| The Death of NATO 09:18 - Nov 22 with 3743 views | Churchman |
In the surrender document, point 4 states:
A dialogue will be held between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation in order to ensure global security and increase opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.
The key five words are ‘mediated by the United States’. Well, if the US are now mediating a dialogue, they are no longer part of NATO. It doesn’t exist. It’s finished. Dead. Do Europe’s leaders realise it or care? They look a sorry lot to me that spend most of their Trump time saying ‘eat him, not me’. Should there be any surprise as to how this is playing out? No.
The ‘negotiations’? Russia wants a free hand in the Balkans, the Baltics ceded, Poland, old enemy Finland and possibly even Sweden. I’d go further after swallowing Ukraine, which it will. I’d insist the rest of Europe be demilitarised (shouldn’t take long with the U.K.) with protection supplied by Russia for a fee. Their sphere of influence. That would allow US a free hand to carve up the far east with China.
It’s interesting that the US is still playing the stop the killing card as its justification (like it’s given a hoot about killing anywhere else in the world from Africa to its own adventures in Afghanistan). The real reason is that Russia is beginning to struggle economically and has lost most of its military hardware. Wars are won by economics, ultimately.
The US cannot allow that. As a fellow authoritarian country Trump’s plan is a simple world three way carve up where the US gets its slice. The biggest. Trump’s mate Vlad has to therefore win not least because an over weak Russia means a stronger China.
Just somewhat naive thoughts.
What isn’t is a few basic principles I’ve known all my life. If you give in to bullies and blackmailers, they’ll always come back for more. Give me one example where they haven’t.
Freedom as we know it is hard won and easily lost. It costs too. Lastly, you have to rely first and foremost on yourself. Excruciatingly offering a dinner with King Charles with a silly little bit of paper isn’t going to cut it Sir Kier.
You and more particularly your predecessors should have seen this years ago (Crimea theft). Defence, internal and external, is a primary duty of government. They’ll talk about it and look worried but they’re not interested and in any case it’s all too late now I’m afraid. How about another review? [Post edited 22 Nov 9:20]
|  | | |  |
| The Death of NATO on 15:59 - Nov 23 with 944 views | Kropotkin123 |
| The Death of NATO on 01:07 - Nov 23 by ElderGrizzly |
Confirmed as a Russian document/wish list
|
If you believe that you are gullible. It was written with Witkoff and has clear American points within it. Note it is Rubio speaking who wasn't there and had been pushed aside in the negotiations and exchanges with Russia.
A Russian wishlist, but Trump says sign it by Tuesday. Okay. [Post edited 23 Nov 16:01]
|  |
| Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top. | | Poll: | Would you rather | | Blog: | Round Four: Eagle |
| |
| The Death of NATO on 16:07 - Nov 23 with 925 views | bournemouthblue |
| The Death of NATO on 12:51 - Nov 22 by Bent_double |
What do you mean wouldn't last 5 mins? Russia would go nuclear?
Because little Ukraine has held them off for almost 4 years, surely the shear numbers and air superiority of the combined European countries against a weakened Russia would inflict a serious amount of damage on them. |
I've seen a mock up some NATO planes versus Russia and our planes destroy a lot more of theirs than they do with ours because we have superior missiles, the F35s particularly did impressive numbers of damage to their airforce particularly but they simply have so many planes, the sheer weight of numbers meant they would win in the end
The moral of the story was to buy more F35's really but if European NATO nations got into full war mode and geared themselves for it, we would gradually defeat them
The problem as has previously been said, we aren't ready yet and Trump quite reasonably expects us all to be paying a lot more towards NATO [Post edited 24 Nov 10:39]
|  |
| |
| The Death of NATO on 16:53 - Nov 23 with 886 views | StokieBlue |
| The Death of NATO on 10:45 - Nov 22 by The_Flashing_Smile |
What do you expect Starmer and the "weak European leaders" to do then? Ignore America and declare war on Russia? Genuine question because I don't see any easy answer. |
I think one thing the Ukrainian war has highlighted is that a united Europe doesn't need the US to defend itself from Russia.
Militarily, Russia now is nothing like it was previously.
SB |  | | |
| The Death of NATO on 16:57 - Nov 23 with 868 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| The Death of NATO on 16:53 - Nov 23 by StokieBlue |
I think one thing the Ukrainian war has highlighted is that a united Europe doesn't need the US to defend itself from Russia.
Militarily, Russia now is nothing like it was previously.
SB |
I'm glad someone's finally answered me! Yep, I agree. This deal looks likes a last desperate attempt from an otherwise busted flush. Russia has been hugely weakened, against a tiny foe in comparison. There's no way Ukraine, or any country in Europe, should accept this deal. |  |
| |
| The Death of NATO on 17:13 - Nov 23 with 832 views | mellowblue |
| The Death of NATO on 16:57 - Nov 23 by The_Flashing_Smile |
I'm glad someone's finally answered me! Yep, I agree. This deal looks likes a last desperate attempt from an otherwise busted flush. Russia has been hugely weakened, against a tiny foe in comparison. There's no way Ukraine, or any country in Europe, should accept this deal. |
At least there is still dialogue. While Putin is happy to let his countrymen bleed and keep the war going nothing is going to happen. Happy to keep Russia is on a war-footing and the restriction involved rather than face the challenges a peace will bring. It was a bit of a hail mary throw with no chance of success, the stupid Thanksgiving deadline, signals that. Can't see where any acceptable middle ground lies to foster an agreement. |  | | |
| The Death of NATO on 17:56 - Nov 23 with 796 views | Pinewoodblue |
| The Death of NATO on 17:13 - Nov 23 by mellowblue |
At least there is still dialogue. While Putin is happy to let his countrymen bleed and keep the war going nothing is going to happen. Happy to keep Russia is on a war-footing and the restriction involved rather than face the challenges a peace will bring. It was a bit of a hail mary throw with no chance of success, the stupid Thanksgiving deadline, signals that. Can't see where any acceptable middle ground lies to foster an agreement. |
How can you suggest there is still dialogue when Putin’s peace offer is no better, perhaps worse, than offered ages ago.
As for Trump’s thanksgiving day deadline that just shows how out of touch the old fella is. Thanksgiving day means nothing outside the 50 states. |  |
| |
| The Death of NATO on 20:38 - Nov 23 with 710 views | mellowblue |
| The Death of NATO on 17:56 - Nov 23 by Pinewoodblue |
How can you suggest there is still dialogue when Putin’s peace offer is no better, perhaps worse, than offered ages ago.
As for Trump’s thanksgiving day deadline that just shows how out of touch the old fella is. Thanksgiving day means nothing outside the 50 states. |
dialogue is obviously going on in Geneva, not three way granted, but US is talking to Russia and Ukraine seperately with Europe preparing a counter offering. Better dialogue even with a small chance of success than a guaranteed 5 years + more meat grinding. Hope is better than no hope. The 28 plan is not the answer and is obviously a Kremlin wish list with US add ons, a conversation starter if nothing else. | | | |
| The Death of NATO on 22:23 - Nov 23 with 642 views | Kievthegreat |
| The Death of NATO on 16:07 - Nov 23 by bournemouthblue |
I've seen a mock up some NATO planes versus Russia and our planes destroy a lot more of theirs than they do with ours because we have superior missiles, the F35s particularly did impressive numbers of damage to their airforce particularly but they simply have so many planes, the sheer weight of numbers meant they would win in the end
The moral of the story was to buy more F35's really but if European NATO nations got into full war mode and geared themselves for it, we would gradually defeat them
The problem as has previously been said, we aren't ready yet and Trump quite reasonably expects us all to be paying a lot more towards NATO [Post edited 24 Nov 10:39]
|
I'm not sure Russia would win out. They do have an enormous number of airframes, but they have no 5th gen fighter* and about a quarter of their "fighters" are SU-24 which are extremely outdated an an equivalent of Tornados that have been retired from most NATO service. The Russian force is currently being stretched thin in Ukraine ATM, it's had to station it's aircraft further back from the border, is forced to almost solely rely on stand-off munitions out of necessity and has been unable to establish air superiority in 3 years.
Just the European members of NATO field over 400 Typhoons, 100 F35s and 500 F16s. That of course means we aren't even counting the French yet who field the largest airforce in Europe with 200+ Rafaele and Mirage. Given how well Russia have done over Ukraine, I'm not sure conventional airpower is any worry. I'd be more worried about asymmetric attacks, how much air defence in Poland and the Baltic could handle a swarm of drone and missile attacks. Hopefully we've been paying attention...
*Su-57 is probably better described as a 4.5 gen, and doesn't seem likely to be a patch on the F35. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Death of NATO on 23:31 - Nov 23 with 600 views | StokieBlue |
| The Death of NATO on 22:23 - Nov 23 by Kievthegreat |
I'm not sure Russia would win out. They do have an enormous number of airframes, but they have no 5th gen fighter* and about a quarter of their "fighters" are SU-24 which are extremely outdated an an equivalent of Tornados that have been retired from most NATO service. The Russian force is currently being stretched thin in Ukraine ATM, it's had to station it's aircraft further back from the border, is forced to almost solely rely on stand-off munitions out of necessity and has been unable to establish air superiority in 3 years.
Just the European members of NATO field over 400 Typhoons, 100 F35s and 500 F16s. That of course means we aren't even counting the French yet who field the largest airforce in Europe with 200+ Rafaele and Mirage. Given how well Russia have done over Ukraine, I'm not sure conventional airpower is any worry. I'd be more worried about asymmetric attacks, how much air defence in Poland and the Baltic could handle a swarm of drone and missile attacks. Hopefully we've been paying attention...
*Su-57 is probably better described as a 4.5 gen, and doesn't seem likely to be a patch on the F35. |
With regards to countering the drone swarms, these type of defences need to be rushed through as quick as possible.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/dragonfire-a-guide-to-britains-new-laser-weapon/
SB [Post edited 23 Nov 23:32]
| | | |
| The Death of NATO on 10:48 - Nov 24 with 452 views | bournemouthblue |
Drones in themselves are quite scary, it's not inconceivable thst we will end up with 'motherships' which unleash massive swarms of drones which would cause different challenges
The sheer wait of numbers was how Russia won this battle, not technological advantage but this wasn't an official war game where a lot more factors would be taken into account and accurate
Europe on a war footing and economically geared to it, would win
Ths US are very powerful and very much looking at China, they expect a war with them at some point and it may well come, historically when two superpowers start to reach parity you get a war
Putin's war on the face of it is naive and has unneccesarily set Russia back 40 years | |
| |
| The Death of NATO on 10:52 - Nov 24 with 444 views | StokieBlue |
| The Death of NATO on 10:48 - Nov 24 by bournemouthblue |
Drones in themselves are quite scary, it's not inconceivable thst we will end up with 'motherships' which unleash massive swarms of drones which would cause different challenges
The sheer wait of numbers was how Russia won this battle, not technological advantage but this wasn't an official war game where a lot more factors would be taken into account and accurate
Europe on a war footing and economically geared to it, would win
Ths US are very powerful and very much looking at China, they expect a war with them at some point and it may well come, historically when two superpowers start to reach parity you get a war
Putin's war on the face of it is naive and has unneccesarily set Russia back 40 years |
Indeed.
However using lasers changes the game. It's not hundreds of thousands for each shot at a drone, it's 10 GBP and with each shot moving at the speed of light you just keep shooting until you hit it (although the accuracy seems very good).
Drones "motherships" is already very feasible technologically. Drones synced to a piloted plane as wingmen is being tested.
SB [Post edited 24 Nov 10:53]
| | | |
| The Death of NATO on 01:29 - Nov 27 with 271 views | Kropotkin123 |
| The Death of NATO on 15:59 - Nov 23 by Kropotkin123 |
If you believe that you are gullible. It was written with Witkoff and has clear American points within it. Note it is Rubio speaking who wasn't there and had been pushed aside in the negotiations and exchanges with Russia.
A Russian wishlist, but Trump says sign it by Tuesday. Okay. [Post edited 23 Nov 16:01]
|
And now we have a leaked transcript on Bloomberg of Witkoff coaching Ushakov on how to best negotiate with Trump to get the best deal for Russia. This is in addition to his meeting with Dmitriev in the weeks prior to the "peace plan".
Are we just meant to conclude that the Witkoff didn't tell them what Trump wanted and the US business points in there were just randomly made up by the Russians and included? | |
| Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top. | | Poll: | Would you rather | | Blog: | Round Four: Eagle |
| |
| The Death of NATO on 09:13 - Nov 27 with 188 views | EdwardStone |
| The Death of NATO on 01:29 - Nov 27 by Kropotkin123 |
And now we have a leaked transcript on Bloomberg of Witkoff coaching Ushakov on how to best negotiate with Trump to get the best deal for Russia. This is in addition to his meeting with Dmitriev in the weeks prior to the "peace plan".
Are we just meant to conclude that the Witkoff didn't tell them what Trump wanted and the US business points in there were just randomly made up by the Russians and included? |
Witkoff
Half-wit Koff more like
The US spent more than half a centuary with a pathological hatred of everything Soviet, funded the Cold War and fought various proxy hot wars in foreign lands
Now it seems that the White House is filled with Russian assets
And in a few years No 10 will follow suite unless we wake up to the danger |  | | |
| The Death of NATO on 10:30 - Nov 27 with 142 views | Radlett_blue |
| The Death of NATO on 17:13 - Nov 23 by mellowblue |
At least there is still dialogue. While Putin is happy to let his countrymen bleed and keep the war going nothing is going to happen. Happy to keep Russia is on a war-footing and the restriction involved rather than face the challenges a peace will bring. It was a bit of a hail mary throw with no chance of success, the stupid Thanksgiving deadline, signals that. Can't see where any acceptable middle ground lies to foster an agreement. |
Ukraine has no attractive options. It can either concede some territory, or continue the war. The first seems unpalatable, but Putin isn't going to walk away with nothing & the West isn't going to go to war with Russia over Ukraine. The devil is in the detail, however, especially the means of ensuring that Russia doesn't come back for more of Ukraine in a few years time. |  |
| |
| The Death of NATO on 10:46 - Nov 27 with 130 views | mellowblue |
| The Death of NATO on 16:07 - Nov 23 by bournemouthblue |
I've seen a mock up some NATO planes versus Russia and our planes destroy a lot more of theirs than they do with ours because we have superior missiles, the F35s particularly did impressive numbers of damage to their airforce particularly but they simply have so many planes, the sheer weight of numbers meant they would win in the end
The moral of the story was to buy more F35's really but if European NATO nations got into full war mode and geared themselves for it, we would gradually defeat them
The problem as has previously been said, we aren't ready yet and Trump quite reasonably expects us all to be paying a lot more towards NATO [Post edited 24 Nov 10:39]
|
An important point is, where are the battles going to be fought, losing planes is one thing, but losing pilots is another thing. One (pilots) is a lot harder to replace than the other. Retrieving pilots who have ejected is key and if the battles are over Russian lands, it would be so much harder. | | | |
| The Death of NATO on 14:50 - Nov 27 with 99 views | BrayBlue |
| The Death of NATO on 11:11 - Nov 22 by Churchman |
As a simple and stupid man Trump reduces everything to fag packet solutions. Domestic and international. My speculation on the game he’s playing is probably wrong, but it’s something like that. Trump has no concept of anywhere or anything bar himself. He doesn’t allow questions and is always right.
Does anyone seriously think he has the faintest idea what Ukraine is, Putin or anything else beyond Mar Largo? Of course not. All he recognises is people with similar traits to him. Strength so he sees Putin as strong, a man to do business with. Reliable. Something to gain. Putin knows all about Trump though and is working him over.
This surrender/appeasement mirrors the sellout of Czechoslovakia in 1938. The players were Hitler, Mussolini, Daladier and Chamberlain. Czech leader Benes wasn’t allowed in the room. Hitler knew Mussolini was in his pocket and that Daladier was weak and his country in dread of another war. The one he didn’t know was Chamberlain.
Neville Chamberlain was a strange man. He was not meant to reach high office, but did. He ruled the tories with a rod of iron. A strict disciplinarian, dour and inflexible in old fashioned dress. For Hitler, Britain was powerful with its empire and by far the world’s strongest navy. He knew tech wise it was in the game and a threat.
He treated Chamberlain with formality and respect, despite thinking him an oddball. But he soon picked up on the fact that despite everything, Chamberlain would do anything to maintain peace. His horror of WW1 governed everything he said and did. Any amount of promises, Neville would swallow. It was that which led to his waving a bit of paper once Czechoslovakia was sold out. Hitler thought him a twerp. Chamberlain thought Hitler odious, but hey, to save lives a deal with the devil (‘a man of his word’) was fine. Good politics too! Or not.
Revisionists like to say Chamberlain was buying time. He wasn’t. After the agreement, U.K. rearmament slowed. Germanys accelerated so much so that of motorised vehicles tanks etc that invaded France in 1940, a third of them had been produced by the Czech’s factories after the agreement. Thanks Neville, ya dope!
The parallels are that Trump is happy to sell Ukraine for gain. Art of the deal. Russia and the US gain. Hurrah! The areas given away are Ukraine’s key economic areas and key for defence. By reducing its army and banning it from alliances, that bears resemblance to the Versailles Treaty. So the worst of two surrenders then.
So Ukraine is being sold to save lives. Appeasement in 1938 was also to save lives. It was Chamberlain’s only aim. Peace in our time. That ended well with 55 million dead. I wonder where Trumps shameful sell out and remodelling of the world will lead? |
A couple of, hopefully interesting, sidebars on Chamberlain.
Churchill’s reaction to Chamberlain’s appeasement policy in 1938 was spot on: “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.'
Also, there’s a football connection with Chamberlain: The Munich Olympic Stadium (formerly Bayern Munich’s home ground) was built on the site of the Oberwiesenfeld airport, which was where the 1938 Munich Agreement occurred - where Chamberlain declared "peace in our time" while waving his piece of paper about.
Cheers,
JK | | | |
| The Death of NATO on 14:57 - Nov 27 with 90 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
Has he tried asking Putin nicely to give up his nukes? | | | |
| The Death of NATO on 14:58 - Nov 27 with 89 views | mellowblue |
| The Death of NATO on 14:50 - Nov 27 by BrayBlue |
A couple of, hopefully interesting, sidebars on Chamberlain.
Churchill’s reaction to Chamberlain’s appeasement policy in 1938 was spot on: “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.'
Also, there’s a football connection with Chamberlain: The Munich Olympic Stadium (formerly Bayern Munich’s home ground) was built on the site of the Oberwiesenfeld airport, which was where the 1938 Munich Agreement occurred - where Chamberlain declared "peace in our time" while waving his piece of paper about.
Cheers,
JK |
Yet Churchill knew fully well that at that point of time, we were nowhere near ready for war and weren't really that much more prepared a year later. Just Churchill putting the knife to a political rival, all be it on the same side. He certainly did nothing to keep the Czechs out of Soviet control. Interesting fact about Munich. | | | |
| The Death of NATO on 15:40 - Nov 27 with 79 views | Churchman |
| The Death of NATO on 14:58 - Nov 27 by mellowblue |
Yet Churchill knew fully well that at that point of time, we were nowhere near ready for war and weren't really that much more prepared a year later. Just Churchill putting the knife to a political rival, all be it on the same side. He certainly did nothing to keep the Czechs out of Soviet control. Interesting fact about Munich. |
Churchill had seen the Nazis for what they were pretty quickly and by 1935 was making a lot of noise. After the Dardanelles and various other foul ups, Churchill didn’t expect high office. A seat in the Cabinet maybe, but he knew he was disliked and feared. It was Chamberlain’s party and if there was to be a successor it was going to be Halifax. Didn’t turn out that way mainly because the appeasers were held accountable for unpreparedness, poor decisions and the disaster unfolding in Europe.
Germany was not as powerful in 1938 as the image presented. It was gearing up, but its airforce was small, navy non existent and army reliant on horses and feet. France had a far stronger army in theory but no political will. Britain had its navy and what little defence budget there was went in to that, radar, and at last backing the development of modern aircraft. But the peace lobby ruled the day.
In 1938, the Czech army was decently equipped and had good defence in the Sudetenland. To attack Czechoslovakia in 1938 would have cost Germany considerably in men and material, possibly delaying their designs on Poland.
Once that was handed over, Cz was finished right there right then and Adolf swallowed the lot some months later. An exact parallel with Ukraine now with the same inevitable outcome.
Churchill did nothing to keep Russia of Czechoslovakia or Poland come to that in 1945 because he couldn’t. Britain was exhausted, still fighting the Japanese and no longer a big dog in the room. That sellout was by Roosevelt and Truman who believed Stalin’s word. It was Roosevelt’s decision that counted. Naive beyond belief. History repeating itself.
Appeasement is so appealing. Lives saved, peace prizes, peace in our time. State visits. The satisfied statesman look at the dispatch box after grovelling. The sigh of relief, the peace dividend. But there’s always a cost to bear.
After all these years this country still hasn’t woken up to the threats out there. Labour are not interested any more than the tories were. Head in the sand, hope it all goes away, eat him not me is the government’s policy. 3% by 2034? Needs to be 6% now - I.e. what Poland are doing to desperately equip themselves sufficiently to fend off Putin. They’re not doing it for the fun of it. They have to.
You cannot rely on anyone but yourselves to be sufficiently unpleasant that the wicked grasping people out there will leave you alone. NATO? Done. Would you rely on the Americans for anything?
Partnering other countries to produce say aircraft, vehicles, shared calibre ammunition, fine. But build your own defence beyond our currently hollowed out forces. 55 million paid the bill for appeasement before WW2. I wounded what the final butchers bill will be this time? | | | |
| The Death of NATO on 15:58 - Nov 27 with 61 views | mellowblue |
| The Death of NATO on 15:40 - Nov 27 by Churchman |
Churchill had seen the Nazis for what they were pretty quickly and by 1935 was making a lot of noise. After the Dardanelles and various other foul ups, Churchill didn’t expect high office. A seat in the Cabinet maybe, but he knew he was disliked and feared. It was Chamberlain’s party and if there was to be a successor it was going to be Halifax. Didn’t turn out that way mainly because the appeasers were held accountable for unpreparedness, poor decisions and the disaster unfolding in Europe.
Germany was not as powerful in 1938 as the image presented. It was gearing up, but its airforce was small, navy non existent and army reliant on horses and feet. France had a far stronger army in theory but no political will. Britain had its navy and what little defence budget there was went in to that, radar, and at last backing the development of modern aircraft. But the peace lobby ruled the day.
In 1938, the Czech army was decently equipped and had good defence in the Sudetenland. To attack Czechoslovakia in 1938 would have cost Germany considerably in men and material, possibly delaying their designs on Poland.
Once that was handed over, Cz was finished right there right then and Adolf swallowed the lot some months later. An exact parallel with Ukraine now with the same inevitable outcome.
Churchill did nothing to keep Russia of Czechoslovakia or Poland come to that in 1945 because he couldn’t. Britain was exhausted, still fighting the Japanese and no longer a big dog in the room. That sellout was by Roosevelt and Truman who believed Stalin’s word. It was Roosevelt’s decision that counted. Naive beyond belief. History repeating itself.
Appeasement is so appealing. Lives saved, peace prizes, peace in our time. State visits. The satisfied statesman look at the dispatch box after grovelling. The sigh of relief, the peace dividend. But there’s always a cost to bear.
After all these years this country still hasn’t woken up to the threats out there. Labour are not interested any more than the tories were. Head in the sand, hope it all goes away, eat him not me is the government’s policy. 3% by 2034? Needs to be 6% now - I.e. what Poland are doing to desperately equip themselves sufficiently to fend off Putin. They’re not doing it for the fun of it. They have to.
You cannot rely on anyone but yourselves to be sufficiently unpleasant that the wicked grasping people out there will leave you alone. NATO? Done. Would you rely on the Americans for anything?
Partnering other countries to produce say aircraft, vehicles, shared calibre ammunition, fine. But build your own defence beyond our currently hollowed out forces. 55 million paid the bill for appeasement before WW2. I wounded what the final butchers bill will be this time? |
My understanding is that the fate of Czechoslovakia was pretty much decided during 1943 at Tehran and later that year. Benes was still influential and wanted his premiership back. Given the sellout by the West he was talked into casting his own chips in with the Soviets. Fairy tale talk of being part of a pan-slavic brotherhood. [Post edited 27 Nov 16:14]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
