Ukraine and the Trump-Putin axis of reaction
First published at Labour Hub.
The Trump–Putin Axis is having profound implications not only for Ukraine but for the global order as well. The fact that neither a ceasefire nor peace has been realised is hardly surprising. The primary objective here is not the safeguarding of Ukrainian lives but rather fostering a rapprochement between the United States and Russia.
This was illustrated on 2nd April, when President Trump imposed sweeping tariffs that impacted Ukraine and even targeted already sanctioned Syria — yet Russia and its supplier North Korea were conspicuously absent from the list. This new alignment, far from a sudden development, was foreshadowed even before Trump took office on 20th January. Notably, during the summer of 2023, Republicans blocked a critical nine‐month aid package to Ukraine for nine months.
The ideological underpinnings of the axis
The Trump’s team and the MAGA movement has long been permeated by figures who have done business with and are sympathetic to Russia. But this rapprochement of the rival oligarchies goes deeper: the US reactionary right considers key features of Putin’s Russia — national chauvinism, white supremacy, staunch Christian conservatism and the fascistic theories of Alexandr Dugin, which promote a view of sovereignty defined by dominance, as its own shared ideology.
There are historical precedents for such unlikely partnerships. China, for instance, curtailed and eventually ended its aid to North Vietnam to foster better relations with the United States, prolonging the Vietnam War. The closest antecedent is the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact — a non-aggression treaty between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Soviet Union. Although Trump and Putin are not identical to the tyrants of that era — and we are not on the brink of another world war — the similar scale of the retrogression in global politics and ideological consequences is stark.
In much the same way that the Communists and others on the left supported the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (blaming France and Britain as responsible for the war, rather than Hitler), today sections of the labour movement — opponents of Ukraine’s struggle for freedom — find themselves now aligned with the MAGA Republicans.
Such convergence underscores a critical lesson: we cannot separate domestic anti-fascism from international anti-fascism. Ukraine’s fight for freedom is intrinsically linked to the global battle against reactionary forces — a connection underscored by the displays of support for Ukraine at anti-Trump protests in the United States.
Hypocritical outrage and Ukraine’s vulnerability
After three years of war, Ukraine’s vulnerability is the product of both external and internal failures. Western powers — the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France — have faltered on multiple fronts. Their moral outrage over apparent American duplicity rings hollow when contrasted with their response to Europe’s worst conflict since World War II. As Russian troops gathered along Ukraine’s border, these powers did little to deter the looming full-scale invasion. They failed to impose significant sanctions on Russia and failed to provide Ukraine with critical military aid. Even the sanctions that were imposed — particularly on Russian oil exports — were insufficient, enabling billions of dollars per month in revenue to continue fuelling Putin’s war machine.
The strategy of supporting Ukraine ‘for as long as it takes,’ rather than equipping it with the means to decisively end the occupation, has only prolonged the conflict.
These are not the only causes for Ukraine’s current vulnerability. The Ukrainian government has failed to fully mobilize the economy for the war effort and ensure the welfare of the people — challenges made starker by a contrast with Russia’s transformation into a war economy with defence spending at levels unseen since the Cold War.
The obstruction to economic reform has been a combination of the self-interest of Ukrainian capitalists, free-market zealots in Ministries and the role of global capital.
There is an additional contributory factor to Ukraine’s current predicament, which is the response of the European (and North American) labour movement to the Russian invasion. While most of the labour movement has formally opposed the invasion, there has been a restraint to the point of silence in advocacy for the necessary aid to defeat Russia.
The evolution of Moscow’s oligarchy into a fascist dictatorship and an incipient fascist oligarchy in Washington have combined not only to the detriment of Ukraine but to threaten democracy more widely by fuelling fascist and authoritarian forces globally.
Ukraine is on the frontline of the battle for democracy but not only for the freedom of Ukrainians; their fate is intimately linked to fight against this new global reaction.
The global realignment
The global realignment of USA has seen a combination of accommodation, with Russia and increased deterrence as regards China. There are several possible outcomes to this process. A rapprochement with Russia could continue without any viable peace in Ukraine, as historian Timothy Snyder has argued: “So far, it’s a war-mongering process. American policy under Trump has been thus far to make the war easier for Russia and harder for Ukraine.”
The axis began forming in earnest on 12th February, when Trump called Putin to ‘reset’ relations and reopen dialogue on ‘topics of mutual interest.’ From the outset, Ukraine — and Europe — were relegated to the periphery of these strategic discussions, with Russia facing no equivalent pressure to concede anything beneficial for Ukraine, or even a suspension any hostilities.
Later, at a NATO meeting in Brussels on 12th February, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth declared it “unrealistic” to expect Ukraine to revert to its pre-2014 borders. With NATO membership effectively ruled out, Hegseth insisted that U.S. policy would prioritise American interests, as encapsulated by Trump’s unilateral decision-making. This was further evidenced at the Riyadh Summit on 18th February, where US Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov alongside Trump’s envoy Steven Witkoff and Russian sovereign wealth fund chief Kirill Dmitriev. Their agenda centred on a return to business as usual—normalising diplomatic relations, beginning work on a Ukrainian peace settlement, and spanning the possibility of enhanced economic cooperation.
The Summit was followed sharply by Trump propagating disinformation — falsely claiming that Ukraine had initiated the war and refusing to label Russia the aggressor. On 24th February at the United Nations, the US voted with Russia, China, and other allies against a resolution condemning the invasion. Soon after, the Trump administration disbanded task forces that combated Russian disinformation, tracked sanctions evasion by oligarchs and investigated Russian war crimes in Ukraine. Offensive cyber operations against Russia were suspended, and US forces in Poland, engaged in supplying aid to Ukraine, were reduced.
Coercing Ukraine: A transactional agenda
Having set the scene for betrayal, Trump’s administration embarked on what it described as “dividing up certain assets.” According to this transactional approach, Russia would retain its occupied Ukrainian territories, sanctions would eventually be lifted, and remaining unoccupied Ukraine would be relegated to a neo-colonial status. Under these conditions, Ukraine was compelled to repay $500 billion — four times the aid disbursed under the Biden administration — by surrendering 50% of its national resource proceeds (such as from mining). Moreover, Ukraine would have to repay twice the amount of any future US aid, effectively imposing a 100% interest rate.
When Ukraine demanded security guarantees to shield itself from renewed Russian aggression, Trump dismissed these as Europe’s responsibility. The White House made clear that, should Ukraine wish to meet with Trump on 28th February, acceptance of the controversial mineral deal was mandatory. This pressure reached a climax when Trump and Vice President JD Vance launched an orchestrated attack on President Zelensky in the Oval Office — a confrontation that culminated in Zelensky being asked to leave the White House.
These actions demonstrate that Washington’s primary objective is rapprochement with Russia, with ending the current phase of the war merely a means to that end. To compel Ukraine to accede to Trump’s conditions, Washington resorted to both coercion and delegitimization of Zelensky. On 3rd March, Trump suspended all military aid to Ukraine. Two days later, intelligence sharing — vital for early warning of enemy air attacks and battlefield operations — was also halted. Around the same time, Elon Musk threatened to suspend Ukraine’s Starlink satellite system. In response, Russia launched over 80 missiles and 1,550 attack drones on Ukraine.
Concurrently, a campaign emerged to undermine President Zelensky’s legitimacy. Trump labelled him “a dictator without elections.” Figures like Tulsi Gabbard and the Director of National Intelligence falsely claimed that Kyiv had cancelled elections and silenced its opposition, while Musk urged Zelensky to leave Ukraine to escape corruption charges. These narratives mirror Kremlin demands for regime change, even as senior members of Trump’s administration engaged in secret talks with Ukrainian political opponents like Yulia Tymoshenko and leaders from Petro Poroshenko’s party.
Directly, these US actions helped Russia mount a counter-offensive that reversed Ukrainian gains in the Kursk region. Under intense pressure, Zelensky indicated that Ukraine was ready to sign a deal with the US regarding its mineral deposits, and following talks in Saudi Arabia on 11th March, Ukraine agreed to Trump’s ceasefire proposal.
Confident that Washington would not retaliate, after an 18th March call between Trump and Putin, the Kremlin did not reciprocate but agreed to refrain from attacking Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Following further talks in Riyadh on March 25th, the White House announced an agreement promising “safe navigation” in the Black Sea — but only on the condition that sanctions on Russia financial institutions were lifted.
Throughout this period, Russia has maintained maximalist demands to secure Ukrainian territory and continued bombing Ukrainian civilian areas. On 2nd April, Putin signed a decree conscripting 160,000 new soldiers, clearly preparing for another offensive.
Meanwhile, Washington did nothing to pressure Moscow further — indeed just as Trump was imposing widescale trade tariffs, travel sanctions were lifted on Putin’s advisor and money man, Dmitriev, to travel to Washington. On the agenda was the restoration of Russian-American relations, and to work to restore business relations. On 10th April in Istanbul, US-Russia talks proceeded under the banner of “normalising broader relations,” with Ukraine conspicuously absent from the agenda.
With no ceasefire in sight, Trump revised the terms of an agreement that would grant the U.S. dominance over Ukraine’s critical minerals and energy assets. The new terms, which resembled economic colonialism, required Ukraine to repay prior US assistance at 4% interest, contribute royalties from its natural resources, and accept that the US would retain majority control over the fund’s board while freely withdrawing profits — whereas Ukraine would have no such control. Trump further backed these draconian measures with explicit threats against any attempt by Ukraine to renegotiate the deal.
In essence, without any meaningful pressure imposed on Putin, this coercion has served primarily to tip the balance of power on the battlefield — effectively weakening Ukraine’s position between the two powers. Such conduct suggests that it is entirely feasible for Trump to eventually broker a deal with Russia that would neither bring about a genuine ceasefire nor lead to a sustainable peace — a prospect now openly discussed by some MAGA commentators.
The dual crisis of capital and labour
Trump’s rapprochement with Russia — and the broader US pivot toward the Asia-Pacific — has thrown Europe into uncertainty, upending long-held assumptions about the transatlantic alliance. European powers have reluctantly acquiesced to US demands for increased defence spending. This deference is driven by both a desire to maintain US oversight and a fear of abandonment of mutual defence commitments by Trump.
Europe now faces the dual challenge of a nominal ally in Washington that is simultaneously imposing tariffs and undermining liberal democracy alongside Moscow, with key MAGA Republicans openly supporting the far right in Europe.
Despite these challenges, Europe has not envisioned rallying to provide an alternative to US aid to Ukraine. To counter Russian imperialism effectively, European aid would then need to increase from the current 44 billion euros per year to 82 billion euros, a modest sum compared to the over 800 billion euros allocated to the ReArm Europe Plan.
Instead, of empowering Ukraine to have freedom of choice autonomously of Trump and Putin, initiatives from the UK and France have focused on forming an ethereal “coalition of the willing” tasked with assembling a “reassurance force” to be deployed far behind demarcation lines once any deal is imposed. Russia has already rejected such a force as “completely unacceptable,” and President Zelensky has dismissed its projected numbers as ineffective. Rather than sabotaging a peace settlement, as some critics like Andrew Murray of Stop the War have claimed, these measures propose to underpin a Trump-Putin partition plan that would leave Russian occupation intact.
The stakes for democracy
The Ukrainian question is pivotal to global politics. If Trump and Putin succeed in undermining Ukraine’s struggle for freedom, the result will not be sustainable peace; rather, Russian imperialism will merely pause to recuperate and regroup before resuming its real objective of asserting dominance over Ukraine. Such an outcome would embolden reactionary forces worldwide, reshaping the global landscape into fragmented regional capitalist power blocs driven purely by naked self-interest.
To respond with some form of radical abstentionism in the face of the Trump’s rapprochement with Putin is to become complicit in the betrayal of Ukraine and of resistance to the incipient fascism in the USA.
For the labour movement — in Europe, the United States, and beyond — a de facto victory for Putin’s Russia at the behest of Trump would be disastrous. Yet, so far, neither the European nor US labour movement has yet to project its own independent alternative to what is being offered by the Trump-Putin Axis. This is an urgent necessity.
The Ukraine Solidarity Campaign has, with allies, has made a modest contribution, with our a Plan for an Alternative to Russian Occupation of viable measures to oppose the imposition of an unjust peace that cements Russia’s occupation of Ukraine, raising with renewed meaning for today the old slogan of “Neither Washington nor Moscow”, but a free, democratic and united Ukraine.
Christopher Ford is Secretary of the Ukraine Solidarity Campaign. This article is based on a talk he gave to the Solidarity with Ukraine Conference, held in Brussels last month.
|
|
TUESDAY 22 APRIL: EARTH DAY |
|
No to partition! Russian troops out! International solidarity conference |
Over two days in Brussels at the end of March, 200 people came from all over Europe to hear from Ukrainians the situation in their country and to discuss with them how we can deliver solidarity.
Brussels conference lifts Ukraine solidarity to higher plane: Read here the report from Dick Nicholls
Read and watch here some of the contributions from Vanya Vyhovsky (Progressive-Democrat Senator, Vermont), Johan Sjöstedt (Left Party, Sweden), Christopher Ford (USC), Søren Søndergaard (MP in the Parliament of Denmark - Red-Green Aliance), Simon Pirani (writer, historian and energy researcher), Felix Le Roux (Union Syndicale Solidaires), Yvanna Vynna (Bilkis), and others. Nona, a member of Bilkis, spoke at the workshop on Feminist Struggles in Ukraine. More from the conference is available here.
The conference adopted a declaration "Ukraine is not for sale! No to partition! Russian troops out!". |
Support union aid centre for workers at the front |
|
Help us fund materials for the production of camouflage nets at a social centre run by displaced trade unionists. |
Stop Seapeak - End Fossil colonialism |
|
Glasgow company Seapeak owns and operates six tankers that transport $5 billions a year of Russian liquified natural gas. The profits directly supports Russia’s war on Ukraine. Coalition organising meeting Wednesday 16 April 6pm. All welcome. ZOOM LINK HERE |
|
Take down Tesla
Join other protests around the country |
Support Ukrainian unions’ resistance Sign the petition |
As friends of Ukraine, supporters of its self-defence and self-determination against Russian imperialism, we support the Ukrainian trade unions’ struggle to defend workers’ rights. In particular we salute their ongoing resistance to a proposed new Labour Code that includes numerous restrictions on the rights of the workers and their organisations; as well as draft law 5344d, restricting the rights and social security of people with disabilities. |
Useful links |
European Network for Solidarity with Ukraine >>> https://ukraine-solidarity.eu/ Sotsialnyi Rukh (Ukraine) >>> https://www.facebook.com/ Ukraine Information Group >>> https://ukraine-solidarity. Ukraine Solidarity Campaign Scotland >>> https://www.facebook.com/ Commons, journal of social criticism >>> https://commons.com.ua/en/ SD Platform >>> https://sdplatform.org.ua/ Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine >>> https://kvpu.org.ua/en/ Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine >>> https://www.fpsu.org.ua/ |
Follow the Ukraine Solidarity Campaign on Twitter and Facebook. Just click on the buttons below. |
|
|
|
|
Dmitrii Kovalev (Left for Peace without Annexations, Russia): ‘True peace requires going back to Ukraine’s original borders’
The Left for Peace without Annexations is a coalition of several organisations from different backgrounds (socialist, Trotskyist, Maoist, etc). I am a member of the Communist Tendency, the Russian section of the Revolutionary Communist International Tendency, which is part of this coalition.
The coalition has activists within Russia, where they agitate for defeatism, while our supporters in exile provide support. We can count on support from a faction in the German party Die Linke (The Left). However, most of the European left remains eurocentric and even chauvinistic.
We stand for revolutionary defeatism: we want Russia to lose this war. In our opinion, true peace can only be achieved by going back to Ukraine’s original borders, without any annexations. If there is a need to modify these borders, then only the Ukrainian people can decide that.
We also stand for unconditional support for Ukraine. The resources of Ukraine belong to the Ukrainian people, not to Russian President Vladimir Putin nor to European imperialists and neither to US President Donald Trump.
Questions such as a possible ceasefire can only be decided by the Ukrainian people. We consider membership in NATO and EU as imperialist actions that go against the independence of Ukrainian people and therefore politically oppose this. But, again, any such membership is the sole decision of the Ukrainian people.
We believe military equipment should be delivered to Ukraine, without this needing a build-up of Europe’s militaries. Sanctions on Russia should serve Ukrainian interests, not European profits. To ensure this, sanctions should come from workers organisations, such as trade unions, not imperialist governments.
We stand for the destruction of the present Russian Federation. We recognise that most Russian citizens have a “centrist” opinion on the war: they are not exactly in favour, yet they do not express their opposition.
We need to understand that the Putin regime has destroyed all left-wing organisations and trade unions within Russia. It is only now — after three years of war — that we can see the beginnings of new organisations that seek to swim “against the current”.
Despite this, there are some organised people active on Russian soil. With them we strive to support political prisoners, while spreading information (which remains very difficult).
In exile, our main problem is the sectarian, eurocentric and chauvinistic left, which hinders our efforts at connecting with broader layers of the population. Nevertheless, we try to keep connecting, listening to Ukrainian people, and finding an audience in trade unions, among other actions.
This is an edited version of the speech Kovalev gave at the “Solidarity with Ukraine” Conference in Brussels on March 26-27.
Friday 11 April 2025, by Dick Nichols
The Brussels Solidarity with Ukraine conference on March 26–27drew together about 200 activists from a score of countries, in support of the Ukrainian people’s national and social rights.
The gathering was organised by the European Network for Solidarity with Ukraine (ENSU) and the Ukraine Solidarity Campaigns (USC) of England and Wales and Scotland. It was devoted to strengthening people-to-people solidarity, as the menace of Ukraine being partitioned and pillaged by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s and United States President Donald Trump’s governments looms ever larger.
The conference also took place in the context of ongoing conflict between Ukraine’s trade union, feminist, environmental, civil rights and progressive political movements and the neoliberal domestic policies of Volodymyr Zelensky’s government.
The choice of Brussels as host city was determined by the need to strengthen dialogue and collaboration between Ukraine’s many social movements, Ukraine solidarity groups and Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and national MPs from left, green, social-democratic and progressive national independence formations.
Such parliamentarians — notably former Finnish education minister Li Andersson (Left Alliance) and Jonas Sjöstedt (former leader of the Swedish Left Party) — spoke at a March 26 European Parliament event organised by The Left group in the European Parliament (“Solidarity with Ukraine: Reconstruction and Civil Society”) and at the Solidarity with Ukraine conference itself.
In his European Parliament speech, Sjöstedt spelled out the double-sided character of progressive solidarity: “The war in Ukraine is not only raging on the front lines. The battles taken by labour rights defenders, climate activists and women’s rights activists are shaping and will continue to shape Ukraine’s future. We must stand up in solidarity with these movements, especially in times of war, and we will continue to do so.
“We must continue to stand up for worker’s rights in the drafting of new labour codes in Ukraine, we must fight for the health care workers who work under even more dire conditions, and we must continue to drive change to stop the ecologically disastrous Russian shadow fleet [of rusting oil tankers].”
Tanya Vyhovsky
Intervention from other elected representatives opened other key topics for conference discussion. A powerful example was Tanya Vyhovsky, progressive Democrat Senator for the United States state of Vermont, who tackled the Trump threat to Ukraine head on.
“This is not business as usual, and unfortunately the vast majority of Democrats are acting as if it is … the Musk-Trump agenda is a fascist agenda and the Musk-Trump-Putin agenda is a global fascist agenda.”
She added: “It is important for me personally [as a Ukrainian-American] that the war in Ukraine ends with a real peace. And that means no occupation, no land annexation; it means the Russian troops go home. It does not mean holding the Ukrainian people hostage for resources.”
Resisting the Trump-Putin agenda was also not just about defending Ukrainian rights: “Anyone who thinks that this agenda is not a threat to them is delusional — it is a threat to all of us. It is a threat to our society and a threat to our climate.”
For Vyhovsky, the only possible response is “to build a global network for solidarity. The oligarchs and the billionaires and (frankly) mobsters that have taken over the US government, they have connections across this globe […] they have a plan to divide up the world, treating it through the lens of capital, as assets only.
“We must stop that. And we can, and that’s through building international working-class solidarity and remembering that we are connected. What happens to Ukraine happens to all of us.”
Li Andersson
Finnish MEP Li Andersson led the discussion on a progressive defence policy — how to simultaneously provide Ukraine with the arms it needs to expel the Russian invader and for defence of the countries threatened by Putin’s ambitions while not buying into the militarist rationale of the European Commission’s €800 billion plan for “defence spending”, recently unleashed under cover of “standing by Ukraine”.
A key point made by Andersson was the need for a progressive defence policy to reject targets for defence spending being set as a proportion of gross domestic product: “I really think that setting such a target is a foolish way of measuring defence capabilities. Defence spending should not be based on abstract targets, but on needs and priorities.
“There have, for instance, been times when Finland needed to buy new airplanes. In such a situation, defence spending goes up. After the investment is made, however, it can and should drop — even below the NATO target of two percent.”
The plenary session on “What Peace?” saw interventions from French Green MEP Mounir Satouri (chair of the European Parliament’s human rights sub-committee) and Danish Red-Green Alliance MP Søren Søndergaard. Both were focussed on the conditions that would have to prevail so that a just settlement of the war against Ukraine could at least be envisaged.
For Søndergaard, a just peace was unthinkable without a defeat of Putin’s invasion and Ukrainian involvement in negotiations about its own future: whatever ceasefire agreements Ukraine might have to accept in the interim, military support from EU countries would have to be maintained and increase if the Trump administration winds down or even ends its support for Ukraine.
Ukrainian activists inspired by solidarity
The conference was notable for the participation of Ukrainian social movement leaders and activists — the second largest contingent present after the local Belgians.
The interventions of speakers like labour lawyer Vitaliy Dudin (activist with the left Ukrainian force Social Movement), Oksana Slobodiana (leader of the health workers union Be Like Us), construction workers leader Vasyl Andreiev (vice-president of the majority Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine) and Yuri Levchenko (leader of the People’s Power, an initiative to build a Ukrainian party of labour), forcefully brought home the suffering and sacrifices involved in resistance to the Russian invasion.
This burden falls overwhelmingly on the shoulders of Ukraine’s working people.
The importance of working-class and trade union solidarity with Ukraine’s labour movement was a red thread running through the conference and was given special attention in a session that brought together Sacha Ismail, the USC (England and Wales) trade union liaison officer; Cati Llibre (vice-president of the General Union of Workers in Catalonia) and Felix Le Roux from the radical French trade union confederation Solidaires.
The next most profiled theme was that of the feminist struggle in Ukraine and women’s role in the country’s reconstruction. Yvanna Vynna from the grassroots feminist organisation Bilkis made a memorable presentation of her organisation’s role in simultaneously supporting the defence effort while maintaining the fight for women’s rights.
The ongoing struggle to defend civil liberties, particularly in the occupied territories, was treated by Mykhailo Romanov, representing the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, and Bernard Dréano, chairperson of the France-based Centre for Initiatives and Studies on International Solidarity and initiator of the People First petition (demanding the release of all captives resulting from the Russian invasion).
An important message came in a workshop by exiled Russian opponents of Putin’s war. Maria Menshikova, correspondent of the banned magazine Doxa, Dmitrii Kovalev (Left for Peace without Annexations) and Viktoria (representing Feminist Anti-War Resistance) all stressed that any victory for Putin’s “special military operation” would be a defeat for the movement for democratic rights within Russia itself.
The success of the conference was best measured by the response of its Ukrainian participants. Speaking at the closing public meeting, Oksana Dutchak, editor of the Ukrainian journal Commons, compared her mood before and after the event — sombre beforehand given the Trump-Putin moves to “fix” Ukraine behind its own back, and inspired afterwards to experience the wave of solidarity at the conference.
Solidarity counts. The job after Brussels is to make it stronger and more coordinated. One tool for that job will be the draft Brussels Declaration, to be adopted in final form at a future teleconference and soon to be opened for discussion and amendment.
Green Left 7 April 2025
Attached documentsbrussels-conference-lifts-ukraine-solidarity-to-higher_a8939-2.pdf (PDF - 921 KiB)
Extraction PDF [->article8939]
Dick Nichols
Dick Nichols is Green Left Weekly’s and Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal’s European correspondent, based in Barcelona.
International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment