Each week, I mention the sad fact that my list of Putin’s political hostages consists of only a small fraction of those actually held in prisons and penal colonies throughout Russia, Belarus, and other Russia-friendly locations.

And every now and then, I happen across the names of others previously unknown to me. Such was the case this week, when I read about the recent death of Russian human rights activist and dissident Nina Litvinova at the age of 80.

Nina, a prominent ocean researcher, was not a prisoner; her body was found on a street in central Moscow. And she had left behind a suicide note. [The Moscow Times, May 15, 2026.]

According to the Russian human rights organization Memorial, Nina had been advocating for political prisoners since the 1960s, including for her own brother, Pavel Litvinov, who had taken part in a demonstration against the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. She attended high-profile trials, including those of historian Yury Dmitriyev, Memorial co-founder Oleg Orlov, and numerous lesser-known prisoners. She had also appeared briefly in a 2022 documentary by RFE/RL’s Russian Service when she visited imprisoned activist Olga Bendas. [RFE/RL’s Russian Service, May 15, 2026.]

Nina Litvinova’s death was first reported on May 13, 2026. The next day, her cousin, journalist Maria Slonim, published a story on social media that included what she said was an excerpt from Nina’s suicide note. As Slonim wrote:

“Nobody — neither RIA nor Gazeta.Ru, which first reported it — will, of course, publish the note, because it lays out the reasons for her death far too plainly. So we decided to show the real reasons: Putin killed her!” [Id.]

Nina’s farewell note is a testament to the extremes to which Putin’s repressive regime has gone and the effect it has had on the entire country; and as such, it bears repeating here:

“I love all of you and think about you. But I must leave; living has become unbearable for me. Ever since Putin attacked Ukraine and has been killing innocent people, while here at home thousands are endlessly thrown into prison, suffering and dying there simply because, like me, they oppose the war and oppose killing. I can do nothing to help them. Yevgenia Berkovich, Svetlana Petriichuk, Karina Tsurkan, and thousands of others behind bars are suffering and dying. I tried to help them, but my strength is gone, and day and night I suffer from helplessness. I am ashamed, but I gave up. Please forgive me.” [Id.]

*. *. *

It is from Nina Litvinova’s story that I have gathered the names of Yury Dmitriyev, Oleg Orlov, Olga Bendas, Yevgenia Berkovich, Svetlana Petriichuk, and Karina Tsurkan, for inclusion in my list of political prisoners. In the coming week, I will research their histories to relate to you in next Sunday’s chapter.

In the meantime, they are included in my weekly tribute to those who remain in limbo, awaiting our help. Once again, here is the list of those known, which is still only a fraction of the total:

Prisoners of War:

The 20,000+ Kidnapped Ukrainian Children
The People of Ukraine

Immigrant Detainees in Russia:

Migrants from the Central Asian nations of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan

Endangered Exiles:

Pavel “Pasha” Talankin
Mikita Losik
Yulia Navalnaya
Countless Journalists and Other Dissidents

Political Prisoners:

In Afghanistan:

Mahmoud Habibi (Afghan-American)
Paul Overby (American, missing since 2018)

In Azerbaijan:

The “Azerbaijan 7”:
— Farid Mehralizada
— Ulvi Hasanli
— Sevinj Abbasova (Vagifqiai)
— Mahammad Kekalov
— Hafiz Babali
— Nargiz Absalamova
— Elnara Gasimova

In Belarus:

Andrei Chapiuk
Uladzimir Labkovich
Andrzej Poczobut
Marfa Rabkova
Valiantsin Stafanovic
Yuras Zyankovich

In Georgia:

Mzia Amaglobeli

In Russia:

The “Crimea 8”:
— Oleg Antipov
— Artyom Azatyan
— Georgy Azatyan
— Aleksandr Bylin
— Roman Solomko
— Artur Terchanyan
— Dmitry Tyazhelykh
— Vladimir Zloba

James Scott Rhys Anderson (British)
Aleksandr Andreyev
David Barnes (American)
Olga Bendas
Yevgenia Berkovich
Gordon Black (American)
Hayden Davies (British)
Yury Dmitriyev
Anastasia Dyudyaeva
Antonina Favorskaya
Konstantin Gabov
Robert Gilman (American)
Stephen James Hubbard (American)
Sergey Karelin
Timur Kishukov
Vadim Kobzev
Darya Kozyreva
Artyom Kriger
Michael Travis Leake (American)
Aleksei Liptser
Grigory Melkonyants
Nika Novak
Oleg Orlov
Svetlana Petriichuk
Leonid Pshenychnov (in Russian-occupied Crimea)
Nadezhda Rossinskaya (a.k.a. Nadin Geisler)
Lev Schlossberg
Sofiane Sehili (French)
Igor Sergunin
Dmitry Shatresov
Robert Shonov
Grigory Skvortsov
Eugene Spector (American)
Joseph Tater (American, disappeared)
Karina Tsurkan
Laurent Vinatier
Robert Romanov Woodland (American)

You have not been, and will not be, forgotten.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
5/17/26

Sun Tzu, it turns out, was more than just a great warrior; he would also have been an outstanding Human Relations Director, if there had been such a thing 2,500 years ago.

He was, of course, speaking of the oversight of military forces; but his philosophy is applicable to all walks of life, from the treatment of one’s own family, to the running of a business, to the operation of an entire government:

“When one treats people with benevolence, justice, and righteousness, and reposes confidence in them, the army will be united in mind and all will be happy to serve their leaders.”

Anyone who has ever held a job, or been part of a family or other cohesive group, understands the wisdom of those words.

Or they should.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
5/16/26

How long have I been writing about the strategic importance of a narrow, 40-mile-long strip of land that forms the border between Lithuania and Poland, known as the Suwalki Gap?

A year ago, on May 24, 2025, in an article titled “It Isn’t Just About Ukraine,” I pointed out the increased security measures being instituted by the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia — as well as neighboring NATO ally Poland — and the importance to Russia of being able to access that single, small land passage between Russia’s ally Belarus and the Russian military enclave of Kaliningrad.

I followed up on September 15, 2025, with a bit of a geography lesson, and on January 29, 2026, with reports from those regions on new security developments amid growing concern over the increasing number of drone incursions and other hybrid attacks in NATO countries, as well as the threat of future full-scale invasions by Russia.

A number of U.S. Senators and Representatives have expressed grave concerns over the Trump administration’s waning support of Ukraine in the wake of Donald Trump’s new war in Iran; of his worsening relations with European allies due in part to his accusations that they are not carrying their fair share of the load; his tiptoeing around Vladimir Putin; and, most recently, his withdrawal of troops from Germany and the Pentagon’s sudden cancellation of a promised troop deployment to Poland.

And now, at long last, the State Department appears to be waking up to the reality of the situation.

Christopher Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, told a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on May 14th that, while Russia currently has committed “about 90 percent of its combat power” to Ukraine, Moscow is likely eventually to “rebalance its forces and look for opportunities to project power and also create dilemmas for NATO. This is particularly acute in the Baltic region.” [Alex Raufoglu, RFE/RL, May 15, 2026.]

Which is a diplomatic way of saying that Vladimir Putin is as determined as ever to expand Russia’s borders westward.

While that was hardly news to anyone, there is now concern being expressed that an end to the conflict in Ukraine might actually accelerate that movement on Russia’s part. The chairman of the subcommittee, Republican Representative Keith Self of Texas, said at the hearing that Russia is already rebuilding its military, even as it continues to pursue its “special military operation” in Ukraine:

“When this war is over, there is a real risk that Russia may position its battle-hardened troops on the borders of the Baltic republics. History suggests the cessation of the conflict in Ukraine will not reduce the Russian threat. It may instead simply redirect it.” [Id.]

Smith then referenced the recent Russian cyberattacks, sabotage operations, and hybrid tactics being directed at the Baltic region, adding:

“We should expect Russia to rebalance its forces . . . [as they are already using] . . . hybrid operations against the Baltic states.” [Id.]

It’s good to know that someone in the U.S. is finally paying attention to a serious threat that should long since have been apparent to everyone, and has been shouted about by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for years. But now, what are these newly-conscious American officials going to do about it? What will it take to get through to the people — Trump, Rubio, Hegseth, and the others — who have been ignoring the obvious and making these disastrous decisions?

And will they do it before it’s too late?

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
5/16/26

Sad to say, he’s gone to that great negotiating table in the sky. And let’s face it: Marco Rubio is no Henry Kissinger.

As for Donald Trump . . . well, except for a similar (and greater) propensity for dishonesty, he’s no Richard Nixon, either. Not when it comes to foreign affairs, at any rate.

Nixon, for all of his faults, understood foreign policy. He listened to his advisers, who were learned, experienced people. And I’d be willing to bet he could pronounce Thucydides.

Trump probably thinks that name belongs to a Greek martial arts master. And, in a sense, he’d be close — just off by a couple of millennia.

Thucydides was an Athenian historian and army general, best known for his “History of the Peloponnesian War.” Sometimes called the father of the school of political realism, he viewed the political behavior of individuals and the resulting outcomes of relations between states as based upon, and ultimately mediated by, fear and self-interest.

Clearly, a man before his time.

Around 2011, American political scientist, Harvard Professor of Government, and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense Graham Allison popularized the term “Thucydides Trap” in describing the tendency toward war when an emerging power (such as China) threatens to displace an existing great power (such as the United States) as a regional or international leader. His basis was the writing of Thucydides himself, stating that:

“ . . . it was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable.”

– Thucydides, “History of the Peloponnesian War”

Allison then expanded on this theory in 2017 when he wrote:

“China and the US are currently on a collision course for war.”

– Graham Allison, “Destined for War”

And yesterday, Chinese President Xi Jinping invoked the “Thucydides Trap” during his opening remarks when meeting with Donald Trump in Beijing. Xi questioned whether China and the U.S. could overcome the “Thucydides Trap,” and added that “The East is rising and the West is declining.” [Elliott Davis, The Hill, May 14, 2026.]

Later — presumably after someone on his staff filled him in on who this Thucydides person was — Trump posted on X:

“When President Xi very elegantly referred to the United States as perhaps being a declining nation, he was referring to the tremendous damage we suffered during the four years of Sleepy Joe Biden and the Biden Administration, and on that score, he was 100% correct. Our Country suffered immeasurably with open borders, high taxes, transgender for everybody, men in women’s sports, DEI, horrible trade deals, rampant crime, and so much more!” [Id.]

As if anxious to display the full level of his ignorance and arrogance, he went on to add that Xi “was not referring to the incredible rise that the United States has displayed to the world during the 16 spectacular months of the Trump Administration . . .” making reference to his attacks on Venezuela and Iran. And he continued:

“In fact, President Xi congratulated me on so many tremendous successes in such a short period of time. Two years ago, we were, in fact, a Nation in decline. On that, I fully agree with President Xi! But now, the United States is the hottest Nation anywhere in the world, and hopefully our relationship with China will be stronger and better than ever before!” [Id.]

Years from now, when our children and grandchildren study this period of U.S. history, they won’t believe what they are reading and being told, because it truly does defy belief.

Unless, of course, they’re reading it in Chinese.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
5/15/26

I used to say that there were only two things that I really feared: nuclear war and tornadoes.

I’m still afraid of both of those, of course; I think most reasonable people are, to some extent. But as the years have slipped by, my list has gotten longer. I’m not like the TV character “Monk,” who lived in mortal terror of everything from heights (not unusual) to milk (rather strange). I’m not claustrophobic, agoraphobic, coulrophobic, or germaphobic. The things that most worry me are associated with our changing world, and my place in it as I age.

Oh, sure . . . I’m nervous about falling if there’s no one around to help me up and my cell phone has gone flying across the room where I can’t reach it.

I don’t really fear death; but I do worry about contracting a long, lingering illness.

I fear being totally dependent on others.

I fear losing what’s left of my mind.

All of those are probably quite normal concerns for someone of my age. But most of all, I fear what’s happening to our world, to my country in particular . . . and what will happen to the next generations if something isn’t done to stop this descent into madness.

America’s third president, Thomas Jefferson, seems to have suffered the same concerns when he said:

“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

I wonder . . . are we living that divine justice now?

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
5/15/26

Jimmy Buffett sang about “Havana Daydreamin’”; and Pete Seeger rhapsodized about “Guantanamera” — his Cuban woman.

I’m old enough to remember when Cuba was a popular vacation destination for Americans in search of the world’s best rum and cigars, and a rip-roaring good time. Then came the revolution.

And after that, there was the alliance with this guy:

It was, of course, all downhill from there. And today, Cuba is in dire straits, in no small part exacerbated by Donald Trump’s sanctions, his oil blockade, and his designation of the island nation as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” — all designed to ease the way to realizing his ultimate goal: the addition of Cuba to his growing list of Mergers and Acquisitions.

And this week — as Trump was winging his way to China with a few members of his administration, a couple of family hangers-on, and a slew of billionaires looking for their next fortunes — CIA Director John Ratcliffe and his delegation headed to Havana to meet with Cuban government officials. A statement from the Cuban government read as follows:

“Following the request submitted by the US government that a delegation presided over by the CIA Director John Ratcliffe be received in Havana, the Revolutionary Directorate approved the realization of this visit and the meeting with its counterpart from the Ministry of the Interior.” [Patrick Oppmann, Hira Humayun and Michael Rios, CNN, May 14, 2026.]

A couple of days earlier, Trump had hinted that his administration was preparing to talk with Cuba, which he called a “failed country” seeking help in solving its economic crisis. He posted on Truth Social:

“Cuba is asking for help, and we are going to talk!!! In the meantime, I’m off to China!” [Id.]

The State Department has said that the U.S. would offer Cuba $100 million in aid . . . to carry out “meaningful reforms to Cuba’s communist system.” [Id.]

(Is it my imagination, or does that sound eerily like Trump’s demands for regime change in Venezuela and Iran?)

Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel responded on X that, while Cuba would be open to receiving aid from the United States, “lifting or easing the blockade” would be preferable. [Id.]

What Trump is ultimately up to is obvious: control of yet another country . . . and this time, one situated just 93 miles from the coast of Florida. But why send in the CIA? Why not the State Department, or that shrewd negotiating team of Witkoff and Kushner?

Or almost anyone else?

Those of my generation remember all too well what happened when the CIA stuck its nose into Cuba 65 years ago. Maybe they’ve learned from their earlier mistakes . . . but this still makes me nervous.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
5/15/26

This is just too funny.

In a stunning military innovation, Ukraine has begun using robots to approach Russian troops in battle zones, in order to keep Ukraine’s soldiers safe from possible up-close attacks. In and of itself, a great idea . . . but also one that has proven to have had a surprising effect on Russia’s mighty army.

It seems that a number of the Russian invaders have been caught on video surrendering to the mighty metal midgets.

In a masterpiece of understatement, Oleg Fedoryshyn — director of research and development at DevDroid, a company that makes combat robots and other armaments — had this reaction:

“Of course, I was a little bit surprised.” [Sinead Baker, Business Insider, May 11, 2026.]

I should think so. The original purpose of the unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) was to protect Ukrainian soldiers from possible grenade or other attacks by approaching Russian soldiers claiming to be surrendering. Instead, some Russians have opted to surrender to the bots themselves. In one case, there is footage of three Russian soldiers being captured by a Ukrainian TW-7.62 system, in which the men walk toward it with their arms raised and then lie down on the ground. [Id.]

As Fedoryshyn said, this is “what modern warfare looks like.” [Id.]

Just as I was wondering how the UGVs then physically interact with their prisoners, the article said that, while full details are not shared by Ukraine’s military, Fedoryshyn assumes there were likely to have been living, breathing Ukrainian soldiers nearby, as well as possible additional support from aerial drones.

I should hope so. I can’t imagine walking up to a fully-armed likeness of Artoo Detoo and saying, “Take me to your leader” . . . then meekly following it back to enemy headquarters. I don’t know how you would ever live that down.

It is an interesting concept, though.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
5/14/26

Following Moscow’s Victory Day Parade on Saturday, Vladimir Putin commented to reporters concerning the war in Ukraine:

“I think that the matter is coming to an end.” [Al Jazeera Staff, AFP and Reuters, May 10, 2026.]

And I joined the world’s leaders, the media, and every other Russia-watcher in speculating what he meant by that. Was he actually ready to compromise; was it just another stall; or did he have something new up his sleeve?

Based on other indicators, I said that I thought it would most likely turn out to be option #2 or #3 — but not capitulation. And then, as though someone had heard me, I saw this headline:

“Putin says Russia test launches ‘most powerful missile in the world.’” [CBS/AP, May 12, 2026.]

The report went on to say that on Tuesday Russia had test-fired a new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), which was being touted by Putin just days after his enigmatic statement about ending the conflict. In his announcement, Putin said that the nuclear-armed missile, known as Sarmat, would be ready to enter combat service at the end of this year, replacing the older Soviet-era Voyevoda. Claiming that the combined power of the Sarmat’s individually-targeted warheads is more than four times higher than that of any Western counterpart, Putin boasted:

“This is the most powerful missile in the world.” [Id.]

He also said that the Sarmat, along with other new weapons, would render any prospective U.S. missile defenses useless. It is said to be capable of suborbital flight, giving it a range of more than 21,700 miles and the ability to penetrate any such missile defenses. [Id.]

*. *. *

And there it is: first the hint at something coming, and then the unveiling of his newest nuclear threat. Could this be what he meant? Did he expect Ukraine to surrender, cowering in fear?

But conversely, there were other reports of his having told his own inner circle:

“We cannot continue. This is leading us to catastrophe.” [World News Europe, May 11, 2026.]

And there has been talk of discussions about withdrawing troops from Ukraine, and seeking diplomatic channels for the start of negotiations.

But where is the confirmation of any of this? How do we ever know which conflicting statements coming from Moscow are true . . . or, for that matter, if any of them are?

At the end of the day, the mystery continues, as it has for centuries. As Winston Churchill famously said way back in 1939: Russia is “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.”

I doubt that Churchill would be surprised to see that it hasn’t changed a bit in the last 87 years.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
5/14/26

We might be tempted to think (or hope) that — amidst all of the hullabaloo surrounding Iran, Ukraine, China, the Vatican, the economy, the upcoming midterm elections, and that accursed ballroom — Donald Trump would have forgotten all about his mad desire to lay claim to Greenland. After all, he hasn’t mentioned it in a while.

But we would be wrong.

As it happens, officials with knowledge of the matter say that the U.S. has been involved in regular negotiations with Denmark to expand U.S. military presence in Greenland, with the talks progressing in recent months. American representatives are said to be seeking to open three new bases in the southern part of the island, while simultaneously attempting to resolve the diplomatic damage done by Trump when he threatened to take the territory by force. [Daniel Bush, BBC, May 12, 2026.]

The talks, described as “delicate,” have been clothed in secrecy, and are said to involve a small working group on each side. A White House official told the BBC that the administration is very optimistic that the talks are “headed in the right direction.” And Denmark’s Foreign Ministry would say only that “There is an ongoing diplomatic track with the United States. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs will not go into further detail at this time.” [Id.]

While there has been no indication of a formal agreement as yet, word from one official is that the U.S. has suggested an arrangement whereby the new military bases “would be formally designated as US sovereign territory.” [Id.]

“What did he say??!!!”

And that is when I really sat up and paid attention. Because the parallel is inescapable. It is exactly what Russia — having gained a military foothold in the Donbas, Crimea, and other regions of Ukraine — continues to demand as its right: a designation of those regions as Russian sovereign territory. And once that happens (if it does), there will be no stopping a future advance.

Could the same possibly take place in Greenland?

I hope someone can prove to me that I am overthinking the situation. But unless and until I’m proven wrong, I have this word of caution for the Danish officials:

“Be sure to read the fine print!”

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
5/13/26

NO! Not that light!

Right … that’s the one.

Believe it or not, I’m talking to this guy:

Because on Monday he apparently — after more than four years — did see the light. And he seems to have admitted, albeit somewhat obliquely, that his “special military operation” in Ukraine is not going to end the way he hoped and expected it would.

What he reportedly said, in a closed-door meeting, was this:

“We cannot continue. This is leading us to catastrophe.” [World News Europe, May 11, 2026.]

Say WHAT??!!!

According to the same report, the Kremlin has allegedly begun the following urgent preparations for ending the war:

> The General Staff has reportedly been instructed to start developing a mechanism for withdrawing troops from Ukraine.

> Diplomatic channels (through Turkey, China, and intermediaries) have already been activated to launch a negotiation process.

> Witnesses claim Putin looked pale, nervous, and for the first time in many months appeared genuinely broken. [Id.]

Following Saturday’s Victory Day Parade in Moscow, Putin told reporters:

“I think that the matter is coming to an end.” [Al Jazeera Staff, AFP and Reuters, May 10, 2026.]

He also said that he was ready to hold direct talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Moscow or in a neutral country.

Has Putin finally seen the folly of his attempt to steal an entire country? After more than four years of his originally-planned two-week war, perhaps he has at last acknowledged that he has only succeeded in racking up more than a million Russian casualties; that he’s running out of replacements for those troops lost or injured on the battlefield; and that his aggression, rather than beating Ukraine into submission as expected, actually inspired them to become a world-class fighting force and a drone superpower, having already decimated a number of Russia’s oil refineries and shown their capability of reaching as far as Moscow itself. Not to mention positioning Russia as a pariah in most of the rest of the world, and severely devastating his own economy.

It would be nice if this did turn out to be a sudden awakening on his part. But let’s not get carried away just yet.

“There’s more?”

Yes, there is more. Because Putin’s comments must be taken in the context of his other statements. For example, before telling the press that he thinks the war may be coming to an end, he also spoke of Russia’s “just cause [against] an aggressive force armed and supported by the entire NATO bloc. Victory has always been and will be ours.” [Id.]

Only then did he add that the end of the war might be near . . . without explaining precisely what sort of conclusion he envisions.

He also qualified his offer to meet with Zelensky, saying:

“A meeting in a third country is also possible, but only after a peace treaty aimed at a long-term historic perspective is finalised. This should be a final deal, not the negotiations.” [Id.]

That’s just a repeat of what he’s been saying all along. And when asked whether he would be willing to engage in talks with European leaders, he responded:

“For me personally, the former chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany Mr. [Gerhard] Schroder, is preferable.” [Id.]

Well, of course he would be . . . though it wasn’t clear whether he was suggesting that Schroder act as negotiator on behalf of the EU nations, or that he would prefer to have Schroder represent Russia in talks with the others. And perversely, either one is conceivable.

Because Schroder — who served as German Chancellor from 1998 to 2005 between the administrations of Helmut Kohl and Angela Merkel — has long shared interests with Putin’s Russia. He has served as Chairman of the Border at Nord Stream AG — a joint Russian-German pipeline undertaking — as well as Russian oil giant Rosneft, where he remains a member of the Board. There had been consideration of his joining the Board of Russian state-run gas company Gazprom, though that apparently has not materialized.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Schroder was widely criticized for his pro-Russia stance, his work for Russian state-owned companies, and his lobbying on behalf of Russia. In 2022, as a result of those associations, proceedings were instituted by the Public Prosecutor General, accusing Schroder of complicity in Russia’s crimes against humanity.

So yes, it would certainly suit Putin to deal with Schroder. Other than Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who could possibly be better suited to his purposes?

If I sound skeptical — even cynical — it’s because I am. Vladimir Putin may be getting old and tired; but he has not shed his innate character, or his ambition to remain “Tsar for Life.” He is, always has been, and always will be diabolically clever.

My instincts tell me that he may indeed have seen a light . . . but it is most likely to have been a bright idea for ending the war on his chosen terms, with a minimum of compromise on his part. Or it’s simply another stalling tactic. Either way, I wouldn’t advise the Ukrainian military to pack up the ammo just yet.

But that’s only my humble opinion.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
5/13/26