Really !!waisting time, its like you really care about your neighbour to have any talk,when you know what he did to you and how much you can trust him , you just build longer and taller fence arround him
This will show that the unilateral action of the KLA separatists in Pristina last february and the backing of the WEST has produced only more TENSION and more distrust.
Therefore this conflict is a result of another BLUNDER of George W. Bush and his EUrocrats.
I think Mike's analysis is pretty on the mark, except I'm not sure the real position of the US is in reality any different to what Mike says is the EU view, except in terms of bluster. It now appears to me that this current "supervised partition" was always the name of the game, just that since they did not want open partition, they could not say that. Running hot and cold on supervised independence, with the US leading the 'hot' charge in a way that would surely get a Serbian reaction, would seem part of that strategy. Note how Kissinger was in Moscow a couple of times throughout this, without us ever hearing what went on. Note that one of the first articles to appear in a journal of the US foreign policy crowd, Foreign Affairs, advocating independence, by Charles Kupchan in December 2005, also called for partition:
[link]
(DimTuc, 10 July 2008 19:14)
Dim Tuc,
I believe the partition option should be on the table, albeit at a last resort. The current situation that exists at present which sees Pristina in international, diplomatic, economic and legal limbo is simply not sustainable in the long term, therefore a solution must be reached. In order for that elusive settlement to be realised, a compromise must be sought between the two sides, either by reincorporating Kosovo back into Serbia (which looks unlikely) or partition.
If the partition option is the one being pursued than it needs to be looked at carefully.
At present Belgrade has defacto control over Kosovska Mitrovica, Strpce and the enclaves. Pristina controls (under UN/NATO supervision) the rest. The sticking point of coure will be the holy sites, many of which lie outside of Belgrade's remit. This is where Montenegro could come in to play.
Since many of Serbia's important holy sites lie in the west of Kosovo (Pec & Decani) Montenegro could annex this part of the province thereby neutralising any Serb anger as Podgorica assumes control over the holy sites.
Serbia takes the north and enclaves while Albania takes the rest - Pristina and Prizren. A 3 way split could work. Any of the holy sites outside of Podgorica's and Belgrade's control, e.g. Prizren Bishopric should come under international supervision with consultations from Belgrade and Tirana.
Serbia should now take the initiative by talking direct to Tirana to find a way out of the impasse. If Belgrade can convince Tirana of this plan, which I think it could be very likely, Podgorica could then be consulted which could pave the way for overall agreement and settlement to be tabled at the final talks.
Other than that, I cant see any other positive outcome.
"...bearing in mind the essential disappearance of internal borders..".
Mmm. I thought one couldn't join the EU when there remained outstanding territorial disputes?
Then again (bending the rules as they do for the 'right' countries), they let Estonia in despite the non-agreement with Russia over part of its border - an agreement which has still not been ratified by the Estonian parliament.
As for the 'essential dissapearance of borders', exactly how is that going to function in reality? Clearly this guy is just engaging in wishful thinking.
I think you all miss a fundamental point: The EU countries can not imagine Kosovo to enter the Union anytime soon.
Kosovo Albanian immigrants has become a pariah caste in many EU countries, and an excuse for kicking them out is badly needed. An independent and more or less stable Kosovo is exactly that excuse.
At the same time, many EU countries are eager to see Serbia becoming a full member. Hence, a separation of Kosovo and Serbia is absolutely necessary.
Russia has also strong incentives for supporting Serbia's EU entrance. As the Russians know that they will have to cooperate closer with the EU, and vice versa, Serbia has the credibility to mediate a good agreement, and may in many ways represent Russia's voice, and ears, in the EU.
Kosovo, however, has nothing but mafia and Islamism to offer - so the EU will place their EULEX there, present a some somewhat easier visaregime, give some money, and create the illusion of integration.
Not only will Kosovo Albanians have to swallow the bitter pill of zero economic improvement and no EU entrance, they will have to look how their Serb neighbours will access the EU and grow richer.
Remember my "delusional" politicans are in Washington, not Belgrade. I only lived there for 5 months :) However, if you did mean Washington, then I sincerely hope they relinquish any thoughts of "reigning over Albanians of Kosov[o]". Lord knows I don't want this to be the next problem for us in 20 years.
However, I would be curious to see how far the next US administration would go in supporting a confederated Kosovo. At least from my viewpoint, allowing Belgrade access to the well established Serb sectors will diminish the Kostunica/Nikolic types who are still pushing the "Kosovo from Leopsavic to Dragas" policy. While I certainly understand the way of thinking, many would be just as happy having a say over what they have now, which is the north, and access to the enclaves and monasteries. In the grand scheme of things, this is pocket change to Washington and the EU.
I think Mike's analysis is pretty on the mark, except I'm not sure the real position of the US is in reality any different to what Mike says is the EU view, except in terms of bluster. It now appears to me that this current "supervised partition" was always the name of the game, just that since they did not want open partition, they could not say that. Running hot and cold on supervised independence, with the US leading the 'hot' charge in a way that would surely get a Serbian reaction, would seem part of that strategy. Note how Kissinger was in Moscow a couple of times throughout this, without us ever hearing what went on. Note that one of the first articles to appear in a journal of the US foreign policy crowd, Foreign Affairs, advocating independence, by Charles Kupchan in December 2005, also called for partition:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101facomment84603-p0/charles-a-kupchan/independence-for-kosovo.html
Mike I don't think it will be that easy. For us Albanians entering the EU with or without Serbia recognizing Kosova is not a problem at all. We could care less what Serbia thinks or does. We are out of Serbia's reach. Rest assured however that there are gonna be huge problems in Serbia once Kosova enters the EU as a separate state ( whether it is mentioned specifically or not. We for sure know that it will not say Kosova is part of Serbia or Serbia which includes Kosova) as it will happen, even if somehow Serbia and Kosova enter at the same time. Rest assured that the Nikolic and Kostunica types are gonna cause lots of trouble and stir havoc in Serbia when that happens.
Also a confederate type in Kosova was within full reach and could have been achieved without any major problems and quite easily. I think you are wrong when you accuse the US for not allowing it. I think the only party to blame for that is Serbia. Somehow your delusional politicians thought and still think that it is possible to reign over Albanians in Kosova.
Dobbins is correct in assuming Pristina is going to continue to oppose any efforts to partition the province, seeing as how in the end they're just as bad as some factions in BG in trying to lord over territory they can't control.
However I think he's assuming EU strategies are identical to US in that they too will continue to oppose confederal, or parallel structures. If Serbia Proper makes good on its commitment to fulfilling all outstanding obligations to the Hague (or just finding Mladic which seems to be key), many key EU members which have been eager to see Serbia in the EU will now show incredible flexibility in making that happen. If that means realizing Serbian de facto control over K Serb sectors, they may very well support such structures at the official level if it ultimately means getting all of Serbia (Kosovo included) into the EU. Such suppport hardly affects institutions in Pristina.
Serbia won't need to recognize Kosovo's independence, but the idea is to get the region into the EU with the hope that the elimination of formal borders won't make the division of two political authorities (BG and Pristina) that pronounced.
...notice how he himself calls Kosovo a PROVINCE!!! oops!!
KOSOVO JE SRBIJA
(Obilic, 10 July 2008 14:17)
B92,
See that sooner or later the victim of your misinformation and misquotation will your own compatriots.
So instead of Province for anti-independence audience and State for pro-independence audience is better to use just Kosovo instead. Both sides will be happy and you will not have fake “happiness”.
Oblic, Kosovo is Serbia's province, everyone knows this. Some nations just want to pretend it isn't so. Why do you think that EULUX(?) is not in force in Kosovo yet? Because they do not have approve, that's why. US/EU is trying to force this little Kosovo venture at any cost. Ignoring sovereign laws, creating ethnic tensions, increasing instability, etc., is obviously of no importance to the power masters, as long as they get things there way. The Albanians have fought for Kosovo for centuries, what makes anyone think the Serbs won't either? This is a land that belongs to two distinct ethnic groups, and should have been shared. Not made one to rule over the other. The right thing to do would have been to place half Serbs and half Albanians in Pristina, overseen by the West - since they wanted to stick their noses in. Favoring one side was a disasterous choice. Western US-led democracy at its finest on display.
" Dobbins believes that the international community and the government in Priština will oppose any attempts at a formal partition of the province, but that they will not try to remove autonomous structures in the province through force. "
notice how he himself calls Kosovo a PROVINCE!!! oops!!
" Dobbins believes that the international community and the government in Priština will oppose any attempts at a formal partition of the province, but that they will not try to remove autonomous structures in the province through force. "
notice how he himself calls Kosovo a PROVINCE!!! oops!!
...notice how he himself calls Kosovo a PROVINCE!!! oops!!
KOSOVO JE SRBIJA
(Obilic, 10 July 2008 14:17)
B92,
See that sooner or later the victim of your misinformation and misquotation will your own compatriots.
So instead of Province for anti-independence audience and State for pro-independence audience is better to use just Kosovo instead. Both sides will be happy and you will not have fake “happiness”.
Oblic, Kosovo is Serbia's province, everyone knows this. Some nations just want to pretend it isn't so. Why do you think that EULUX(?) is not in force in Kosovo yet? Because they do not have approve, that's why. US/EU is trying to force this little Kosovo venture at any cost. Ignoring sovereign laws, creating ethnic tensions, increasing instability, etc., is obviously of no importance to the power masters, as long as they get things there way. The Albanians have fought for Kosovo for centuries, what makes anyone think the Serbs won't either? This is a land that belongs to two distinct ethnic groups, and should have been shared. Not made one to rule over the other. The right thing to do would have been to place half Serbs and half Albanians in Pristina, overseen by the West - since they wanted to stick their noses in. Favoring one side was a disasterous choice. Western US-led democracy at its finest on display.
Mike I don't think it will be that easy. For us Albanians entering the EU with or without Serbia recognizing Kosova is not a problem at all. We could care less what Serbia thinks or does. We are out of Serbia's reach. Rest assured however that there are gonna be huge problems in Serbia once Kosova enters the EU as a separate state ( whether it is mentioned specifically or not. We for sure know that it will not say Kosova is part of Serbia or Serbia which includes Kosova) as it will happen, even if somehow Serbia and Kosova enter at the same time. Rest assured that the Nikolic and Kostunica types are gonna cause lots of trouble and stir havoc in Serbia when that happens.
Also a confederate type in Kosova was within full reach and could have been achieved without any major problems and quite easily. I think you are wrong when you accuse the US for not allowing it. I think the only party to blame for that is Serbia. Somehow your delusional politicians thought and still think that it is possible to reign over Albanians in Kosova.
I think you all miss a fundamental point: The EU countries can not imagine Kosovo to enter the Union anytime soon.
Kosovo Albanian immigrants has become a pariah caste in many EU countries, and an excuse for kicking them out is badly needed. An independent and more or less stable Kosovo is exactly that excuse.
At the same time, many EU countries are eager to see Serbia becoming a full member. Hence, a separation of Kosovo and Serbia is absolutely necessary.
Russia has also strong incentives for supporting Serbia's EU entrance. As the Russians know that they will have to cooperate closer with the EU, and vice versa, Serbia has the credibility to mediate a good agreement, and may in many ways represent Russia's voice, and ears, in the EU.
Kosovo, however, has nothing but mafia and Islamism to offer - so the EU will place their EULEX there, present a some somewhat easier visaregime, give some money, and create the illusion of integration.
Not only will Kosovo Albanians have to swallow the bitter pill of zero economic improvement and no EU entrance, they will have to look how their Serb neighbours will access the EU and grow richer.
Dobbins is correct in assuming Pristina is going to continue to oppose any efforts to partition the province, seeing as how in the end they're just as bad as some factions in BG in trying to lord over territory they can't control.
However I think he's assuming EU strategies are identical to US in that they too will continue to oppose confederal, or parallel structures. If Serbia Proper makes good on its commitment to fulfilling all outstanding obligations to the Hague (or just finding Mladic which seems to be key), many key EU members which have been eager to see Serbia in the EU will now show incredible flexibility in making that happen. If that means realizing Serbian de facto control over K Serb sectors, they may very well support such structures at the official level if it ultimately means getting all of Serbia (Kosovo included) into the EU. Such suppport hardly affects institutions in Pristina.
Serbia won't need to recognize Kosovo's independence, but the idea is to get the region into the EU with the hope that the elimination of formal borders won't make the division of two political authorities (BG and Pristina) that pronounced.
I think Mike's analysis is pretty on the mark, except I'm not sure the real position of the US is in reality any different to what Mike says is the EU view, except in terms of bluster. It now appears to me that this current "supervised partition" was always the name of the game, just that since they did not want open partition, they could not say that. Running hot and cold on supervised independence, with the US leading the 'hot' charge in a way that would surely get a Serbian reaction, would seem part of that strategy. Note how Kissinger was in Moscow a couple of times throughout this, without us ever hearing what went on. Note that one of the first articles to appear in a journal of the US foreign policy crowd, Foreign Affairs, advocating independence, by Charles Kupchan in December 2005, also called for partition:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101facomment84603-p0/charles-a-kupchan/independence-for-kosovo.html
"...bearing in mind the essential disappearance of internal borders..".
Mmm. I thought one couldn't join the EU when there remained outstanding territorial disputes?
Then again (bending the rules as they do for the 'right' countries), they let Estonia in despite the non-agreement with Russia over part of its border - an agreement which has still not been ratified by the Estonian parliament.
As for the 'essential dissapearance of borders', exactly how is that going to function in reality? Clearly this guy is just engaging in wishful thinking.
Remember my "delusional" politicans are in Washington, not Belgrade. I only lived there for 5 months :) However, if you did mean Washington, then I sincerely hope they relinquish any thoughts of "reigning over Albanians of Kosov[o]". Lord knows I don't want this to be the next problem for us in 20 years.
However, I would be curious to see how far the next US administration would go in supporting a confederated Kosovo. At least from my viewpoint, allowing Belgrade access to the well established Serb sectors will diminish the Kostunica/Nikolic types who are still pushing the "Kosovo from Leopsavic to Dragas" policy. While I certainly understand the way of thinking, many would be just as happy having a say over what they have now, which is the north, and access to the enclaves and monasteries. In the grand scheme of things, this is pocket change to Washington and the EU.
This will show that the unilateral action of the KLA separatists in Pristina last february and the backing of the WEST has produced only more TENSION and more distrust.
Therefore this conflict is a result of another BLUNDER of George W. Bush and his EUrocrats.
I think Mike's analysis is pretty on the mark, except I'm not sure the real position of the US is in reality any different to what Mike says is the EU view, except in terms of bluster. It now appears to me that this current "supervised partition" was always the name of the game, just that since they did not want open partition, they could not say that. Running hot and cold on supervised independence, with the US leading the 'hot' charge in a way that would surely get a Serbian reaction, would seem part of that strategy. Note how Kissinger was in Moscow a couple of times throughout this, without us ever hearing what went on. Note that one of the first articles to appear in a journal of the US foreign policy crowd, Foreign Affairs, advocating independence, by Charles Kupchan in December 2005, also called for partition:
[link]
(DimTuc, 10 July 2008 19:14)
Dim Tuc,
I believe the partition option should be on the table, albeit at a last resort. The current situation that exists at present which sees Pristina in international, diplomatic, economic and legal limbo is simply not sustainable in the long term, therefore a solution must be reached. In order for that elusive settlement to be realised, a compromise must be sought between the two sides, either by reincorporating Kosovo back into Serbia (which looks unlikely) or partition.
If the partition option is the one being pursued than it needs to be looked at carefully.
At present Belgrade has defacto control over Kosovska Mitrovica, Strpce and the enclaves. Pristina controls (under UN/NATO supervision) the rest. The sticking point of coure will be the holy sites, many of which lie outside of Belgrade's remit. This is where Montenegro could come in to play.
Since many of Serbia's important holy sites lie in the west of Kosovo (Pec & Decani) Montenegro could annex this part of the province thereby neutralising any Serb anger as Podgorica assumes control over the holy sites.
Serbia takes the north and enclaves while Albania takes the rest - Pristina and Prizren. A 3 way split could work. Any of the holy sites outside of Podgorica's and Belgrade's control, e.g. Prizren Bishopric should come under international supervision with consultations from Belgrade and Tirana.
Serbia should now take the initiative by talking direct to Tirana to find a way out of the impasse. If Belgrade can convince Tirana of this plan, which I think it could be very likely, Podgorica could then be consulted which could pave the way for overall agreement and settlement to be tabled at the final talks.
Other than that, I cant see any other positive outcome.
Really !!waisting time, its like you really care about your neighbour to have any talk,when you know what he did to you and how much you can trust him , you just build longer and taller fence arround him
...notice how he himself calls Kosovo a PROVINCE!!! oops!!
KOSOVO JE SRBIJA
(Obilic, 10 July 2008 14:17)
B92,
See that sooner or later the victim of your misinformation and misquotation will your own compatriots.
So instead of Province for anti-independence audience and State for pro-independence audience is better to use just Kosovo instead. Both sides will be happy and you will not have fake “happiness”.
" Dobbins believes that the international community and the government in Priština will oppose any attempts at a formal partition of the province, but that they will not try to remove autonomous structures in the province through force. "
notice how he himself calls Kosovo a PROVINCE!!! oops!!
Oblic, Kosovo is Serbia's province, everyone knows this. Some nations just want to pretend it isn't so. Why do you think that EULUX(?) is not in force in Kosovo yet? Because they do not have approve, that's why. US/EU is trying to force this little Kosovo venture at any cost. Ignoring sovereign laws, creating ethnic tensions, increasing instability, etc., is obviously of no importance to the power masters, as long as they get things there way. The Albanians have fought for Kosovo for centuries, what makes anyone think the Serbs won't either? This is a land that belongs to two distinct ethnic groups, and should have been shared. Not made one to rule over the other. The right thing to do would have been to place half Serbs and half Albanians in Pristina, overseen by the West - since they wanted to stick their noses in. Favoring one side was a disasterous choice. Western US-led democracy at its finest on display.
Mike I don't think it will be that easy. For us Albanians entering the EU with or without Serbia recognizing Kosova is not a problem at all. We could care less what Serbia thinks or does. We are out of Serbia's reach. Rest assured however that there are gonna be huge problems in Serbia once Kosova enters the EU as a separate state ( whether it is mentioned specifically or not. We for sure know that it will not say Kosova is part of Serbia or Serbia which includes Kosova) as it will happen, even if somehow Serbia and Kosova enter at the same time. Rest assured that the Nikolic and Kostunica types are gonna cause lots of trouble and stir havoc in Serbia when that happens.
Also a confederate type in Kosova was within full reach and could have been achieved without any major problems and quite easily. I think you are wrong when you accuse the US for not allowing it. I think the only party to blame for that is Serbia. Somehow your delusional politicians thought and still think that it is possible to reign over Albanians in Kosova.
Dobbins is correct in assuming Pristina is going to continue to oppose any efforts to partition the province, seeing as how in the end they're just as bad as some factions in BG in trying to lord over territory they can't control.
However I think he's assuming EU strategies are identical to US in that they too will continue to oppose confederal, or parallel structures. If Serbia Proper makes good on its commitment to fulfilling all outstanding obligations to the Hague (or just finding Mladic which seems to be key), many key EU members which have been eager to see Serbia in the EU will now show incredible flexibility in making that happen. If that means realizing Serbian de facto control over K Serb sectors, they may very well support such structures at the official level if it ultimately means getting all of Serbia (Kosovo included) into the EU. Such suppport hardly affects institutions in Pristina.
Serbia won't need to recognize Kosovo's independence, but the idea is to get the region into the EU with the hope that the elimination of formal borders won't make the division of two political authorities (BG and Pristina) that pronounced.
I think you all miss a fundamental point: The EU countries can not imagine Kosovo to enter the Union anytime soon.
Kosovo Albanian immigrants has become a pariah caste in many EU countries, and an excuse for kicking them out is badly needed. An independent and more or less stable Kosovo is exactly that excuse.
At the same time, many EU countries are eager to see Serbia becoming a full member. Hence, a separation of Kosovo and Serbia is absolutely necessary.
Russia has also strong incentives for supporting Serbia's EU entrance. As the Russians know that they will have to cooperate closer with the EU, and vice versa, Serbia has the credibility to mediate a good agreement, and may in many ways represent Russia's voice, and ears, in the EU.
Kosovo, however, has nothing but mafia and Islamism to offer - so the EU will place their EULEX there, present a some somewhat easier visaregime, give some money, and create the illusion of integration.
Not only will Kosovo Albanians have to swallow the bitter pill of zero economic improvement and no EU entrance, they will have to look how their Serb neighbours will access the EU and grow richer.
Remember my "delusional" politicans are in Washington, not Belgrade. I only lived there for 5 months :) However, if you did mean Washington, then I sincerely hope they relinquish any thoughts of "reigning over Albanians of Kosov[o]". Lord knows I don't want this to be the next problem for us in 20 years.
However, I would be curious to see how far the next US administration would go in supporting a confederated Kosovo. At least from my viewpoint, allowing Belgrade access to the well established Serb sectors will diminish the Kostunica/Nikolic types who are still pushing the "Kosovo from Leopsavic to Dragas" policy. While I certainly understand the way of thinking, many would be just as happy having a say over what they have now, which is the north, and access to the enclaves and monasteries. In the grand scheme of things, this is pocket change to Washington and the EU.
I think Mike's analysis is pretty on the mark, except I'm not sure the real position of the US is in reality any different to what Mike says is the EU view, except in terms of bluster. It now appears to me that this current "supervised partition" was always the name of the game, just that since they did not want open partition, they could not say that. Running hot and cold on supervised independence, with the US leading the 'hot' charge in a way that would surely get a Serbian reaction, would seem part of that strategy. Note how Kissinger was in Moscow a couple of times throughout this, without us ever hearing what went on. Note that one of the first articles to appear in a journal of the US foreign policy crowd, Foreign Affairs, advocating independence, by Charles Kupchan in December 2005, also called for partition:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101facomment84603-p0/charles-a-kupchan/independence-for-kosovo.html
"...bearing in mind the essential disappearance of internal borders..".
Mmm. I thought one couldn't join the EU when there remained outstanding territorial disputes?
Then again (bending the rules as they do for the 'right' countries), they let Estonia in despite the non-agreement with Russia over part of its border - an agreement which has still not been ratified by the Estonian parliament.
As for the 'essential dissapearance of borders', exactly how is that going to function in reality? Clearly this guy is just engaging in wishful thinking.
I think Mike's analysis is pretty on the mark, except I'm not sure the real position of the US is in reality any different to what Mike says is the EU view, except in terms of bluster. It now appears to me that this current "supervised partition" was always the name of the game, just that since they did not want open partition, they could not say that. Running hot and cold on supervised independence, with the US leading the 'hot' charge in a way that would surely get a Serbian reaction, would seem part of that strategy. Note how Kissinger was in Moscow a couple of times throughout this, without us ever hearing what went on. Note that one of the first articles to appear in a journal of the US foreign policy crowd, Foreign Affairs, advocating independence, by Charles Kupchan in December 2005, also called for partition:
[link]
(DimTuc, 10 July 2008 19:14)
Dim Tuc,
I believe the partition option should be on the table, albeit at a last resort. The current situation that exists at present which sees Pristina in international, diplomatic, economic and legal limbo is simply not sustainable in the long term, therefore a solution must be reached. In order for that elusive settlement to be realised, a compromise must be sought between the two sides, either by reincorporating Kosovo back into Serbia (which looks unlikely) or partition.
If the partition option is the one being pursued than it needs to be looked at carefully.
At present Belgrade has defacto control over Kosovska Mitrovica, Strpce and the enclaves. Pristina controls (under UN/NATO supervision) the rest. The sticking point of coure will be the holy sites, many of which lie outside of Belgrade's remit. This is where Montenegro could come in to play.
Since many of Serbia's important holy sites lie in the west of Kosovo (Pec & Decani) Montenegro could annex this part of the province thereby neutralising any Serb anger as Podgorica assumes control over the holy sites.
Serbia takes the north and enclaves while Albania takes the rest - Pristina and Prizren. A 3 way split could work. Any of the holy sites outside of Podgorica's and Belgrade's control, e.g. Prizren Bishopric should come under international supervision with consultations from Belgrade and Tirana.
Serbia should now take the initiative by talking direct to Tirana to find a way out of the impasse. If Belgrade can convince Tirana of this plan, which I think it could be very likely, Podgorica could then be consulted which could pave the way for overall agreement and settlement to be tabled at the final talks.
Other than that, I cant see any other positive outcome.
This will show that the unilateral action of the KLA separatists in Pristina last february and the backing of the WEST has produced only more TENSION and more distrust.
Therefore this conflict is a result of another BLUNDER of George W. Bush and his EUrocrats.
Really !!waisting time, its like you really care about your neighbour to have any talk,when you know what he did to you and how much you can trust him , you just build longer and taller fence arround him
IMAGE SOURCE
12 Komentari
Sortiraj po: