“Cannon to left of them, cannon to right of them, cannon in front of them volleyed and thundered.”

How many of us had to memorize those lines from Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s immortal poem, “The Charge of the Light Brigade,” back in our dim, distant school days. The words seemed so heroic then, so filled with the glorious sights and sounds of battle.

Where I learned it, though, was in freshman high school English class, where it was all about the poetry, not the history. So I didn’t realize until many years later that it had been written about the Crimean War, or what that war was about, or even what countries were involved. And I certainly would not have imagined that that small part of the world — the Crimean Peninsula — would continue to be the site of violent conflict well into the 21st Century.

That war, stretching over 2-1/2 years between 1853 and 1856, was — like most armed conflicts — precipitated by a number of issues, including protection of the rights of Christians living in the predominantly Muslim Ottoman Empire, and . . . stop me if this sounds familiar . . . halting the expansionist ambitions of the Russian Empire toward the West.

“Those who forget history . . .”

Yes, the Russia of the 19th Century was, even then, obsessed with gaining control of the Black Sea and beyond. And England, France and Turkey (among others) were equally determined to prevent it.

And 158 years later, in 2014, Russia once more invaded — and still occupies — Crimea . . . and in 2022, took aim at the rest of Ukraine.

So what has changed since 1856? Well, for one thing, the weapons. In modern warfare, more civilians are lost today than in the past, and more destruction rained upon more highly-developed infrastructure. Death comes from the skies, not just face-to-face between military troops on the ground.

Now, also, there is no such thing as a local war. The world has shrunk, in geopolitical terms, and what affects one region has an unavoidable effect in the most far-flung places on the world map.

*. *. *

And the excuse for Russia’s current incursion into Ukraine? Allegedly, to protect ethnic Russians living in eastern Ukraine from the purported — though in reality non-existent — “nazi” regime.

“ . . . are doomed to repeat it.”

The history of Russia, Kievan Rus, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation — all taken together — is more complex than one could ever imagine. And when you begin to study it, you realize that parts of it inevitably do begin to feel like “deja vu all over again.”

Only, now, with missiles and drones and nukes . . . oh, my!

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
12/5/24

And I hope he makes this his first order of business when he actually and officially takes charge of an actually and officially existing organization created by order of an actually and officially inaugurated president who has taken the actual and official oath of office.

That would actually and officially be on or after January 20, 2025. And until then, we’ll be okay, because there is no change due in the interim.

I am referring, of course, to the changing of the clocks twice a year.

It turns out that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy — soon to be in charge of the newest Washington oxymoron, “government efficiency” — have indicated that they are in favor of eliminating the wholly unnecessary tradition of knocking America’s citizenry totally out of whack twice a year by taking away an hour of sleep (which we desperately need) every March, and trying to give it back (which doesn’t really work) in November. They understand that you can repay borrowed money; but time . . . not so much.

My body clock is still trying to catch up from springing ahead in 2018.

A lot of people — those folks who keep “normal” work and school hours — would prefer the extra daylight in the morning, and I understand that. Personally, I’m a night owl and like my evenings to stay bright a little longer. But since I’m retired and no longer on a strict schedule, I can afford to be generous and go along with whatever the efficiency experts decide.

I honestly don’t care which way you do it — just please, PLEASE do it. Put all of us in sync with Hawaii, Arizona, and most of the rest of the world. And when we’ve all been sleep-regulated at last, perhaps we can turn our attention to other vital issues, such as the use of the proper pronouns in this age of gender reassignment; the way the toilet paper roll should be facing; and — once and for all — the correct pronunciations of Kamala Harris’ and Vivek Ramaswamy’s given names.

And, if there’s still enough time, maybe we could work on that noble goal of every Miss America finalist since 1921 . . . World Peace.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
12/4/24

Back in January of this year, at a celebration proclaiming 2024 to be Russia’s “Year of the Family,” Vladimir Putin had this to say about the diversity and the unity of the largest single country on Earth:

“Undoubtedly, family values consolidate society. I will say more: Russia itself is indeed a huge family, a family of families. That is how different ethnic groups have lived here together in peace and perfect harmony for centuries, and the diversity of their cultures, languages, and customs never divided them, no — on the contrary, it keeps Russia together. Because we share the values of a large, close-knit family — they make us stronger, more confident, and united.” [President of Russia News, January 23, 2024.] [Bold emphasis is mine.]

Fine words, indeed. One might even say, inspirational. If only they were sincere.

In four short sentences, Putin managed to deny centuries of his country’s history of religious and ethnic persecution, of pogroms and diasporas. Tell it to the Armenians and the Azeris, to the Chechens, to the Jews whose Soviet internal passports declared them to be a separate nationality and not truly Russian.

But never mind all of that. Today we’re one big, happy, loving, TV sitcom-style family. Sure, we are.

Until we grow up and begin declaring our independence, that is.

And since the breakup of the Soviet Union into 15 separate, sovereign countries in 1991, there have been rumblings throughout the largest of the 15 — the Russian Federation — of regional movements toward different levels of autonomy, from the simple right to control specific local governmental functions (much like the 50 U.S. states), to total separation.

In 2022, an organization known as the Post-Russia Free Nations Forum was created and registered in Poland, describing itself as “a civic movement advocating for greater regional autonomy within Russia.” [RFE/RL’s Idel. Realities, November 22, 2024.] The timing in relation to Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine seems more than a little coincidental. And now, the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) has launched a case against the Forum, designating its activities as a threat to Russia’s territorial integrity and national security. [Id.]

The PGO alleges in its statement that the Forum operates through 172 regional and national entities, and that these groups are directed by exiled leaders of separatist movements. The PGO’s website states:

“These leaders aim to divide the Russian Federation into independent states that would fall under the influence of hostile foreign countries.”

And indeed, the Forum’s activities have included discussions on decentralization and independence. So the Putin government has taken action to fight the Forum’s influence in Russia by declaring it a terrorist organization. As of November 22nd, all activities of the Forum are banned in Russia, and membership in or association with the group is cause for criminal prosecution under Russia’s anti-terrorism laws.

Since the Forum is registered in Poland and operates outside of Russia, its “terrorist” designation within Russia is of little effect on its external activities. But it does further tighten the reins on the Russian population, which has already been subjected to an ever-growing series of onerous laws against any and all forms of dissent.

This has such a familiar ring to it . . . like “deja vu all over again.” I’m reminded of . . . oh, what was that good old Beatles song?

Yes, of course . . . it was “Back In the U.S.S.R.”

Keep something long enough, and it’s bound to come back into style.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
12/4/24

At last — something different in the news. Not about a war, or a mass shooting, or the nominees for the Cabinet of the incoming U.S. administration; but still of international interest, with a touch of intrigue.

It began last week, when a woman described as Russian, age 57, was found to have stowed away on a Delta Air Lines flight from New York to Paris. She had managed to slip through multiple security checkpoints at JFK Airport — an amazing feat in itself — and board the plane without a boarding pass. Hiding out by switching from one rest room to another, she was finally noticed by flight attendants, and was arrested upon landing in Paris.

Authorities took charge, and scheduled her to return to the U.S. — in U.S. custody — on another Delta flight on Saturday. However, once on the plane, she began screaming, saying, according to witnesses, “I do not want to go back to the USA. Only a judge can make me go back to the USA.” Delta then refused to allow her on their flight. [Saskya Vandoome, Catherine Nicholls and Mark Morales, CNN, December 3, 2024.]

At that point, the woman’s identity had not been revealed by the press, nor had her place of residence or citizenship.

Fortunately, a second report a bit later in the day was able to provide a few more details. The woman has now been identified as one Svetlana Dali, and is said to be seeking asylum in France — though from whom, or why, is not yet clear. French authorities have said she doesn’t qualify for asylum or entry into the country as she has no visa.** She is, at the moment, stuck in limbo at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris without a visa or a boarding pass. [Rachel Looker, BBC, December 3, 2024.]

** Since no visa is required to enter France for a stay of under 90 days with a U.S. passport, this raises the question as to what country’s passport Ms. Dali carries.

So . . . does this remind anyone of a Tom Hanks movie?

The BBC article refers to Ms. Dali as a “Russian national.” But she keeps repeating that she does not want to return to the United States, with apparently no mention of Russia. In fact, she is so determined not to return here that she created a disturbance on yet a second flight to New York.

A source in France told CBS News that Ms. Dali has not been arrested or detained . . . though I’m sure she’s under close surveillance at the Paris airport. But the source did say she might face charges such as criminal trespass and theft of services in the U.S. — not to mention whatever it is she’s trying so desperately to get away from in the first place.

So we look forward to the next chapter in the saga of the woman with the Russian first name, Spanish last name, no ticket to anywhere, and a fear of something or someone in the United States. I couldn’t begin, with the present dearth of hard information, to speculate as to what her story might be.

Maybe she voted for Kamala Harris.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
12/3/24

A week ago, I expressed my nervousness about the presence of UFDs — Unidentified Flying Drones — over three U.S. air bases in Great Britain. Despite the fact that I live far across the pond in the United States, reports of anything labeled “unidentified,” anywhere in the world, are going to keep me awake at night.

And as of three days ago, it was reported that they’re ba-a-a-ck!

In a village next to RAF Base Mildenhall, in Suffolk — one of the areas in which the first of the UFDs were seen — residents have reported “brightly-lit aerial vehicles” hovering over their houses and the base. [Matt Precey and Alice Cunningham, BBC News, November 29, 2024.]

One local man described having twice seen a triangular vehicle, dark grey in color, over his house. “They were really noisy and had lights. They looked official to be honest,” he said. And he wanted to know: “If they are a threat, why aren’t they being shot down? Why let them fly over if they’re sinister?” [Id.]

That’s precisely the same question I’ve been asking myself — particularly since other reports have been received of a drone coming within 273.4 yards of the Royal Navy’s flagship aircraft carrier, the HMS Queen Elizabeth, on November 22nd; and of another sighting at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, where U.S. B-52 bombers are newly deployed.

In Beck Row, a village in western Suffolk County, a woman — whose stepfather is an RAF pilot — reported seeing an orange ball in the sky at night and increased activity at the air base:

“In the last 10 days I have seen military jeeps around the village. There has been a much higher police presence than usual — military and UK police,” she stated. [Id.]

Describing what she believed was a drone being intercepted, she added: “There was a big orange light in the sky and all of a sudden it was gone. I heard people shouting ‘wow.’” [Id.]

“Wow,” indeed.

And so go the reports. Again, I ask myself what possible reason there could be for not intercepting at least one of these objects to determine its identity and purpose . . . unless they’re not unidentified at all, and are known not to be a threat to the air bases or the local residents . . .

. . . unless they belong to the U.K. and/or the U.S. — perhaps prototype or experimental models of a new military technology.

On the other hand, if that is the case, why test them where they can be seen by civilians and make the news?

Methinks we may have a British “Roswell” over there in County Suffolk.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
12/3/24

While president-elect Donald Trump forecasts a quick end to the war in Ukraine once he takes office in January . . . and Russian President Vladimir Putin proclaims Trump to be an “intelligent and experienced” politician capable of finding “solutions,” thereby hinting at the possibility of serious peace negotiations to come . . . Russian forces continue to batter widespread portions of Ukraine with hypersonic and other weapons, aiming specifically at energy infrastructure and other civilian targets, including in the capital city of Kyiv.

Thus, it would appear that Trump is overly optimistic and far too trusting of the man he refuses to acknowledge as an enemy, and not a friend; and Putin — no surprise here — has again proven himself to be a master manipulator and a bald-faced liar.

And, in a timely confirmation of that analysis, along comes a man by the name of Konstantin Malofeev — described as a “conservative Russian tycoon and Kremlin confidant” [Henry Meyer, Bloomberg, December 2, 2024] — to set forth his view that Moscow will turn down any ceasefire proposal brokered by Donald Trump.

Malofeev is a staunch nationalist and a financier who is under Western sanctions. While not a Russian government official or a member of Putin’s administration, he is a devout Putin supporter and has spent millions in support of pro-Kremlin causes, including through his Tsargrad TV station. [Id.] And he says we shouldn’t hold our breath in expectation of an easy truce:

“It’s important that the future US administration understands that a truce is not a gift that Russia is waiting for, that they will start talking to us and we will give in to everything. A truce right now is good for Ukraine and for the US, but for us it brings zero benefits — because we’re winning.” [Id.]

And he’s not wrong. After nearly three years of maintaining a valiant defense, and even staging a surprise offensive into the Kursk region of Russia, Ukraine finds itself nearly exhausted, running out of weapons, and seriously outnumbered.

Malofeev added that it would be a mistake for the U.S. to assume the Kremlin’s position might change with the inauguration of Donald Trump — a mistake, he said, that could “lead to escalation and a conflict with the Trump administration.” [Id.]

There have recently been hints — though not confirmed — of concessions from President Zelensky with regard to possibly ceding some Russian-held areas of Ukraine’s territory.

But that’s not enough for Vladimir Putin; his demands only increase over time, belying his claims of willingness to engage in serious negotiations. According to Malofeev, Russia will continue its attacks until Ukraine agrees to change its constitution to guarantee its neutral status and rule out NATO membership, as well as agreeing to strict limits on the size of its military and a cessation of weapons supplies from the U.S. and its allies. [Id.]

In other words, total capitulation.

In an interview published last Wednesday in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reiterated Putin’s all-too-familiar demands that Ukraine disarm, declare its neutrality, and recognize new “political-territorial realities.” [Id.]

And on Thursday, Putin warned of the possibility of striking “decision-making centers” in the city of Kyiv with new ballistic missiles, in retaliation for Ukraine’s attacks on Russian territory with Western-supplied missiles.

So — based on all of the recent rhetoric out of Moscow — it looks like a stalemate for the time being, and another harsh winter for the people of Ukraine.

So much for Putin’s original dream of a three-day war. And so much for Ukraine’s hopes of an early settlement.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
12/2/24

It’s amazing what you can learn when you tiptoe through the lighter reading in the news. One of my favorite columns is called “This Day In History,” on HISTORY.com, where I have found frequently fascinating, and sometimes oddball, items nearly every day.

Yesterday’s discovery falls into the “fascinating” category, simply because I was totally ignorant of any facts concerning Antarctica other than: (1) it is a continent, (2) it is very cold, and (3) it is the home of those adorable, tuxedo-clad, tap-dancing penguins.

What I did not know was that it is a military-free continent, by dint of a treaty signed in 1959 by twelve nations, including the United States and the then Soviet Union.

It seems that several countries — including Great Britain, Australia, Chile and Norway — had since the 1800s attempted to lay claim to parts of Antarctica, leading to diplomatic disputes. In 1948, Argentine military forces even fired on British troops in an area that both had claimed as theirs.

In addition, the Soviet Union was showing increasing interest in the frozen continent, leading to the United States’ proposal — ultimately unsuccessful — that Antarctica be made a trustee of the United Nations.

Then, in the 1950s, some officials in the U.S. itself suggested that it might be a useful location in which to conduct nuclear tests. Fortunately for the penguins, however, then-President Eisenhower took the diplomatic approach and managed to push through a treaty setting Antarctica aside as a military-free zone, though permitting scientific ventures, and postponing the settlement of territorial claims.

The Antarctic Treaty was signed on December 1, 1959, by Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the USSR. It went into effect in 1961, and has since been acceded to by 57 parties. The original 12 parties, plus others that conduct substantial research there, meet annually to consult and agree on measures to support the treaty.

*. *. *

The first thing that entered my mind on digesting this tidbit of history was the relative ease with which a treaty was hammered out between the fiercely adversarial nations of the United States and the Soviet Union, and acceded to by ten others . . . and how well it has held up for more than 60 years. If only we could carry that spirit of cooperation forward to the present time . . .

But, unfortunately, “if only” gets us nowhere.

My second thought was: “That’s where I want to live!”

No, I’m serious. Sure, I’d miss the change of seasons; but I prefer cold weather to the heat and humidity of summer. There would be plenty of scientists around for company. And I’m sure Amazon would figure out a way to deliver life’s little necessities — maybe not overnight, but quickly enough.

And what are a few little inconveniences when you’re talking about a completely peaceful, conflict-free home, where the only jabbering comes from the thousands of black-and-white birds going through their annual rituals.

Now, that’s my idea of happiness. Anyone care to join me?

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
12/2/24

Ordinarily, I would be reading now . . . researching, outlining, preparing to offer my take on some significant piece of world news, or perhaps simply taking a verbal stroll through some little-known bits of ancient history for today’s blog posting.

But I’m not doing that today, because I’m still trying to decide whether to continue battling Facebook’s censors, or call it quits.

Someone close to me, who is very smart, is of the opinion that the decisions as to the appropriateness of FB postings and whether or not to remove them — what I call censorship — may possibly be made, not by real people, but by AI technology. He is an IT professional, and much more knowledgeable about such things than I could ever hope to be, so I take him seriously.

And if he is correct . . . well, even the remote possibility scares the bejeezus out of me.

Simply put, I do not want my life controlled by ‘bots, or creatures that exist only on an imaginary “cloud,” or in the “metaverse,” or whatever it’s called.

This is not George Orwell’s 1984 . . . but it’s beginning to feel more and more like it. And we need to stop before it becomes impossible to distinguish what is real from what isn’t, and we all wind up in rubber rooms under the control of the few people — the mad geniuses who created the technology in the first place — who still know the truth.

*. *. *

But about all that spare time I mentioned: It appears from the foregoing that I’ll be spending at least some of it writing about things that bother me.

Be forewarned, readers.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
12/1/24

NOTE: Despite my current beef with FB’s censors, I cannot — will not — overlook my pledge to remember the illegally-held hostages in Russia’s prisons who are still awaiting word of some progress toward their release. And though (mercifully) I have no word of any new hostages this week, there is news of a Russian prisoner’s added sentence, for whom I willingly break my silence.

*. *. *

You may have tried this trick with your children when they were small: If they complained of being bored with all of their old toys and games, and you weren’t ready to buy new ones, you might secretly have dug through the box of forgotten toys, pulled out a couple of things they hadn’t seen in a year or so, and tried to renew their interest in them as though they were brand new. They may have caught on eventually, but at least you would have bought yourself some time.

That almost seems to be the sort of thing that’s happening in Russia these days. When they temporarily run short of outspoken dissidents to arrest, do they simply pull out an old file and invent a reason to extend an existing prisoner’s sentence?

Aleksei Gorinov might think so.

Gorinov, a former Moscow municipal deputy, was sentenced in July 2022 to seven years in prison for spreading “fake news” about the Russian military. What he had done was voice his opposition to the invasion of Ukraine in February of that year.

Then, in October of 2023 — while serving that original sentence — a new case was opened against him, charging him with “justifying terrorism.” The evidence: reports by fellow inmates of an alleged conversation regarding Ukraine’s Azov Regiment. [RFE/RL, November 29, 2024.]

And this week, following a three-day trial, Aleksei Gorinov, 63, was sentenced to an additional three years in prison for “justifying terrorism.”

Gorinov, adamantly denying the new charges, has said:

“I am far from any ideology of terrorism. I am a committed internationalist and an opponent of war and violence, as I have consistently stated publicly throughout my life.” [Id.]

Gorinov — one of the most prominent of the dissidents left behind after the August prisoner swap with the West — was the first person sentenced under the new “fake news” law. Earlier this year, after being held in a detention center in Moscow, he was transferred to a prison in the Vladimir region, where he has complained of being placed in solitary confinement in a cold cell without a mattress, blanket, or hot water. He is in ill health, but says he has received no treatment.

Following an appeal on his behalf to the International Committee of the Red Cross, an inspection was made and Gorinov was moved to a slightly better cell “with a window that opens and closes, a functioning toilet, and reportedly no mice.” [Id.]

That’s supposed to make him feel better.

*. *. *

And while the Russian hierarchy continues its paranoid purge of alleged dissidents, the American and other hostages remaining in prison on specious political charges continue to await their turn. Now numbering sixteen, they are:

David Barnes
Staff Sergeant Gordon Black
Marc Fogel
Robert Gilman
Stephen James Hubbard
Ksenia Karelina
Andrey Kuznechyk (in Belarus)
Michael Travis Leake
Ihar Losik (in Belarus)
Daniel Martindale
Farid Mehralizada (in Azerbaijan)
Robert Shonov
Eugene Spector
Laurent Vinatier
Robert Romanov Woodland
Vladislav Yesypenko (in Crimea)

We must ensure that the new administration being inaugurated in Washington in January continues, without interruption, the work that has been underway up to this time. These hostages, and all the others whose names have not yet made it onto the list, must be brought home.

No excuses.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
12/1/24

You know the one I mean — the amendment to the U.S. Constitution that protects every citizen’s absolute right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, among other things. It’s one of every American’s most valued privileges . . . one that separates us from those countries that are ruled by the purveyors of tyranny, oppression, and censorship.

And speaking of censorship . . .

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines a censor as “one who supervises conduct and morals, such as an official . . . who examines materials for objectionable matter,” or “an official . . . who reads communications . . . and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful.”

What constitutes “sensitive or harmful” material . . . and what qualifies an individual to make those judgments . . . have long been the subject of controversy. In times of war, for example, protection of national secrets becomes paramount. But on a day-to-day basis, in the lives of ordinary people, we Americans treasure our ability to say pretty much what we think and feel, so long as we don’t cause harm to anyone else. There are protective laws against libel and slander, bullying, and the like; and so long as we remain cognizant of them, and don’t make up vicious lies about another person, we are free to call them anything we like . . . and vice-versa.

But are we? The advent of social media put a whole new face on the world of name-calling, and brought to the surface a level of anger and hatred previously kept submerged in most of our fellow human beings. It also provided a means of spreading that vitriol farther and faster than any known virus or bacterium could move.

So somewhere along the line it was decided that controls were needed to minimize the spread of negativity and potential damage to others. And there are valid arguments in favor of such controls . . . and equally valid arguments against them. Some people, in various parts of the world, have even chosen to go to prison rather than give up the confidential information of their online customers — people such as Pavel Durov, creator of VKontakte (Russia’s equivalent of Facebook), and more recently of the widely-used Telegram messaging service.

And speaking of Facebook . . .

*. *. *

At last, we arrive at the point of this article, beyond the review of our constitutional rights. And that point is that:

I am being censored.

I don’t know how the content controls operate at Facebook, but someone, somewhere in that vast bureaucracy has decided that some of my writing is objectionable, and — always within seconds of posting — I will receive a notice that a piece has been deleted. The “explanation,” if you can call it that, is usually something incredibly lame, such as my allegedly fishing for “likes.” There is never an indication of any actually offensive content . . . no threats, nothing libelous . . . just “outside of Facebook’s guidelines,” whatever they may be.

Now, for those of you who have read any of my offerings, it should be apparent that I put a lot of time and effort into them. I do not post pictures of my daily activities, or pets, or failed recipes, or travels — any of the fun things that could only possibly be of interest to my real-life friends and relatives. I do not care about ads for cheap goods from companies of questionable repute. I do love hearing from people with whom I had lost contact.

But what I do is write. Mostly about world events — commentaries on the day’s news — and sometimes also about random subjects that pop into my mind from time to time, like growing up in small-town New England in the ‘40s and ‘50s, or climbing a mountain in Czechoslovakia.

And sometimes I express my disdain for certain famous people — people like Vladimir Putin and his cronies. Or the occasional American political figure, who shall remain unnamed here because I don’t want this article to disappear along with this morning’s.

But who doesn’t do that? Any editorial, in any print or online publication, will be likely to outdo me in the criticism department. That is their right — and mine — as Americans, as long as we do not lie (even though the people we write about may do just that).

And I like to use pictures to illustrate or emphasize my points. Like this one:

So what? They’re pictures that I’ve found online, and are already in the public domain.

*. *. *

All right, then . . . I think I’ve made my point. Let me just say that, yes, I am pissed. This is not the first time it’s happened. I have had it with Facebook’s censors, and their arbitrary decisions as to what I may or may not say on their precious site. So if you don’t see anything from me for a while, it will be because I am taking time to cool down and to decide whether to carry on or drop out.

As an American, it is my inalienable right to do either.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
11/30/24