Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Donald Trump’s highly disturbing Warsaw speech

President Trump’s Warsaw speech, laden with apocalyptic “Clash of Civilisations” rhetoric and pandering of Polish nationalism, will not only worsen Poland’s already difficult relations with Germany and Russia, but threatens a further deterioration in the international situation.

Alexander Mercouris

Published

on

5,213 Views

US President Trump kicked off his trip to Europe to attend the G20 summit with a stopover yesterday in Poland.

That was neither wrong nor inappropriate.  Since he became US President Donald Trump has been short of friends in Europe, with the public of all the big European states – Germany, Britain, France, Italy and Spain – all to a greater or lesser degree hostile to him, and with his personal relations with the G20 summit’s host – Chancellor Merkel of Germany – already extremely difficult.

It is in no way surprising therefore that President Trump should precede what is likely to be for him a difficult G20 summit – his first as US President – with a trip to Poland, the one relatively big European state where he can be sure of a warm reception.

However if President Trump’s trip to Poland was neither wrong nor inappropriate the same unfortunately cannot be said about the speech he gave there.

A word of warning at this point is in order.  The speech – like all the other pre-prepared speeches US Presidents make – would have been written for Donald Trump by a speech writer.  It is not certain that it fully reflects his views.   That it perhaps does not may be indicated by the interesting fact that the White House website has chosen to publish only highlights from it.  Strikingly, the anti-Russian passages and the words of support for Ukraine are excluded.

Nonetheless Trump must have read the speech in advance, and must have approved it, and the fact that he chose to deliver it is disturbing enough.

Firstly something must be said about those passages in the speech that touched on Poland’s recent history with Russia.

In 1920, in the Miracle of Vistula, Poland stopped the Soviet army bent on European conquest. Then, 19 years later in 1939, you were invaded yet again, this time by Nazi Germany from the west and the Soviet Union from the east. That’s trouble. That’s tough.

Under a double occupation the Polish people endured evils beyond description: the Katyn forest massacre, the occupations, the Holocaust, the Warsaw Ghetto and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the destruction of this beautiful capital city, and the deaths of nearly one in five Polish people. A vibrant Jewish population — the largest in Europe — was reduced to almost nothing after the Nazis systematically murdered millions of Poland’s Jewish citizens, along with countless others, during that brutal occupation.

In the summer of 1944, the Nazi and Soviet armies were preparing for a terrible and bloody battle right here in Warsaw. Amid that hell on earth, the citizens of Poland rose up to defend their homeland. I am deeply honored to be joined on stage today by veterans and heroes of the Warsaw Uprising……

From the other side of the river, the Soviet armed forces stopped and waited. They watched as the Nazis ruthlessly destroyed the city, viciously murdering men, women, and children. They tried to destroy this nation forever by shattering its will to survive.

Donald Trump is almost certainly unaware of the extent to which the historical narrative that he has set out here is contested.  Few historians today would agree that in 1920 “Poland stopped the Soviet army bent on European conquest”.  Most Russians would say that the Russian-Polish war of 1919 to 1920 was triggered by Poland’s aggression against Soviet Russia, with brought the Red Army to the gates of Warsaw as the result of a counter-attack.  The idea that Soviet Russia in 1920 – wracked by war, Revolution, social breakdown and famine – was in any condition to conquer Europe is absurd.

However it is the subsequent passages which appear to equate the USSR with Nazi Germany which are by far the most disturbing and contentious.

The vast majority of Russians and many historians would dispute Donald Trump’s description both of the events of 1939 and of the 1944 Warsaw rising.  Vladimir Putin is on record as taking strong issue with the description of the events 1939 that appears in these words.

What cannot be disputed however is that the Soviet liberation of Poland in 1944 and 1945 brought the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews in Poland to an end and led to the restoration of the Polish state, albeit in a Communist form allied to the USSR.  By contrast Nazi Germany aimed for nothing less than the physical destruction of all the Jews of Europe, of the Polish state and ultimately of the Polish nation as well.

This is a vital distinction which makes any attempt to equate the USSR with Nazi Germany wholly wrong and inappropriate.

The trouble is that there are strong forces within Poland, including especially within the currently governing Law and Justice Party, which deny this, and which insist in defiance of historical fact that such an equation of Nazi Germany and the USSR is appropriate.  Moreover this goes along with a particular narrative of Polish victimhood (or “martyrdom”) and a wildly over ambitious foreign policy reviving the so-called Promethean policy associated with Poland’s pre-war leader Josef Pilsudski, which aimed at securing Poland’s place in eastern Europe by weakening Russia by drawing the republics of the USSR away from Russia and into a constellation around Poland.

This was a disastrous policy before 1939, setting Poland and Russia against each other, and making impossible their joint alliance against the common enemy Nazi Germany, and it is a disastrous policy today, setting Poland and Russia once again against each other, and committing Poland to an anti-Russian policy which is far beyond its strength.

The proper policy for Poland, and the one which should be urged on it by its friends, is to seek a rapprochement with Russia, not conflict with it.  At no point in recent history have conditions for that been objectively better than they are now, but instead of encouraging Poland to take this course Donald Trump has just done the opposite.  In the process he has also given further encouragement to Poland’s dangerous entanglement in Ukraine.

However other comments in Donald Trump’s speech are more disturbing still.  Consider for example these passages

As the Polish experience reminds us, the defense of the West ultimately rests not only on means but also on the will of its people to prevail and be successful and get what you have to have. The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?….

These words – with the pointed reference to “protecting our borders” – are Donald Trump’s slap both at his liberal Democratic opponents in the US who have obstructed his travel ban Executive Orders and his border wall, and at Angela Merkel, who in a moment of folly back in 2016 threw open without any advance consultation the EU’s borders to refugee flows from Syria and the Middle East.

These comments were however also unwise.

Firstly they align the US with Poland’s Law and Justice Party and its leader Jarosław Kaczyński in an internal EU conflict with Chancellor Merkel and Germany.  In this conflict Kaczyński and the Law and Justice Party have resisted Merkel’s and Germany’s demand that Poland ‘shoulder the burden’ by taking more refugees.  Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of this question, for Trump to take sides in an internal EU quarrel is bound to anger the Germans, with whom his relations are already fraught.

Beyond this however there is the unmistakeable and frankly disturbing ‘clash of civilisations’ aspect to this rhetoric.  Consider for examples these further words

We have to remember that our defense is not just a commitment of money, it is a commitment of will. Because as the Polish experience reminds us, the defense of the West ultimately rests not only on means but also on the will of its people to prevail and be successful and get what you have to have. The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?

We can have the largest economies and the most lethal weapons anywhere on Earth, but if we do not have strong families and strong values, then we will be weak and we will not survive (Applause)….

Americans, Poles, and the nations of Europe value individual freedom and sovereignty. We must work together to confront forces, whether they come from inside or out, from the South or the East, that threaten over time to undermine these values and to erase the bonds of culture, faith and tradition that make us who we are. If left unchecked, these forces will undermine our courage, sap our spirit, and weaken our will to defend ourselves and our societies……

We write symphonies. We pursue innovation. We celebrate our ancient heroes, embrace our timeless traditions and customs, and always seek to explore and discover brand-new frontiers.

We reward brilliance. We strive for excellence, and cherish inspiring works of art that honor God. We treasure the rule of law and protect the right to free speech and free expression.

We empower women as pillars of our society and of our success. We put faith and family, not government and bureaucracy, at the center of our lives. And we debate everything. We challenge everything. We seek to know everything so that we can better know ourselves.

And above all, we value the dignity of every human life, protect the rights of every person, and share the hope of every soul to live in freedom. That is who we are. Those are the priceless ties that bind us together as nations, as allies, and as a civilization.

What we have, what we inherited from our — and you know this better than anybody, and you see it today with this incredible group of people — what we’ve inherited from our ancestors has never existed to this extent before. And if we fail to preserve it, it will never, ever exist again. So we cannot fail.

(bold italics added)

This is inappropriately apocalyptic language, equating civilisation with the West and talking as if the physical survival of “civilisation” depends not on wise policies but on the maintenance of traditional European social mores.  At a time when the rising powers in the world – first and foremost China – are not European this is an impossibly narrow outlook, more likely to isolate the US from the world community rather giving the US the means to lead it.

In addition one has to wonder who Donald Trump was referring to when he spoke of the forces “from the South or the East” who supposedly threaten the West?

Presumably the “forces from the South” are Jihadi terrorism about which in his speech Trump had much to say.  But who are “the forces from the East”?  Perhaps this too was intended to refer to Jihadi terrorism, or perhaps the country Trump had in mind was North Korea.  However an audience in Warsaw assembled by the nationalist Law and Justice Party will unquestionably read into the words “the forces from the East” a reference to Russia.

On the subject of Russia, it is striking how Trump’s references to Russia in the speech are fitted into this “clash of civilisations” rhetoric

Today, the West is also confronted by the powers that seek to test our will, undermine our confidence, and challenge our interests. To meet new forms of aggression, including propaganda, financial crimes, and cyberwarfare, we must adapt our alliance to compete effectively in new ways and on all new battlefields.

We urge Russia to cease its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere, and its support for hostile regimes — including Syria and Iran — and to instead join the community of responsible nations in our fight against common enemies and in defense of civilization itself.

Obviously some of this language (the reference to cyber warfare in particular) was intended to provide Trump with political cover prior to his meeting today with Putin.  However the words “join the community of responsible nations in our fight against common enemies and in defense of civilization itself” straightforwardly place Russia outside that “community of responsible nations” and make Russia joining that “community of responsible nations” conditional upon Russia dropping its friendship with Syria and Iran.

Not only is that never going to happen, but it fundamentally misunderstands Russia and its foreign policy.   Though it is now a commonplace that Russia is a conservative society, the conservatism of Russia’s foreign policy is rooted in realism, international law, concern for the balance of power, and respect for state sovereignty.  “Clash of civilisation” thinking has no part in it, and the Russians emphatically reject it.

In no sense will they let themselves be enlisted as a foot soldier in some great apocalyptic struggle for the “defence of Western civilisation” led by the US.  If Trump’s often expressed wish for good relations with Russia is based on a hope that he can recruit Russia to such a struggle then that hope is forlorn.

It is to be sincerely hoped that this fiery rhetoric is not intended seriously, and was meant purely to please Donald Trump’s Polish hosts.  Whenever Trump speaks about foreign policy unscripted – for example in interviews – he comes across as intelligent, realistic and transactional.  That is the Donald Trump who appointed the arch realist Rex Tillerson to be his Secretary of State, and hopefully it is the real Donald Trump.

The Donald Trump who spoke in Warsaw was however a radically different creature: ideological, apocalyptic, confrontational, talking the language of certain fringe elements of the US extreme right rather than the language of realism with which he is more often associated.  If these opinions are Donald Trump’s own then hopes of a rapprochement with Russia will be stillborn, and international tension will increase further, probably exponentially.

Whether Donald Trump really does hold these opinions remains to be seen.  In the meantime the speech has already done harm, sharpening divisions within the EU between Poland and Germany – two of the US’s friends – and further exacerbating the already extremely difficult relationship between Poland and Russia, in a way that threatens to involve the US in their quarrel.

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

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

New York Times hit piece on Trump and NATO exposes alliance as outdated and obsolete (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 61.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou take a quick look at the New York Times hit piece citing anonymous sources, with information that the U.S. President dared to question NATO’s viability.

Propaganda rag, the NYT, launched its latest presidential smear aimed at discrediting Trump and provoking the establishment, warmonger left into more impeachment – Twenty-fifth Amendment talking points.

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

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via The American Conservative


The New York Times scored a serious scoop when it revealed on Monday that President Trump had questioned in governmental conversations—on more than one occasion, apparently—America’s membership in NATO. Unfortunately the paper then slipped into its typical mode of nostrum journalism. My Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “nostrum” as “quack medicine” entailing “exaggerated claims.” Here we had quack journalism executed in behalf of quack diplomacy.

The central exaggerated claim is contained in the first sentence, in which it is averred that NATO had “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is wrong, as can be seen through just a spare amount of history.

True, NATO saved Europe from the menace of Russian Bolshevism. But it did so not over 70 years but over 40 years—from 1949 to 1989. That’s when the Soviet Union had 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops poised on Western Europe’s doorstep, positioned for an invasion of Europe through the lowlands of Germany’s Fulda Gap.

How was this possible? It was possible because Joseph Stalin had pushed his armies farther and farther into the West as the German Wehrmacht collapsed at the end of World War II. In doing so, and in the process capturing nearly all of Eastern Europe, he ensured that the Soviets had no Western enemies within a thousand miles of Leningrad or within 1,200 miles of Moscow. This vast territory represented not only security for the Russian motherland (which enjoys no natural geographical barriers to deter invasion from the West) but also a potent staging area for an invasion of Western Europe.

The first deterrent against such an invasion, which Stalin would have promulgated had he thought he could get away with it, was America’s nuclear monopoly. By the time that was lost, NATO had emerged as a powerful and very necessary deterrent. The Soviets, concluding that the cost of an invasion was too high, defaulted to a strategy of undermining Western interests anywhere around the world where that was possible. The result was global tensions stirred up at various global trouble spots, most notably Korea and Vietnam.

But Europe was saved, and NATO was the key. It deserves our respect and even reverence for its profound success as a military alliance during a time of serious threat to the West.

But then the threat went away. Gone were the 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops. Gone was Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Indeed, gone, by 1991, was the Soviet Union itself, an artificial regime of brutal ideology superimposed upon the cultural entity of Mother Russia. It was a time for celebration.

But it was also a time to contemplate the precise nature of the change that had washed over the world and to ponder what that might mean for old institutions—including NATO, a defensive military alliance created to deter aggression from a menacing enemy to the east. Here’s where Western thinking went awry. Rather than accepting as a great benefit the favorable developments enhancing Western security—the Soviet military retreat, the territorial reversal, the Soviet demise—the West turned NATO into a territorial aggressor of its own, absorbing nations that had been part of the Soviet sphere of control and pushing right up to the Russian border. Now Leningrad (renamed St. Petersburg after the obliteration of the menace of Soviet communism) resides within a hundred miles of NATO military forces, while Moscow is merely 200 miles from Western troops.

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has absorbed 13 nations, some on the Russian border, others bordering lands that had been part of Russia’s sphere of interest for centuries. This constitutes a policy of encirclement, which no nation can accept without protest or pushback. And if NATO were to absorb those lands of traditional Russian influence—particularly Ukraine and Georgia—that would constitute a major threat to Russian security, as Russian President Vladimir Putin has sought to emphasize to Western leaders for years.

So, no, NATO has not deterred Russian aggression for 70 years. It did so for 40 and has maintained a destabilizing posture toward Russia ever since. The problem here is the West’s inability to perceive how changed geopolitical circumstances might require a changed geopolitical strategy. The encirclement strategy has had plenty of critics—George Kennan before he died; academics John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, and Robert David English; former diplomat Jack Matlock; the editors of The Nation. But their voices have tended to get drowned out by the nostrum diplomacy and the nostrum journalism that supports it at every turn.

You can’t drown out Donald Trump because he’s president of the United States. And so he has to be traduced, ridiculed, dismissed, and marginalized. That’s what the Times story, by Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper, sought to do. Consider the lead, designed to emphasize just how outlandish Trump’s musings are before the reader even has a chance to absorb what he may have been thinking: “There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” Translation: “Take that, Mr. President! You’re an idiot.”

Henry Kissinger had something interesting to say about Trump in a recent interview with the Financial Times. “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history,” said the former secretary of state, “who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses.” One Western pretense about Russia, so ardently enforced by the likes of Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper (who, it may be safe to say, know less about world affairs and their history than Henry Kissinger), is that nothing really changed with the Soviet collapse and NATO had to turn aggressive in order to keep that menacing nation in its place.

Trump clearly doesn’t buy that pretense. He said during the campaign that NATO was obsolete. Then he backtracked, saying he only wanted other NATO members to pay their fair share of the cost of deterrence. He even confessed, after Hillary Clinton identified NATO as “the strongest military alliance in the history of the world,” that he only said NATO was obsolete because he didn’t know much about it. But he was learning—enough, it appears, to support as president Montenegro’s entry into NATO in 2017. Is Montenegro, with 5,332 square miles and some 620,000 citizens, really a crucial element in Europe’s desperate project to protect itself against Putin’s Russia?

We all know that Trump is a crude figure—not just in his disgusting discourse but in his fumbling efforts to execute political decisions. As a politician, he often seems like a doctor attempting to perform open-heart surgery while wearing mittens. His idle musings about leaving NATO are a case in point—an example of a politician who lacks the skill and finesse to nudge the country in necessary new directions.

But Kissinger has a point about the man. America and the world have changed, while the old ways of thinking have not kept pace. The pretenses of the old have blinded the status quo defenders into thinking nothing has changed. Trump, almost alone among contemporary American politicians, is asking questions to which the world needs new answers. NATO, in its current configuration and outlook, is a danger to peace, not a guarantor of it.


Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century

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

Latest

Nigel Farage To Back Another “Vote Leave” Campaign If UK Holds Second Brexit Referendum

Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


Pro-European MPs from various political parties are pushing back against claims made by Prime Minister Theresa May’s government that a second Brexit referendum – which supporters have branded as a “People’s Vote” on May’s deal – would take roughly 14 months to organize, according to RT.

But while support for a second vote grows, one of the most notorious proponents of the original “Vote Leave” campaign is hinting at a possible return to politics to try and fight the effort.

After abandoning UKIP, the party he helped create, late last year, Nigel Farage said Friday that he would be willing to wage another “Vote Leave” campaign, even if he needed to use another party as the “vehicle” for his opposition. Farage also pointed out that a delay of Brexit Day would likely put it after the European Parliament elections in May.

“I think, I fear that the House of Commons is going to effectively overturn that Brexit. To me, the most likely outcome of all of this is an extension of Article 50. There could be another referendum,” he told Sky News.

According to official government guidance shown to lawmakers on Wednesday, which was subsequently leaked to the Telegraph, as May tries to head off a push by ministers who see a second referendum as the best viable alternative to May’s deal – a position that’s becoming increasingly popular with Labour Party MPs.

“In order to inform the discussions, a very short paper set out in factual detail the number of months that would be required, this was illustrative only and our position of course is that there will be no second referendum,,” May said. The statement comes as May has been meeting with ministers and leaders from all parties to try to find a consensus deal that could potentially pass in the House of Commons.

The 14 month estimate is how long May and her government expect it would take to pass the primary legislation calling for the referendum (seven months), conduct the question testing with the election committee (12 weeks), pass secondary legislation (six weeks) and conduct the campaigns (16 weeks).

May has repeatedly insisted that a second referendum wouldn’t be feasible because it would require a lengthy delay of Brexit Day, and because it would set a dangerous precedent that wouldn’t offer any more clarity (if some MPs are unhappy with the outcome, couldn’t they just push for a third referendum?). A spokesperson for No. 10 Downing Street said the guidance was produced purely for the purpose of “illustrative discussion” and that the government continued to oppose another vote.

Meanwhile, a vote on May’s “Plan B”, expected to include a few minor alterations from the deal’s previous iteration, has been called for Jan. 29, prompting some MPs to accuse May of trying to run out the clock. May is expected to present the new deal on Monday.

Former Tory Attorney General and pro-remainer MP Dominic Grieve blasted May’s timetable as wrong and said that the government “must be aware of it themselves,” while former Justice Minister Dr Phillip Lee, who resigned his cabinet seat in June over May’s Brexit policy, denounced her warning as “nonsense.”

As May pieces together her revised deal, more MPs are urging her to drop her infamous “red lines” (Labour in particular would like to see the UK remain part of the Customs Union), but with no clear alternative to May’s plan emerging, a delay of Brexit Day is looking like a virtual certainty.

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

Latest

The National Security Agency Is A Criminal Organization

The National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Paul Craig Roberts

Published

on

Via Paul Craig Roberts…


Years before Edward Snowden provided documented proof that the National Security Agency was really a national insecurity agency as it was violating law and the US Constitution and spying indiscriminately on American citizens, William Binney, who designed and developed the NSA spy program revealed the illegal and unconstitutional spying. Binney turned whistleblower, because NSA was using the program to spy on Americans. As Binney was well known to the US Congress, he did not think he needed any NSA document to make his case. But what he found out was “Congress would never hear me because then they’d lose plausible deniability. That was really their key. They needed to have plausible deniability so they can continue this massive spying program because it gave them power over everybody in the world. Even the members of Congress had power against others [in Congress]; they had power on judges on the Supreme Court, the federal judges, all of them. That’s why they’re so afraid. Everybody’s afraid because all this data that’s about them, the central agencies — the intelligence agencies — they have it. And that’s why Senator Schumer warned President Trump earlier, a few months ago, that he shouldn’t attack the intelligence community because they’ve got six ways to Sunday to come at you. That’s because it’s like J. Edgar Hoover on super steroids. . . . it’s leverage against every member of parliament and every government in the world.”

To prevent whistle-blowing, NSA has “a program now called ‘see something, say something’ about your fellow workers. That’s what the Stasi did. That’s why I call [NSA] the new New Stasi Agency. They’re picking up all the techniques from the Stasi and the KGB and the Gestapo and the SS. They just aren’t getting violent yet that we know of — internally in the US, outside is another story.”

As Binney had no documents to give to the media, blowing the whistle had no consequence for NSA. This is the reason that Snowden released the documents that proved NSA to be violating both law and the Constitution, but the corrupt US media focused blame on Snowden as a “traitor” and not on NSA for its violations.

Whistleblowers are protected by federal law. Regardless, the corrupt US government tried to prosecute Binney for speaking out, but as he had taken no classified document, a case could not be fabricated against him.

Binney blames the NSA’s law-breaking on Dick “Darth” Cheney. He says NSA’s violations of law and Constitution are so extreme that they would have to have been cleared at the top of the government.

Binney describes the spy network, explains that it was supposed to operate only against foreign enemies, and that using it for universal spying so overloads the system with data that the system fails to discover many terrorist activities. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50932.htm

Apparently, the National Security Agency values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately for Americans, there are many Americans who blindly trust the government and provide the means, the misuse of which is used to enslave us. A large percentage of the work in science and technology serves not to free people but to enslave them. By now there is no excuse for scientists and engineers not to know this. Yet they persist in their construction of the means to destroy liberty.

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