"We gain security and we also share it. It’s good to keep in mind that security isn’t a zero-sum game."
Said Finland’s president, Sauli Niinistö, quoted in "Finland formally confirms intention to join Nato/Nordic country that shares 800-mile border with Russia looks to end decades of non-alignment" (The Guardian).
Posts
57 comments:
Serious Question
Why are We escalating our war with russia? What is our objective with this war?
is The Plan, to give russia NO OPTIONS except a nuclear response?
Well, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is turning out to be the greatest strategic blunder since Hitler invaded Russia. It made clear that, excepting nukes, his military is a paper tiger and it added to NATO in more threatening ways to Russia than if Ukraine had joined. We could be entering a period more dangerous than any, including the Cuban Missle Crisis. I see no way this ends well. The easy solution is to hope that Putin is replaced but I have fears that the replacement will be more unstable and aggressive. Our side does not engender confidence either.
Dear Abbey,
On one hand we're told Russia is a paper tiger whose military has largely already been destroyed in Ukraine. On the other, that Russia is such a threat we need to strengthen and expand NATO, station permanent US forces in Europe once again as a deterrent to a Russian invasion of eastern Europe and it's the start of a new cold war.
On one hand we're told Putin has lost the war, is about to die of blood cancer and a coup against him is imminent. On the other, that western leaders have been calling him proposing urgent talks for peace.
A few short months ago Putin was a just big poopy-head who poisoned oligarchs, hacked Hillary and broke up Pussy Riot. Now, all of a sudden, it's 1939 and he's Hitler.
What should I believe?
signed,
Confused in Calabasas
The Good News IS* We have Joe Biden running this show!!! WHAT, could Possibly go Wrong?
The Good News IS* The BAD News Is: There Is NO Good News
Guns of August, chapter two.
What is Finland going to contribute to the defense of the USA? What part of their budget is going to go to fund NATOs new obligation in Ukraine, zero?
A young female reporter from a British newspaper was sent to Finland to write an article about Finnish soldiers returning from the Winter War. Interviewing one infantry-man, Jussi, she asked
"When you came home, when the war was over, what was the first thing you did?"
"I screwed my wife," Jussi replied bluntly.
The journalist went red, and tried to change the subject.
"After that, I mean. What did you do after that?"
"I screwed her again," he answered.
The journalist turned an even darker shade of red.
"Other than that! Uh - what did you do when you were finished with all that?"
"I took off my skis and had a beer."
"Why are We escalating our war with russia? What is our objective with this war?
is The Plan, to give russia NO OPTIONS except a nuclear response?"
This has been the primary US geopolitical goal since the end of WWII...to weaken Russia to such a state that we become the only global power. Of course, subsequent to WWII, China has become a third global power, so now we must weaken Russia and then turn our sights to China. In short, we are a psychotic nation who will not look for ways to co-exist with other nations who we cannot push around, (any nations other than Russia and China). We will continue to ruin the nation, playing chess with other nations, (such as the US/NATO provocation that prompted Putin to invade Ukraine), pouring trillions into our War Department rather than into services for the people, in a futile attempt to gain world domination.
It will kill us, either in the long or short term.
NATO member Turkey is going to veto Finland and Sweden joining because both countries took in PKK members. That the US let Finland even get to this point of making open statements about joining NATO is a failure of diplomacy and international relations.
"gilbar said...
Serious Question
Why are We escalating our war with russia? What is our objective with this war?
is The Plan, to give russia NO OPTIONS except a nuclear response?"
Why do you say "we" when the story says Finnish public opinion was changed by Russia's invasion of Ukraine?
The Ukrainian objective is a restoration of its borders.
Other than using nuclear weapons, Russia can go back inside its own borders which enclose the largest country on earth without the Ukraine.
Russia might get tired of its losses in the Ukraine. It left Afghanistan because it was losing so many soldiers and now Russia has lost more soldiers in the Ukraine in 75 days than it lost in Afghanistan in 9 years. (25,000 dead v. 14500 dead and wounded - war has changed and Russia is using legacy war techniques) It is so determined to hide its losses than it won't claim the bodies of its soldiers when notified by the Ukraine. Families are left to wonder why the letters stop.
Serious question
Are you saying that Russia must be allowed to take every country it wants because Russia is mad and will use nuclear power to get what it wants. Putin has said he wants to restore the former Soviet Empire meaning he wants the countries of the former Soviet Empire: Poland, Hungary, Romania, Estonia, East Germany, Latvia, former Czechoslovakia, Lithuania. If I've missed any, he won't. All of Georgia. Moldava.
No, this will not end well. Russia doesn't want NATO on its borders, any more than the USA would have wanted Mexico as a member of the Warsaw Pact. If Russia attacks Finland, is NATO really going to go fight a war? Probably not, at least no more than the aid and comfort given to Ukraine. And that will expose the hollowness of NATO's pledge to defend member countries.
We are now left with the hope that the sick man in the Kremlin goes away, before the vegetable in the White House gets manipulated into even worse schemes.
Putin seriously miscalculated and forced countries who studiously avoided seeing the Bear in the Woods to take steps to safeguard their own safety.
Ronald Reagan - Prepared For Peace (Political Ad 1984)
Based on current NATO practices, this is not so much about Finland joining NATO as the U.S. promising to defend another neighbor of Russia. It smacks of playing a very high risk game where a single mistake could lead to use of nuclear weapons. What is wrong with the status quo?
Not sure I understand ‘zero-sum game’ in this context. I’m assuming NATO wins and Finland wins, but am not seeing how anything can be construed as zero-sum.
gilbar said...
Serious Question
Why are We escalating our war with russia? What is our objective with this war?
is The Plan, to give russia NO OPTIONS except a nuclear response?
5/15/22, 6:47 AM
Maybe we are at war with Russia, maybe not, but not any more than they were at war with us when the USSR supplied arms and other support to North Korea and North Viet Nam. While some in US contemplated using nuclear responses in those wars, we pursued other options.
Russia has many options starting with withdrawing from Ukraine and return the Ukrainians they have abducted. We can't let the threat of a nuclear response stop us from action because with China, Iran and North Korea are watching, we will just be inviting them to take nuclear backed aggression.
gilbar
Self defense isn't threatening unless you intend to be threatened. NATO is a response to perceived aggression. Never assume the gun is unloaded.
But yes. The left want's to get us into a shooting war with Russia. They are assuming that all the nuclear threatening is just posturing. They-the left- are gambling with lives that they have no concern over anyway. Elections have consequences.
I had not considered what Xmas said at 0749, but if true then so be it.
What to do?
Disband NATO. Europe has some justifiable fear of Russian expansion, but is fully capable of defending itself, or its individual members, as needed. They have no need for US support other than intelligence that we may have to share if helpful, and possible research into weapons systems that we can share with them (at a profit). No need for US troops or hardware anywhere east of Iceland.
Let the European nations of NATO form a new alliance, invite Sweden, Finland, anyone else who wants to join. Turkey if it behaves.
If Russia gets frisky with nukes, we can make a contribution in kind with our ICBMs or Boomers as a last resort. NATO made sense in the 1950s and 1960s, but no longer needed with the economic strength of Europe now on par with US. All they need is motivation.
I susect that, metaphorically speaking, the history of being invaded is in Russian DNA. Both Hitler and Napoleon lost catastrophically, which is what it looks like from the outside. But the consequences to the Russians in the path of or overrun by the invader is sometimes less obvious in the west.
One minor technical issue to be multiplied as imagination suggests:
Keegan said that the field bakeries, being inefficient, required a weight of firewood equal to the weight of the flour being baked. So in an agricultural area, where does the invading army get firewood? The locals have, to build and to burn (cook and stay warm) likely deforested the area pretty thoroughly. So the firewood comes from...their homes. Presto, they're homeless and winter's coming. Over thousands of square miles. But the soldiers have their bread.
Should say I read of a traveler from NYC to Boston ca 1810 who said he didn't see a tree. Might have been true, might have been almost true, but as a complete fabrication to his friends...not likely.
People get tired of being cold and when the invader takes their food (foraging), hungry is part of the package.
Not to mention rape and looting and murder.
Thus, Putin can possibly sell the fear of external threats more easily to the Russians than might be apparent to us.
He might even believe it.
Okay. Makes sense. But their neurosis doesn't require their likely victims to disarm so as to keep the Russians mellow about such things.
The idea that NATO is a threat is nuts, it seems to us. But, given history, it might be an easier sale to the Russian people even if Putin doesn't believe it but needs something marketable.
Nevertheless, yielding to that as if it's valid makes the "near abroad" vulnerable to invasion.
Solution is the Russians suck it up, presuming the DNA issue as described. They leave their neighbors alone, we'll leave them alone.
We don't need a NATO member on the border to give us a jump on invading. We just...invade and run over, with or without the locals' permission. So, as a practical matter, it's irrelevant anyway.
If only those pesky Ukrainians would abandon all their pretensions to national sovereignty and the security of their borders....
"...we will just be inviting them to take nuclear backed aggression."
I think the only nation in the world who is sufficiently self-deluded as to consider "nuclear backed aggression" is the USA. We are the only one of the great global powers (and the many less powerful nations in Europe) who has not suffered devastating destruction of our cities and/or mass casualties from wars in the past century, particularly WWII. We see ourselves as the indispensable nation, the only virtuous nation, the greatest and most powerful nation; these notions, combined with our geographic insulation from the real horror of war, makes us much more likely to think we can use nukes aggressively and somehow win the war and survive intact. We're damned fools.
Finland wants to be in NATO?
They can have our seat. NATO, the UN, the UN's countless alphabet agencies are all the entangling alliances that Washington warned about. Old George was an America First patriot. Those who have engineered our getting into these alliances are about diluting, to the point of elimination, American independence/sovereignty and building the NWO, global government.
The Democrats leaders of the House and Senate keep saying it out loud. Steny said, “we are at war…” twice during a speech mid-week. Look how fast they (both parties) rush to shovel more $ Billions out to Ukraine with no oversight, no conditions. Is a Ukraine at war suddenly less corrupt than it was five years ago?
Can someone explain to me why we are in NATO?
Then explain to me why we pay 10 times as much of nato's cost as the #2 country?
If Europeans won't defend themselves, why should we? (I guess the same reason we give illegal aliens formula while Americans can't buy it)
NATO spending by country 2021,us dollars
United States — 811,140
United Kingdom — 72,765
Germany — 64,785
France — 58,729
Italy — 29,763
Canada — 26,523
Spain — 14,875
Netherlands — 14,378
Poland — 13,369
Turkey — 13,057
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spending-by-country
John LGKTQ Henry
What a long, strange trip it's been for Vlodomyr Zelensky.
Our leaders certainly are obsessed with Russia, carrying over Cold War thinking into another era, but the way that we helped rebuild Germany and Japan and the way that we contributed to making China a world power, suggests that if the US is psychotic it's not a single-minded mania, but a complex schizophrenia that afflicts us.
Yes, Putin's invasion is a disaster, but whether Finland joining NATO will be worse than Ukraine entering NATO would have been is questionable. Psychologically, incorporating Ukraine into the West would have been the greater trauma for Russia.
I suppose the question with Finland and Sweden is why now, after 70 years. And why now, when America has the weakest, most incompetent leadership in generations, and Russia is a shadow of what the USSR was. I agree about the contradictory messaging: Russia is a paper tiger, but Putin is Hitler. That contradiction needs to be resolved.
Screw this. America needs to get out of NATO asap. How interesting that Finland and Sweden (who would be able to provide negligible resources to NATO btw) want membership just as the whole enterprise is imploding.Why now? They had their chance 70 years ago.
If Germany can't be bothered to pay 2% dues and is still proceeding with Nord II why are we even there? Because they had a lovers spat with Putin? It was Biden's stupidity in withdrawing opposition to this that caused Putin to calculate the west didn't have the balls to stand up to him.
Sorry, count many of us out triggering a nuclear exchange with Russia. None of what is happening in the Ukraine is worth this or the 40 billion dollars of weapons we are shoveling over there to prolong this war.
There is no way in hell NATO attacks Russia and everybody (including Russia) knows it. The only threat NATO posses to Russia is to Russia's expansion ambitions.
All this progress forced by the Bidan/Maidan/Slavic Spring (i.e. coups without borders, democracy is aborted in darkness) with dreams of redistributive, per chance retributive change a la South Africa (mineral resources), Libya (oil resources), Afghanistan (Taliban's rights, golden fleece road), etc.
is The Plan, to give russia NO OPTIONS except a nuclear response?
It would surely reduce excess "burdens", clear accounts in deficit, and curb progressive inflation with "benefits": diverse resources (e.g. rare Earth elements) within Federated borders.
"The Guns of August."
People who are not ignorant of history remember the Soviet Union's unprovoked invasion of Finland in 1939 using the same excuses of protecting Russian language speakers from "Nazis" and securing Russian borders. At the time the Soviet Union had already entered into a duplicitous non aggression pact with the German Nazis, the very people Stalin said he wanted to purge from the Baltic area, which is typical of Russian "diplomacy." Then Stalin gobbled up the Baltic states using the same reasoning. Appeasement didn't work then and it won't work now. It took almost 50 years to erase the Soviet Union and pry out the Russian bear. Given the history, Vermont is going to be no more successful in surrendering Finland to Russia as Vermont has been in trying to surrender Ukraine to Russia. BTW, why does Finland's joining NATO present any more of a threat to Tim's mother Russia than Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania's current NATO membership already does? The whole Russian argument is a straw man that the usual fellow travelers are desperately trying to prop up because NATO is united for the first time and member countries are finally committed to spending 2% of GDP on defense as they were chartered to do. Thank Trump for that because he was the one who made that a reality instead of a mirage. The hand wringing can continue over the Ruskie nuke threat, but it's likely as empty as the Russian conventional threat. The Soviet Union imploded from corruption on a scale unknown in recorded history and Russia is imploding for the same reason. The Putin apologists are going to have to learn to deal with it.
People tried to reassure gilbar, by saying things like...
Other than using nuclear weapons, Russia can go back inside its own borders
Russia might get tired of its losses in the Ukraine
Russia has many options starting with withdrawing from Ukraine
That's All GREAT to Know! Russia CAN go back! Russia MIGHT get Tired! Russia has MANY Options!
I guess my follow up question for Y'all is:WHEN the russians go Nuclear; WHAT do You propose we do?
Sure, they Might Not!! Then Again, Austria MIGHT NOT invade Serbia either
oops!
I forgot This one..
While some in US contemplated using nuclear responses in those wars, we pursued other options.
YES! Yes, WE Did!! ProTip: The russians are NOT US
"NATO member Turkey is going to veto Finland and Sweden joining because both countries took in PKK members. That the US let Finland even get to this point of making open statements about joining NATO is a failure of diplomacy and international relations."
Turkey is just bargaining. Methinks.
Chalk up another victory for the manly men(tm) of Russia.
I wonder how this will play to the Russian people? Not surprisingly NATO isn't popular among Russians. They see it as an anti-Russian organization, because it is. But will this development with Finland and Sweden be seen as caused by Putin launching a war against Ukraine, or will it be seen as proof of the growing NATO threat and hence justification for the war against Ukraine?
Just a quick comment from a finn. The zero sum our president mentioned was explained in finnish: more security to some does not necessarily mean less security to others. We are not one of the freewheeling european coutries that have outsourced their defense to US taxpayers. Check the figures, we might be a nation of some 5 miilion people, but we do have an army. Come a difficult situation, we might be able to contribute to NATO efforts. At least if the ”situation” is in the woods or during winter time …
In fall 2002 I was in Needles CA hanging out by the old Harvey House train station. In the yard was a train going through that was very long. All flatbeds, loaded with tanks, trucks, Humvees and other US military transport vehicles. At the time, DC was awash with what they foolishly think passes for "debate", namely a bunch of imbeciles trying to pretend they're not horny for the Raytheon campaign donations while stroking their chins telling the American people how diligent they're going to be in deciding whether to send our kids to fight in some desert shithole.
Six months later, American boots were on the ground, warring against the Iraqi regime.
Now, I've in recent weeks had word (and photos) from some friends from abroad who were traveling Route 66 on holiday. They were impressed by a long train they sighted outside of Needles, comprising a river of flatbeds loaded with tanks, trucks, Humvees and other US military transport vehicles. And at the same time, we're hearing DC's imbecilic amen chorus trying to assure America that we're not about to be tasked with sacrificing our lower- and middle-class children to another Raytheon-Lockheed earnings orgy over in some faraway land. And yet, occasionally someone like Steny Hoyer (a cartoonishly dumb-sounding name - again, the onomatopoeia cannot be oversold as an identifying device) lets slip the truth that America is in fact "in a time of war with Russia", suggesting they've already made the decisions and we're just waiting for the formal announcement.
Saw the train about mid-April. Do the math. Six months puts entry into the war right around mid-October.
HOW DARE YOU CHALLENGE THE INCUMBENCY DURING A TIME OF WAR??!!!
Just wait, just wait. It's all going to unfold soon enough. After all, what else do the Congressional Dems (who are clearly running the WH) have to spare them the midterm slaughter than an appeal to the old "Don't change horses in midstream" tropes once the war is underway?
pouring trillions into our War Department rather than into services for the people, in a futile attempt to gain world domination.
I think the trillions are just to keep the executives and their politician clients prosperous. The "world domination" is just what you lefties obsess about. Actually, this is business as usual. The "military industrial complex" added universities and medical research but they are never satisfied. Ukraine is the new Afghanistan.
Finland trying to joi nato now is like trying to buy fire insurance when the wildfire is on the next block.
They need to be told "not now, maybe in 5 years"
John LGKTQ Henry
he came, he saw, and he said...
Saw the train about mid-April. Do the math. Six months puts entry into the war right around mid-October.
HOW DARE YOU CHALLENGE THE INCUMBENCY DURING A TIME OF WAR??!!!
yep... GOTTA have Something this fall; Covid's NOT going to cut it, people have wised up.
hmmm WHAT could we distract people with? OH! i Know! WWIII !!!
Then Stalin gobbled up the Baltic states using the same reasoning. Appeasement didn't work then and it won't work now. It took almost 50 years to erase the Soviet Union and pry out the Russian bear.
The hand wringing can continue over the Ruskie nuke threat, but it's likely as empty as the Russian conventional threat.
But do you see the contradiction here?
This isn't a war again Ukraine. This is a conflict conceived and birthed in a Slavic Spring, in transnational encroachment, and an alliance formed through invitation from Ukrainians who are, apparently, from the wrong side of Kiev.
We prodded the ‘Color Revolution’ Maidan Revolution in 2013/14 in Ukraine to replace a pro-Russian President with a pro-Western one.
John McCain and his lackey Lindsay Graham spoke in Kiev in 2016 of removing Putin from power.
Our political leaders have family members grifting in Ukraine: Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, and likely more.
We pay to develop, fund and staff “bio-safety” labs in Ukraine.
NATO is NOT a ‘purely defensive’ organization: see Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Libya.
Don’t tell me this isn’t a disaster largely of our own making. We’ve pushed this into an existential crisis for Russia.
Just HOW stupid our political class is we are finding out in real time.
Do NOT tell me this isn’t a disaster largely of our own making. We pushed and prodded
But whether Finland joining NATO will be worse than Ukraine entering NATO would have been is questionable. Psychologically, incorporating Ukraine into the West would have been the greater trauma for Russia.
Not just psychologically. How much of Russia's annual income flows through pipelines in Finland?
About 25% of Russia's annual budget flows through Ukraine.
Also Russia's only warm water port is in Crimea.
This war isn't about what is in Russia's DNA. It's about what is in Ukraine.
Adding Sweden and Finland to NATO is the failure of Trump's attempt to destroy NATO. It's like adding three new Ranger Divisions to Team America. It's nice to see you Putinists so disappointed.
Russia launches another brutal invasion of a neighboring country. Other neighboring countries, who have a history of being invaded and dominated by Russia, decide they want to join an alliance for their protection. Russia doesn’t like this idea. It wants to be free to invade and conquer its neighbors. NATO will not invade Russia, and Russia knows this. Putin believes the fall of the Soviet Union was a catastrophe, and he wants to get the band back together. The other countries don’t want any part of it. How hard is that to understand?
Finland has reason to want protection from our ally Russia;
"Finland ceded a portion of Karelia, the entire Karelian Isthmus and land north of Lake Ladoga. The area included Viipuri (Finland's second-largest city [Population Register] or fourth-largest city [Church and Civil Register], depending on the census data), much of Finland's industrialised territory, and significant land still held by Finland's military — all in all, nine percent of Finnish territory. The ceded territory included 13 percent of Finland's economic assets. 12 percent of Finland's population, 422,000 to 450,000 Karelians, were evacuated and lost their homes."
When did Raytheon become the new super villain of defense contractors? All my favorite leftist commentators never have a rant anymore without a comment about the evil that is Raytheon. this seems to be echoed in every the-military-industrial-complex-killing-us-all rant.
"pouring trillions into our War Department rather than into services for the people,"
Military spending includes the Departments of Homeland Security, State, and Veterans Affairs. All of these military costs combined equal $752.9 billion.
The 2021 fed budget is approx 6 trillion..
40 billion aid to Ukraine: 40 billion / 6 trillion = 0.00666666667
veni
Needles isn't far--by Southwest standards--from Ft. Irwin, aka Desert Training Center where mech and armor go to do large-formation maneuver training. My father's division was there, getting ready for North Africa just before they went to Holland. Figures.
So if somebody's shipping out the opfor's vehicles, which way were they going? West to Long Beach--long way to Odessa or Danzig. Or Charleston?
Hate to think those guys need to be hauled out to take care of business.
Maybe it's the incoming unit's equipment being shipped.
Needles is an interesting place. Had a relation there for a couple of years. They think 38% humidity is muggy. And the green is on the AZ side of the river. That figures, too.
Howard: "Adding Sweden and Finland to NATO is the failure of Trump's attempt to destroy NATO."
For some undisclosed reason, Howard STILL opposes having NATO nations pay their fair share for their own defense.
Howard has never explained this odd position of his.
We’ve pushed this into an existential crisis for Russia.
Not just Russia; although, Biden administration affirmative support for NATO expansion was a compelling interest for their alliance with Ukrainians who were disenfranchised in the Slavic Spring, then denied essential services (e.g. Crimea), and under attack by a Kiev-aligned military and paramilitary axis over eight years, with Dreams of Springs past, present, and progressive to come.
"For some undisclosed reason, Howard STILL opposes having NATO nations pay their fair share for their own defense."
Yeah, a prerequisite of pretty much any club staying viable is that the members pay their dues.
Robert Cook said...
"...we will just be inviting them to take nuclear backed aggression."
"I think the only nation in the world who is sufficiently self-deluded as to consider "nuclear backed aggression" is the USA. We are the only one of the great global powers (and the many less powerful nations in Europe) who has not suffered devastating destruction of our cities and/or mass casualties from wars in the past century, particularly WWII. We see ourselves as the indispensable nation, the only virtuous nation, the greatest and most powerful nation; these notions, combined with our geographic insulation from the real horror of war, makes us much more likely to think we can use nukes aggressively and somehow win the war and survive intact."
OK. That was funny.
"Howard has never explained this odd position of his."
And he never will, because he can't.
Richard,
Trains eastbound in both cases, back in '02 and now in '22. It is what it is.
Lars,
Regarding when Raytheon became a favorite stand-in for "Big Defense" or whatever, that probably happened around the time our notoriously meddlesome (NOT) antitrust division of the SEC failed to inform everyone that Raytheon and Lockheed are about the only two big guys (aside from the 10% fella in the WH) left after decades of consolidation. Martin, Marietta, Luke, John, and all their other friends from the Sunday school songs have long since left the picture, alas.
"Can someone explain to me why we are in NATO?"
It's a (not so) stealth means for the US to keep eyes and pressure on Russia.
"'pouring trillions into our War Department rather than into services for the people,'
"Military spending includes the Departments of Homeland Security, State, and Veterans Affairs. All of these military costs combined equal $752.9 billion."
I'm talking about over time. Our failed, illegitimate war in Afghanistan alone cost us trillions. Add to that the costs of our wars in Iraq, Viet Nam, Korea, and the various other US military actions over the past half-century (post-WWII). All of those funds spent for no good purpose or outcome. That is all US tax dollars that could have been spent here at home, for the people's benefit.
Even now, Biden and all of Congress are eager to give tens of billions to Ukraine, when we have no legitimate business to involve ourselves at all, when Washington cries poor-mouth such that we "can't afford" to increase funding for Social Security and Medicare, essential programs that don't meet the needs of many older Americans. Well, the trillions spent on Afghanistan and our other unnecessary wars of the past half-century could have helped bolster these and other social services established to benefit US citizens. Drastically cutting the War Department budget's annual budget, rather than increasing it each year, would also free up more tax dollars to be spent on the public's needs and well-being.
Post a Comment