"we cannot change the past, but we have to speak about it openly and honestly."
On 2/22/22, Twosday, the Russian parliament approves the use of armed forces abroad and invades Ukraine.
At least it will be an easy day to remember from future history books (given there will be a future).
Russia President Putin to address the nation in five minutes, Zelensky to assemble the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine at the same time the address seems to be postponed for half an hour, but news agencies report that
"Putin informed Scholz and Macron that in the near future he means to sign a corresponding decree recognizing the LPR & DPR"
"Scholz and Macron expressed disappointment with this development, but indicated a willingness to continue contacts, reports the Kremlin on Putin's plans to sign a decree on Donbass"
>live stream now says 10 pm moscow time (i.e. in another half an hour)
(i think putin is just trolling journos now)
Alright, putin's address to the nation IS ON
Historically, the inhabitants of the south-western regions have called themselves 'russian' and 'orthodox'. we think this is self-evident.
The history of how Russia became E Orthodox Christians, why Putin points to it (We're a white Christian nation!). Footnote: Viking history is grotesquely underappreciated in its impact).
Putin calls the conversion of Rus’ “the starting point for the formation and development of Russian statehood, the true spiritual birth of our ancestors, the determination of their identity. Identity, the flowering of national culture and education.
Let’s unpack this quote.
Like many official pronouncements of the Russian president (and general secretaries of the Communist Party of the USSR before him), this one is for both domestic and international consumption. But it might not be for international consumption primarily in the way you think.
Yes, Putin uses this rhetoric to signal that Russia is a "Christian country." Of course, the Russian Federation is multiethnic, and the leaders of various faith traditions get trotted out to support the Putinist "traditional values" agenda. But there's more going on here. So what is this baptism of Rus' 988 anniversary all about? Let's do a little history. The polity/proto-state known as Kievan Rus' was established in the 9th century by Vikings referred to as Varangians. The term "Rus'" probably refers to the red hair of these settlers.
Every Russian knows that Kiev is "the mother of Russian cities" but FWIW the 482 AD date was made up & memed into acceptance to embezzle funds for the 1500-year-celebration under Brezhne.
The Rus' proto-state was a loose confederation of principalities. The grand prince at the head was was initially seated in Kyiv (or Kiev, but as this spelling is a transliteration from Russian rather than Ukrainian, so Kyiv is preferable)--Ukraine's capital today.
What's the deal with the apostrophe at the end of the word "Rus'"? It stands in a for a diacritical mark that indicates that the final consonant is soft rather than hard. This is technical linguistics stuff that isn't critical for the lay reader, but that's why it's there.
So, what was Rus'? Initially, it was a confederation in which Vikings extracted wealth from the local Slavic and Finnic populations. The river system in the area was great for that, given Viking technology. Here's a map shared by Yuri Koryakov to Wikimedia Commons:
The Varangian colonizers who had established their trading outposts soon assimilated to the local Slavic culture, and the names of their ruling elites soon become distinctly Slavic--Iaropolk, Sviatoslav, and Volodymyr/Vladimir. Rus' became an essentially East Slavic polity. As such, Rus' is the cradle not only of the future Russian state, but also of Ukraine and Belarus'. The East Slavs had differentiated linguistically and culturally from the South Slavs and West Slavs at this point, but to speak of the East Slavs as "Russians" is appropriation. So, what's all this business about 988 and the conversion of Rus'? Well, as the Rus' polity gained standing, it had to contend with surrounding forces. According to the Primary Chronicle, Rus' sent emissaries to representatives of different religions to decide which to adopt. But the Chronicle account is probably highly embellished, and what was happening was more of a process of diplomacy and proto-international-relations. Adopting a particular religion would also mean choosing alliances in a world of frequent hostile actions and wars. If there's some truth to the Primary Chronicle's account, the Rus' leaders considered Islam, Judaism (the Khazars were an important Jewish power in the steppe at the time), Western Christianity, and Eastern Christianity.
Now, Western Christianity and Eastern Christianity had not made their final split at this point (that would happen in 1054), but what became the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches had differentiated considerably in terms of culture and practices.
Western Christianity used Latin as a means of communication among the educated. This also served to preserve Classical culture. Eastern Christianity translated the liturgy into local languages, or something close-ish. Choosing Eastern Christianity gave Rus' a written language Oddly enough, Old Slavonic/Church Slavonic is more South than East Slavic, meaning that Russians, Ukrainians, and any literate Rus' (there weren't many) at the time would need special training to read it. Of course, it was much closer than Latin.
Byzantine missionaries Cyril and Methodius had developed the language for an earlier failed missionary project in the Czech lands, so Slavonic was sort of recycled and repurposed for the Rus'. Cyril is where we get the term Cyrillic alphabet:
Why choose Eastern Christianity? Well, Byzantium was a nearby power that was still a serious player at that time. It looked to the Rus' elites like a more solid choice than the fragmented medieval West. They couldn't have known it was about to decline, disappearing in 1453.
So, anyway, we are leaving out a lot of details, but Grand Princess and Regent Olga was an early convert to Byzantine Christianity, and she surely influenced her grandson, Grand Prince Volodymyr/Vladimir, who converted the proto-state after sacking the Byzantine city of Kherson.
Which he then gave back when he married Anna, a Byzantine princess who had been promised by Emperor Basil II (who might have wanted to renege, which might have inspired the sacking), cementing an alliance with a powerful empire along with the conversion required for that. For their roles in converting Rus' to Eastern Christianity, both Vladimir and Olga are considered not just saints, but even "equal to the apostles," in Eastern Orthodoxy. Their choice had consequences. Rus' got literacy in Slavonic, not Latin, and not Greek. Despite the alliance with Byzantium, the Byzantines didn't feel the need to spread Greek learning, since what Rus' got was translated, and the Rus' didn't show too much interest in a lot of learning anyway. So the heritage of Classical learning didn't make it into Rus'.
Scholars debate the significance of that. But now back to what this has to do with Putin's pronouncement. Remember that Rus' was an East Slavic confederation of principalities. Strictly speaking, it wasn't Russian, Ukrainian, or Belorussian. In the twelth century, with Rus' declining, Grand Prince Adrei Bogolyubsky shifted the center of power from Kiev to the Vladimir-Suzdal area (an area not much more than 100 miles East of Moscow, though there was no Moscow till 1147 and it wasn't important at this time). This move is certainly important for what became Russian history, but I'm not sure we should even speak of Russian history proper until after the Mongol conquest of the 1230s and 1240s ended Rus' sovereignty entirely.
Moscow eventually emerged as the power that overthrew Mongol-Tatar rule and "gathered" (read: brutally conquered) "the Russian lands" into a new state, Muscovy, that was recognizably medieval/early modern Russian. It shares in the heritage of Kievan Rus', but so does Ukraine. All this to get to the true thrust of Putin's statement that the conversion of Rus' is “the starting point for the formation and development of Russian statehood." This is a Russian nationalist reading of history projecting Russian statehood into the past in a colonizing way.
Putin's statement thus a jab at Ukrainian sovereignty and national self-determination. It's not an unusual interpretation of this history in Russia at all, but given the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the ongoing Russia-supported rebellion in Eastern Ukraine, this matters. Putin's statement is thus a nod not only to the right-wing "traditional values" international (on which see: https://t.co/HUBXCtDMli), but also to Russian nationalists. And to the world, it says: Ukraine is Russia's sphere of influence, and we'll do what we want there.
Modern ukraine was completely and utterly created by the bolsheviks. this process began immediately after the revolution of 1917. lenin and his comrades did this in a manner which was very rough on russia proper, by cutting off a historical part of its territory. He's elaborating on stalin & khruschev cutting off parts of russia, creating "soviet ukraine". putin elaborating on the bolsheviks compromising with ukrainian nationalists to create the chimera of "ukraine". nothing you haven't heard on our episode on ukrainian history!
why did the communists make such generous presents to the minority nationalists? this makes no sense, it is insane. but there is an explanation: after the revolution, the main goal of the bolsheviks was to stay in power by any means necessary. The leninist principles of nation-building weren't just a mistake, they were 'worse than a mistake'. this became extremely obvious in 1991. We cannot change the past, but we have to speak about it openly and honestly. Ukraine was completely built and created by lenin. he was its architect, including his orders on including donbass in the ukrainian soviet republic by force.
Now the ukrainians destroy lenin monuments and want decommunization. you want decommunization? we can show you what REAL DECOMMUNIZATION means in ukraine. The destructive fantasies of leninist nation-building were never removed from the judicial basis of soviet and post-soviet statehood. Instead of a deep analysis of the situation and a political transformation the communist party of the soviet union engaged only in verbal diarrhea about the reconstruction of leninist national politics, supporting local nationalism.
Now, the ukrainian nationalists claim to have conquered independence for ukraine. but in reality, it was strategic and historical mistakes by soviet leadership that led to this. The russian people accepted the new geopolitical reality and materially supported the new states with respect for ukraine's sovereignty.
Putin explaining how russia pumped 250 billion dollars into ukraine after 1991 & paid off all soviet foreign loans instead of them being shared by all ex-soviet republics "russia has always cooperated with ukraine with friendship and respect. the ukrainian government since 1991 has always treated its relations with russia in a sense that they had all the rights and privileges but none of the obligations, up to and including the literal theft of gas.
From its first steps, the ukrainian state has built up its nation in opposition to russia, distorting the historical understanding of millions of people. this explains why neo-nazis have so much power in ukraine. Putin explaining how ukraine is controlled by oligarchs & the "european choice" of ukraine means nothing but selling out the country to foreigners to save stolen money putin explaining how nationalist radicals have used the justified displeasure of the people with the corrupt government to stage a bloody coup, supported by western money "ukrainian cities were drowned in a wave of pogroms and violence. remember the events in odessa, when peaceful protestors were viciously burned alive. the criminals who did this were never punished. we know their names and we WILL do everything to punish them.
Talking about how the ukrainian government drove the economy into the ground, destroying the most productive region in historical russia putin explaining how ukraine has sold out the country to the west & allows western NGOs to control all aspects of law and order "alright, you're fighting corruption. but where are the results? corruption is even worse now than it was before.
From 1991 to 2014, according to the U.S. Congress Research Service, the United States provided Ukraine with $4 billion in military assistance, plus over $2.5 billion after 2014. The NATO Trust Fund provided over a billion dollars in which Italy also participated. This is only a part of the military investments made by the major NATO powers in Ukraine. Great Britain, for example, has concluded various military agreements with Kyiv investing, among other things, 1.7 billion pounds in upgrading Ukraine’s naval capabilities: this program provides for the arming of Ukrainian ships with British missiles, the production of joint 8 fast missile units, the construction of naval bases on the Black Sea and also on the Azov Sea between Ukraine, Crimea, and Russia. In this context, Ukrainian military spending, which was equivalent to 3% of GDP ( Gross Domestic Product) in 2014, rose to 6% in 2022 corresponding to over 11 billion dollars.
In addition to the U.S.-NATO military investments in Ukraine, there is the $10 billion investment foreseen by the plan that is being carried out by Erik Prince, founder of the U.S. private military company Blackwater – now it is renamed Academy – which has supplied mercenaries to the CIA, the Pentagon, and the State Department for covert operations (including torture and murder), gaining billions of dollars. Erik Prince’s plan, revealed by an investigation of Time magazine, consists in creating a private army in Ukraine through a partnership between the Lancaster 6 Company, and the main CIA-controlled Ukrainian intelligence office. Through them, Prince has supplied mercenaries in the Middle East and Africa. It is not known, of course, what would be the task of the private army created in Ukraine by the founder of Blackwater certainly with CIA funding. However, it can be expected that it would conduct covert operations in Europe, Russia, and other regions from its Ukraine base.
Against this background, the exposure made by the Russian Defense Minister Shoigu that in the Donetsk region there are “U.S. private military companies that are preparing a provocation with the use of unknown chemicals” is particularly alarming. It could be the spark causing the detonation of war in the heart of Europe: a chemical attack on Ukrainian civilians in Donbass would immediately be attributed to the Donetsk and Lugansk Russians, who would be attacked by the preponderant Ukrainian forces already deployed in the region to force Russia to militarily intervene in their defense. At the forefront, ready to massacre the Russians of Donbass there is the Azov battalion, which trained and armed by the U.S. and NATO has been promoted to a special forces regiment. It distinguished by its ferocity in its attacks on the Russian populations of Ukraine. The Azov battalion recruits neo-Nazis from all over Europe under its flag similar to that of the SS Das Reich, it is commanded by its founder Andrey Biletsky who was promoted to colonel. It is not just a military unit but an ideological and political movement, and Biletsky is the charismatic leader in particular for the youth organization that is educated to hate Russians by his book “The words of the white Führer.“
Do they understand that ukraine isn't even an economic protectorate but a literal colony?
The Ukrainian parliament is continuing to discriminate against russians. the politics of derussification continue. the russian language is being persecuted. The kiev regime is also preparing to move against the orthodox church. the church schism was cynically turned into a political chance to move against russians. new measures are constantly being taken to attack millions of orthodox faithful.
Putin explaining how ukraine is sending terrorists into crimea & cooperating with islamist terrorist organizations "ukraine is planning on arming itself with nuclear weapons. We cannot not react to this real danger, especially since western powers would support ukraine in acquiring these weapons to create even more danger for russia. The ukrainian military and intelligence services are being controlled by western powers.
Putin explaining how ukraine is an open playground for NATO military forces that can and are being used for actions against russia "nowadays, there is a NATO military center in ochakovo. i remind you, in the 18th century general suvorov fought for these lands. they were called new russia back then. now this is being erased. without russian generals, many 'ukrainian' cities wouldn't exist. The ukrainian constitution prohibits foreign military bases on its territory, but they already exist, just under another name.
You want to get rid of the colonial legacy of the Russian Empire? Then be consistent.
You are saying that ukraine won't become a NATO member tomorrow? well, then it'll be the day after tomorrow, what does that change in the historical perspective?
We are being told that NATO is a peaceful and protective alliance and that nothing is threatening russia. but we know the truth. In 1990 during negotiations about the unification of germany NATO high command promised us that NATO wouldn't expand even an inch eastwards. these promises just evaporated. Eastern european countries, brought on by their anti-russian complexes, have brought a lot of anti-russian sentiment into NATO. I have never talked about this publicly before. i will talk about this for the first time. in 2000 i asked bill clinton what he would think about admitting russia to NATO. His reaction was silent, but what they really thought about this was shown by american support for chechen terrorists."
Our political regime is not the problem. they just don't want to see a strong and sovereign russia. that's the whole explanation. this is why they disrespect all of our security concerns. NATO expansion has led to the destabilization of global security. The information we have clearly says that ukraine joining NATO is a question of time. in that scenario, the level of military danger for russia will rise exponentially.
While the Ukrainian president himself takes a more cautious stance, the Ukrainian armed forces are massing in Donbass close to the Donetsk and Lugansk area inhabited by Russian populations. According to reports from the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, units of the Ukrainian Army and National Guard amounting to about 150,000 men are positioned there, the news is overshadowed by our mainstream which speaks only of the Russian deployment. They are armed and trained, and so effectively commanded by U.S.-NATO military advisers and instructors.
If our ancestors could hear that ukraine would be the stage for an attack against russia, they would not believe it. but it is true. Rockets based in ukraine could strike objectives up to the ural mountains.
Putin talking technical details of US nuclear weapons "they spat on our concerns about NATO rockets near the russian borders. We did not agree to this and we will never agree to this. We always try to solve problems diplomatically. we fully understand our role in global peacekeeping.
But all of our proposals were refused. russia, they say, is not allowed to meddle in internal NATO affairs. last december, we offered our western colleagues a project for a russian-american security agreement. they never responded to our main concerns.
three main goals of russian security policy
1) no NATO expansion
2) no offensive weapon systems near russian border
3) return of military affairs in europe to 90's level
we are being blackmailed again. they are threatening us with sanctions. i think, the more sovereign russia becomes, the stronger their sanctions will become. they will always 'find' or make up a reason. they want to stop russian development. They don't even need a formal reason. their reason is that we exist. i want to say it directly: in a situation when our offerings of dialogue are being refused, russia is allowed to take measures to guarantee its security. we will do this. Concerning donbass, the kiev regime constantly talks about how it is not interested in the minsk protocol or in any kind of peaceful solutions.
Putin talking about constant artillery strikes and violence against civilians in donbass, and the "civilized world" pretending that the genocide against 4 million people isn't happening - just because they didn't support the western coup in ukraine "how long can this continue? how long can we tolerate this? we did everything to guarantee ukraine's territorial integrity. we proposed the minsk protocol. presidents change in ukraine, but the character of its radical regime does not change.
Ukraine does not recognize any other kind of solution in donbass than military. in light of this, i see no other way than to recognize the donetsk and lugansk people's republics. i ask the government to prepare documents of recognition and alliance treaties. From those who took power in kiev we demand to stop any and all military actions against donbass. otherwise, the consequences will be on ukraine. i count on the support of all patriotic forces in russia.
Speech Finish but "I don't think Putin is finished yet"
Biggest takeaway from this is Putin is directly calling into question all Soviet nationalities.
And Europe stands closer to all out war than at any time since WWII. It is imperative that the Western left fully understands the global geopolitical significance of the escalations currently taking place. Of course, the principal struggle which the U.S. is conducting is with China, and it is this that structures all other major world events. In the event of a major struggle with one adversary, the intelligent tactic would be to create and exploit divisions within that adversary’s system of alliances. In this case, by far the most important geostrategic ally of China is Russia.
A Multinational Battlegroup Fully deployed in Estonia in 2017 as part of NATO’s Operation Atlantic Resolve.
However, the tactics pursued by the U.S. over the past decade have amounted to the solidification of the Sino-Russian relationship. This curious way of proceeding can only be understood in terms of the very narrow limits placed on the room for maneuver by the U.S.’s prior project of encircling Russia. The principal instrument of this encirclement in Europe is NATO. And contrary to what is discussed in the Western media, it is the expansion of NATO to the east, to include first the countries of the former Warsaw Pact, and now the attempt to incorporate some former Soviet republics.
NATO member states.
Above Picture shows NATO member states and their proximity to Russia. Note that the incorporation of Ukraine and Georgia, both of which are candidates for membership, would bring NATO right up to Russia’s borders to join Latvia and Estonia. Moreover, given the attempt at regime change in Belarus in 2021 which if successful would probably have led to a government favorable to NATO candidacy, it is clear that Russia has legitimate security concerns.
It is instructive to summarize the stages in the planning and execution of this eastward expansion. A detailed summary of the early assurances against NATO expansion given by leading diplomats derived from declassified documents is given in the National Security Archive.
In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested to Minister of Foreign Affairs, Eduard Shevardnadze, that in exchange for cooperation on German reunification the U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.”
Michail Gorbachev discussing German unification with Hans-Dietrich Genscher and Helmut Kohl in Russia, July 15, 1990.
Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. After discussing the issue with West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl on February 24-25, the U.S. gave the former East Germany “special military status,” limiting what NATO forces could be stationed there in deference to the Soviet Union.
However, by March 1990 – only one month after Baker’s agreement with Shevardnadze – State Department officials were advising Baker that NATO could finesse Eastern Europe into the U.S.’s orbit. By October, U.S. policymakers were contemplating whether and when (as a National Security Council memo put it) to “signal to the new democracies of Eastern Europe NATO’s readiness to contemplate their future membership.”
The promise was reiterated in 1993 when the Partnership for Peace Program was proposed as a U.S. initiative at the meeting of NATO defense ministers in Travemünde, Germany, on October 20–21, 1993. In her memoirs, Madeleine Albright confirmed that the pro-expansion decision was reached in June 1993. Yeltsin was still in his first term as President of the Russian Federation. Indeed, in 1993 Yeltsin told Polish President Lech Walesa “Russia does not oppose Poland’s membership in NATO and does not perceive its membership in NATO as a threat to Russia.” However, ‘Under pressure from opposition within Russia, this informal declaration was retracted the following month, and Yeltsin wrote in October that NATO expansion violated the spirit of the 1990 agreement’.
NATO added the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland at the 1999 Washington summit, and established the protocol for Membership Action Plans.
Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic were invited to join NATO at its Madrid summit in 1997 and became full members in 1999. In 2004, during the George W. Bush presidency, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia joined, and Bush made an unsuccessful attempt to gain the membership of Georgia and Ukraine. In 2009 Albania and Croatia joined, in 2017 Montenegro became a member, and in 2020 North Macedonia became a member. The invitation to Georgia to join was a factor in the Georgian decision to attack South Ossetia in 2008 igniting the Russo-Georgian war of the same year. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that a pro-Western government came to power in Georgia following the so called ‘rose revolution’.
George W. Bush’s successful push to expand NATO to include the Baltic republics, and his even more brazen though unsuccessful effort to gain membership for Georgia and Ukraine at the Bucharest NATO summit greatly antagonized Russia. This promise of NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, was forestalled only by the opposition of Germany and France on the grounds that it would unnecessarily antagonize Russia, nevertheless encouraged Georgia to provoke a war with Russia by attacking South Ossetia.
In 2003 Demonstrators spending the night in front of the Georgian Parliament in Tbilisi.
The background to the Russo-Georgian war of 2008 is the ‘rose revolution’ of 2003, which replaced the pro Russian government of Eduard Shevardnadze with the pro-Western government of Mikheil Saakashvili. This regime change occurred with the assistance of the suspension of aid by the IMF and U.S., and the active participation of some 4000 mostly foreign funded NGOs, including USAID, and which closely followed the model of the Serbian ‘bulldozer revolution’ which led to the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic on 5 October, 2000.
The model of regime change which led to the overthrow of pro Russian governments in Serbia and Georgia was further pursued by the Obama administration in Ukraine, building on the ‘orange revolution’ of 2004-5 and culminating in the Maidan uprising which overthrew the pro Russian government of Viktor Yanucovych in 2014 as a result of his refusal to sign a political association and free trade agreement with the EU. The overthrow of the Yanucovych government was accompanied by a purge of civil servants associated with the former government and a de-russification of the country. That is what has led to the current long standing internal civil struggle between the predominantly Ukrainian and predominantly Russian regions of the country.
Locations of the predominantly Russian speaking populations of Ukraine.
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the NATO military alliance has extended its borders 800 miles to the east, incorporating Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia. In 2021, NATO officially recognized Ukraine itself as an “aspiring member,” and Sweden and Finland are also considering joining the anti-Russia alliance. Both Finland and Estonia are less than 200 kilometers (125 miles) from St. Petersburg, and Ukraine’s eastern border is less than 750 kilometers (465 miles) from Moscow. The current strategic situation facing Russia is shown below.
The western border of Russia currently threatened by the proposal to admit Georgia and Ukraine into NATO.
In addition to the already accomplished eastward expansion of NATO and the proposed additions of Ukraine and Georgia, it is also necessary to account for the failed attempts to overthrow the pro-Russian governments of Belarus in 2021, and Kazakhstan earlier this year. Had these attempts been successful it is extremely probable that there would be moves to incorporate these additional states into NATO. This would accomplish a complete encirclement of Russia on its European and central Asian borders. The cases of Ukraine and Georgia are particularly sensitive since membership of NATO means that states are covered by NATO’s mutual defense article. Therefore Ukraine would be encouraged to retake Crimea and the Donbas by force and Georgia would be encouraged to retake Abkhazia by force secure in the knowledge that if Russia intervenes they would have the protection of the other NATO powers. This would deprive Russia of access to the black sea.
As can be seen from the above, the current heightened tension has been building for some time, and results directly from Western deceptions around NATO expansion at the moment of the dissolution of the U.S.SR, which are intensified by the present day geopolitical confrontation between the Western powers and the Eurasian Bloc led by China and Russia.
Excerpt from a speech by Sergei Lavrov.
For instance, above screeshot shows an excerpt from a speech given by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in 2018.
So Overall in 1990
NATO: 16 members
Russia: Don't expand
US:Ok (never signs)
1999: Poland
Hungary
Czech join NATO
2004: Bulgaria Estonia Latvia Lithuania Romania Slovakia Slovenia
2009: Albania
Croatia
2017: Montenegro
N Macedonia
2022: Ukraine?
RUSSIA: ENOUGH!
No comments:
Post a Comment