Connect with us

Latest

News

Staff Picks

A Russian’s Message to the West: Let’s put aside the Warmongers and talk Peace

General Sir Richard Shirreff’s prediction of war with Russia is an example of false and obsolete Western thinking about Russia which is creating an unnecessary conflict between the West and Russia.

Maxim Shashenkov

Published

on

735 Views

British general Sir Richard Shirreff who between 2011 and 2014 served as the Deputy Supreme NATO allied Commander in Europe suddenly predicts that Russia will start World War III in May 2017 by invading Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Ukraine.

In fact, his book on the inevitable to war with Russia in 2017 was published last week.

In Russian we have a saying – “Всё это было бы смешно, когда бы не было так грустно”, which means ‘This all sounds very funny, if it was not so sad’.

There are lots of Whys to be addressed in regard to the General’s statements and his strategic views. Why would Russia want to invade the Baltics? Why next year? Why Word War III? Why the Baltics and Ukraine? Why at all?

Having lived in Britain for more than 25 years, I am actually Russian British. Russia is my motherland, but Britain is my home.  I and about 250,000 other Russians in Britain would lose massively from any war between Russia and NATO.  We – more than anybody else – want peace, good relations, good business contacts, and mutual respect between Russia and the West. We have a vested interest in good Russian British relations.

I will try to answer those whys from my perspective.

It looks to me that General Sir Richard Shirreff expressed what are his personal views, rather than the official policy line. This is fine. He is retired, and it is his right to express his personal views.

That is the good news.

The bad news is that General Sir Richard Shireff seems absolutely sincere in his analysis and conclusions. He does not make them for publicity, money etc.  He really believes what he is writing.

This is alarming. It reveals a worrying truth: that there is an ‘alarmist’ camp within the top NATO military command, which sees war with Russia as almost inevitable.

That is scary.

In my opinion this whole episode reflects some very worrying realities about NATO’s top generals.

First, there is a generational issue.  They were brought up, trained and taught to fight big conventional wars against the USSR.  They do not know anything else. Russia has simply replaced the USSR in their mental setup. Inertia works. It is psychologically more comfortable to stick to the familiar and confront the ‘old, good, well known enemy’, rather than to think and plan about new security threats to Europe.

Second, they are not well informed and briefed about both the situation on the ground in the Baltics, Ukraine, Russia etc – and, most worryingly – about Russian military strategy and plans. Crimea revealed it well.  The head of US military intelligence was removed soon after it happened. Even the almighty Americans failed to forecast Russian military and strategic moves.

Thirdly, they think that any ethnic clashes in the former Soviet Union can be a reasonable excuse to start Word War III. 

Here I advise my readers to watch the BBC movie about the beginning of war with Russia over the Baltics released a few months ago. In that movi, the British high command appears almost evenly split between those who think Russian actions in the former Soviet Union should be confronted if necessary with nuclear weapons, and those who are strongly against doing so.  It was a pretty realistic movie actually.

One thing is clear: if such a scenario were ever to unfold General Sir Richard Shirreff would be on the side of those who want to strike first.  He openly admits he belongs to the ‘hawkish camp’ of the British strategic establishment.

Let’s start with the basic facts. Let’s talk about the Baltics. Has anyone ever heard or read or watched anything about clashes between ethnic Russians and natives in these three states? Ever?

The short answer is of course no!

There are disagreements on the rights of citizenship, use of the Russian language, Russian World War II memorials, and many other things.  But there is no official political party, no underground movement, no secrets cells which call for joining Russia. None.

I have been to Latvia and Lithuania myself a few times in the past few years. The Russian community there is very smart.  Some/most will use the Baltic States as a platform to move to richer European states (Britain, Germany, France etc).   Some are doing well there. Nobody wants to fight to escape to Russia. It is a Western myth!

The scenario of Russia invading the Baltic states to protect ‘ethnic Russians’ is a grotesque fantasy. Ethnic Russians in the Baltics do not need that, and they laugh when you discuss such scenarios with them.

If there is no there ‘Baltic case’ then  – if you follow General Sir Richard Shirreff’s logic – Russia will nonetheless provoke one to justify its ‘invasion of Europe’.

It is all incredibly naïve!  I do not want to insult military people.  On the contrary I respect them. In any country the military are the pride of the nation.  That is true in Britain, Russia or America.

But why?  Why would Russia invade?

Just read Western official and social media. Almost daily, information gets published on how well the Russian elite has become integrated in Europe. Kids, schools, houses etc. Why does General Sir Richard Shirreff think this same elite plans to provoke World War III when – according to Western sources – they are living so happily and nicely in the West? Why would they want to change that?

What about Vladimir Putin?

He is a pragmatist, above all.  He wants Russia to become part of Europe, but as one of the leading states of Europe, not as a subordinate part of a Greater Europe.  As part of a group of states that include Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

The Kremlin opposes people like General Sir Richard Shirreff because all Russians understand that we do not need more dividing lines in Europe. 

As for the West, it should give Russia the time and space it needs to reform itself.

This after all was given to other European nations.  France is one example.  It underwent a major transition from the 1940s to the 1960s. Nobody however at that time accused Paris of being non-European or non-Western despite France’s huge, tragic and bloody wars in North Africa and Indochina.  Certainly there was lots of criticism, internal and external.  But it never degenerated into an existential conflict. Nobody ever accused Paris of being non-Western because it was pursuing a colonial foreign policy.

Nations are like people. They grow up. Russians are simply a younger and more unique nation.  However they are a European nation, repeating many familiar patterns of the European nation-building process. The fact Russia is doing many things a hundred years later than say France or Britain means nothing.  That is a trifling period in terms of historical time.

The biggest problem complicating Moscow’s interaction with the West is the very ahistorical approach being taken by the Western side. The fact that big imperial nations like France or Britain with decades of decolonisation history behind them still attack Russia for its ‘imperial policy’ is very sad.  The lesson should be: Study your own History!  To repeat, one hundred years is nothing in terms of historical time.

Why then did General Sir Richard Shirreff make such a statement and write such a book?

I can see only two reasons:

1.     Ministry of Defence vested interest/ corporate loyalty. 

General Sir Richard Shirreff is a hugely respected part of the British military establishment.  He has to protect his ‘corporate interest’, his system. Its only reason for existence is the ‘Russian Threat’ so he plays it up.

In reality we all understand that there is no such threat. The threat to Britain comes from Islamist extremism and uncontrolled immigration. The two are interlinked. Uncontrolled immigration breeds more terrorism.

What does that mean? It means that more money should be given to the Police, MI5 and MI6.  They are the ones who are fighting the terror threat, not the Ministry of Defence.  The Ministry of Defence tried to do so in Iraq and Afghanistan under US stewardship and failed.

Unfortunately what is happening is that the Ministry of Defence is competing with the security services for money from the British budget so it is stirring up the mythical ‘Russian threat’ as the only way it can get it.  For its part I am sure MI6 is laughing silently to itself at General Sir Richard Shirreff’s absurd analysis and his forecast of war next year with Russia.

2.     Mentality and age.  Britain’s and NATO’s top brass are old.  They cannot properly assess where we – Europe, the West, Russia, indeed the world at large – are at the moment. 

That is sad and worry but let us pay our respects to great military leaders like General Sir Richard Shirreff.  They are trying to defend British interests even if they are doing it in completely the wrong way.  It’s not their fault that their time is long past and they should be put out quietly to pasture.

Having said all this, let’s put all this nonsense behind us and work together to avoid war. I know for a fact Russia has ZERO plans to attack the West. Russia is simply defending its own turf. If what you want is peace the answer is very simple: Don’t bring NATO closer to Russia.

Maxim Shashenkov is a senior banking professional with more than 20 years experience.

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

‘Meme-killing’ EU regulation could end YouTube as we know it, CEO warns

The proposed amendments to the EU Copyright Directive would require the automatic removal of any user-created content suspected of violating intellectual property law.

The Duran

Published

on

Via RT


YouTube’s CEO has urged creators on the popular video site to organize against a proposed EU internet regulation, reinforcing fears that the infamous Article 13 could lead to content-killing, meme-maiming restrictions on the web.

The proposed amendments to the EU Copyright Directive would require the automatic removal of any user-created content suspected of violating intellectual property law – with platforms being liable for any alleged copyright infringement. If enacted, the legislation would threaten “both your livelihood and your ability to share your voice with the world,” YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki warned the site’s content creators in a blog post on Monday.

The regulation would endanger “hundreds of thousands of job,” Wojcicki said, predicting that it would likely force platforms such as YouTube to allow only content from a hand-picked group of companies.

“It would be too risky for platforms to host content from smaller original content creators, because the platforms would now be directly liable for that content,” Wojcicki wrote.

While acknowledging that it was important to properly compensate all rights holders, the YouTube chief lamented that the “unintended consequences of Article 13 will put this ecosystem at risk.”

She encouraged YouTubers to use the #SaveYourInternet hashtag to tell the world how the proposed legislation would impact them personally.

“RIP YOUTUBE..IT WAS FUN,” read one rather fatalistic reply to the post. Another comment worried that Article 13 would do “immense damage … particularly to smaller creators.”

The proposal has stirred considerable controversy in Europe and abroad, with critics claiming that the legislation would essentially ban any kind of creative content, ranging from memes to parody videos, that would normally fall under fair use.

Alphabet, the parent company of Google and YouTube, has opposed Article 13 for months. The measure was advanced in June by the European Parliament. A final vote on the proposed regulation is expected to take place sometime next year.

World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales have also spoken out against Article 13.

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

Latest

WSJ Op-Ed Cracks The Code: Why Liberal Intellectuals Hate Trump

WSJ: The Real Reason They Hate Trump

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


As pundits continue to scratch their heads over the disruptive phenomenon known as Donald Trump, Yale computer science professor and chief scientist at Dittach, David Gelernter, has penned a refreshingly straightforward and blunt Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal explaining why Trump has been so successful at winning hearts and minds, and why the left – especially those snarky ivory-tower intellectuals, hate him.

Gelernter argues that Trump – despite being a filthy rich “parody of the average American,” is is a regular guy who has successfully resonated with America’s underpinnings.

Mr. Trump reminds us who the average American really is. Not the average male American, or the average white American,” writes Gelernter. “We know for sure that, come 2020, intellectuals will be dumbfounded at the number of women and blacks who will vote for Mr. Trump. He might be realigning the political map: plain average Americans of every type vs. fancy ones.”

He never learned to keep his real opinions to himself because he never had to. He never learned to be embarrassed that he is male, with ordinary male proclivities. Sometimes he has treated women disgracefully, for which Americans, left and right, are ashamed of him—as they are of JFK and Bill Clinton. –WSJ

Gelernter then suggests: “This all leads to an important question—one that will be dismissed indignantly today, but not by historians in the long run: Is it possible to hate Donald Trump but not the average American?“.

***

The Real Reason They Hate Trump via the Wall Street Journal.

He’s the average American in exaggerated form—blunt, simple, willing to fight, mistrustful of intellectuals.

Every big U.S. election is interesting, but the coming midterms are fascinating for a reason most commentators forget to mention: The Democrats have no issues. The economy is booming and America’s international position is strong. In foreign affairs, the U.S. has remembered in the nick of time what Machiavelli advised princes five centuries ago: Don’t seek to be loved, seek to be feared.

The contrast with the Obama years must be painful for any honest leftist. For future generations, the Kavanaugh fight will stand as a marker of the Democratic Party’s intellectual bankruptcy, the flashing red light on the dashboard that says “Empty.” The left is beaten.

This has happened before, in the 1980s and ’90s and early 2000s, but then the financial crisis arrived to save liberalism from certain destruction. Today leftists pray that Robert Mueller will put on his Superman outfit and save them again.

For now, though, the left’s only issue is “We hate Trump.” This is an instructive hatred, because what the left hates about Donald Trump is precisely what it hates about America. The implications are important, and painful.

Not that every leftist hates America. But the leftists I know do hate Mr. Trump’s vulgarity, his unwillingness to walk away from a fight, his bluntness, his certainty that America is exceptional, his mistrust of intellectuals, his love of simple ideas that work, and his refusal to believe that men and women are interchangeable. Worst of all, he has no ideology except getting the job done. His goals are to do the task before him, not be pushed around, and otherwise to enjoy life. In short, he is a typical American—except exaggerated, because he has no constraints to cramp his style except the ones he himself invents.

Mr. Trump lacks constraints because he is filthy rich and always has been and, unlike other rich men, he revels in wealth and feels no need to apologize—ever. He never learned to keep his real opinions to himself because he never had to. He never learned to be embarrassed that he is male, with ordinary male proclivities. Sometimes he has treated women disgracefully, for which Americans, left and right, are ashamed of him—as they are of JFK and Bill Clinton.

But my job as a voter is to choose the candidate who will do best for America. I am sorry about the coarseness of the unconstrained average American that Mr. Trump conveys. That coarseness is unpresidential and makes us look bad to other nations. On the other hand, many of his opponents worry too much about what other people think. I would love the esteem of France, Germany and Japan. But I don’t find myself losing sleep over it.

The difference between citizens who hate Mr. Trump and those who can live with him—whether they love or merely tolerate him—comes down to their views of the typical American: the farmer, factory hand, auto mechanic, machinist, teamster, shop owner, clerk, software engineer, infantryman, truck driver, housewife. The leftist intellectuals I know say they dislike such people insofar as they tend to be conservative Republicans.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama know their real sins. They know how appalling such people are, with their stupid guns and loathsome churches. They have no money or permanent grievances to make them interesting and no Twitter followers to speak of. They skip Davos every year and watch Fox News. Not even the very best has the dazzling brilliance of a Chuck Schumer, not to mention a Michelle Obama. In truth they are dumb as sheep.

Mr. Trump reminds us who the average American really is. Not the average male American, or the average white American. We know for sure that, come 2020, intellectuals will be dumbfounded at the number of women and blacks who will vote for Mr. Trump. He might be realigning the political map: plain average Americans of every type vs. fancy ones.

Many left-wing intellectuals are counting on technology to do away with the jobs that sustain all those old-fashioned truck-driver-type people, but they are laughably wide of the mark. It is impossible to transport food and clothing, or hug your wife or girl or child, or sit silently with your best friend, over the internet. Perhaps that’s obvious, but to be an intellectual means nothing is obvious. Mr. Trump is no genius, but if you have mastered the obvious and add common sense, you are nine-tenths of the way home. (Scholarship is fine, but the typical modern intellectual cheapens his learning with politics, and is proud to vary his teaching with broken-down left-wing junk.)

This all leads to an important question—one that will be dismissed indignantly today, but not by historians in the long run: Is it possible to hate Donald Trump but not the average American?

True, Mr. Trump is the unconstrained average citizen. Obviously you can hate some of his major characteristics—the infantile lack of self-control in his Twitter babble, his hitting back like a spiteful child bully—without hating the average American, who has no such tendencies. (Mr. Trump is improving in these two categories.) You might dislike the whole package. I wouldn’t choose him as a friend, nor would he choose me. But what I see on the left is often plain, unconditional hatred of which the hater—God forgive him—is proud. It’s discouraging, even disgusting. And it does mean, I believe, that the Trump-hater truly does hate the average American—male or female, black or white. Often he hates America, too.

Granted, Mr. Trump is a parody of the average American, not the thing itself. To turn away is fair. But to hate him from your heart is revealing. Many Americans were ashamed when Ronald Reagan was elected. A movie actor? But the new direction he chose for America was a big success on balance, and Reagan turned into a great president. Evidently this country was intended to be run by amateurs after all—by plain citizens, not only lawyers and bureaucrats.

Those who voted for Mr. Trump, and will vote for his candidates this November, worry about the nation, not its image. The president deserves our respect because Americans deserve it—not such fancy-pants extras as network commentators, socialist high-school teachers and eminent professors, but the basic human stuff that has made America great, and is making us greater all the time.

Mr. Gelernter is computer science professor at Yale and chief scientist at Dittach LLC. His most recent book is “Tides of Mind.”

Appeared in the October 22, 2018, print edition.

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

Latest

The Trump Miracle and the Logical End of US Democracy: What Happened?

Published

on

I don’t wish to dine with a Clinton Snowflake.

And a Clinton Snowflake would rather see me off to San Quentin, the Deplorable that I am.

Something happened under Obama-Clinton rule that has never happened before, not even in the heat of passions culminating in the Civil War. The country polarized, splitting into two groupings. Forever.

Obama’s, Grand Canyon divide was cemented, subsequently, by Clinton’s “Deplorables” gaff interpreted as disdain and disrespect for the working, one-half of the country. Millions of Americans will never accept her and her Snowflakes and vice versa. “Never say never,” it’s said, often enough. But, this time, “never,” is an unequivocal: “Never!”

Quite simply, the Obama-Clinton regime politicized that which should never be politicized, namely, core beliefs and values, starting with God.

Debate is one thing, but the regime followed up with direct and indirect actions, which some writers call rainbow fascism. “You won’t bake a wedding cake for two gays out of some fossilized belief in scripture? We’ll shut you down.”

The regime’s aggression against the Church, the family, and the infant in the womb is dynamite inserted into the foundation on which the country stands.

Along with compassion and sensitivity to opposing views, compromise used to help mend political wounds. It allowed the nation to move on after an election. However, when religious tenets are challenged by a political Party with executive order power, the door on possible compromise slams shut. Obama-Clinton politicized the sacred and the Holy, a big no-no considering that politics divide. It wasn’t done out of ignorance, disrespect, or plain arrogance. It was a conscience, systematic attack by the Godless against God-fearing Christians.

God either exists or He doesn’t – no compromise, here. That is, “He might exist,” placates neither the believer nor the atheist. The Bible is either the Word of God as delivered through His prophets or it isn’t. No compromise possible.

Abortion-on-demand is another issue without compromise considering the commandment: Thou shalt not kill (murder). There is also common sense compassion, which makes us human and says that abortion is wrong. You’re either for murder of the defenseless or against it.

A partial birth abortion, despite the insinuation of compromise in the term, is actually a viler variant of infanticide because it’s performed in the last trimester, at 5-7 months. The well-developed, living infant is pulled out of the womb, legs first. The medical executioner then plunges a probe with a catheter into the living brain in order to suction out a bloody slurry and collapse the skull. Is it murder of the defenseless or a “woman’s right” as Snowflakes call it?

Clinton claims: “Fetuses feel no pain and have no rights.” Curiously, Himmler leaned on a nearly identical contention to justify ghoulish, medical experiments on pregnant women in Konzentrationslager. Is there a difference? Indeed, there is. Clinton is a woman, making her serial murders more of a monstrosity.

The Holy Bible is either the Word of God or it isn’t. It’s not a book to be adapted to one’s whims or sexual lusts. Scripture strictly condemns male homosexuality in at least three passages and, implicitly, in some one-half dozen others. Nonetheless, Obama-Clinton attached the promotion of LBGTq-ism to the Democratic plank, overriding scripture. Clinton informed one audience that Christians would have to change their beliefs on some issues.

Hold on! “I’m getting my musket,” as more than one American has said.

I used to enjoy dialogue. But a sour aftertaste remains from the last time that I waded, innocently enough, into an after-dinner, back-and-forth. The topic was the upcoming primaries.

Dodging a flurry of leftism hooks from a New York Cityite at a Hamptons hideaway, I smiled through early-round attacks recalling how Mohammed Ali used to taunt opponents and cockroaches until they lost their cool. It worked. My opponent promptly tangled himself up in the ropes of his emotions.

It became apparent, in the ensuing minutes, that the Achilles heel of the Left was the absence of a viable candidate. That is, one who could be liked – a leader with charisma with a realistic chance winning.

Hillary was the only figure looming big on the horizon. After flying about on her crooked broom, peddling influence and laundering bloody cash from terrorism-sponsoring sheiks, wads of cash stuffed her Pampers. The Wicked Witch of the West, as victims of her foreign policy still address her, apparently, had it all. Except likeability. Or, something new to offer millions of working Americans beyond the scandals, a world in flames, and the same old corrupt things, starting with her foundation, which kept the cash but forgot Hattian children.

Deep-down inside, my opponent knew that getting excited about Hillary would be a daunting task. It’s precisely Hillary’s inability to generate enthusiasm that eventually metamorphosed into, “What Happened?” It wasn’t Russia; it wasn’t the dog that ate her homework.

As Secretary of State, Clinton’s role in creating and sponsoring head-choppers, baby burners, and heart-eating fanatics in ISIS’s jumpsuits was already well-established for anyone who was interested in looking beyond the hyaluronic acid smile and the praise of her attendant, media handlers.

Propagandists led by CNN and MSNBC did their best to sequester her “Arab Spring” fiascos. Her ties and support of the Muslim Brotherhood, apparently, inspired by live-in aide and right-hand woman, Huma Abedin were off limits for the press. Lesbian lover or not, the real issue is the between-the sheets confidences of one woman, holding one of the highest positions in the US Government and another with connections to jihadist circles inspired by Sayyid Qutb, the godfather of al Qaeda. What would have been made of it by the press if Trump had a mistress whose grandfather was Osama bin Laden?

Clinton’s connivance, her intrigue, and her use of the sword to overthrow foreign governments constituted the essence of her foreign policy. Now, the rich, sweet thing is crying over supposed, Russian interference that she claims cost her the election! No proof of Russian involvement has been found, despite massive efforts and the wasteful expenditure of millions of dollars. Even so, in her warped sense of reality, it’s inconceivable that American voters chose a vulgar, thrice-married, casino operator who trash talks instead of her. Curiously, it was Christians, in particular – Catholics, Protestants and the Orthodox – fearing a de facto Obama third term, who voted in droves for Trump.

Jonathon Van Maren writes: “…Christians are having conversations around the dinner table about what do if the government forces curricula on them that they cannot accept, because their own government is increasingly indicating that Christian parents are too homophobic and too hateful to teach their own children.”

Fear is setting in at both ends of the political spectrum. Meltdown, weep-in snowflakes fear Trump yet he and Christians are not forcing the LGBTq groupings etc., to make lifestyle changes. In contrast, Obama-Clinton’s Rainbow Fascism demands core value changes, or else! It’s already ruining the lives of those who cannot compromise religious tenets. What’s next? Obviously, children must be taken away from homophobic and irresponsible parents. It’s already happening in Norway and Sweden.

Curiously, WaPo’s entire editorial board endorsed her. Isn’t endorsement of Clinton’s terrorism by proxy tantamount to being a terrorist? Can WaPo be trusted, again? Another liberally slanted paper, the NY Times largely swept Clinton’s sordid past under the carpet, with about 90 percent of its articles casting her in a positive light. In contrast, it was open season on Republicans and, soon enough, on Trump.

“Considering her international war crimes record, if you vote for her, as I’m sure you’ll end up doing, you’re going to be an accomplice. Of terrorism,” I sighed. “So unfriend me now, please.”

Swinging, aimlessly – now, a bug in my web – my opponent’s accusations turned Archie-Bunker-personal – “You’re a SOB, M#*/!er. All you do is criticize but you haven’t done squat! Do something in the community instead of blaming everything on Obama and Clinton.

“Some time ago, I saw little, practical sense in it,” I replied. “That is, in wasting time to change the system.”

If it was ever possible to improve matters on a local level, those days are gone. Plato, Socrates and Aristotle did not consider the rule of money to be compatible with democracy. After three, consecutive, two-term geniuses steering the US Titanic – Clinton, Bush, Obama – the scraping sounds of hitting the iceberg are all-too-audible. The mass media orchestra plays on yet the waterline has reached the nation’s gunwales.

“Sorry, trends are apparent enough. Liberty, freedom of expression – all on the wane. Government as well as media controls are tightening! Prisons are full. Stalin has been outdone. His maximum Gulag stay was 15 years regardless of the charge. What’s ours? A life sentence for being in a romantic relationship with a drug smuggler? Common sense is being pushed aside by nonsense. Sorry, I find little sense building sandcastles at ebbtide.”

My opponent had had enough. Spilling whisky to get away from me, he spewed more venom and parted the room. Forever.

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >>

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