Connect with us

RussiaFeed

News

Politics

Kiev regime may be trying to knock off Georgian mercenaries responsible for Maidan massacre

News reports suggest the coup regime is trying to tie up loose ends by eliminating anyone who might talk

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

0 Views

(New Eastern Outlook) – It is not hard to read between the lines of recent news articles in the Georgian press about so-called Georgian fighters in Ukraine fighting on the side of Kiev. Apparently a cleanup operation is going on, not to eliminate the alleged pro-Moscow “separatists” in the East of the country but with some elements within the ranks of those who came to fight in Ukraine—on the side of Kiev.

Along with former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili, they entered Ukraine to get another go at the Russians, closer to their home territory. Their presence there has nothing to do with Ukraine itself. The cleanup operation is a reflection of Georgian internal politics and overall US plans for the region, which Ukraine can do without being the theatre for.

Set up to be taken out

We are told by the above-mentioned Georgian link that a number of troops walked straight into an ambush, and that their Ukrainian commanders set them up to be eliminated by the separatists. This would be entirely consistent with previous developments in this story, as it is not new. We have been following it since 2014, and NEO and Veterans today were the first to report on the nexus between the indiscriminate murders in Maidan and Georgian-trained snipers, who mysteriously moved from Maidan Square to Syria, as if they would be interested in that conflict, on fake Georgian passports.

Those links were established, with supporting evidence, even before Gian Micalessin‏, an Italian journalist, claimed to have first broken the story. The lid had already been blown off through contact with Georgian army personnel who had been involved in training those snipers, and even one of the Maidan snipers himself. As Jim Dean of Veterans Today wrote, Micalessin’s story merely confirmed VT’s earlier reports of how outside mercenaries had been brought in to shoot up both demonstrators and security police in a classic Cold War psyop.

There has long been a practice of governments paying snipers to shoot people indiscriminately in Eastern Europe. Prior to August 2008, before the Georgian-Russian war, snipers operating in Georgia (some of whom were the same people), who had been trained by a US contractor, Archangel, were employed to kill civilians in South Ossetia. The important thing to remember is that “Often the people who do these whack jobs are “disappeared” afterwards to tidy up the official version of the event”. This explains what almost went down in Ukraine.

Ambush also a US operation

If these troops were set up by their own commanders, having been imported there by the US to begin with, that makes the ambush also a US operation. When such operations are alleged elsewhere we always find individual Americans suddenly appearing in ill-defined “support roles” and getting out after the dirty deed has been done. This is exactly what has happened in this case too, as we can identify at least two of these mysterious figures who suddenly took an interest in Ukraine.

There is a very big nexus with the “soldier of fortune” John Giduck, who claims to be a second generation Ukrainian-American who has travelled, worked and studied extensively in Russia and the former Soviet Union for almost twenty years. Many of his stories and tall tales have been debunked in recent years; much of his CV has been demonstrated to be faked, despite the high powered spin offered by some who are part of such schemes in response to the respected Washington Monthly in its March/April 2011 issue. But though various groups have proved Giduck a con-artist, he keeps showing up in places associated with the shedding of innocent blood, as in Georgia and Beslan, and this may be more than coincidence.

We should also notice the activities of a certain Brian Christopher Boyenger, who claims to be a former American paratrooper, joined the Ukrainian army’s Georgian National Legion and took part in active combat missions in the war-torn Donbass Region. As an Italian Journalist wrote,

“A few days before the Maidan massacre, Mamulashvili presented to the selected shooters a guy in uniform … he introduced him and told us he was an instructor, an American soldier. The US military man is called Brian Christopher Boyenger, a former officer and shooter of the 101st Airborne Division. “We were always in touch with this Brian – he was Mamulashvili’s man. It was he who gave us the orders; I had to follow all his instructions.””

An article in the US-controlled English language press in Georgia also describes Boyenger as a retired officer and former sniper from the US Army’s elite 101st Airborne Division, and further claims that he is the first US citizen to formally join the Ukrainian military in an official combat role since hostilities broke out against Russian forces and their ‘separatist proxies’ in April 2014.

Nor is the ambush the only strange involving Georgian troops in Ukraine. It has been reported that Georgian volunteers who have been fighting pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine since 2014 have accused their commander of betrayal and abandoned the brigade they belonged to in the Ukrainian military.

“All but three of approximately 40 Georgian volunteers have walked away from the Foreign Brigade of Ukraine’s Armed Forces … and now “vow not to leave the war zone but instead merge with some other military unit,” said commander of the Georgian Legion Mamuka Mamulashvili.

Knowing your enemy

The infamous Mamuka Mamulashvili is a story in himself, which has been well documented. It involves Georgian snipers, the Georgian Brigade, and a bunch of CIA-sponsored hired killers who have attached themselves to him in some way. NEO partner organisation Veterans Today has even contacted Mamulashvili, giving him an opportunity to respond to an earlier article about him and the activities of Georgians in Ukraine, but not received a response, unsurprisingly.

It is not difficult to discover Mamulashvili’s history. One just needs to look at all the US and NATO-sponsored media outlets which write positive stories about him and how he got to Ukraine, where these stories are published and where they are not, and it becomes possible to build a picture of who his friends really are.

There is also the issue of where he gets his money from. As an irregular, Mamulashvili is not paid by the regular Ukrainian army, but nor is there any evidence that he has been hired as a mercenary, a paid combatant receiving a salary. As a volunteer soldier, he has to meet his own expenses, or get someone else to do that for him.

In Georgia Mamulashvili was not independently wealthy. Before going to Ukraine he worked for the Ministry of Defence as a paid advisor to Irakli Alasania. We know from previous press reports and documents this is the person the US wanted to take control in Georgia after Saakashvili crashed and burned, at least before Bidzina Ivanishvili became available.

But as the new government’s first Defence Minister, Alasania fired Mamulashvili and 30 other veterans during a so-called “reorganisation process” connected with either cleansing the department of the many involved in criminal procurements or bringing in new people whose pockets the minister wanted to line through another set of criminal procurements, depending on your point of view.

Mamulashvili has said publicly that he was not removed due to any reorganisation but because he was politically active. It is true that Alasania was not one to tolerate those he saw as threats, especially from within his own rank and file, so this is credible. However if we accept Mamulashvili’s own story, he was removed specifically for having connections with former president Saakashvili, and political and career objectives of his own which were somehow linked with Saakashvili.

If this is so, Mamulashvili is being paid by Saakashvili, or the tooth fairy, and supported by his media team. This in turn means that he is on the payroll of the Americans, as Saakashvili and the other wanted Georgians who were spirited to Ukraine made no secret of being on someone’s payroll.

Mamulashvili’s media connections clearly link him to the US Embassy, and to a team of foreign nationals based in Georgia who provide media support for the regime in Kiev – Vice News, VOA, former Peace Corp Volunteers and others working under the guise of running language clubs in Tbilisi and working for various NGOs.

Study in Scarlet – Enoch Drebber and Joseph Stangerson

Their names and connections are well known: Richard Delong, who was giving interviews with various German media outlets about Euromaidan, and had bragged about how some of his statements may end up in the film they are working on, and a French National, Remi Boissonnas, who is claimed to be the mastermind behind the Tbilisi cell that was involved with much of what transpired in Kiev and providing covering media support under the guise of Language Exchange Club Tbilisi, who were involved with Language Exchange Club Kiev, during the Putsch.

One member, the guitarist among this groups is perhaps a Mormon [well, he studied at their Brigham Young university in Utah] and he is VERY interested in Russian, linguistics, and his politics of Euromaidan, often quoted Saakashvili when he wrote to his friends.  “The people with you tonight are from the inner circle of Saakashvili and his team.”

We should remember that not that long ago there were plans for a pro-Saakashvili coup in Georgia, which was stopped thanks to friends in Turkish intelligence and the efforts of Veterans Today.

Knowing your friends and your enemies 

What has transpired in Ukraine is a threat to Ukrainian, Georgian, Russian and US national security, and for that matter, everybody else’s, but it has taken since 2014 for the full story to develop, even the extent of US involvement in these murders.

It is now clear, at least in retrospect, that Georgia should never have allowed its nationals to engage in Ukraine, a BIG mistake. However, it was an avoidable one. Those associated with Saakashvili’s rebels (boeviki) have actually been blessed until recently by the present Georgian government, which has always supported the Poroshenko regime in Kiev.

We know this because the US Embassy and State Department have approved of their activities, supported them financially and provided them with the necessary military hardware. Even if the Georgian government did not want this to happen, it wouldn’t have had a choice. This also explains how a number of young Georgians who didn’t have passports suddenly ended up fighting in Ukraine or Syria, and their families were told that the identity if the person who gave them their passport was classified.

Many of the individuals involved in supporting this conflict, they are complicit in the murders of these Georgian soldiers, worked in Kiev prior to being relocated to Tbilisi, and still move back and forth on a regular basis. It is easy to track them via their social media postings, Facebook, and those who know them personally. Not only the CIA uses Facebook and fake accounts.

As Jim Dean of Veterans Today best sums it up, “as for volunteers fighting in other people’s wars … most of them were like mercenaries everywhere, are in it for the thrill, the money, and stories to tell when [they] get home.” But a group of these volunteers have now found out the hard way that hard politics is a bigger driving factor in the Ukraine conflict, and the installation of the Kiev government, than any grievance anyone might have had which could lead to war.

It is easy to see why Georgians might want to fight in Ukraine, paid or not. Russia was seen by some of them as the common enemy, and the Poroshenko regime was presented as the popular response to alleged Russian attempts to dominate Ukraine through Yanukovych. The fact that Ukrainians themselves twice elected Yanukovych, and twice outside forces intervened to remove him, was not important. Georgians don’t place much credence in the results of elections, and with good reason given what they have seen back home.

But Georgian volunteers can’t act as individuals in the service of an army. They are integral parts of a political scheme, and that is something that we are not supposed to be able to connect. It is clear that many of them have bitter memories themselves of from Saakashvili’s years of misrule and terror. Kiev at first may not have cared who was running their units, or why, but they do now. Hopefully Georgia as a nation will too realise it has to act differently, times have changed, and it too must try to extricate itself from sending its own citizens to be murdered by their own comrades fighting in a conflict which doesn’t help Georgia in the least.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Is the Violent Dismemberment of Russia Official US Policy?

Neocons make the case that the West should not only seek to contain “Moscow’s imperial ambitions” but to actively seek the dismemberment of Russia as a whole.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Erik D’Amato via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity:


If there’s one thing everyone in today’s Washington can agree on, it’s that whenever an official or someone being paid by the government says something truly outrageous or dangerous, there should be consequences, if only a fleeting moment of media fury.

With one notable exception: Arguing that the US should be quietly working to promote the violent disintegration and carving up of the largest country on Earth.

Because so much of the discussion around US-Russian affairs is marked by hysteria and hyperbole, you are forgiven for assuming this is an exaggeration. Unfortunately it isn’t. Published in the Hill under the dispassionate title “Managing Russia’s dissolution,” author Janusz Bugajski makes the case that the West should not only seek to contain “Moscow’s imperial ambitions” but to actively seek the dismemberment of Russia as a whole.

Engagement, criticism and limited sanctions have simply reinforced Kremlin perceptions that the West is weak and predictable. To curtail Moscow’s neo-imperialism a new strategy is needed, one that nourishes Russia’s decline and manages the international consequences of its dissolution.

Like many contemporary cold warriors, Bugajski toggles back and forth between overhyping Russia’s might and its weaknesses, notably a lack of economic dynamism and a rise in ethnic and regional fragmentation.But his primary argument is unambiguous: That the West should actively stoke longstanding regional and ethnic tensions with the ultimate aim of a dissolution of the Russian Federation, which Bugajski dismisses as an “imperial construct.”

The rationale for dissolution should be logically framed: In order to survive, Russia needs a federal democracy and a robust economy; with no democratization on the horizon and economic conditions deteriorating, the federal structure will become increasingly ungovernable…

To manage the process of dissolution and lessen the likelihood of conflict that spills over state borders, the West needs to establish links with Russia’s diverse regions and promote their peaceful transition toward statehood.

Even more alarming is Bugajski’s argument that the goal should not be self-determination for breakaway Russian territories, but the annexing of these lands to other countries. “Some regions could join countries such as Finland, Ukraine, China and Japan, from whom Moscow has forcefully appropriated territories in the past.”

It is, needless to say, impossible to imagine anything like this happening without sparking a series of conflicts that could mirror the Yugoslav Wars. Except in this version the US would directly culpable in the ignition of the hostilities, and in range of 6,800 Serbian nuclear warheads.

So who is Janusz Bugajski, and who is he speaking for?

The author bio on the Hill’s piece identifies him as a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, a Washington, D.C. think-tank. But CEPA is no ordinary talk shop: Instead of the usual foundations and well-heeled individuals, its financial backers seem to be mostly arms of the US government, including the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the US Mission to NATO, the US-government-sponsored National Endowment for Democracy, as well as as veritable who’s who of defense contractors, including Raytheon, Bell Helicopter, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and Textron. Meanwhile, Bugajski chairs the South-Central Europe area studies program at the Foreign Service Institute of the US Department of State.

To put it in perspective, it is akin to a Russian with deep ties to the Kremlin and arms-makers arguing that the Kremlin needed to find ways to break up the United States and, if possible, have these breakaway regions absorbed by Mexico and Canada. (A scenario which alas is not as far-fetched as it might have been a few years ago; many thousands in California now openly talk of a “Calexit,” and many more in Mexico of a reconquista.)

Meanwhile, it’s hard to imagine a quasi-official voice like Bugajski’s coming out in favor of a similar policy vis-a-vis China, which has its own restive regions, and which in geopolitical terms is no more or less of a threat to the US than Russia. One reason may be that China would consider an American call for secession by the Tibetans or Uyghurs to be a serious intrusion into their internal affairs, unlike Russia, which doesn’t appear to have noticed or been ruffled by Bugajski’s immodest proposal.

Indeed, just as the real scandal in Washington is what’s legal rather than illegal, the real outrage in this case is that few or none in DC finds Bugajski’s virtual declaration of war notable.

But it is. It is the sort of provocation that international incidents are made of, and if you are a US taxpayer, it is being made in your name, and it should be among your outrages of the month.

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

Latest

At Age 70, Time To Rethink NATO

The architect of Cold War containment, Dr. George Kennan, warned that moving NATO into Eastern Europe and former Soviet republics would prove a “fateful error.”

Patrick J. Buchanan

Published

on

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via The Unz Review:


“Treaties are like roses and young girls. They last while they last.”

So said President Charles De Gaulle, who in 1966 ordered NATO to vacate its Paris headquarters and get out of France.

NATO this year celebrates a major birthday. The young girl of 1966 is no longer young. The alliance is 70 years old.

And under this aging NATO today, the U.S. is committed to treat an attack on any one of 28 nations from Estonia to Montenegro to Romania to Albania as an attack on the United States.

The time is ripe for a strategic review of these war guarantees to fight a nuclear-armed Russia in defense of countries across the length of Europe that few could find on a map.

Apparently, President Donald Trump, on trips to Europe, raised questions as to whether these war guarantees comport with vital U.S. interests and whether they could pass a rigorous cost-benefit analysis.

The shock of our establishment that Trump even raised this issue in front of Europeans suggests that the establishment, frozen in the realities of yesterday, ought to be made to justify these sweeping war guarantees.

Celebrated as “the most successful alliance in history,” NATO has had two histories. Some of us can yet recall its beginnings.

In 1948, Soviet troops, occupying eastern Germany all the way to the Elbe and surrounding Berlin, imposed a blockade on the city.

The regime in Prague was overthrown in a Communist coup. Foreign minister Jan Masaryk fell, or was thrown, from a third-story window to his death. In 1949, Stalin exploded an atomic bomb.

As the U.S. Army had gone home after V-E Day, the U.S. formed a new alliance to protect the crucial European powers — West Germany, France, Britain, Italy. Twelve nations agreed that an attack on one would be treated as an attack on them all.

Cross the Elbe and you are at war with us, including the U.S. with its nuclear arsenal, Stalin was, in effect, told. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops returned to Europe to send the message that America was serious.

Crucial to the alliance was the Yalta line dividing Europe agreed to by Stalin, FDR and Churchill at the 1945 Crimean summit on the Black Sea.

U.S. presidents, even when monstrous outrages were committed in Soviet-occupied Europe, did not cross this line into the Soviet sphere.

Truman did not send armored units up the highway to Berlin. He launched an airlift to break the Berlin blockade. Ike did not intervene to save the Hungarian rebels in 1956. JFK confined his rage at the building of the Berlin Wall to the rhetorical: “Ich bin ein Berliner.”

LBJ did nothing to help the Czechs when, before the Democratic convention in 1968, Leonid Brezhnev sent Warsaw Pact tank armies to crush the Prague Spring.

When the Solidarity movement of Lech Walesa was crushed in Gdansk, Reagan sent copy and printing machines. At the Berlin Wall in 1988, he called on Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.”

Reagan never threatened to tear it down himself.

But beginning in 1989, the Wall was torn down, Germany was united, the Red Army went home, the Warsaw Pact dissolved, the USSR broke apart into 15 nations, and Leninism expired in its birthplace.

As the threat that had led to NATO disappeared, many argued that the alliance created to deal with that threat should be allowed to fade away, and a free and prosperous Europe should now provide for its own defense.

It was not to be. The architect of Cold War containment, Dr. George Kennan, warned that moving NATO into Eastern Europe and former Soviet republics would prove a “fateful error.”

This, said Kennan, would “inflame the nationalistic and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion” and “restore the atmosphere of the cold war in East-West relations.” Kennan was proven right.

America is now burdened with the duty to defend Europe from the Atlantic to the Baltic, even as we face a far greater threat in China, with an economy and population 10 times that of Russia.

And we must do this with a defense budget that is not half the share of the federal budget or the GDP that Eisenhower and Kennedy had.

Trump is president today because the American people concluded that our foreign policy elite, with their endless interventions where no vital U.S. interest was imperiled, had bled and virtually bankrupted us, while kicking away all of the fruits of our Cold War victory.

Halfway into Trump’s term, the question is whether he is going to just talk about halting Cold War II with Russia, about demanding that Europe pay for its own defense, and about bringing the troops home — or whether he is going to act upon his convictions.

Our foreign policy establishment is determined to prevent Trump from carrying out his mandate. And if he means to carry out his agenda, he had best get on with it.

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

Latest

Photos of new Iskander base near Ukrainian border creates media hype

But research into the photos and cross-checking of news reports reveals only the standard anti-Russian narrative that has gone on for years.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Fox News obtained satellite photos that claim that Russia has recently installed new Iskander missile batteries, one of them “near” to the Ukrainian border. However, what the Fox article does not say is left for the reader to discover: that in regards to Ukraine, these missiles are probably not that significant, unless the missiles are much longer range than reported:

The intelligence report provided to Fox by Imagesat International showed the new deployment in Krasnodar, 270 miles from the Ukrainian border. In the images is visible what appears to be an Iskander compound, with a few bunkers and another compound of hangars. There is a second new installation that was discovered by satellite photos, but this one is much farther to the east, in the region relatively near to Ulan-Ude, a city relatively close to the Mongolian border.

Both Ukraine and Mongolia are nations that have good relations with the West, but Mongolia has good relations with both its immediate neighbors, Russia and China, and in fact participated with both countries in the massive Vostok-2018 military war-games earlier this year.

Fox News provided these photos of the Iskander emplacement near Krasnodar:

Imagesat International

Fox annotated this photo in this way:

Near the launcher, there is a transloader vehicle which enables quick reloading of the missiles into the launcher. One of the bunker’s door is open, and another reloading vehicle is seen exiting from it.

[Fox:] The Iskander ballistic missile has a range up to 310 miles, and can carry both unconventional as well as nuclear warheads, putting most of America’s NATO allies at risk. The second deployment is near the border with Mongolia, in Ulan-Ude in Sothern Russia, where there are four launchers and another reloading vehicle.

[Fox:] Earlier this week, Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of Russia’s Security Council, said authorities of the former Soviet republic are being “controlled” by the West, warning it stands to lose its independence and identity as a consequence. “The continuation of such policy by the Kiev authorities can contribute to the loss of Ukraine’s statehood,” Mr Patrushev told Rossiyskaya Gazeta, according to Russian news agency TASS.

This situation was placed by Fox in context with the Kerch Strait incident, in which three Ukrainian vessels and twenty-four crew and soldiers were fired upon by Russian coast guard ships as they manuevered in the Kerch Strait without permission from Russian authorities based in Crimea. There are many indications that this incident was a deliberate attempt on the part of Ukraine’s president Petro Poroshenko, to create a sensational incident, possibly to bolster his flagging re-election campaign. After the incident, the President blustered and set ten provinces in Ukraine under martial law for 30 days, insisting to the world, and especially to the United States, that Russia was “preparing to invade” his country.

Russia expressed no such sentiment in any way, but they are holding the soldiers until the end of January. However, on January 17th, a Moscow court extended the detention of eight of these captured Ukrainian sailors despite protests from Kyiv and Washington.

In addition to the tensions in Ukraine, the other significant point of disagreement between the Russian Federation and the US is the US’ plan to withdraw from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). Russia sees this treaty as extremely important, but the US point of view expressed by John Bolton, National Security Adviser, is that the treaty is useless because it does not include any other parties that have intermediate range nukes or the capability for them, such as Iran, North Korea, and China. This is an unsolved problem, and it is possible that the moves of the Iskander batteries is a subtle warning from the Russians that they really would rather the US stay in the treaty.

Discussions on this matter at public levels between the Russian government and the US have been very difficult because of the fierce anti-Russia and anti-Trump campaigns in the media and political establishments of the United States. President Putin and President Trump have both expressed the desire to meet, but complications like the Kerch Strait Incident conveniently arise, and have repeatedly disrupted the attempts for these two leaders to meet.

Where Fox News appears to get it wrong shows in a few places:

First, the known range for Iskander missiles maxes at about 310 miles. The placement of the battery near Krasnodar is 270 miles from the eastern Ukrainian border, but the eastern part of Ukraine is Russian-friendly and two provinces, Donetsk and Lugansk, are breakaway provinces acting as independent republics. The battery appears to be no threat to Kyiv or to that part of Ukraine which is aligned with the West. Although the missiles could reach into US ally Georgia, Krasnodar is 376 miles from Tbilisi, and so again it seems that there is no significant target for these missiles. (This is assuming the location given is accurate.)

Second, the location shown in the photo is (44,47,29.440N at 39,13,04.754E). The date on the “Krasnodar” photo is January 17, 2019. However, a photo of the region taken July 24, 2018 reveals a different layout. It takes a moment or two to study this, but there is not much of an exact match here:

Third, Fox News reported of “further Russian troops deployment and S-400 Surface to air missile days after the escalation started, hinting Russia might have orchestrated the naval incident.”

It may be true that Russia deployed weapons to this base area in Crimea, but this is now Russian territory. S-400s can be used offensively, but their primary purpose is defensive. Troops on the Crimean Peninsula, especially at this location far to the north of the area, are not in a position strategically to invade Kherson Oblast (a pushback would probably corner such forces on the Crimean peninsula with nowhere to go except the Black Sea). However, this does look like a possible defense installation should Ukraine’s forces try to invade or bomb Crimea.

Fox has this wrong, but it is no great surprise, because the American stance about Ukraine and Russia is similar – Russia can do no right, and Ukraine can do no wrong. Fox News is not monolithic on this point of view, of course, with anchors and journalists such as Tucker Carlson, who seem willing to acknowledge the US propaganda about the region. However, there are a lot of hawks as well. While photos in the articles about the S-400s and the Russian troops are accurately located, it does appear that the one about Iskanders is not, and that the folks behind this original article are guessing that the photos will not be questioned. After all, no one in the US knows where anything is in Russia and Ukraine, anyway, right?

That there is an issue here is likely. But is it appears that there is strong evidence that it is opposite what Fox reported here, it leaves much to be questioned.

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