Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Russia

 

WHY DOES THE WEST HATE PUTIN? THE SECRET REASON

The Official Reasons
We all know the governments of the West, lead by the US and the UK, have turned against Russia. (Never expect the UK to oppose US foreign policies)
There are many reasons offered by our media:
1. Russia tried to stop the Ukraine from joining the EU.
2. Russia helped the “pro-Russian rebels” shoot down MH-17.
3. Russia “invaded” the Crimea illegally.
4. Thousands of Russian troops and tanks are fighting in the Ukraine.
Some of us think these claims are war propaganda for the citizens of the West used to justify sanctions against Russia and increasing military tensions.
Australianvoice posted this March 7, 2015
The Geo-political Reasons
Less widely discussed but more important are the geo-political reasons which look at the areas of conflict between the economic interests of the US and those of Russia and China.At the moment the EU is heavily dependent on energy from Russia. The US would like to stop this.The conflict in the Ukraine is an important part of the process of economically separating the EU from Russia. But there is also a wider agenda.China and Russia lead the BRICS group of countries consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The BRICS countries want to develop a world wide economic system that does not depend the US dollar.

The BRICS  want to be independent of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World bank. China has also suggested to Europe that they join together with Russia and themselves in what they call the New Silk Road, stretching across the whole of Eurasia, from Lisbon to Shanghai.

Needless to say there is no immediate place for the US in this plan, so this gives another reason to cut the economic ties between Russia and the EU.

The Secret Reason – The War that Didn’t Happen
While these factors are all important, there is another factor which is never discussed in the Western media.

The trigger for the sudden hostility against Russia and Putin can be found in almost unreported events which took place late in August and early September 2013.

What happen in that crucial period is that a planned NATO surprise attack on Syria was stopped by Russia. This was probably the first time since WWII that a military attack planned by the West was confronted by sufficient force to require its cancellation.

The people in the West will not be told because their belligerent, tough-talking leaders “blinked”. They backed down and decided to change their plans. The new plan: Undermine the Ukraine and seize Crimea for NATO.

This obviously didn’t work either, and the mess they created is still with us.

The Planned US/French Attack on Syria
Early in the morning of Saturday, August 31, 2013, an American official called the office of President Hollande telling him to expect a call from Obama later in the day.

“Assuming that the evening phone call would announce the commencement of U.S. air strikes (against Syria), Hollande ordered his officers to quickly finalize their own attack plans. Rafale fighters were loaded with Scalp cruise missiles, their pilots told to launch the 250-mile-range munitions while over the Mediterranean.”(1)

At this point in time the French pilots and the US forces were only waiting for the final command from President Obama to begin their attack.

However, later that same day, at 6:15 pm, Obama called the French President to tell him that the strike scheduled for 3:00 am, September 1, would not take place as planned. He would need to consult Congress.(2)

Three days later, at 06:16 GMT Tuesday, September 3, two missiles were launched “from the central part of the Mediterranean Sea” heading for the Syrian coast, but they did not reach Syria.(3) “Both missiles crashed into the sea.”(4) There are several different accounts of what took place. According to Israel Shamir:

“It was claimed by a Lebanese newspaper quoting diplomatic sources that the missiles were launched from a NATO air base in Spain and they were shot down by the Russian ship-based sea-to-air defence system.

Another explanation proposed by the Asia Times says the Russians employed their cheap and powerful GPS jammers to render the expensive Tomahawks helpless, by disorienting them and causing them to fail.

Yet another version attributed the launch to the Israelis, whether they were trying to jump-start the shoot-out or just observed the clouds, as they claim.”(5)

The Warships Were Ready
It is hard to know what was behind this failed missile launch, but it did not trigger an all-out war.

We can all be very thankful for this. In the map below we can see the significant collection of warships in position off the Syrian coast at the time.(6)

An article in Global Research referred to a “massive US and allied naval deployment is occurring in the Eastern Mediterranean off Syria’s coastline as well as in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf.”(7)

Med Map Syria

At the time it looked almost certain that the US and its allies would launch an attack on Syria.

Instead, the proposed attack was put off indefinitely.

As Israel Shamir says, “the steely wills of America and Eurasia had crossed in the Eastern Mediterranean,” and the US suddenly decided to back away from such a serious military conflict.

One commentator quipped that Obama finally deserved his Nobel Peace Prize after all.

Here is the assessment of the situation from the Saker, an outspoken opponent of what he calls the Anglo-Zionist Empire. Because of his previous life the Saker has insider knowledge of the workings of NATO military affairs.

“Less noticed was the fact that Russia sent a hastily assembled but capable naval task force to the Syrian coast. Not a task force big enough to fight the US Navy, but a task force capable of providing a full view of the skies over and beyond Syria to the Syrian military.

For the first time the US could not achieve a surprise attack on Syria, not with cruise missiles, not with airpower. Worse, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah embarked on a covert and overt program of material and technical assistance for Syria which ended up defeating the Wahabi insurgency.”(8)

Why Did the US Change Plans?
It is difficult for us to know all of the manoeuvres which took place behind the scenes during August and September, 2013, but the final outcome is clear. After years of increasing tensions and threats, the US and its allies decided not to launch a direct attack on Syria as planned.

Given the rhetoric and military deployment directed against Syria seemed to follow the script used for Iraq and Libya, there has been little discussion in the West about why the US and its friends suddenly changed their plans.

Now with hindsight we can see that this failed direct attack led to an increased indirect attact and the rise of what is know known as ISIS.

Two of the obvious reasons I can see for this sudden change are not the sort of things the political leaders of the West want to discuss.

One is the fact that these wars are very unpopular. As a result of countless lies and failures revealed about the pointless and savage wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, it seems that some of the politicians are listening to their citizens. How else can you explain the unexpected decision of the British Parliament on Thursday, 29 August, to vote against the UK taking part in any strikes on Syria?

The other reason is the extent of the military build-up by Syria, Russia and even China.(9)

The Russians and Chinese have not only blocked the US in the Security Council. They “voted” with their military hardware.

They are not happy about what the US planned for Syria and made it quite clear that they would use force to stop them.

When was the last time the Chinese ever sent warships to the Mediterranean?

Both Russia and China are clearly not happy with the way the US decides to invade one country after another.

What Does it Mean?
For reasons which are not hard to imagine, there has been little discussion of the broader significance of these events in the Western media. However commentators like Israel Shamir and Pepe Escobar believe these events signal an important shift in the balance of power in the world.

The following is taken from a presentation by Israel Shamir at the Rhodes Forum October 5, 2013:

“First, the good news. American hegemony is over. The bully has been subdued.
“We cleared the Cape of Good Hope, symbolically speaking, in September 2013. With the Syrian crisis, the world has passed a key forking of modern history. It was touch and go, just as risky as the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.
“The chances for total war were high, as the steely wills of America and Eurasia had crossed in the Eastern Mediterranean. It will take some time until the realisation of what we’ve gone through seeps in: it is normal for events of such magnitude.”(10)

For ‘Eurasia’ read Russia and China.

In blunt terms, these two countries simply forced the US to back off and cancel their plans for war. Generally speaking, the ordinary people of the US, the UK and many other countries were just as opposed to the attack as the people in Syria itself.

Pepe Escobar is even more dramatic. Writing on the 17th October, after the Syrian backdown and the government shutdown in Washington, he explains that there has been a policy shift in Beijing.

Now, for China, the diplomatic gloves are off. It’s time to build a “de-Americanized” world.

It’s time for a new international reserve currency to replace the US dollar.(11)

This new approach is presented in a Xinhua editorial.(12) The last straw for them was the US shutdown coming on top of the financial crisis provoked by Wall Street banks. He quotes perhaps the most important paragraph:

Instead of honoring its duties as a responsible leading power, a self-serving Washington has abused its superpower status and introduced even more chaos into the world by shifting financial risks overseas, instigating regional tensions amid territorial disputes, and fighting unwarranted wars under the cover of outright lies.”(13)

China has at least three parts to this new strategy.

The first is to stop the military adventures of the US. All nations must respect international law and deal with conflicts within the framework of the UN.

The second is to broaden membership of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to include countries in the emerging and developing world.

The third is to work towards a “new international reserve currency that is to be created to replace the dominant US dollar.”(14)

Perhaps this is why the leaders in the West are not celebrating the war that didn’t happen.

The Russians and Chinese have forced the West to adhere to international law and avoid an illegal war.

Further, the Chinese see this as a beginning of a new era in world politics. They want to “de-Americanize” the world.

The Russians want to see a “multi-polar” world. This means that the US and its small group of friends in Western Europe and Japan will need to recognize that they cannot make all the major decisions in the world on their own.

Note: The arrogance of the US failed to change the world after the fall of the Berlin Wall

 

What the French navy is doing in the Black Sea? Repatriating more Jews from Crimea?

This detour by Russia allows us to judge the relative amplitude of the Ukraine crisis of 2014. This crisis translate the incapacity of the EU and USA in figuring out the “Third Europe“.

Maybe many people in the US can enumerate half a dozen of what are labeled the Western European States (the industrialized ones), and a few might still remember a couple of the newly created States in Central Europe after the implosion of Yugoslavia (Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia, Herzegovina, Macedonia…), but it is doubtful that many US citizens know anything about the other States in Eastern Europe, the “Third Europe, close to the borders with Russia and that were constellations within the Soviet Union.

How many knows of the 3 little Baltic new States, Belorussian, the States in the Caucasus (around the Black Sea) which also includes Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Romania… ? All these States that were occupied by the Ottoman Empire for over 4 centuries.

The implosion of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall have created a “post-Soviet Space” that was subjected to the various liberal  “choc therapies”

During Clinton and Bush Sr., the US encouraged varieties of “Orange Colored Revolutions“, especially in Ukraine and Georgia.

If Russia has been feeling humiliated and has this urge of taking matters in its hands, the European Union failed to show a little perspicacity in the treatment of the problems of the tiny emerging new States.

What the French navy is doing in the Black Sea?

Four French war navy  accompanied the destroyer and missile launcher USS Donald Cook. The bordering States of the Black Sea have signaled the arrival of these ships, otherwise, the “deployment” was decided in secrecy and not made public.

This operation was camouflaged under the NATO Active Endeavor maneuvering, which was not intended to be conducted in the Black Sea.

So far, neither the French government nor the US have made it public this navy deployment.

The two ships Dupuy de Lome and Alize, dedicated to underwater missions (missions of special under cover operations), along with anti-submarine frigate Dupleix, have manifested operational intentions.

Has France decided to be part of a military alliance with the US against Russia “provocations”?

Note 1: French text 

Que fait la flotte française en mer Noire ? - Communiqué </p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
<p>Lire ce communiqué sur mon blog : http://bit.ly/1isRfbv</p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
<p>#France #USA #Ukraine #Russie

Note 2: The French politician JP Chevenement wrote:

Ce détour par la Russie permet de relativiser l’ampleur de la crise ukrainienne de 2014. Celle-ci traduit l’incapacité à penser ce que Georges Nivat appelle « la troisième Europe », après la première et la seconde, celles d’avant et d’après la chute du mur de Berlin. L’implosion de l’URSS a créé un « espace post-soviétique » voué pour l’essentiel après 1991 aux « thérapies de choc » libérales.

Les Etats-Unis, à l’époque des Présidents Bill Clinton et George W. Bush ont encouragé les « révolutions de couleur ». Si la Russie, humiliée, a voulu reprendre la main dans son « étranger proche », on ne peut pas dire que l’Union européenne ait fait preuve de beaucoup de perspicacité dans le traitement du problème « post-soviétique ».

 

Israeli Soldiers leading fighting units in Kiev

Has Zionist Israel shot itself in the foot getting closely engaged in the western Ukrain uprising?

First, a short history and potentials of Ukrain. This “independent State” is 600,000 sq.km, vaster than France and a bit smaller than Texas and 45 million strong.

The GDP is about $300 billion and 54% of its land is fertile and used in agriculture. Ukrain has always been the bread basket of Europe and Russia in wheat and corn.

50% of Russia gas and oil destined to western Europe flow in Ukrain.

The latest events have demonstrated that Ukrain has Russia majority in the eastern region and Crimea. Crimea and the States around the Black Sea were occupied by Catherine II Russian troops and snatched from the Othoman Empire territories.

Crimea is 70% Russian and the Russian fleet in the Black Sea is the most powerful navy. The Navy Ukrain chief rallied the Russian fleet. Cremea is now a de-facto a Russian province.

East Ukrain is mostly populated with Russians and a counter uprising is taking place at a large scale.

Second, let’s read what  reported from Kiev in the daily Ha’aretz this Feb. 28, 2014, before I develop further in the notes.

He calls his troops “the Blue Helmets of Maidan,” but brown is the color of the headgear worn by Delta — the nom de guerre of the commander of a Jewish-led militia force that participated in the Ukrainian revolution.

Under his helmet, he also wears a kippah.

‘Delta’, ex-Israeli soldier, headed ‘the Blue Helmets of Maidan’ of 40 men and women – including several IDF veterans – in violent clashes with government forces.

Delta, the nom de guerre of the Jewish commander of a Ukrainian street-fighting unit.

Delta, the nom de guerre of the Jewish commander of a Ukrainian street-fighting unit, is pictured in Kiev earlier this month. Photo by Courtesy

Delta, a Ukraine-born former soldier in the Israel Defense Forces, spoke to JTA Thursday on condition of anonymity.

He explained how he came to use combat skills he acquired in the Shu’alei Shimshon reconnaissance battalion of the Givati infantry brigade to rise through the ranks of Kiev’s street fighters.

He has headed a force of 40 men and women — including several fellow IDF veterans — in violent clashes with government forces.

Several Ukrainian Jews, including Rabbi Moshe Azman, one of the country’s claimants to the title of chief rabbi, confirmed Delta’s identity and role in the still-unfinished revolution.

The “Blue Helmets” nickname, a reference to the UN peacekeeping force, stuck after Delta’s unit last month prevented a mob from torching a building occupied by Ukrainian police, he said. “There were dozens of officers inside, surrounded by 1,200 demonstrators who wanted to burn them alive,” he recalled. “We intervened and negotiated their safe passage.”

The problem, he said, was that the officers would not leave without their guns, citing orders. Delta told JTA his unit reasoned with the mob to allow the officers to leave with their guns. “It would have been a massacre, and that was not an option,” he said.

The Blue Helmets comprise 35 men and women who are not Jewish, and who are led by five ex-IDF soldiers, says Delta, an Orthodox Jew in his late 30s who regularly prays at Azman’s Brodsky Synagogue. He declined to speak about his private life.

Delta, who immigrated to Israel in the 1990s, moved back to Ukraine several years ago and has worked as a businessman. He says he joined the protest movement as a volunteer on November 30, after witnessing violence by government forces against student protesters.

“I saw unarmed civilians with no military background being ground by a well-oiled military machine, and it made my blood boil,” Delta told JTA in Hebrew laced with military jargon.

“I joined them then and there, and I started fighting back the way I learned how, through urban warfare maneuvers. People followed, and I found myself heading a platoon of young men. Kids, really.”

The other ex-IDF infantrymen joined the Blue Helmets later after hearing it was led by a fellow vet, Delta said.

As platoon leader, Delta says he takes orders from activists connected to Svoboda, an ultra-nationalist party that has been frequently accused of anti-Semitism and whose members have been said to have had key positions in organizing the opposition protests.

“I don’t belong [to Svoboda], but I take orders from their team. They know I’m Israeli, Jewish and an ex-IDF soldier. They call me ‘brother,’” he said. “What they’re saying about Svoboda is exaggerated, I know this for a fact. I don’t like them because they’re inconsistent, not because of [any] anti-Semitism issue.”

The commanding position of Svoboda in the revolution is no secret, according to Ariel Cohen, a senior research fellow at the Washington D.C.-based Heritage Foundation think tank.

“The driving force among the so-called white sector in the Maidan are the nationalists, who went against the SWAT teams and snipers who were shooting at them,” Cohen told JTA.

Still, many Jews supported the revolution and actively participated in it.

Earlier this week, an interim government was announced ahead of election scheduled for May, including ministers from several minority groups.

Volodymyr Groysman, a former mayor of the city of Vinnytsia and the newly appointed deputy prime minister for regional policy, is a Jew, Rabbi Azman said.

“There are no signs for concern yet,” said Cohen, “but the West needs to make it clear to Ukraine that how it is seen depends on how minorities are treated.”

On Wednesday, Russian State Duma Chairman Sergey Naryshkin said Moscow was concerned about anti-Semitic declarations by radical groups in Ukraine.

But Delta says the Kremlin is using the anti-Semitism card falsely to delegitimize the Ukrainian revolution, which is distancing Ukraine from Russia’s sphere of influence.

“It’s bullshit. I never saw any expression of anti-Semitism during the protests, and the claims to the contrary were part of the reason I joined the movement. We’re trying to show that Jews care,” he said.

Still, Delta’s reasons for not revealing his name betray his sense of feeling like an outsider. “If I were Ukrainian, I would have been a hero. But for me it’s better to not reveal my name if I want to keep living here in peace and quiet,” he said.

Fellow Jews have criticized him for working with Svoboda. “Some asked me if instead of ‘Shalom’ they should now greet me with a ‘Sieg heil.’ I simply find it laughable,” he said. But he does have frustrations related to being an outsider. “Sometimes I tell myself, ‘What are you doing? This is not your army. This isn’t even your country.’”

He recalls feeling this way during one of the fiercest battles he experienced, which took place last week at Institutskaya Street and left 12 protesters dead. “The snipers began firing rubber bullets at us. I fired back from my rubber-bullet rifle,” Delta said.

“Then they opened live rounds, and my friend caught a bullet in his leg. They shot at us like at a firing range. I wasn’t ready for a last stand. I carried my friend and ordered my troops to fall back. They’re scared kids. I gave them some cash for phone calls and told them to take off their uniform and run away until further instructions. I didn’t want to see anyone else die that day.”

Currently, the Blue Helmets are carrying out police work that include patrols and preventing looting and vandalism in a city of 3 million struggling to climb out of the chaos that engulfed it for the past three months.

But Delta has another, more ambitious, project: He and Azman are organizing the airborne evacuation of seriously wounded protesters — none of them Jewish — for critical operations in Israel.

One of the patients, a 19-year-old woman, was wounded at Institutskaya by a bullet that penetrated her eye and is lodged inside her brain, according to Delta. Azman says he hopes the plane of 17 patients will take off next week, with funding from private donors and with help from Ukraine’s ambassador to Israel.

“The doctor told me that another millimeter to either direction and she would be dead,” Delta said. “And I told him it was the work of Hakadosh Baruch Hu.” (What that means?)

Note 1: Independent Ukrain, after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, was one of the “friendliest” States to Israel. What Israel asked was a demand to be granted quickly and obediently.

West Ukrain has been historically closely tied to Germany and most of them consider themselves Teutons. They rallied Nazi Germany when the troops invaded Russia in late 1942, and they committed the worst atrocities against the Russians and Jews.

Why Israel has sent troops disguised as reservists to lead armed groups during the recent uprising?

And why Israel is now voicing apprehension that the 200,000 Jews in Ukrain might be facing “hate treatments” if a civil war breaks in this part of Ukrain?

Note 2: Can we interpret this uprising in Ukrain as tightly linked to the Syrian uprising?

Is the USA trying to pressure Russia for a few concessions and further compromises in Syria?

In any case, it does not stand to reason that Putin will allow the thousands of Islamic “terrorist” Chechen fighting in Syria to converge to bordering regions of Russia.

Ukrain needed the urgent attention of Merkel of Germany in order to ward off lingering troubles on its backyard. Instead of visiting Israel with 17 members of her government, Merkel should have been visiting Kiev and stayed there until a political resolution was finalized.

Merkel’s staunch strategy that Germany policies should be centered on the USA might have side tracked her from more pragmatic ties with Russia, the historical extension of Germany.

Now Merkel is loaded with a long lasting crisis, as bad as the Euro crisis.

The Republican Party made a terrible blunder by not advancing “Con dolcezza”, (a name which means “with softness” that her mother Angelena used as it appeared on piano partitions), to challenging Hillary Clinton in the latest Presidential campaign.  Condoleezza Rice would have been beaten: The Republicans had to be kicked out after two disastrous terms of the Jr. Bush, two wars, and the financial crash of the century.  Nevertheless, Condo would have infused a colorful campaign instead of the decrepit, decaying, boring dinosaur of McCain.

The “No dolcezza” Condo was born in 1954 in Baton Rouge (Louisiana), as her father John Wesley, originally from Birmingham (Alabama), was teaching and preaching at a Presbyterian church.  Condo then moved with her family to Birmingham till the age of ten.  At the time, Birmingham was the most racist city in the US and applying the stringent segregation laws.  Her father was a Presbyterian preacher and inherited the church that his father established in Birmingham.  Her mother was a science and piano teacher.  The Rice and Ray married in their thirties and decided to concentrate all their resources and energy in the only child girl.  The grandmothers of Condo had been house slaves, attached to the mistress of the plantation after the mister got satisfied for a short time.  Their husbands were field slaves with diminished privileges but they managed to get some education: three generations of Rice and Ray went through university studies because only education was the surest way not to returning to the cotton fields.

The Rice family protected Condo from trespassing to the white districts in the city:  The family didn’t need to mingle with the white citizens and could afford everything in their own quarters.  Condo joined a black  school and she was a bright achievers:  She participated in all sorts of contests, especially piano and singing.  Condo learned French with a private teacher. The mother was the organist and Condo the pianist in the choral of the father.  Sundays at 11 am was the time of the mostly segregated hour in the city:  They all joined their respective churches. The father was a football fan and initiated Condo to that sport.

The parents were mentally aware of the terribly discriminating behaviors of the citizens but they built barriers around the house and their emotions; the father owned a car and never had to ride any bus; they traveled westwards, out of Alabama and the southern States, and visited museum, zoos, university campuses.  The parents continued their education and acceded at higher social status and encouraged Condo to keeping her scholarly schedule pretty busy.

At the age of ten, Condo transferred with her family to Denver (Colorado) and joined a private religious school.  Soon after, the mother discovered that she had breast cancer and survived the sickness for another 14 years.  The father had risen in the university administrative positions.  Condo would wake up at 5 am and practice ice skating for 3 hours, go to school, and then practice piano for another 3 hours in the evening.

At the last year in high school, Condo decided to formally finish high school and participate in the diploma ceremony, while taking courses at the Denver university.  She went to the prom at the arm of the most famous university football player.  The year 1974 was a critical stage:  Condo had to decide on her specialty and the university to attend. Condo decided not to integrate the famous music university of Julliard in New York:  She had attended a music instrument competition and realized that many musicians had talents that she lacked. Condo had to be the best in everything she does.

Condo decided in the second semester to major in international politics because she got impressed with her professor Joseph Korbel (father of the infamous Madeleine Albright, Clinton’s State Secretary).  Joseph Korbel was the secretary of Czechoslovakia President before the WWII and then ambassador until Russia annexed Czechoslovakia and ended up teaching in Colorado. Condo opted to specialize in Russia and had to learn the language, the literature, the music and the history of Russia.  She also learned the Check language to satisfy Korbel.

Condo finished her Masters within a year in Notre-Dame (Indiana) and returned to finish her Ph.D in Denver.  She received a grant for a post-doctoral study in Stanford in 1981 and remained there for 20 years.  She became professor, chairman of the humanities and political sciences department, and then provost at Stanford. As provost, she managed to eliminate the university debts within two years but alienated the Afro and Latino activists colleagues in the university.

Condo was chaperoned, prepared and formated by the Republican think tanks:  She spent sabbatical at their main think tank bastions such as the Hoover Institute (Stanford), the Rand Corporation, Carnegie Foundation, JP Morgan and Chase, Chevron (oil multinational).  George Shultz and Brent Scowcroft were her mentors:  She became a member of the Bush family and spent her week-ends in Houston and in Maine.

Bush Sr. introduced Condo to his son Bush Jr. when governor of Texas:  He planned to assigning Condo to give his son private lessons and prepare him for the presidency; she tailor-made her program to conform with Bush’s short-term attention span and frivolity.  Bush Jr. was not excited to becoming President of the USA, but as he was elected against his will, he sent for Condo to support him and further his education at the White House.  By then, Condo had become an expert in missiles and the balance of power between the USA and Russia:  She was appointed in the first term as Bush national security advisor and then Secretary of State in the second term.  Bush Jr. saw Condo first in the morning and the last person before going early to bed.

I would have voted against “No dolcezza” no matter what; I would have campaigned aggressively against this technocrat who was formatted to becoming unethical, immoral, and not exhibiting compassionate behavior.  I vividly recall the way Condo barged in Lebanon, for a swift visit, as Israel has been pounding Lebanon for 30 days, in July 2006.  Israel by now had destroyed all the infrastructures in Lebanon, totally demolished 10 villages to the ground, pulverized a ten-block quarter in Beirut, using freshly US donated implosion bombs.  Israeli aggression killed 1,500 civilians, half of them children and women, injured and handicapped 4,000 civilians, and displaced 800,000 from their homes for 33 days.

Condo moved to shake hands with Lebanon oligarchy leaders, with her peculiar gait, the behind profusely protruding “out”; she assured the oligarchic leaders, who were anxious for the war to resume and getting rid of the Lebanese Resistance that checked the all-out Israeli military machines, that Israel is about, in a few additional days, to resurrect Bush’s public wishes of a newer democratic Greater Middle-East and that liberty will sweep the region with the total and unconditional backing of the USA.

The oligarchic Lebanese leaders were greatly pleased of Condo’s confirmation that Hezbollah is to be on its knees:  the oligarchy leaders were rubbing their hands in joy because soon, the rich Arab oil States will be donating millions for the “reconstruction” of the country and their private bank accounts will swell beyond imagination.  They believed that no political opposition parties would dare challenge their plundering project.

The consequences of the war were contrary to expectations:  Condo realized that she was looking more stupid than Bush and equally as bloody and senile a political figure as Cheney.

Alexander II: Tsar of Russia

Ivan the Terrible had cancelled all privileges that the noble class might have enjoyed before his reign:

1. the noble class could no longer inherit lands or serfs because all Russia was owned by the Tsar;

2. the noble could be flogged and executed on a whim of the Tsar without any due recourse.

In 1790, the Tsarine Catherine restored many privileges to the noble class, including inheriting lands and selling or bartering the serfs working the land as a collective or “mir“.  The noble could no longer be flogged, executed, or had to pay taxes. Titles and lands could not be confiscated without due process before a jury of peers.

Catherine had captured Belorussia and Ukraine from the Polish Kingdom and ventured toward the Caucasus regions.

By 1830, the class of nobles were emulating their counterparts in France, England, and Germany and even went way farther in their recklessness: a noble status was measured to the number of “souls” or serfs that he possessed.

The spirit of the French Revolution got activated in this climate of total servitude.

In 1850, Alexander II acceded to the Imperial throne. He abolished servitude before Abraham Lincoln decided on that policy in 1863.

Alex put an end to censorship of the press and promoted free expressions in universities; the legal system was replaced by public juries; the forced military service of 25 years was suppressed.

Cities were opened to whoever wanted to come in and settle; the Jews were permitted to attend universities. The word “glasnot” or openness was first used at that period.

In 1874, university students created this movement code named “to the people” and headed to rural areas with the intention of aiding peasants; the peasants got suspicious and the students returned to their urban centers.

Tolstoy got pretty angry when his serfs declined his offer to re-purchase the collective land as Tsar Alexander II had emancipated all kinds of slavering systems in Russia:  The serfs didn’t find it right to buy lands that they considered belonging to them as a community.

This remind me of a recent “similar” obstinate attitude:  Viet Nam had asked the French multinational Michelin (manufacturing tires) to re-invest in Viet Nam.  Michellin didn’t digest the fact of re-purchasing rubber plantations that it owned there during the colonial period.

The day of his assassination in 1874, Alex was to sign far reaching reforms on Constitutional monarchy.

The nihilist and terrorists groups got apprehensive that these reforms will kill their plans for “drastic revolution” in blood.

Alex was the target of several previous assassination attempts and the Imperial family was haunted by the vision that outside the Palaces was a hell of the real world.

The succeeding Tsar Alexander III cancelled all previous reforms and spent his life counter attacking the virulent terrorist groups; he instituted a new counter terrorist police force that encouraged further hatred to the regime.

During the reign of the Soviet Union, the US administrations would select the main dish to cook and prepare the ingredients; Russia would then set the fire under the pan; Europe would cool off  the plate; Israel would eat the main course.  The Arab States had the role of washing the dishes for the next feast of horrors and defeats.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, it is China selecting the strategic regions to exploit; then it is the turn of the US to bring in the matches; the European Union reaps the problems and extends grants to developing States and sends in the Blue Helmets to keeping the peace. India, Brazil, Russia , and Turkey wait to capture the investments of surplus money.  This time around, Israel is teaming up with Moderate Arab States to washing dishes.  Iran refuses to wash dishes: it contributes soap and detergents to whom is willing to washing and cleaning the mess.

After WW2, the US was master of seas and oceans; it nuked Japan twice to accelerate Japan’s surrender: Stalin of the Soviet Union had already entered Mantchouria and was progressing to conquer all of Korea. The US got hold of Japan and South Korea; Russia got North Korea.  In 1949, Mao of China conquered Tibet (source of all major rivers in India, China, and South East Asia); the US failed to obstruct China’s expansion.  Stalin got upset: He decided to capture all of Korea.  The US resisted and paid the tab in soldiers, weapons, and money for many years to save south Korea.  Finally, China is controlling North Korea via figure heads.

After WW2, the US launched many pre-emptive wars around the globe under the pretext of “containing the spread of communism” and grabbed all the European colonies.  The Soviet Union backed “national resistance” to imperialism with inexpensive weapons.  The third world States got independence and Russia won their hearts and mind but not their stomachs:  Russia was unable to extend finances to these famished new independent States; the US made it a policy to destabilize all these new States with military coups and braking any economic and social development.

During the reign of the Soviet Union, there were many “progressist” movements siding with either Russia, China, or other communist systems against the common enemy “emperialist capitalist America”.  The US and Russia divided the spoil of the world after burning lands, forests, and people of the third world States.

After the fall of Berlin Wall, China is masterfully juggling with capitalism, socialism, and communism ideologies as tools for economic hegemony.   The US is impotent regulating and controlling the havoc resulting from the unruly multinational financial institutions.  The EU is paying the tabs as usual.  India, Brazil, Russia, and Turkey are enjoying the roles of mediators, negotiators, and recipients in the G20 group.  All other states are paid minimum wages for cleaning up this global mess.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) failed in its mission; (Mar. 27, 2010)

After 30 years of successive wrong decisions, decisions based on ideology and not on economics, that

1. weakened the developing States and reduced them to further poverty and famine;

2. decisions that destabilized world economy and lead to the global financial crash…

This International Monetary Fund (IMF) is still refusing to evaluate its ideological economic policies and account for modern economics theories that have

1. demonstrated the total inadequacy of market mechanisms and

2.  financial forces working independently of State interventions and benefiting the upper classes

3.  failing to come to the rescue of the poorer classes and reducing chronic employment.

The IMF has failed in its objectives.

Its mission was supposed to tackle two global economic problems: first, engaging world economic stability and second, aiding developing countries to healthier transition into economic globalization.

The IMF thought that it was doing the right thing for over 30 years:  It stuck staunchly to an archaic economic theory of market forces taking care of fluctuations and inefficient decisions.

The IMF went further to feeling comfortable in the position that poverty and joblessness are not within its mission: they were the World Bank (WB) mission of carrying these functions toward the less fortunate classes!

In fact, the IMF adopted this slogan: “What is good for the financial community in diagnosing healthy world economy is necessarily an excellent stability factor for globalization.”

This incomprehensible laziness of the IMF economists to studying, evaluating, and analyzing economic structural singularities of developing countries, led to strengthening the notion that world market forces is the best solution for hazardous economic investments.

John Keynes theorized that when market mechanisms are not challenged by States and that market forces work unperturbed, it is inevitable that chronic collective joblessness follow.  Keynes stated that, even singular developed nation economic decisions, affect global economic stability: what one State import in product and services many other States are exporting them.

Keynes reflected that in financial crashes many needy economies will be unable to borrow liquidity to stimulating their solvable economies to either finance spending deficits or compensating for tax income reduction.

Indeed, many solvable States went down for lack of international lending policies.

Thus, Keynes was the economics guru who demanded the establishment of an international monetary fund with mission to extending liquidity to maintain a certain level of full employment that will sustain global economic stability.

The IMF policy makers functioned contrary to Keynes’ economic theory and mission, and the IMF relied on the archaic market dynamics and refused to have any faith on the interventions of States institutions.   This ideology is a blatant irony since the IMF is supposed to be a public institution, but it is acting and behaving as if transparency in decision, management, and administration, is none of its concern or demanded to be submitted to restrictions.

For three decades, the IMF has been pressuring developing states to adopting stringent restrictive economic policies that never suited world economic stability. The successive failures never incited the IMF into revising its economic ideology and make sense of all those incoherent concepts that led to humongous errors and deeper poverty.

For example, during the last three decades, world finance considered exchange rates as one of other commodities, such as product and services.  Thus, exchange rates were to be flexible to accommodate market forces. That was a great wise idea; what the IMF did?

The IMF considered that exchange rate is one commodity that should be maintained at any cost by pumping billions of dollars in pure expenses for no benefit to real economy. Contrary to its market ideology, the IMF excluded exchange rate from market mechanism tool to stabilizing a failing economy.

Usually, it is excessive pessimism after a euphoric phase that drives speculative capitals to be withdrawn in economically solvable States.  Speculative investment is the disease to be treated and an overvalued exchange rate is just one of the symptoms.

The ideology of the IMF did its best to greatly facilitating speculative influx of capitals, and when difficulties arise, to pumping more liquidity in order to maintain the previous exchange rate to the benefit of the multinational financial speculators.

Consequently, the disease is aggravated by this unilateral vision of who should be the prime beneficiary; it has never been the developing States.

For three decades, the developing States have been paying interest on IMF loans simply to enrich multinational speculators by maintaining high exchange rates.  Otherwise, speculators would have desisted if developing States were not pressured to maintaining their exchange rates.

When a private company fails to pay interests on wrong investment decisions, it just declares bankruptcy.  The IMF refuses the developing States to declaring bankruptcy because the multinational financial speculators have to benefit from their faulty loaning decisions.

For example, Russia slapped the IMF in 1998 and defaulted on its external debts; two years later, the multinationals were back investing in Russia.  Thus, liquidity pumped by the IMF at high interest rates into bankrupt States ends up in the pocket of the speculators at the detriment of stringent social conditions of the needy classes.

The gain amassed by speculators, as a group, basically amount to a State financial and economic loss as a government and society at large.  The IMF has in fact been encouraging financial speculators for over 30 years!

Consequently, the other incoherence in the IMF mission is the lack of viable diagnostic tools.  The economists hired by the IMF get worried with balance of payment deficits but barely care how the money was used and where it ended.

The IMF has been extending funds to developing countries in order to salvage companies of the developed States, which made very bad investment decisions.  Multinationals had not to worry about examining closely their faulty policies or had any incentives to reform since the IMF is established principally to come to their rescue.

When States enjoy surplus export balances it is at the expense of excess import balances in other States.  If imports are of the luxury-kind items then desisting extending financial loans on luxury items should take care of the imbalance.

The IMF ideology states: “Once a State reaches a pessimistic speculative mood, the neighboring States will inevitably suffer by disease contamination.”  The coherent economic theory of Keynes reflected as follow: “A State will reduce imports which will hurt neighboring economies.

How did the IMF interpret that relationship? 

The IMF responds by forcing neighboring States to drastic austerity policies in order to avoid “contagion!”  Thus, an entire region such as South East Asia, had to crumble after Thailand. Oil demands and other basic products were cut down which generated reduction in brute oil demands and prices; the waves of panic spread thousands of miles away.  Russia was affected by reduced oil prices and not by any mysterious links related to investors’ confidence.

So far, after the latest financial crash, the IMF was forced to re-examine its economic ideology and to reform its governance.  The IMF is encouraging developing States to control and manage the flux of speculative investments and discourage any investment that does not benefit real economy.

What is needed is that the IMF funds institutions, particularly in developing countries, can identify, control, and manage external investments and offer developing countries the availability of instant information and intelligence on economic and financial activities to be able to compete with the elite multinationals.

The European Union (EU): Modern Europe leading human rights; (Nov. 10, 2009)

 

The previous post “European Union (EU) describes Modern Europe” covered a few statistics and then a short description of the EU administrative and legislative institutions. This follow up post will cover what is working, then analyzing what need to be ironed out, and then how the world community is expecting modern Europe to lead.

The 27 European States forming the EU counts 6 States among the twenty leading economy in the world.  By deceasing rank we have USA, China, Japan, India, Germany, Russia, Britain, France, Brazil, Italy, Mexico, Spain, South Korea, Canada, Indonesia, Turkey, Iran, Australia, Taiwan, and the Netherlands. Actually, those six European economies constitute about 90% of the EU in economy and in populations.

As a block, the economy of the EU may surpass the USA with a twist: the three largest industrial multinationals in every sector are US.  For example, in aeronautics we have United Technology, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin; in medical materials we have Medtronic, United Health, and Alcon; in Medias we have Walt Disney, News Corporation, and Comcast; in pharmaceutical/biotechnology we have Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer; in informatics we have Microsoft, IBM, and Google.  Besides, the US is the first military power in technology, Navy, Bombers, and aircraft carriers.  The EU is totally dependent on oil and gas energies imported from Russia and elsewhere.  France has adopted a policy of being sufficient in electricity via nuclear energy (60% of the total of France production of energy).  Denmark is 25% sufficient in Aeolian technology and Germany about 15%.

The EU is facing problems. First, the “community vision” is eroding: the decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall and disintegration of the Soviet Union sent the wrong message of jumping in the band wagon of US globalization; thus, the well to do citizens wanted to get rich fast by emulating liberal capitalism. Individualism overshadowed the need to resume a common culture of developing institutions that are trained to work toward the common interest and be reformed to keeping the EU spirit intact in human rights and human dignity.

Second, the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 took Europe by surprise.  The euphoric undertaking of uniting East Germany quickly exhausted West Germany with the multitude of social, economic and political problems of this unification and captured most of Germany’s resources and time and prevented it to ponder on the EU necessities.  The opportunity to deepen European consciousness for reformed institutions to expanding eastward was missed.

Third, the EU was discussing the two possibilities: either the strengthening the current union for the longer term expansion or hastily absorbing the many eastern European newly independent States.  The political decision was to go ahead and allowing these tiny states to adhere to the union.  I think that this was the appropriate decision because new States had to root their future into a tangible alliance or fall back into past habit, inclinations, and culture; thus, forming close alliances with Russia. The EU was the appropriate framework for ethnic communication and more democratic realization of social aspirations.  The problem is that these tiny States feel that they should aspire to the same standard of living in no times.  The latest financial crash has left al these States in bankrupt conditions and it is up to the rich EU States to salvage this predicament.  Maybe this fact should remind the EU that not all States should enjoy the same rights until they can show the same capability to shouldering responsibilities.

 

The actual challenges are many. First, there is a political space to reconstruct:  The budget of the EU institutions is merely 1% of the gross GNP while States allocate over 30% to re-distribute to collectivities, social protection, and welfare. The richer States are not that inclined to contribute heavily to the social stability of the poorer EU State members. Second, the EU has unified its currency (it overcame the States’ monopolies to issuing paper money) but is lacking a unified economic government.  For example, the EU lacks common public spaces, no political party or organization has been created or formed to focus on specific EU interests, and the EU Parliament has no power to raise taxes to finance common policies.  So far, the government chiefs are wary of relinquishing their interstates legitimacy and power.

As a block, the EU is still unable to challenge the US on crimes against humanity committed by the US and Israel;  it is fully cooperating with the US on taking Israel off the hook in the UN for daily crimes against human dignity, rights, and apartheid policies in the West bank and Gaza. There are a few States in the EU that are showing trends to opposing Israel’s apartheid practices and boycotting its products grown and manufactured in the occupied West Bank; it is the people in these States who have set the stage for human rights and dignity reversal toward the Palestinian endemic plight since 1948.

 

The world community is on its toes: will the EU refresh its initial objective of “community vision” or will it relapse in petty interstates interest of monopolies and idiosyncrasies?  We need the EU to be the caldron of community communication among ethnicities, languages, and cultures. We need the EU to be the social and political testing ground for viable alternatives in vision, institutions, ecological human survival, human rights and dignity. We need the EU to invent new reasons to living together and reducing man inequality.

The European Union is the most striking political and social achievement in the 20th century.  The backbones of most of the UN peace keeping forces around the world are European contingents; the EU is the highest contributor in humanitarian budgets and for reforming obsolete public institutions in the under-developed States. The EU needs a refresher community vision and the world community should raise its voices and aid Europe in its endeavors.

Is the United Nation Indispensable? (October 29, 2009)

 

We have UN “peace keeping forces” on our border with Israel since the July 2006 war that lasted 33 days; this savage pre-emptive war ended with a major debacle of the Israeli troops and a definite political defeat of Israel’s expansionist strategies and pre-emptive war policies. This peace keeping force is not really meant to keep peace and could not do this job if a resumption of war sets in.  The major benefit of UN peace keeping forces is to interact with citizens and aid in small social and economic undertakings within the needed communities and providing seasonal jobs.  The fact that citizens are exposed to different nationalities and daily interactions is more important than any kinds of power exhibition and posturing.  One drawback is that many kids tend to like playing soldiers wearing blue beret or blue helmets; in a way start dreaming of emulating the UN military forces.

Many regions have witnessed exposures to UN peace keeping contingents with communication advantages that dwarf the petty enmities based on ethnic or religious conflicts that are the wreckages of lasting historic ignorance and confinements.  Just providing multinational troops for separating armies is good enough a job to preserving and consolidating the UN institutions. 

Currently, the UN departments are focusing on environmental changes (the Copenhagen forum is awaited with great expectation this December), eliminating arms of mass destructions, reducing the nuclear arsenals, slowing down the proliferation of sub-munitions, biological and chemical arms, and prohibiting the usage of land mines, cluster shells, phosphoric bombs. 

After the fiasco of the pre-emptive war in Iraq and the hopeless case of resolving the Afghan conflict by shear military intervention it is becoming obvious that the UN will erect a solid wall against such unilateral pre-emptive endeavors.  Major wars are practically at an end.  The main difficulty is to diplomatically pre-empt conflicts that may result in low level wars or civil wars that are more difficult to resolve when they starts than open wars; this is where the UN can dynamically extend helping hands as an honest third party broker to encouraging the main parties to meeting directly.

A not largely publicized endeavor is the efforts to re-integrate kid-soldiers into civilian societies; many families and communities refuse to accept their kid-soldiers within their mist for fear or disrupting the traditional way of life. Many African States have recruited over 300,000 kids to play soldiers during the many civil wars and those kids would not relinquish the man status they acquired during these horrible wars and the easy ways to rob and stead just by showing off with a Kalashnikov.

The UN divulged that military expenses have reached 1.5 trillion dollars this year; an amount that would have made every inhabitant of planet earth richer by 200 dollars.  The US alone accounts for 48% of that total in military budget.  Most armies have reduced the number of their standing armies in order to invest the savings on more performing weapons in load power, reduced size, and accuracy to kill and maim.  The US and Russia are negotiating the reduction on the number of war heads and ballistic missiles for the purpose of investing the savings on more performing and newer generations of war heads and missiles.  The US and Russia needed the UN as a world forum to misinform the world community on their intentions for greater peace and stability.

Civilian group actions are taking the lead over State governments in disseminating awareness on global problems and exercising beneficial pressures on the 199 State governments represented in the UN.  Former hegemonies of superpowers are making rooms to emerging economic and financial powers.  The group of G20 is meeting frequently and neighboring States are conglomerating into trade zones in South America and South-East Asia.

Slow changes in the re-organization of the UN and power distribution are taking place.  Rotations of non-veto power States (I think around 9 in addition to the 5 veto members) are asked to represent the UN body in executive sessions; for example Lebanon was voted in for two years after 53 years of absence.  This sharing in responsibilities is a great exposure for non-veto States to learn and get training on the UN administrative labyrinths.

The rights of the former five “superpowers” of US, Russia, China, France, and Britain to veto on major decrees related to wars or pre-emptive wars did not function well: superpowers did what they wanted to do anyway regardless of the votes in the General Assembly. Worse, the superpowers vetoed on petty matters that would have discouraged crimes against humanity and blatant apartheid policies.  The US caste the most number of vetoes in the history of the UN just to take Israel off the hook on the thousands of Israel’s behaviors and activities that went counter to the UN charter of safeguarding human dignities and rights. 

Veto rights to absolving crimes against humanity are not to be acceptable any more.  After the world financial crash, the successive failures of direct wars to solving problems, and the exorbitant costs to waging wars and paying for wars’ aftermath in caring for refugees, displaced people, and reconstruction a new political era is evolving; the superpowers are now willing to permit the UN playing greater roles in resolving world problems.

The “Big Army” crossing the Beresina River; (September 14, 2009)

 

            The self appointed Emperor, Napoleon Bonaparte, had entered Moscow.  The Russian governor of Moscow burned his Capital three days after the French troops entered this “Saint City”.  Bonaparte lingered for an entire month in Moscow, hopelessly waiting for Czar Alexander to initiate negotiation.  Bonaparte finally ordered the retreat; he also ordered General Moreau to blast off the Kremlin. Bonaparte was forced to re-take the same route he used for coming to Moscow.  Bonaparte and “The Big Army” of 670,000, initially, were to re-witness the scene of carnage of the battle of Borodino; with a twist: the 80,000 victims were reduced to carcasses and the wolves and crows had done their cleaning job.

            Finally, after weeks of walking in the Russian winter weather half the army was dead from freezing, famine, drowning, and diseases. The guerilla Cossacks harassed this multinational army into lunacy; many soldiers were acting up crazy and irrationally. Then this big army had to cross the Beresina River.  The Russian General Kutuzoff appeased the British General Wilson saying: “It is in the swamps of Beresina that the meteorite will cool down.  So far, Bonaparte has no alternative but to follow the passage that I let him take; he is not even allowed to stop and rest.”

            The main bridges on the Beresina were destroyed.  The French engineering regiment headed by Eble tried to build all night long two makeshift bridges in a valley; they had to construct the bridges dipping in frozen water. The pontoon layers knew that they will not survive the day.

            The Russian army of 40,000 headed by General Tchitchakoff was waiting on the other side of the river. Miracle of miracle, in the morning the Russians had vacated their posts to allow Bonaparte safe passage and not be made prisoner. Bonaparte crossed at 2 pm. Then mayhem ensued.

            The entire army was pressing to cross on unstable bridges. The first wave of crossers drowned or was trampled due to the heavy push from the back.  Those trying to climb from the sides were carried off by the freezing powerful river. Women were holding their babies off water to be picked up before sinking in the river; not many babies found rescuers: everybody had no time to lose.

            What is it with women and babies following armies? It has been the custom since antiquity for whole families to follow their “noble warriors”, not those mercenaries or poor soldiers. Perhaps the noble warriors didn’t feel excited being deprived of their tasty dishes or the warmth of female bodies. But what with babies and kids? I never knew of a noble warrior caring of providing sympathy and affection to their kids. Obviously, women were of great help washing, cooking, cleaning after, gathering woods, tending the wounded, and rejuvenating the illusion of a peaceful period.  In this Russian campaign the civilians following the armies were caught between fires, crushed by horses and carriages, and killed when made prisoners.

            Then the Russian shells aimed amid this dense army increased the havoc. The bridge reserved for the artillery broke down. The masses surging from behind prohibited the column from backtracking. Everyone was precipitated in the river.  Thus, there was a surge to the only remaining bridge; men and materials were to be using this bridge. The carriages could not be stopped and entered in the masses and crashed into the compact assembled soldiers.  Nobody was hearing the moaning of the fallen and trampled.

            Bonaparte sent a brief message to the French Senate “During the 26 and 27 of November the army crossed.”   On December 5, 1812 Bonaparte abandoned his army and fled to Paris.

            If it was a military matter General Kutuzoff could have annihilated the French Big Army but he allowed it to cross the Russian borders.  There are two reasons for that decision: first, it was a highly political decision by Czar Alexander I.  Bonaparte was the master of Europe.  Without Bonaparte Europe would have sank into civil wars; the European leaders preferred Napoleon to stay for a short while so that he be targeted as the sole enemy and thus unite Europe until a political plan for restructuring the States is agreeable to all parties after the fall of Napoleon.  Second, it was a pragmatic decision.  The Russian army barely could afford to feed its soldiers.  It would have turned a horrific burden to caring for over 200,000 enemy soldiers who were enfeebled, sick, and crazy.  General Kutuzoff must have been extremely relieved to see the enemy has finally retreated behind the borders.


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

October 2020
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Blog Stats

  • 1,428,339 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 775 other followers

%d bloggers like this: