bolsheviks.

Despite the narrative about Soviet oppression (the Bolsheviks oppressed Russians the most of any Soviet people), the Soviet Union did what the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Polish-Lithuanian Empires never could do – not only united the left bank and right bank Ukraine, but also substantially enlarged its territory, by assigning Novorossia (including Crimea) to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic that they established.

Upon Khrushchev’s initiative, on 300th anniversary of the Ukraine’s reunification with Russia,  Crimea was transferred from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (that became Russian Federation in 1991) to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in violation of the Constitution of the USSR, and without asking for the opinion of Crimea population, further complicating things, though Crimea was always predominantly Russian speaking.

I have written about the languages of Ukraine here, for those interested.

Ukrainian Leader says Half of Ukraine is Mentally Retarded

In conclusion, if President Trump truly said Crimea is Russian, he is very right. Crimea is Russian both by self-determination of its people, when they voted on 16 March 2014 for reunification with Russia, as well as obvious logic.

Crimea, was in fact, the site of the baptism of Equal-to-the-Apostles High King (Grand Prince) Vladimir of Kiev, beginning the period known in history as Holy Rus’ or Holy Russia.

Crimea has been filled with the stories of great Russians, like Saint Luke, the Archbishop of Crimea, who also happened to be not only a Physician, but one of the most talented surgeons in Russian history. Check out the above link to learn more. From a secular perspective, he was an amazing surgeon, and Christians believe his medical talents were in fact, miraculous. He created many unheard of, and lifesaving surgery methods for the first time in human history.

Crimea was once an Ancient Greek colony, leaving behind wonders like this Dormition Caves Monastery, which later was expanded on by Russian monks.

Crimea is a crucial part of Russian history and culture, and if President Trump recognizes that, he is not “siding with Russia”, he is simply being smart, by accepting the obvious fact which was always there. Crimea is Russian.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
6 Comments

6
Leave a Reply

avatar
6 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Red Pilled ThoughtCrimesRastislav Veľká MoravaAM Hantsregolo gelliniCheryl Brandon Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Red Pilled ThoughtCrimes
Guest
Red Pilled ThoughtCrimes

great detail

Rastislav Veľká Morava
Guest
Rastislav Veľká Morava

Ukraine in Slavic Languages is ukrajina or u-krajina, which translates to “on the borderlands, part of a larger group” That is why it is a small “u” and it was/is called the Ukraine, even in the English Language.

So called “Ukraine” is an artificial country created by the Bolsheviks, with no basis in reality, and with no binding history.

AM Hants
Guest
AM Hants

Slightly off topic, but, this article, so needs sharing and viewing. Does fit in with the above, just not covering Crimea.

A Young Russian Explains Why the West Reminds Him of the USSR
A lying media, suffocating political correctness, former Marxists now in the establishment… https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/young-russian-explains-why-west-reminds-him-ussr/ri23747

regolo gellini
Guest
regolo gellini

Fantastic info that we in the West ignore completely . Thank you for a wonderful history lesson.

Cheryl Brandon
Guest
Cheryl Brandon

$chumpinstein got it half right but, it is the geography that is also important which he left out!History was left out wilfully asm, $chumpinstein doe snot known anythiny about Russia except ; it is a great place to put a golf course/hotel???

RussG
Guest
RussG

Fabulous article, and thanks for the history/geography lesson. Yes, Crimea is Russian without any doubt.

Latest

The Geopolitical Strategy Of The US’ Global Hegemony By A Notorious Russophobe Zbigniew Brzezinski

The achievement of a New World Order after 1990 is being tested for some time in Washington.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Vladislav Sotirovic via Oriental Review:


If we have to use force, it is because we are America.

We are the indispensable nation.

(Madeleine K. Albright, February 1998)[1]

Madam Secretary

As a matter of very fact, regardless to the reality in global politics that the Cold War was over in 1989, Washington continued to drive toward the getting the status of a global hyperpower at any expense for the rest of the world. The Balkans undoubtedly became the first victim in Europe of the old but esthetically repacked American global imperialism. The US’ administration is a key player during the last 25 years of the Balkan crisis caused by the bloody destruction of ex-Yugoslavia[2] in which Washington played a crucial role in three particular historical cases:

  1. Only due to the US’ administration (more precisely due to the last US’ ambassador to Yugoslavia, Warren Zimmermann), a Bosnian-Herzegovinian President Alija Izetbegović (the author of the 1970 Islamic Declaration) rejected already agreed Lisbon Agreement about peaceful resolution of the Bosnian crises which was signed by the official representatives of the Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks in February 1992. Alija Izetbegović was one of those three signatories. The agreement was reached under the auspices of the European Community (the EC, later the European Union) that was represented by the British diplomat Lord Carrington and the Portuguese ambassador José Cutileiro. However, under the US’ protection, a Bosnian-Herzegovinian Bosniak-Croat Government declared independence on March 3rd, 1992 which local Serbs decisively opposed. Therefore, two warmongers, Warren Zimmermann and Alija Izetbegović pushed Bosnia-Herzegovina into the civil war which stopped only in November 21st, 1995 by signing the Dayton Accords in Ohio (Slobodan Milošević, Bill Clinton, Alija Izetbegović and Franjo Tuđman).[3]
  2. It was exactly the US’ administration which crucially blessed the ethnic cleansing of the Serbs from the Republic of Serbian Krayina committed by Croatia’s police and army forces (including and neo-Nazi Ustashi formations) on August 4−5th, 1995. For the realization of this criminal operation (under the secret code Storm/Oluja) Washington gave to Zagreb all logistic, political, diplomatic and military support. As a consequence, around 250,000 Croatia’s Serbs left their homes in two days which were quickly occupied by the Croats.[4]
  3. South Serbia’s Autonomous Province of Kosovo-Metochia was firstly occupied in June 1999 by the NATO/KFOR’ forces and later in February 2008 politically separated from its motherland when Albanian-dominated Kosovo’s Parliament proclaimed the formal independence primarily as a direct consequence of the Serbophobic policy by the US’s administration of President Bill Clinton and his warmongering hawk Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright. Today, Kosovo, except its northern part, is ethnically cleansed from the Serbs[5] and transformed into a mafia state with a silent blessing by Washington and the rest of the Western gangsters from the NATO and the EU who recognized its quasi-independence.[6]

Here is very important to stress that, basically, during the Bill Clinton’ administration, the US’ foreign policy in regard to the Balkans (ex-Yugoslavia) was primarily designed and directed by Madeleine K. Albright who became a chief US’ war criminal at the very end of the 20th century. Who was Mrs. Albright – the author of Madam Secretary: A Memoir, New York: Talk Miramax Books, 2003, 562 pages.[7] Madeleine K. Albright was born in Czechoslovakia in 1937. She was confirmed as the 64th US’ Secretary of State from 1997 to 2001. Her career in the US’ government included positions in the National Security Council and as US’ ambassador to the United Nations. The highest-ranking warmonger female hawk in the history of the US’ Government was telling an unforgetable whitewashed story of lies in her memoirs of the US’ imperialism at the turn of the 21st century. She was the first woman in the US’ history to be appointed to the post of Secretary of State (Minister of Foreign Affairs). For eight years during the first and second Bill Clinton’s terms, she succeeded drastically to ruin America’s image of a democratic and freedom fighting country mainly due to her direct and crucial involvement into the US-led NATO’s aggression on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (the FRY) in 1999 composed by Serbia and Montenegro that was the first aggression of this organization in its 50 years long history of the preparation for the invasion of Russia. The aggression lasted for 78 days from March 24th to June 10th, 1999 and was one of the most brutal and barbaric in the modern history of the world breaking all international laws, rules of war and, most important, the Charter and principles of the UNO. Madeleine K. Albright tried in her memoirs to whitewash her extremely important and even crucial participation in the post-Cold War US’ policy of imperialism but primarily her focal role in the preparation and conduction of the US/NATO’s unprecedented war on the FRY as being one of the most influential policy-makers in her adopted country. The Madam Secretary’s memoirs are firstly the story of a woman of great warmongering character with a fascinating talent to lie and whitewash the truth. Her memoirs are surely a valuable contribution to the political history of aggressive diplomacy of the project of the US’ global hegemony after the collapse of the USSR. But who was her mentor?

Former U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright

If we are speaking about the US’ foreign policy, the fundamental question is what are the US policy’s interests and its implications in both the Balkans and Europe.

The US’ involvement in the Balkans and Europe

The achievement of a New World Order after 1990 is being tested for some time in Washington. We have to keep in mind that for some first 20 years after the end of the Cold War, the strongest military and economic power, the leaders of the NATO and the UNO, the initiators of the international peacekeeping missions and negotiations in the regions of „failed states“ in which they provoked the crises and wars, especially at the Balkans, the champions against the international terrorism and crime that was a reaction to their dirty foreign policy of unmasked imperialism and global hegemony, were the USA.[8] Nevertheless, the US’ interests in the Balkans cannot be understood apart from a larger picture of the American interests in Europe in general.

There are many American scientists and politicians who argued that a leadership in Europe will either be American or it will not be, since France and Germany (the axis-powers of the EU) were not too strong to take over and Germany was still in the 1990s too preoccupied with the consequences of its reunification (i.e., the absorption of the DDR). However, the recent (on November 11th, 2018) French President Emmanuel Macron’s initiative to create a joint European Army shows that probably the Europeans finally became enough matured to maintain security in their own home by themselves but not anymore under the umbrella of the US-led NATO. The question, in essence, is not if, but what kind of leadership the US has and will have in the case that the current post-Cold War’s international relations are not going to be drastically changed? In this respect, the US need to be aware that the best leadership is the one shared with other partners, in this case with the EU/NATO, more specifically France, Germany, and Britain but, of course, Russia have to be seriously taken into the consideration too. With the involvement of Russia into a common European security system on the bases of equal reciprocity, friendship and partnership, the final aim will be to obtain a common vision and an efficient coordination in conflict management, as well as in political and economic cooperation. At such a way, the cases of violent destructions and civil wars, for example on the territory of ex-Yugoslavia, will be avoided for sure.

U.S. Marines escorting Yugoslavian soldiers in Kosovo to be handed over to Yugoslavian authorities

The US’ political analysts are keen to suggest that the American presence in Europe should not be regarded as a competition, but rather as a part of the transatlantic partnership between the two continents, as well as a necessity demonstrated by the sad experience in the former Yugoslavia. According to official Washington, the NATO’s intervention in both Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1995 and Kosovo in 1999 (in both cases against the Serbs) under the US’ leadership was the only credible action along with many initiatives taken by the international community.[9] However, on the other side, military intervention is in many cases creating more political and security problems for a longer period of time. It is understandable that the US cannot assist apathetically to the collapse of countries vital to their own interest but such principle is valid to be applied for any great power too. Besides, regional instability only expands, engaging other areas and creating new confrontations. Thus, the economic support offered to some countries, and the military one offered to others shows that the US formally believe in the regional stability as an enforcer of the international stability but in reality only if such stability is put under the umbrella of Washington’s interests and benefits. The case of Kosovo is, probably, the best example of such practice: by bringing a formal stability this province of Serbia is put at the same time under the full Western (primarily American) political control and economic exploitation.[10]

In supporting the NATO’s expansion, there is a hesitation in treating all aspirant countries in a non-discriminatory fashion. And that, because interests are more important than global security, can be the reason. The advocates of the „Pax Americana’s“ view of the global security would publically say that they are not propagating the US as the savior of the world, or the world’s policeman, but they are just the most fervent supporters of the global peace and stability. However, in the practice they are working oppositely: as many as conflicts and insecurity issues in the world, there are more chances and practical opportunities for Washington to become the regional policeman and global savior of the order.[11] In their relationship with other NATO’s countries, the USA regard the process of integration in the Euro-Atlantic space (i.e., the area of the US’ control and administration) as a two-way street in which each partner needs to accomplish its tasks. An addition to those is, of course, the geostrategic position (Turkey instead of Greece, for instance, in the 1974 Cyprus crisis) and short, medium and long-term declarative promises like the economic gratification of security which can at the end to be turned to its opposite side. For instance, the US’ offering military, political and financial assistance to the countries of East-Central and South-East Europe as a mean to build up their security shield against „aggressive“ Russia can be easily transformed into their very insecurity reality coming from the US’ imperialistic policy toward Russia as there were already the cases with Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 as the „Pax Americana’s“ approach in international relations is as its countereffect just provoking the Russian (and Chinese) counteraction in enhancing its own nuclear and other military potentials as Vladimir Putin exactly stressed during his electoral campaigns.

The US’ geopolitical strategy by Zbig

(Vietnam) war criminal Henry Kissinger (ex-US’ Secretary of State), summarized the post-Cold War’s international relations from the American geopolitical viewpoint:

„Geopolitically, America is an island off the shores of the large landmass of Eurasia, whose resources and population far exceed those of the United States. The domination by a single power of either of Eurasia’s two principal spheres – Europe or Asia – remains a good definition of strategic danger for America, Cold War or no Cold War. For such a grouping would have the capacity to outstrip America economically and, in the end, militarily“.[12]

It is not surprising that in the 1990s there were raised voices in Washington which required that the US has to find a way of dominating Eurasia at any reasonable cost. The US’ neocon warmongering hawks, like Zbigniew Brzezinski, recognized that the area of the enlarged Middle East (with the Balkans, North Africa, and Central Asia) is from the strategical viewpoint, economically, ideologically and above all geopolitically at the center of the Eurasian issue. However, the US’ neocon hawks’ much wider global geopolitical aims which were coming closer to the aim to continue domination in the Middle East were launched during the Bill Clinton’s presidency as a result of a wider shift in the American foreign policy’s profile led by Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright (“Madam Secretary”) and her extremely Russophobic mentor Zbigniew Brzezinski (known as Zbig).

Warsaw-born Zbig (1928−2017) was a focal personality in the US’ foreign policy’s elite establishment since President Jimmy Carter’s administration in which he was a National Security Advisor. During the Ronald Reagan’s administration, Zbig was the main mediator between Washington and its clients in Afghanistan – the anti-Soviet Taliban forces and Osama bin-Laden with whom Zbig has several common photos (in 1979) on which he is training Osama to operate with just donated American guns to fight the Soviets. Further, Zbig has a great influence on the first Bill Clinton’s administration and he was at the same time an early advocate of the NATO’s eastward expansion (started in 1999). It is assumed that it was exactly Zbig who was instrumental in getting the US’ President Bill Clinton to commit himself to this course of the American imperialism in 1994. Furthermore, Brzezinski’s influence on the US’ foreign policy became stronger during the second Clinton’s administration through a Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright – his former pupil at Columbia University. It is worth to note that Albright was working under his supervision in Carter’s administration. If we have to summarize Zbig’s chief imperatives of the US’ imperialistic global policy and geostrategy of the making America world’s hegemon, they are going to be as follows:

  1. To prevent collusion and maintain security among the US’ vassal states (the NATO/EU).
  2. To keep tributaries pliant and protected.
  3. To keep the barbarians (the Russians and their supporters) from coming together.
  4. To consolidate and perpetuate the prevailing geopolitical pluralism in Eurasia by manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could finally attempt to challenge the US’ supremacy in the world.
  5. Those that must be divided and eventually ruled are Germany, Russia, Japan, Iran, and China.[13]

Former US national security advisor Zbigniew Former US national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski

The American direct and infamous participation in the destruction of ex-Yugoslavia in 1991−1995 followed by the 1998−1999 Kosovo’s War can be understood, therefore, as the steps in the realization of Zbig’s geopolitical strategy of making America global hegemon. The US-led bombing of Serbia and Montenegro from March to June 1999 (78 days) was carried out by enlarged NATO and the UNO was only called at the end to sanctify the resulting colonial policy of Washington. The aggression on Serbia and Montenegro was formally justified by a reference to the TV-show plight of Kosovo’s Albanians, developing at the same time the new doctrine of the „humanitarian imperialism“. We have to keep in mind on this place that the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s were fought in a geographical area which is the crucial courtyard of the Eurasian continent that is as such opening a direct way to the ex-Soviet republics on the shores of the Caspian and the energy sources they control.[14] Nevertheless, Kosovo’s War became for the US the genuine precursor of its later invasion of Iraq in 2003.

„Madam Secretary“ was a firm advocate of bombing Serbia and Serbs in Washington primarily due to the direct influence by notorious Russophobe Zbig who saw the Balkan Serbs as „little Russians“ and the Balkan wars of the destruction of ex-Yugoslavia as a testing ground for the US’ policy throughout the whole Caspian and Central Asian area. However, in addition, being an advocate for the US’ oil companies wishing to establish their business on the territory of ex-Soviet Union in the Caucasus and Central Asia, Zbig regarded the American political and geostrategic supremacy in this region as a crucial aim of the US’ foreign policy in the 1990s. In order to accomplish his aim, among other manipulations and instruments, Zbig championed the American support to the Islamic Pakistan, the Taliban Afghanistan (till 9/11) and the Islamic resurgence in Saudi Arabia and even Iran.[15]

Multidimensional aspect of security

It is true that globalization, stability, and security offer to the countries a greater capacity to cooperate and focus on the economic prosperity of its citizens but in practice, this particularly means much more important businesses and more money for the US’ economy and citizens. Today, security has multidimensional aspects. If during the Cold War security only had a military-political component, today it has gained a new aspect – the economic one. The non-military aspects of security comprise everything from macroeconomic stability to environmental health. The proponents of the US’ global hegemony will all the time argue that where there is a harmony (established by the US) and well-being the chances of conflicts to erupt are smaller and the gain is exclusively financial and economic (primarily for the US).

There is, of course, a combination between interest per se and their consequences. To illustrate, the case of Macedonia could be interesting. Macedonia at the first glance benefits of the US’ military presence on her territory since 1991 as it is a geostrategic spot in the Balkans of the highest importance. As a matter of fact, this military presence maintained Macedonia’s economic level at a higher standard than some of the other countries in the area up to 2001, despite the fact that was still the poorest of the former Yugoslav six republics affected by two economic embargos by Greece in 1991−1993. Macedonia was illustrated till 2001, especially by the Western media, as being a success story in conflict prevention and peace maintenance primarily due to the presence of the US/NATO’s military troops. However, in 2001 erupted inter-ethnic conflict between the Slavic Macedonians and the local Albanians (supported by the Kosovo Liberation Army) what brought the question of the US/NATO’s efficiency in the region.

The NATO’s eastward expansion is a particular story of Zbig’s geostrategic designs against his eternal enemy – Russia. It is a fact that just before the NATO’s aggression on Serbia and Montenegro in 1999, this military organization accepted as the member states three East-Central European countries: Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic (the next eastward enlargement was in 2004). Therefore, the southern flank of the NATO between Hungary and Greece became now interrupted only by the territory of ex-Yugoslavia. Subsequently, such situation gave NATO a considerable strategic interest in controlling the Balkans where the Serbs were the most numerous and geostrategically important nation. However, as a direct effect of the NATO’s eastward enlargement, the Iron Curtain was moved further to the east and closer to Russia’s borders with all spectrum of the expected and unexpected consequences of such anti-Russian Drang nach Osten. Now, the Iron Curtain, once dividing Germany, it came in 1999 to run down the eastern borders of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, ending on the state-borders of the ex-Yugoslav republics, now independent states. The crux of the matter is that a decade-long process of the NATO’s eastward enlargement became at the beginning of 1999 blocked in the Balkans by the Serbs – the only ex-Yugoslav nation firmly opposing a NATO’s membership. Subsequently, it was exactly Washington to assume the role of leading the NATO to the new anti-Russian front and borders. That was the crucial reason why the Serbs had to be bombed in 1999 and Kosovo occupied by the US-led NATO’s troops in the form of the UNO KFOR. What regards this issue, both Zbig and „Madam Secretary“ were clearly speaking through the mouth of the US’ President Bill Clinton: the stability (the US’ control) in the Balkans could only be established if the EU and the USA do for this region what it was done for Europe after the WWII and Central Europe after the Cold War – occupation and economic-financial exploitation within the formal framework of the NATO’s and EU’ (the USA) enlargement.

Conclusion

The brutal expansion of the NATO is very visible since 1999 and even expected if we are taking into consideration the final aims of the US’ foreign policy in Eurasia framed by a notorious foreign policy gangster – Zbigniew Brzezinski. As a consequence, the EU is going to continue to be America’s main colonial partner in the NATO’s preparations for the war of aggression against Russia and most probably at the same time China. Subsequently, there will be a need for much work and a common will to overcome violence, injustice, and suffering in order to achieve a global security without the hegemonic dominance by any great power.[16]

Endnotes:

[1] Andrew J. Bacevich, American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy, Cambridge, Massachusetts−London, England: Harvard University Press, 2002, the page before 1.

[2] On the Western approach about a modern Yugoslav history, see in Allcock B. John, Explaining Yugoslavia, London: Hurst & Co, 2000; David Gowland, Richard Dunphy, Charlotte Lythe, The European Mosaic: Contemporary Politics, Economics and Culture, Third Edition, Harlow, Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited, 2006, Section 5.3 Yugoslavia.

[3] About the destruction of ex-Yugoslavia and particularly on the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, see in Jelena Guskova, Istorija jugoslovenske krize 1990−2000, Beograd: Izdavački grafički atelje “M”, 2003.

[4] Вељко Ђурић Мишина (уредник), Република Српска Крајина. Десет година послије, Београд: „Добра воља“, 2005, 48.

[5] On this issue, see more in Zoran Anđelović, Miroslav Marković (eds.), Days of Terror (In the Presence of the International Forces), Belgrade: Center for Peace and Tolerance, 2000; Dragan Kojadinović (ed.), March Pogrom in Kosovo and Metohija (March 17−19, 2004) With a Survey of Destroyed and Endangered Christian Cultural Heritage, Belgrade: Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Serbia−Museum in Priština (displaced), 2004.

[6] Pierre Pean, Sébastien Fontenelle, Kosovo une guerre juste” pour créer un etat mafieux, Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard, 2013.

[7] This article is a constructive-critical contribution to the new, revised and updated edition of the memoirs of the “Madam Secretary”.

[8] About the post-Cold War’s US’ foreign policy, especially through the prism of the “Bush Doctrine”, see in David P. Forsythe, Patrice C. McMahon, Andrew Wedeman (eds.), American Foreign Policy in a Globalized World, New York−London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2006.

[9] About a typical American approach on the case of Yugoslavia’s destruction in the 1990s, see in Susan L. Woodward, Balkan Tragedy: Chaos and Dissolution after the Cold War, Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1995. However, the focal lack of such books is the fact that a crucial US/EU/NATO’ role in creating Balkan tragedy and Yugoslavia’s chaos is omitted.

[10] Hannes Hofbauer, Eksperiment Kosovo: Povratak kolonijalizma, Beograd: Albatros Plus, 2009.

[11] There are well-known words by Theodor Roosevelt uttered in December 1899: “Of course, our whole national history has been one of expansion”.

[12] John Rees, Imperialism and Resistance, New York−London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2006, 18.

[13] Ibid., 19−20.

[14] About the issue of a strategic environment from the Adriatic to the Caspian, see in Stefano Bianchini (ed.), From the Adriatic to the Caucasus: The Dynamics of (De)Stabilization, Ravenna: Longo Editore Ravenna, 2001.

[15] Differently to all other American warmongers and imperialistic hawks, Zbig favors the alliance with the Shia Islamic Republic of Iran.

[16] On global security, see in Peter Hough, Understanding Global Security, Third edition, New York−London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2005.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Trump hands over written responses to Mueller’s Russia probe questions

The written answers submitted by Trump Tuesday have the same legal implications as an oral testimony, meaning that if the statements are proven false, he might be accused of perjury.

The Duran

Published

on

Via RT…


A lawyer for Donald Trump has confirmed that the US President has submitted answers to the questions penned by FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. The questions refer to the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Moscow.

“The president today answered written questions submitted by the special counsel’s office,” Trump’s attorney Jay Sekulow said in a statement, as cited by AP.

The issues Trump covered in his responses are “the Russia-related topics of the inquiry,” Sekulow said. Trump’s legal team has indicated that the president would not answer any additional questions aside from potential follow-ups. Likewise, Trump is not expected to answer any questions that refer to allegations of obstruction of justice, with his lawyers insisting that the constitution protects the sitting President from answering questions on policies he conducted while in office.

Trump’s personal lawyer Rudi Giuliani said Tuesday, that “much of what has been asked raised serious constitutional issues and was beyond the scope of a legitimate inquiry,” without elaborating.

Giuliani has not ruled out that Trump might answer further questions if forwarded by Mueller, but said that it is “unlikely we will answer any more questions.”

The contents of both the answers and the questions themselves will not be made public, Sekulow said.

Speaking to reporters on Friday, Trump said he prepared the answers himself, and that it did not take him “very long.”

The written answers submitted by Trump Tuesday have the same legal implications as an oral testimony, meaning that if the statements are proven false, he might be accused of perjury.

Trump’s cooperation with Mueller’s office has been seen as a compromise. The president’s attitude toward a potential face-to-face interview with the federal prosecutor has shifted over time. Back in January Trump said that he was “looking forward” to speaking under oath. He doubled down in May, saying that he “would love” to sit down for an interview with Mueller “if treated fairly.” There have been reports, however, that the president’s legal team has been staunchly opposed to a personal encounter between Trump and Mueller and eventually talked the president out of it.

The personal interview might still happen if Mueller’s office issues a subpoena for Trump to testify. However, it would first need to be signed off on by the Acting Attorney General, the probe’s well-known critic Matthew Whitaker, and even then it could be thrown out by the Supreme Court.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Russia Lures International Arms Buyers With Half-Priced, More Effective Missile System

The Russian S-400 mobile long-range surface-to-air missile system costs around $500 million, vs. the $1 billion price tag for a US-made Raytheon Patriot Pac-2 battery.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


Russia has been pitching a rival missile platform that costs half of those made by US companies, reports CNBC, which has resulted in several countries dealing with the Kremlin “despite the potential for blowback.”

Sefa Karacan | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images

The Russian S-400 mobile long-range surface-to-air missile system costs around $500 million, vs. the $1 billion price tag for a US-made Raytheon Patriot Pac-2 battery, while a THAAD battery made by Lockheed Martin costs just about $3 billion, according to people with first-hand knowledge of a US intelligence assessment.

Nearly 13 countries have expressed interest in buying Russia’s S-400, a move that could trigger potential U.S. sanctions under the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which President Donald Trump signed in August 2017. In September, the U.S. slapped sanctions on China  for buying fighter jets and missiles from Russia. However, the U.S. could grant sanction waivers. –CNBC

Turkey, meanwhile, may be hit with US sanctions over their decision to purchase the S-400 defense system, which the United States says poses a risk to its F-35 fifth generation stealth fighter platform.

Meanwhile, India called the United States’ bluff over sanctions in late Ocotber, standing its ground in its decision to buy the S-400.

One of the reasons Russian systems are generally considered less expensive than their American counterparts is because they don’t include pricey ongoing maintenance.

“When foreign militaries buy American, above and beyond the purchase, they are buying a partnership with the U.S. military,” Andrew Hunter, director of the Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told CNBC. “And that plus the maintenance and technical assistance is a big part of the cost difference.

The S-400 system made its debut in 2007, succeeding the S-200 and S-300 missile systems. According to CNBC, “the Russian-made S-400 is capable of engaging a wider array of targets, at longer ranges and against multiple threats simultaneously,” vs. US-made systems.

In terms of capability, one source noted that while there is no perfect weapon, the S-400 eclipses even THAAD, America’s missile defense crown jewel.

When asked why nations seek to buy the S-400 instead of America’s Patriot or THAAD systems, one of the people with knowledge of the intelligence report explained that foreign militaries aren’t willing to stick with the cumbersome process of buying weapons from the U.S. government. –CNBC

“Many of these countries do not want to wait for U.S. regulatory hurdles,” said a CNBC source with first hand knowledge of the assessment. “The S-400 has less export restrictions and the Kremlin is willing to expedite sales by skipping over any regulatory hurdles.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending