"Russian Reconquista"? .. Reunification around the "core of the territory of the USSR" and the "fifth column"

In his famous article in Izvestia, Vladimir Putin spoke in favor of creating a single integration zone on the territory of the former USSR with the subsequent formation of a supranational Union.

This quite logically follows from many of his previous statements about the fate of the USSR.

It was Putin who was the first state figure in post-Soviet Russia who described the collapse of the USSR as a global geopolitical catastrophe. It was Putin who formulated the principle of its self-determination, fundamentally new for modern Russia: “We have preserved the core of the territory of the USSR and called it the“ Russian Federation ”.

If earlier, modern Russia was defined by official propaganda as “non-USSR” - something opposed to the USSR - then Putin fundamentally changed the interpretation to “preserved territory of the USSR”.

When drawing up documents on the Customs Union this summer, he referred to him as “the first real step towards reintegration in the territory of the USSR”.
In late August, at the bike show in Novorossiysk, dedicated to the reunification of disunited peoples - it was Putin, speaking from the cruiser with the significant name “Mikhail Kutuzov”, repeated the slogan of the Marines who held the bridgehead on the Little Land: “Movement is only ahead!” The media did not give This is of particular importance, but it was almost obvious that the slogan was not pronounced by chance.

And the continuation followed - in a programmatic article resembling the programmatic article “Russia at the Turn of the Millennium”, published on December 30 of 1999 of the year, one day before Yeltsin’s resignation and Putin’s entry into office and. about. President of Russia.

Then Putin wrote about the need for strong state power and the consolidation of society, economic policies aimed at fighting poverty, ensuring the growth of the welfare of the population, statehood, patriotism and justice.

Now - raised the question of the reunification of the country.

Some criticize this goal, declaring it “the restoration of the USSR”, that in their understanding is a deliberate evil. At the same time, it is stated that it is impossible to solve such a task.

Others also see the option of restoring the USSR, but since they relate to this differently, the goal itself is also positively assessed.

Putin stipulates that we are not talking about the restoration of the USSR. But the question, in any case, is the creation of a deeply integrated interstate union with supranational authorities.

One can argue whether this is a single state or not. But it is obvious that this can be nothing more than a single country.

How will the powers of the levels of government be related and how they will be called is a question of the next order.

The fact that the people support this is clear from the polls. In Russia, say, 62% regret the collapse of the USSR and would like to restore the Soviet socialist system. In Ukraine, 52% of citizens today are for returning to the USSR. In Tajikistan, in the middle of 90, two thirds of the population signed for reunification with Russia.

In Armenia, under Ter-Petrosyan, a law was passed banning a referendum on this topic, initiated by the Communist Party, which offered to answer whether citizens support joining the Union State with Russia. It was obvious to everyone: a referendum would give a positive result.
Even in Latvia among businessmen one can hear the words: "Latvia dreams of a Russian protectorate."

Of course, all the republics of the USSR are in a different situation and in different degrees are ready for active inclusion in the integration processes.
But two points are important here. First, the idea is based not only on a general and unconditional political and historical the need for reunification of the country, but also for the massive support of the majority of citizens of almost all republics. Second, it is not only beneficial for the republics, but also interesting and necessary for their business.

But as in a foreign one, which is explainable, so in the Russian press the idea of ​​reintegration as a goal of Russian politics was met with a certain skepticism and criticism.

If we discard the principled ideological nationalists, we can distinguish three conditional groups that are unprofitable or undesirable for the reunification of the country.

The first is a certain part of the local republican elites. In the autumn of 91, it was they who played a key role in the dismantling of the USSR. And not even because they were his ideological opponents: they tried to defend themselves against the destructive policies waged in Moscow by Gorbachev and Yeltsin. The failure of the Emergency Committee confirmed them in the opinion that the forces and resources capable of stopping the catastrophe no longer exist in the Center. Local elites tried to protect themselves and their republics from the consequences of the return from Foros Gorbachev and the impending dictatorship of Yeltsin.

But, like the Russian republican government, they liked the idea of ​​“dividing up the inheritance”, the prospect of being in the position of the highest rulers of the regions, not accountable to anyone. And having felt themselves as such, they quite predictably began to consider the power and the proclaimed sovereignty of their republics to be their most significant asset.

The advantages of sovereignty were felt not by ordinary people — they received the drawbacks of separation from a common country — but local elites and rulers. They got:
- economic resources: in one case - gas and oil, in the other - an attractive area for tourism, in the third - a drug trafficker;
- the power and the right to decide the fate of citizens without restrictions;
- independent access to world politics: from the pleasant opportunity to directly, personally meet with the leaders of the countries and speak under the international protocol in the highest status, to the opportunity to trade the fate of their country and thus sovereignty, which gave it the right.
Not to mention the possibility of taking loans, to enter into certain programs of cooperation, to receive financial support for certain aspects of their policies.

It is no longer the interest of the people, the nation, not a question of national sovereignty - it is a matter of private interests of political groups that parasitize on the power position of political groups. And naturally, they can lose a significant part of these benefits and resources during the reunification of the country.
It is obvious that practically none of these separatist elites have done anything better during the time of their separation than the life of the peoples of their states than they were twenty years ago.

But if not only citizens, but also the business of these republics are interested in reunification, and there is no political elite, then the interests of these elites contradict the interests of the nation, at least they cannot be considered national elites. Their upholding of what is declared “independence” cannot be considered as upholding the interests of the nation — it is only upholding a kind of “neo-feudal privilege”.

Even if only ordinary citizens would support reunification, and they would be opposed by the interests of business and the interests of the political class — that would be enough to prefer the interests of the majority of citizens. And the subjects of reunification and reintegration should not be considered the interests of the privileged minority, but the interests of the majority interested in the reunification. If the elites retain a real opportunity and themselves successfully fit into the new relations of the united country.

More importantly, under the conditions of support for reunification by the majority of the people, disagreement with the reunification of the elite or part of the elites cannot, in principle, be considered as a factor forcing them to reject reunification.

The second group, which is not interested in reunification and, of course, is focused on resisting it - those who adopted the self-name “liberals”. And those of them who in one way or another established themselves in the rest of the USSR republics (more in the West, less in the East) - and those that continue to exist in Russia.

They won the most after the disaster in the country twenty years ago. They received freedom, access to the media, support for Russia's political and economic rivals, and the possibility of lobbying for various financial and industrial groups (especially in the 90s).

Being considered liberals - and therefore, opponents of nationalism - they should support the reunification of the country, declaring themselves supporters of international integration and globalization, overcoming national isolation. But with certain exceptions, they are already speaking out and will be his critics.

The first reason is that if Putin and the Russian authorities succeed in achieving this goal, this will lead to an increase in their support in society and strengthen both domestically and in the world. But they do not need any success Putin. In 2000, Putin’s criticism for any reason became the profession of “liberals”. And what is more important - the representation of oneself in the West as defenders of democracy and the last stronghold on the path of “authoritarianism and Russian imperialism”. Their task is to frighten the world by Putin and earn political and other dividends in competing countries, creating the image of freedom fighters from themselves: “Restore the USSR! Russian imperialism is preparing to jump! ”

But there is one more important point that predetermines the unprofitability of the reunification of the country for them: they no longer feel like its citizens, they do not identify themselves with it. They have a different self-determination, due to the fact that in fact it is more comfortable and convenient for them to live in the West - or, at least, to have the opportunity to constantly go there.

But even living in Russia, they want to see her as a kind of continuation of the West. They need a protectorate regulated by Western standards, in which, if possible, they should play the role of EBSE commissars, looking from the West, in time informing him of all the problems that are being committed in Russia.

They do not need Russia to strengthen, they do not need its ability to be independent. A single integration space - and through it the reunification of the country - is for them the obligation to live by the norms of this, and not of that world. The reunification of the country is an obstacle in their personal integration into the system of other self-identification.

Formally, they are all citizens of Russia. But they are not its citizens in the actual civil, not the legal sense of the word. They are citizens, if not nationals - of other countries, of a different system. The countries and systems of your dreams.

For this type of people, the word "cosmopolitan" was used before. But this is wrong and unnecessarily complimentary. The classic cosmopolitan considered himself a citizen of the world, not identifying himself with any city, state, or ethnic group. These are not. They do not care where they live - they want to live where it is good, comfortable and rich.

They only say that they are citizens of the world. Their dream is to be citizens of the USA (England, France, Switzerland, etc.). They do not strive to be citizens of the world - they work out the right to citizenship in the countries - the masters of this world.

The reunification of a country is the consolidation of its position in competition with other countries - and its definite confrontation with them. And for people of this type - it is a violation of their usual comfort and the inevitability of choice. Which however, they have already done - and which they are unlikely to forgive the people and society.
The third and most unexpected group, focused on confronting the task of reintegrating the country, is the Communists. More precisely, a definite, not even nationalistic (everything is clear with this), - but an internationalist, leftist, but dogmatic part of them.

To a certain extent, this is unnatural: it was they who had not let us forget about the USSR for twenty years. It was they who carried his banner and made them shamefully hide their eyes and justify those who forgot what country he was born in. But today, when the idea, saved by them, begins to turn into the possible political will of Russia, they begin to fall into dogmatic resonance, arguing that this is not at all what they had in mind. Speaking for the USSR, they agree to reunite him and the country only if it is created solely according to their drawings: as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics proper. With socialism and the Soviet government of workers.

The problem is that these are different tasks, tasks of different stages.

If a person is a supporter of socialism and Soviet power, he must defend these goals and these ideals. But within the framework of the ideology he professed, this is usually called the tasks of the socialist revolution.

But in the same ideology there are the tasks of the democratic revolution - which include overcoming the fragmentation of the country, its reunification. What system should be in a reunited country is an important question. Very important. But to solve it - you need to have this union.

And these groups of communists, in fact, put the question this way: either the country will be socialist, or let it be fragmented.

This could be understood if they themselves were ready for real action to reunify the country and say: we do not need a single integration space. We ourselves have enough strength, resources and determination to restore our Soviet Union. But they do not. They hold the banner, which is more than worthy, and stand with him on the spot, without taking a step forward. And when someone takes this step forward, even without this banner, they go berserk.

They can be understood - they saved and saved this idea and this banner. But now they are intercepted from them and move on. They hurt. But they should be offended only on themselves that they could not take advantage of the almost universal support of this idea - and lead the people along.

And above all - because they generally remained in the world of words, not actions, they argued about programs for twenty years, and when someone tried to act according to the principle: “Every step of a real movement is more important than a dozen programs,” they could not even remember that these are the words of Marx.

Today, they argue that the reunification of the country not in the form of the USSR "will become a bourgeois collar around the neck of all peoples," and therefore today "the Communists do not want and cannot implement the reunification of a capitalist country."

The reunification of the country is a natural political and historical task. Like the one that the Spaniards decided during the Reconquista, the Italians Garibaldi in the times of Rissordimento, Abraham Lincoln and the unionists during the civil war for reunification, Germany under Bismarck.
For the peoples of the USSR, divided during the largest geopolitical catastrophe twenty years ago, this is the same as for any other peoples in history.

There will be a problem of reunification of the country at this stage or not - but the task is indicated. Those who do not want to solve it and will oppose it will not only oppose Putin. In this case, he expressed the desire of the majority of the country's citizens. They oppose the country. Oppose its people.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Civil 28 October 2011 09: 06 New
    • 1
    • 0
    IMHO (strictly), 2-3 brigades are enough for the reconquest in Central Asia, the combat effectiveness of the armies of Turkestan is lower than the living wage of the homeless, but then again to drive the Basmachi in the mountains and feed the multi-million countries, because you will not erase the dependency of Soviet times in your memory. So, the proposed economic integration is quite reasonable only if it does not provide free fraternal assistance to these economies.
    1. PSih2097 28 October 2011 22: 14 New
      • 3
      • 0
      IMHO (strictly), 2-3 brigades are enough for the reconquest in Central Asia, the combat effectiveness of the armies of Turkestan is lower than the living wage of the homeless, but then again to drive the Basmachi in the mountains and feed the multi-million countries, because you will not erase the dependency of Soviet times in your memory. So, the proposed economic integration is quite reasonable only if it does not provide free fraternal assistance to these economies.

      under Turkestan what do you mean?
      East Turkestan is a historical region inhabited by Turkic peoples in western China, the official name is Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (XUAR).
      Western Turkestan is the territory of modern Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan. Same as Central Asia. The ethno-cultural borders of the region are somewhat wider than the administrative-territorial entities, and also include some areas of southern Siberia, northern Iran and Afghanistan; see “Map of Turkestan” in the article Turkestan (region).

      Turkmenistan is self-sufficient due to oil and gas.
      The mineral resources of Turkmenistan are estimated by experts at about $ 7,5 trillion.

      Uzbekistan - due to gold, uranium and copper, cotton again ...
      Mineral resources of Uzbekistan are estimated by experts at about 3,5 trillion dollars.

      Tajikistan -
      In the north of Tajikistan, in the Sughd region, there is one of the largest silver deposits in the world - Big Konimansur. Tajikistan is also rich in deposits of precious stones, uranium (10 - 16% of world reserves), gold, coal, aluminum and polymetallic ores.

      ETC. Think what you write ... IMHO
  2. gAMauzer
    gAMauzer 28 October 2011 09: 10 New
    • 10
    • 0
    With all the good intentions (and this is the creation of the Eurasian, Novosoviet or any Union - it is undoubtedly good for the post-Soviet space) authorities, it is important to clarify one detail.

    In itself, the thesis of the "naturalness" of the country being restored is, in fact, a fiction. Multinational Russia, both of the Soviet and the imperial periods, was not cemented by the "brotherly love" of its constituent peoples, but by supranational structures, backed up by the forces of the army and state security organs. In this sense, a comparison with the unification of Italy or Germany is incorrect.

    In fact, the "restoration of the country" (Union) is the restoration of those very supranational structures, which is more similar to the goals of the author mentioned by Lincoln than Bismarck or Garibaldi.

    The author’s thesis about "mass support of the population", again, is not entirely true: the population massively supports the return of the Soviet SOCIAL system, but returning to the "family of peoples" is far from important. Moreover, the number of people who think that Russia is for Russians, Crimea is Ukrainian, Ossetia is Georgian, etc., is very large.

    In this regard, and also taking into account the present nationalist element, such a union - if at all possible - can only happen with a tough decision "from above." With the necessary conditions for a clear delineation of the powers of national and union bodies, with a priority for the decisions of the latter.

    Otherwise, the formed Union will turn into a sluggish semblance of the European Union - an impotent conglomerate of nations, and not a real union formation.
    1. esaul 28 October 2011 17: 49 New
      • 1
      • 0
      Nice to read a sound idea, backed up by logic ...
      1. Ivan35
        Ivan35 28 October 2011 19: 26 New
        • 3
        • 0
        And I would argue with Comrade Mauser - about the fact that the country being restored is "not natural" - in fact, both Gumilev and modern Dugin and many many authors prove (this is the whole idea) the Eurasian idea that we are a Eurasian civilization - the world is excellent from European and Chinese and from the Islamic south (Pakistan Afghanistan, etc.)
        This world is well described by Maxim Kalashnikov - as a union of Orthodox Slavs and the great steppe (Russia is a vivid example - the basis of Russians and Tatars and peoples close to them - and now with the unification with Kazakhstan, Tatars Bashkirs and so on will be added to their closest relatives and friends - Kazakhs)
        This idea is unusually strong - it gave the world dozens of the largest Eurasian empires - among the last known USSR, Tsarist Russia, the Golden Horde, Desht and Kipchak, the Atilla Empire of the Huns and so on. The resurgent new Union is their direct continuation - and Putin is the new Atilla
        1. gAMauzer
          gAMauzer 29 October 2011 09: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          Maxim Kalashnikov is the same Suvorov-Rezun, only on the other side of the barricades. You can perceive its spiritualized opuses only after careful filtering.

          The union of the Slavs and the Great Steppe (more precisely, the absence of the Mongol yoke as such) implied, in fact, Karamzin - however, most arguments (at least the same struggle against the same Steppe) speak against this theory. Eurasian empires (more precisely, Siberian-Asian) had a place to be, but in a slightly different vein. Talking about them as being built on the same civilizational foundation is incorrect.

          And Putin, if we bring historical analogies, is, rather, the new Ivan Kalita. Moreover, it is very similar: something to the country, the rest to itself.
    TAMERLAN 28 October 2011 09: 13 New
    • 6
    • 0
    Of course, it is necessary to restore, not in the way that it was, but as a country of one economic space and a joint defense system, only then c, w, and it will understand that the world is not unipolar and they should not dominate this world, and each country should go its own way using all that is advanced
  4. Graaf
    Graaf 28 October 2011 09: 42 New
    • -6
    • 0
    ... read the article with interest. I especially liked the phrase .... For the peoples of the USSR, divided during the largest geopolitical catastrophe twenty years ago, this applies the same way as for any other peoples in history.

    Strange, what kind of peoples of the USSR are we talking about? About those who plowed like a black man, and the secretaries of the regional committees, district committees, city committees, etc., lived happily ever after? About those nations whose destinies were broken like a mill, did they plow a terrible furrow in their fates? Mr. Chernyakhovsky writes an article in the spirit of the editorial of the newspaper Pravda before the next plenary session of the Central Committee of the CPSU for Secretary General Vladimir Putin? !
    My grandfather (German by nationality) was shot in Riga, right after the Red Army entered Latvia (or rather, when it was captured). My grandfather would have mills, a couple of cafes, three tenement houses, had their own big house in the center of old Riga. They shot him because he refused to give everything that my ancestors earned. Yes, I consider myself Russian. I have a lot of blood mixed in - Germans, Finns, Russians, Ukrainians. But I will never forget how my father, who built the country's nuclear shield, was simply humiliated and thrown out as an unnecessary rag from work, only because he had his own opinion on the technical issue. He remembered everything - that my mother was a German daughter, that he himself was from the Saratov backwoods. He graduated from high school, enrolled at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, grew up in a career and, just like a dumb official who does not understand engineering and technology, wrote a slander and father was thrown out of work. As he in recent years, the Soviet Union could not get a pension (having worked in uranium mines, where the working day was 4 hours a day). What's this? This is exactly what the "literary Negro" writes about Mr. Chernyakhovsky another editorial in the newspaper Pravda - another lie, nonsense and an attempt to please voters before the next election. I do not want to be the queen of the sea, I want to be the mistress of the OCEAN! Here is his keynote of the article. Forward EdRo, we will show you everything, but for this we need to be at the helm again! Dear Leonid Ilyich, he did not allow himself much of the things that our government allows itself today. Leonid Ilyich was modest in his requests. And our power of Mercedes and Swiss banks, can afford everything. And they frankly do not care ... about the dirt (people) that they have under their feet. What is not true? TRUTH!
    I know, they will begin to tell me what was good in the USSR. Yes it was, I will not say that there were many. Most importantly, just the people in the USSR, as now in Russia and in other CIS countries, live in the same ..
    1. Magadan 28 October 2011 10: 10 New
      • 5
      • 0
      Do not confuse God's gift with fried eggs. Then everyone was shot in a row, regardless of nationality, but exclusively on a "class basis."
  5. lokdok
    lokdok 28 October 2011 09: 58 New
    • 1
    • 0
    It is necessary to unite only with those with whom it is beneficial to us. For example, I do not see the benefits of uniting with Tajikistan, the market is small, there is no production, why do we need it ??? Or for example with western Ukraine? What for? Again Bandera in the forests to catch?
    In general, the best association is a union like a customs union — here we take economic advantages, but do not take political and military risks.
    1. Tyumen
      Tyumen 28 October 2011 19: 46 New
      • 0
      • 0
      Quote: lokdok
      the market is small, there is no production, why do we need it ???

      Then, that these are our neighbors. Good bye. And behind them is Afghanistan ...
  6. Magadan 28 October 2011 10: 13 New
    • 3
    • 0
    Unite economies, armies and on the foreign political front. Let domestic politics be better different in each country, depending on its national characteristics. Thus, it will be possible to unite in the country in spirit, but to dump it with other rulers, if that.
  7. zol
    zol 28 October 2011 13: 31 New
    • 4
    • 0
    In one, the author is right, the union is necessary, otherwise "democratize".
  8. 916-th
    916-th 28 October 2011 14: 37 New
    • 4
    • 0
    In fact, reintegration is a long step-by-step process that began almost immediately after the collapse of the USSR in the form of the creation of the CIS. Let it be a formal Commonwealth, but still Co-friendship, not Co-hostility.

    This was followed by various initiatives (for example, EurAsEC, OSCE, etc.), preparing the way for further progress. Now we are at the stage of creating the Customs Union. The next immediate goal is the Common Economic Space. A more distant prospect is the creation of the Eurasian Union.

    So, if someone hasn’t noticed, we’ve been riding in the same car for a long time. I would like to come to the terminal station called Eurasia, not Asiope :)
    1. Pole 28 October 2011 19: 43 New
      • 1
      • 0
      I agree with everything!
      But! Slowly everything is happening. And it seems a little that we are grabbing at everything and can’t finish anything, we can’t agree.
      We have the CIS, the SCO, the Union State with Belarus, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the Customs Union ... now the Eurasian Union ...
      Attempts are noticeable, under various prepositions and names. But everything stalls ....
      1. esaul 29 October 2011 07: 04 New
        • 2
        • 0
        pol, you didn’t catch something. 916 has already answered you why you need the CSTO SCOs and other unions. And quickly - only fleas breed! With such territories, such a collapse of previous years and with those "elites" who have eaten on sovereign grubs and are now afraid to lose their sovereignty (and the essence is a feeding trough), this process is not easy! And I am amazed at the focus of our current authorities on the result of integration! This is not my eulogy, but an assessment (to a greater extent, of course, as a layman!) Of what has been done in recent years. There is no need to rush the USSR and present-day Russia (very many, in this comparison, break down at the cry: "Prosralyvsepolymers !!!" and then it is useless to talk to them - it’s a pity to time) - different platforms, different geopolitical and economic conditions. And those positive changes that have occurred and are happening are not seen only by a blind or just an adversary.
  9. zczczc
    zczczc 28 October 2011 14: 55 New
    • 4
    • 0
    As for the fifth column - there is so much Mr. everywhere and in everything that perhaps a banal mass expulsion would bring less troubles from the outside than troubles from the inside from their activity. Itchy, boring here ...

    Tactically, you can do this - to count all and restrict in any rights, for example, not to leave the city. Wait until the world starts screaming about them. Determine who yells harder and send everyone there. You can even ticket a class 1. Donate blood to the gene before expulsion. sample so that they do not sneak back.
    1. Don
      Don 28 October 2011 15: 51 New
      • 1
      • 0
      Quote: zczczc
      Tactically, you can do this - to count all and restrict in any rights, for example, not to leave the city. Wait until the world starts screaming about them. Determine who yells harder and send everyone there. You can even ticket a class 1. Donate blood to the gene before expulsion. sample so that they do not sneak back.

      For them, this is not a punishment, but a ticket to paradise. They will be accepted there and patted over the ideals of shit democracy for their loyal service, and they will still give a pension. No, I think I should be sent somewhere to the north for heavy physical work.
      1. zczczc
        zczczc 28 October 2011 16: 36 New
        • 1
        • 0
        Don, the main thing is that for us this has a minimum of consequences. For Stalin, they’re still rolling out.
  10. LESHA pancake
    LESHA pancake 28 October 2011 15: 51 New
    • -2
    • 0
  11. gAMauzer
    gAMauzer 28 October 2011 16: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    And by what method, comrados, will you look for agents of the "fifth column"? Russian ranodom? wink

    And most importantly: how will you deal with these agents there (thumbs up)? "Who will put him in prison? He is a MONUMENT!"
  12. Magadan 28 October 2011 23: 57 New
    • 2
    • 0
    "And by what method, comrados, will you look for agents of the" fifth column "? Russian ranodom?"
    Need a site where people can merge info about specific nits. There is a lot of information about the activities of this or that bureaucrat in open sources, it is only necessary to compare the facts. Then you can write a brief history of the results of the activities of such a bureaucrat, put it wherever possible. Already at this stage, such a bureaucrat does not seem enough and attacks of animal fear are guaranteed to him.
    1. PSih2097 29 October 2011 00: 04 New
      • 1
      • 0
      They will turn to the committee members ...
      1. gAMauzer
        gAMauzer 29 October 2011 09: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        Magadan, so what next? You might think that the corresponding services themselves do not have this information. Still as it is - no sense.

        The example of DAMA, who found "underground" casinos using an iPhone, is indicative, in my opinion.
  13. Commoner
    Commoner 1 November 2011 12: 20 New
    • -1
    • 0
    Putin is rebuilding the Union ... Where am I?
    There is no worse truth mixed with fiction.