Connect with us

Latest

“Ukraine should blow up Putin’s Crimea bridge,” unhinged Washington Examiner advocates terrorism

This advice is INSANE, and would be the end of the statehood of Ukraine

The Duran

Published

on

5,327 Views

An alarming article has emerged in which Tom Rogan a Washington Examiner journalist advocated for terror, in the form of Ukrainian airstrikes, “air strikes” on the Crimean bridge Russia has completed across the Kerch Strait.

In the article, he begins rather calmly, plainly stating the facts that Russia opened a bridge, however, he did refer to Crimea has “Ukraine”, which does not reflect the democratic choice of Crimean people.

After slightly mentioning Putin’s so-called “bravado” he immediately recommended that Ukraine bomb Russia:

Russian President Vladimir Putin opened the Kerch Strait Bridge connecting Crimea, Ukraine, with mainland Russia on Tuesday…Ukraine should now destroy elements of the bridge.

Well, that escalated quickly! He apparently agrees, going on further to say:

While that course of action would be an escalation against Putin and one that would almost certainly spark Russian retaliation, this bridge is an outrageous affront to Ukraine’s very credibility as a nation. Of course, from Putin’s perspective, that’s the whole point. The bridge cost Russia’s near-bankrupt government billions of dollars, but it offers Putin a formal physical and psychological appropriation of Ukrainian territory.

Fortunately, Ukraine has the means to launch air strikes against the bridge in a manner that would render it at least temporarily unusable. Because of its significant length, the Ukrainian air force could strike the bridge while mitigating the risk of casualties by those traversing it.

RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan slammed the article on Twitter:

Simonyan said:

The American weekly “Washington Examiner” posted an article with a call to bomb the Crimean bridge. Once again, American media calls for air strikes against our bridge.

Any sane person can recognize how very alarming and dangerous the statements in the article are, as well as the arrogant tone overall, a product of an ideologue, painfully out of touch with reality, who probably does not even speak Ukrainian let alone Russian. This is a typical “Russia-Ukraine expert” in Western media.

Case in point, the author even links to an article he wrote, in which the headline reads: “Don’t worry, the US would win a nuclear war with Russia”. That says it all, with regards to his mental state.

In that article, he even says both the US and Russia would be destroyed in a nuclear war. He says that while Russian nukes could “hit every major U.S. city with confidence”, he feels that America could “win” a nuclear war, “by retaining smaller cities and a large rural population and denying the Russians the same”. So his definition of winning, involves a nuclear winter for everyone, but with one side having more “smaller cities”.

In the end, he finally capitulates, saying:

The social and economic consequences of any nuclear exchange with Russia would be horrendous.

I think from that article alone, we can tell the author has some serious issues. If he isn’t a troll, however, our focus here now is to debunk his article suggesting Ukraine should bomb Russia.

Ukraine to Bomb Russia?

First of all, the article advocates for state-sponsored terrorism – suggesting that one state bomb the territory of another without a declaration of war, in what essentially amounts to “sending a message”.

He even accepts the fact that there may be casualties of those traversing it, essentially condemning civilians to death, as necessary losses in the defense of “Ukraine’s very credibility as a nation”. Considering that the capacity for the bridge is around 40,000 cars, the author potentially risks the lives of dozens to thousands of civilians. Or does he think the Ukrainian government which allowed around 10000 to be killed in Donbass, including women and children, is very concerned for collateral damage? If the author is not trolling, in which case he’s an idiot, then he is either horrifyingly cruel, or deeply insane.

Can you imagine what would happen if a Russian journalist was to openly suggest bombing western infrastructure? They would immediately be on every CIA black-list, and it would receive international attention. Yet this journalist is allowed to freely advocate for bombing the Russian Federation, which Crimea is legally a part of, without any criticism.

Even if one does not believe the fact that Crimeans choose to join Russia (which they did), from a pragmatic perspective, one must understand that no matter what, Crimea is fully integrated into Russia. Those who hate this can kick and scream all they want, but it does not change the facts on the ground. It will never change.

Crimea is Russia. This means that it is defended by the armed forces of the Russian Federation, and therein dwell Russian civilians, all of whom consider the peninsula a sovereign part of Russia.

That means, any attack on Russian territory will trigger a massive response from Russian territory – from a nuclear superpower. In the article, the author even acknowledges this, saying:

The Ukrainians could also fly low and circular to evade Russian (admittedly high-competency) air defenses.

He even admits that Russia has “high-competency” air defenses. Russian air defenses are so advanced, that one of the richest and most powerful countries in the world – China – buys them.

Not only this, but NATO member Turkey chose to buy Russian S-400s, instead of US/NATO counterparts, in a controversial deal, risking relations with the US. Would they really do that if the Russian systems weren’t top notch?

US is FURIOUS Turkey bought Russian S-400 Missiles – State Dept.

Moreover, a US General admitted to a Senator that Russia’s latest hypersonic missiles are extremely capable:

“If that happens, what kind of defense do we have against the hypersonic threat?” [Senator] Inhofe asked.

[General] Hyten replied, “We have a very difficult — well, our defense is our deterrent capability. We don’t have any defense that could deny the employment of such a weapon against us, so our response would be our deterrent force, which would be the triad and the nuclear capabilities that we have to respond to such a threat.”

Vladimir Putin proves Russia’s new Kinzhal Missile is the best in the world [Video]

As a result, the suggestion of this western journalist that Ukraine attack Russia essentially amounts to suicide for the Ukrainians. But believe it or not, this is not the first time western agents suggested something like this.

On the Third of March, 2014, Joel Harding, a man with connections to American intelligence, advocated for “talent” to blow up natural gas pipelines that run from Russia to Europe through Ukraine. That suggestion essentially amounts to advocating terrorism, this time, indirectly threatening Europe.

I suppose the EU does not get a say in the matter, seeing as they need the Russian gas. According to Harding, Ukrainians should take the initiative to commit terror attacks for a better future. “Bombing for world peace” anyone?

Harding has been associated with both the Ukrainian government, as well as dangerous Neo-Nazi groups like Pravi Sektor (right sector) which is banned in Russia. Harding went as far as to allegedly threaten another American journalist, George Eliason, with interrogation by the Ukrainian SBU. George Eliason provides major coverage of the Ukraine Crisis, including the Odessa Pogrom.

It is alarming that an American citizen, would threaten another American with interrogation by agents of a foreign government, for exercising his first amendment rights to free speech.

Those rights may not protect an American abroad from foreign laws, as all people must obey the laws of the territory they are in, but certainly, another American should not encourage foreign agents to arrest US citizens.

Fighting Russia to the Death of the Last Ukrainian?

What both of these stories have in common, is the suggestion by foreigners, that Ukraine launch attacks against Russia, and Russian property.

A Ukrainian attack on Russia could trigger a retaliation so powerful, Ukraine, as a state could cease to exist. The Ukrainian Army can barely fight Donbass, a full-scale invasion of the Russian grounds forces would result in a tricolor over the Maidan in a short time. It would also result in much Slavic blood spilled, something neither Russia nor Ukraine needs.

These suggestions are not made by friends of Ukraine, but by enemies of Russia. They care nothing for Ukrainians, and at worst case, wish to use them as cannon fodder in a proxy war against Russia.

Think: If Ukraine attacks Russia, causing a war…if Russia and Ukraine were to go to war…who benefits?

Sure, they both say Russia would take losses, but they totally brush under the rug how the losses Ukraine would sustain, would push the already failed state off the cliff, and into becoming the Somalia of Europe.

Does anyone want that? Russia doesn’t, and no sane Ukrainian would want to become Somalia. In Joel Harding’s article, he says Ukraine could simply revert to insurgent warfare…so he is essentially advocating that the bright future of Ukraine is guerilla warfare.

These people think that is a preferable alternative to the Pre-2014 status quo, before over 10,000 people were killed in Donbass.

To warmongerers, violence is always preferable to peace. They believe the salvation of Ukraine will come via war, however, a true Savior once said the peacemakers will inherit the earth. Russia wants peace in Ukrainian lands, whereas the West is offering Ukraine war and death.

Is this what Ukrainian children need? Because this is what their civilized western partners are suggesting to them.

They won’t be fighting! Do the authors of these articles intend to suit up, and fight like Charles XII of Sweden with Ivan Mazepa? Highly unlikely, but that would be like the Battle of Poltava, and we all know how that ended. Just ask Poltava native Nikolai Gogol which civilization Ukraine belongs to.

Glorious were our grandfathers – They are remembered by the Swedes and Poles, and they carried forth the eagle of victory, it soared over Poltava, in her fields. – March of the Preobrazhinksy Guards

They won’t fight, and neither will Ukraine’s criminal leaders, but millions of Ukrainians will be caught in the crossfire of a war engineered to destroy Slavic people. To the Victors goes the Salo!

Ukraine can not fight Russia, and Russia has no wish to fight Ukraine. Anyone suggesting that Ukraine attack Russia is no friend of Ukraine; they are sending Ukrainians to a pointless ruїn [sic]. This is just further evidence that the West wants to fight Russia, to the death of the last Ukrainian.

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Trump’s wish to take the US out of NATO leaves NeoCons seething

The US President has seen the truth of the irrelevance of NATO, but there is enormous resistance to change.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

Tucker Carlson, Fox News and Russian and American news outlets alike have picked up the story that US President Donald Trump has on numerous occasions, opined that the United States would do well to depart from the North Atlantic Military Organization, or NATO.

This wish caused enormous fury and backlash from those opposed, which, oddly enough include both Democrats and Republicans. Their anger and alarm over this idea is such that the media networks through much of the US are alive with the idea of impeaching the President or bringing 25th Amendment proceedings against him for insanity!

Take a look:

Tucker Carlson, as usual, nailed it.

NATO was formed to make Western Europe secure in the face of a perceived Soviet threat. In 1991, the USSR collapsed and the threat of Ivan the Communist bad guy collapsed with it.

But 28 years later, NATO is still here. And, why?

Well, many “experts” continue to point at Russia as a threat, though after that statement no one seems honestly able to elucidate precisely how Russia would, in fact, threaten any nation, take over it, or conquer the world. Indeed, if anyone seems to understand the perversity of being in charge of the whole world, it seems to be Russia, as expressed by politician and LDPR leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky (see how this is so here).

Zhironovsky observed that China is the other nation that is running at full force, but viewing the problems the US is having with being the leader of the world, China stops short of trying to attain this position itself. The question becomes “What does a nation that rules the world actually do then?”

President Trump appears to be seeing the same question, or some similar variant based on the same theme. NATO serves no constructive purpose anymore. Despite the conflicts in Ukraine and Saudi Arabia and Yemen, Israel and Syria, there simply are no great threats in the world as it stands today. While there are certainly still wars, none of these wars represents an existential threat to the United States.

Why wouldn’t a US leader want out? In fact, there is further no existential threat to Europe from any present war, nor is there a threat from Russia itself. In fact, Russia has been entering into business relations with many European countries who wish to buy cheap and easily available Russian natural gas. Turkey purchased an S-400 antimissile system in addition to its US made Patriot battery.

There would seem to be very little in the way of concrete and reliable reasoning for the alliance to continue.

But the American Deep State and liberal establishment have come together to resist the US President in a truly furious manner, and it is revelatory of the hypocrisy of anti-Trump politics that American liberals, typically the “sing Kum-ba-yah peacenik” crowd, displays paroxysms of outrage and horror that NATO might be disbanded.

As the result of that, the American media is determined to choke off any possibility of one thinking, “well, what if we were to disband NATO?”

Why is this?

Simple. A lot of people make their living by preparing for the Russian “threat”, and it would mean the end of their work, the end of their money, and a great disruption in life. It does not matter that while this is true, these same people could conceivably apply their considerable skill sets to deal with real problems that face a world that no longer has a dipolar alignment, or to help prevent a real problem from arising from real situations, such as the recent and current Islamization of many European cities.

One of the great afflictions of American politics and policy has been that so much of it appears to be focused on “short term” or “no term” matters. We see this with the problems related to border security, the coming advent of AI-based automated processes that may furlough low-skilled workers in tremendous amounts in a short period of time. Rather than solve real problems, the elected representatives and media seem more content to oppose Donald Trump when he, as a businessman ought to do, makes a federal case out of what he sees on the horizon.

The Border Wall, for example, is a highly logical part of a properly handled set of immigration policies. But the very direct behavior of President Trump helped amplify the resentment the Democrats still hold against him for defeating Hillary Clinton in 2016, and so, the Democrats have effectively said “nuts!” to the needs of the nation and they take out their resentment on the nation by refusing to negotiate with the President about how to close the border.

NATO is another example. The alliance served its purpose. It is time for the alliance to end, or to be radically restructured in terms of new goals based in real, and not just flimsy rhetorical, needs.

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

Latest

BREXIT storm deepens, as parliamentary coup may be forming against May and Corbyn

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 166.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Emboldened by Theresa May’s lack of leadership and will to deliver the Brexit that UK citizens voted for in a democratic referendum, remain MPs are now mobilizing to do the EU’s bidding in forcing Britain to nullify the Brexit process and eventually stay a part of the European Union.

After yesterday’s thumping of May’s Brexit plan in parliament, The Times’ Matthew Parris is now openly floating the idea that “it’s time for parliament to wrest control from the zombies, stating that “Theresa May isn’t any good” and “Jeremy Corbyn is equally useless”…

There exists no leadership in either the government or the opposition capable of taking us through this mess. No hidden strengths, no unexpected qualities; no whizzbang new thinking, no magic. Forget May. Forget Corbyn. Salvation is not coming from these directions.
So it’s up to parliament. MPs are coming to understand that they have to act. It has been stealing on parliamentarians for months now and close contacts between leading members of both parties have been made and have been deepening.
From within the Commons a shadow executive must emerge, and is beginning to. Labour’s Yvette Cooper talks to the Tories’ Dominic Grieve. Around them is a cluster of senior parliamentarians who are getting used to talking.
A common purpose unites them: rescuing the country from a no-deal Brexit that only a small minority actually want. Whether this is to be done by seeking a better deal than May’s or by a new referendum, or both, they need to find a way soon. An “indicative” vote of the House of Commons may help guide them.
And however speedily the House can find its leadership and direction, it’s hard to imagine this can be done without an extension to the Article 50 negotiating period.
Overwhelmingly, the conclusion to be drawn from last night’s vote is that parliament must wrest control from a zombie prime minister, a zombie cabinet and a zombie opposition. I heard in May’s response to the result the hint of the straw at which she may now clutch: a Labour-style Brexit under a Tory nominal prime minister. I would be amazed if her party would accept it.

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the turbulent and uncertain road ahead in the Brexit saga as a March deadline looms.

Shifting sands, and betrayal at the highest level is now crystallizing, as hints of a possible parliamentary coup against May and Corbyn is being floated as a possible solution to the impasse that will ultimately steer the UK back under EU control, and cancel the Brexit referendum.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via Straits Times

The words “humiliated” and “crushed” featured prominently in British newspaper headlines following Parliament’s massive rejection of a divorce deal with the European Union on Tuesday (Jan 15).

Dailies said Prime Minister Theresa May’s grip on power was waning after the huge vote against the agreement struck between her government and Brussels, as she prepared to fight a no-confidence motion on Wednesday.

“May humiliated by 230 votes,” The Daily Mirror tabloid said.

The Daily Telegraph wrote: “Humiliation for Prime Minister as MPs overwhelmingly reject deal and Labour tables no confidence vote.”

The broadsheet’s parliamentary sketchwriter Michael Deacon said Mrs May had somehow defied the odds by making a historic event an anticlimax.

“Her speech had all the brio of a mouldy gym sock,” he wrote.

“She sounded as winningly persuasive as a mother snapping at her children to eat up their cabbage or go to bed hungry.”

The vote itself “was as if Agatha Christie has allowed Miss Marple to solve the murder half way through and spend the rest of the novel pottering about in the garden”.

‘ZOMBIE PM’

The Times columnist Matthew Parris said it was time for senior MPs to take over the Brexit process.

“There exists no leadership in either the government or the opposition capable of taking us through this mess,” he wrote following the vote.

“Theresa May isn’t any good; she doesn’t have a fiendish, secret strategy; she’s careless with the truth and will say anything to get her through another week. She doesn’t know what to do.

“Overwhelmingly, the conclusion to be drawn… is that Parliament must wrest control from a zombie Prime Minister, a zombie Cabinet and a zombie opposition.”

The Daily Mail said the defeat left Mrs May’s power “hanging by a thread”, calling it a “devastating result, which threatens to plunge the Brexit process into chaos”.

The Sun, Britain’s biggest-selling newspaper, said: “Crushed PM dares MPs to vote for general election after record Brexit defeat.”

“The crushing defeat – which saw 118 Tories turn against the PM – is the worst since the advent of full democracy and suggests Mrs May will never win enough support for her strategy,” said the tabloid.

The Financial Times newspaper ran a headline reading: “May’s defeat spells trouble for the EU’s Brexit approach.”

“Huge loss leaves PM in race against time,” the broadsheet said.

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

Latest

Ukraine’s Cult of Stepan Bandera: Not a Detail, but a Cornerstone

Unlike Poroshenko with his aerial bombings of the Russian-speaking Donbass in 2014 and 2015, Bandera killed the “wrong” victims, the representatives of those nations that are valued even by the modern Western media.

Dmitry Babich

Published

on

Authored by Dmitry Babich via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


During the recent years of the confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, there has been one issue where the Western mainstream press simply cannot fully ignore or reject the Russian arguments. This issue concerns the life and actions of Stepan Bandera (1909-1959) and his followers from what is known as the “Banderite” faction of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN, a far-right organization that took terrorist actions against Polish and Soviet officials from the 1920s to the 1950s and which is now legally protected from any criticism in Ukraine).

THE “WRONG” AND “RIGHT” VICTIMS

Because Bandera was born on January 1, 1909, celebrations of his birthday have become disgusting New Year’s rituals in Ukraine in recent years, with thousands participating in Nazi-style torch-lit marches that include shouted protests against “Putin’s Russia” and rants such as, “Jews out!” which are heard by everyone except the police. This New Year was no exception, since the current Ukrainian government under President Petro Poroshenko (who publicly identified himself as a Banderite after taking office in 2014) officially added Bandera’s 110th birthday to the list of Ukraine’s most important anniversaries. This time, there were several quiet voices of condemnation heard in Poland, Israel, and even the US. Why? In truth, torches, masks, political murders, and mob attacks against “pro-Russian” public figures are nothing new in post-Maidan Ukraine. And these things usually pose no problem for the mainstream press of the US and its allies. So, why is Bandera an exception?

The answer is ethnic, as awful as that may sound. Unlike Poroshenko with his aerial bombings of the Russian-speaking Donbass in 2014 and 2015, Bandera killed the “wrong” victims, the representatives of those nations that are valued even by the modern Western media, with its double and triple standards. In the 1930s Bandera killed Polish officials, in the 1940s his people killed civilian Jews and Polish peasants, and these are groups whose plight even the New York Times cannot ignore today. If Bandera’s infamous slogan “Death to enemies!” had been directed only against “disloyal” Russians and anti-Banderite Ukrainians (the groups currently persecuted by Poroshenko), Bandera would have been no different from his modern admirers in the Ukrainian government. But Bandera’s followers from the OUN decimated the Jewish population of Lvov and Kiev in 1941, trying to curry favor with the advancing Germans. And between 1943 and 1944, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), taking its orders from Bandera’s OUN officers, ethnically cleansed his native Western Ukraine of ethnic Poles, killing from 70,000-100,000 of them (the infamous “slaughter of Volhynia”). The aim was to create an “ethnically pure” Ukraine before the arrival of the Red Army in late 1944. Documents published by the Polish historian Grzegorz Motyka indicate that Bandera and the OUN hoped that the Red Army would soon be replaced by Anglo-American domination. “His strategy was to clean up the house before the arrival of the real master,” Motyka concludes in his book.

THE LADY OF THE RADA VS. ISRAEL’S PRESIDENT

The American domination took another 70 years, but it did come. And now the Banderites’ (and Poroshenko’s) only historic disagreement with the West is over the infamous “ethnic cleansing,” to which Bandera’s “glorious heroes” subjected Ukraine in 1941-1944. When Israeli President Reuven Rivlin dared to raise the issue during his visit to Ukraine in 2016, he got a scolding from the vice speaker of the Ukrainian parliament (Verkhovna Rada), Irina Gerashchenko: “The Israeli president allowed himself some incorrect and undiplomatic words about the OUN’s tragic history,” Gerashchenko said at the time. “It was highly inappropriate, especially now, when Ukraine is fighting for its independence.” Gerashchenko forgot to mention the fact that Babi Yar, the burial site of some 30,000 Jews killed by German and Ukrainian Nazis in Kiev in 1941, was vandalized nine times between 2015 and 2016, according to data provided by the Ukrainian Jewish Committee.

WHY THE WEST WANTS TO FORGET, BUT CANNOT

In the immediate aftermath of the Maidan coup in 2014, the mainstream press was ready to forget even that, since an honest account of Bandera’s activities between 1939 and 1959 could rekindle memories of the undesirable parallels to the “resistance to Russian occupation” by Poroshenko’s army in the Donbass in 2014 and 2015. Between the summer of 2014 and the winter of 2015, about 10,000 people died there, victims of the aircraft and tanks sent by Poroshenko (just months earlier, the US and the EU had been unable to abide the use of truncheons by the police of the ousted president, Viktor Yanukovych). At the time, the NYT called Bandera the “Ukrainian nationalists’ hero.” Obviously, the NYT’s authors were taking their cues from the Washington Post’s Anne Applebaum, with her Banderite headline, “Nationalism is exactly what Ukraine Needs” in the once-glorious New Republic.

But here the mainstream press tried to kill off a memory that will never die — the memory of how Hitler’s East European Nazi allies participated in the destruction of the region’s Jewish population in the early 1940s. This was something not even Anne Applebaum could make people forget.

In his articles in the American press, the director of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, Eduard Dolinsky, tried to explain to the American public that Bandera’s cult is not an isolated, unpleasant phenomenon: Stepan Bandera never acted alone, he represented a crudely nationalist ideology. Unfortunately, this ideology reigns triumphant in modern Ukraine behind the “liberal” façade displayed for the West. For example, Dolinsky notes that Poroshenko’s hypocritical speeches memorializing Jewish victims can be heard next to, say, a memorial to OUN activist Ivan Rogach, whose newspaper called Jews “the greatest enemy of the people” in 1941. “The Ukrainian leadership set itself on the course of rehabilitating anti-Semitism and introducing censorship of history,” concludes the official statement of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish human-rights group, famous for its work to bring Nazi criminals to justice.

THE RUSSIAN QUESTION BEHIND THE JEWISH ONE

If the West cannot afford to be completely silent about Bandera’s participation in the Holocaust, it is willingly ignoring another huge injustice that is inseparable from Bandera’s cult in modern Ukraine — the erasure of the Russian and anti-Banderite component of Ukraine’s historic memory. In 2017, Kiev’s Vatutin Avenue was renamed Bandera Avenue, resulting in an outcry in Russia and complete silence in the West. This avenue, a major thoroughfare in the Ukrainian capital, had originally been named in honor of General Nikolai Vatutin, who liberated Kiev from Nazi occupation in 1943 and died in a shootout with the OUN’s guerillas in 1944. At the time, there was no question about where America’s sympathies lay: the fight against Hitler was not yet over, and Vatutin, born in 1901 to a peasant family living immediately adjacent to the future Russian-Ukrainian border, was a useful ally for the United States. Will Bandera and his modern followers be a good replacement? Only someone with Poroshenko’s plans for Ukraine or with Anne Applebaum’s views on history could agree.

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