Way to Russia Community and Forum

If you have a question or want to help someone, please, go to
Way to Russia Forum on our Facebook page.
 
We also invite you to join our Facebook community, where you can meet other travelers and read interesting news on topics ranging from visa regulations to culture and music.
 

 

We are currently moving the old forum to Facebook, so what you see below functions as an archive.

If you have a question, please, post it on
Way to Russia Facebook Discussions Page

FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Chat   Log in

Vladimir Putin: Love him or hate him? Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next

Way to Russia Talk Lounge Forum Index -> Russian People

Author	Message
Only Frequent Guest Joined: 05 Mar 2005 Posts: 48	Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:17 pm    Post subject: Mogsfan, I'll get back to your reply to my earlierpost more thoroughly later, then - and if - I have time (and I will try to find some) But for now, could you just tell me one thing? Could your idea of fair government be summarised by "the only honest government is one that once bought, stays bought"?
Back to top
traceymill Lounge Lizard Joined: 05 Apr 2005 Posts: 84 Location: chicago il	Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 2:07 am    Post subject: there is a very good book that has tons of interesting information on this subject called "Kremlin Rising-Vladimir Putin's Russia and the end of Revolution" by Peter baker and Susan Glasser. check it out if you want!!!
Back to top
init6 WayToRussified Joined: 01 Jun 2005 Posts: 363 Location: Москва, Россия	Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 7:14 pm    Post subject: While I've obviously first the 10 pages of this, I have to weigh in (surprisingly for me ) on the side of Mogsfan. Yeltsin's government was especially complicit in allowing the criminal dealings that created some of the oligarchs (not all, but some). They did buy state-owned enterprise for far less than it was worth, and they made most of the money that they used to steal these enterprises by either criminal dealings in the black markets or by skimming off Party dues and only paying the minimum to the Kremlin! It should be plainly obvious by now that I am a staunch opponent of an unfettered "free market," but in a capitalist scenario the least one can do is conduct dealings in an honest, ethical, legal manner. It is, in my opinion (and I'm not economist, nor do I want to be), an unfortunate side effect of trying to jump straight from a command economy, a la USSR State Capitalism (they were never socialist - the state owned the means of production, not the workers) to "Global Free Market" Capitalism. I hold my tongue now.
Back to top
e VIP Joined: 23 Apr 2005 Posts: 654	Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:15 pm    Post subject: Quote: While I've obviously first the 10 pages of this, I have to weigh in (surprisingly for me Razz ) on the side of Mogsfan. Yeltsin's government was especially complicit in allowing the criminal dealings that created some of the oligarchs (not all, but some). They did buy state-owned enterprise for far less than it was worth, and they made most of the money that they used to steal these enterprises by either criminal dealings in the black markets or by skimming off Party dues and only paying the minimum to the Kremlin! You are more right than Mogs but the both of you are wrong in this regard. Gorby and Eltsin completely deregulated the markets and loosened state control of the economy. Happens everywhere and anywhere in any country. The problem was that the government failed to implement institutions, safeguards, and ethics to prevent or at least limit crime, corruption and un-ethical behavior which led to that situation in Russia. The goverment indirectly benefited and profited from this environment. Directly, it had nothing to do with it other than failing to enforce the law or even creating law and institutions in the first place. At least until the IMF, World Bank, and the Western powers started to jump on Eltsin to do somethng about it. You could argue that Eltsin regulated the markets so that the government could corner it. Again false. The IMF, World Bank and other financial institutions pushed the Russian government into this position as part of its conditions for loans and aid (i.e.: the only way we're gonna give you money is if you have a total lassiez-faire economy). This isn't unique to Russia: it does this anywhere and everywhere and its one of the reasons how and why the Asian, Argentine and Brazilian financial crisis came about. A similar example: the USA in the early 19th and 20th century. The market was completely lassiez-faire and a similar situation developed (Robber-barons). It was only after the 1929 crash and the election of Roosevelt, did the US finally implement safegaurds and institutions to collar the corruption, crime, and unethical behavior that was responsible for the 1929 crash. Ironically Roosevelt came under fire in the same ways that Putin is being under fire now for his attempts to implement state controls on the market to coral corrpution and excess. Mogs arguement --an incorrect one at that, is that he belives that this is happening under Putin and that Putin is in cahoots in all of this which is false. Putin's campagin promise was that he was to go after the oligrachs and return state control to the markets and he certainly has in that regard. Its just that the western herd mentality that Russian leadership is bad. The western media and some political circles have never really liked any Russian leader other than Gorby and Elstin (initially)
Back to top
Vic Talk Show Host Joined: 29 Mar 2005 Posts: 298 Location: Moscow, Russian Federation	Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 6:21 pm    Post subject: traceymill wrote: there is a very good book that has tons of interesting information on this subject called "Kremlin Rising-Vladimir Putin's Russia and the end of Revolution" by Peter baker and Susan Glasser. check it out if you want!!! 2 Days ago I heard the author talk on some radio show. She seemed fairly open minded and not like most U.S. bullshit media trying to influence people. However her opinion of the collapse of the Soviet Union is quite "American". She was so suprised that when she came here people didn't think that the collapse of the soviet union meant a "Happy, free, prosperous Russia" as they had been taught in the west. Vic P.S. If Putin chooses to run in 2012, he has my vote.
Back to top
Mogsfan WayToRussified Joined: 03 Nov 2004 Posts: 490	Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:37 pm    Post subject: You read this, too, Vic?: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060601723.html
Back to top
init6 WayToRussified Joined: 01 Jun 2005 Posts: 363 Location: Москва, Россия	Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:09 pm    Post subject: While I don't think Putin is right for a progressive, stable, multi-party nation, especially one which has been, throughout most of its existence, a preeminent world power, is there a better choice? I don't think so. Putin is indeed a patriotic Russian and while many of his decisions have cost hundreds of lives (Moscow Theater, Beslan) and I find his repression of the media appalling, I can't see any other party running a better choice for leader of the Russian Federation. I also realize how easy it is to weigh in my opinion from my comfy little gig in Florida, but I do at least try to follow Russian politics and I do care! Simply saying that Putin is "rolling back democracy" is no reason to change one's opinion on Putin and I dislike how easily the word "democracy" is tossed around, like it's some sort of sacrosanct ideal that can never be criticized. So-called democracy is a failure, pure and simple. Do I have an alternative, a better solution? Not particularly, and I'm not saying that democracy is a bad thing. But the fact remains, most people shouldn't vote. They have no idea about the issues, and vote on "gut feeling" which is utterly ridiculous. It's exactly how Bush got elected. I'm for a free media (as a prospective journalist, naturally) and a free society, but Russia's peculiar issues make it impossible to be a carbon copy of any western nation. I'm hardly pretending like I know the answers to Russia's problems, or even America's for that matter (I can get us on the right track, at least! )! But Condi Rice and Bushy expressing "concern" over the "rollback of democracy" in Russia is not going to change my mind; nor anyone else's, for the most part.
Back to top
e VIP Joined: 23 Apr 2005 Posts: 654	Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 2:56 am    Post subject: I agree with Casey how democracy is freely tossed around. Remember, those Iraqis, and Iranians, and other native peoples NEED democracy too and if they don't want it then we have to force it down their throats one way or another by force (Iraq, Serbia, etc) or by "peaceful" methods: WTO, IMF, World Bank. Its ironic too. When Putin is elected by his own people to clean up the shit that Eltsin left behind its "rolling back democracy". If he doesn't do anything like Eltsin did, he's seen as a bad bad man that can't sustain democracy. Get rid of him and put someone else in. You're right Vic. Its total bullshit. BTW Casey, I don't think he's responsible for Beslan and the theatre siege. The Government is just obviously inexperienced in dealing with such things. How often did hostage situations and terrorist attacks happen in the Soviet Union? Especially with extremeley psycho terrorists that they're dealing with.
Back to top
Roller Just Starting Joined: 01 Jun 2005 Posts: 8 Location: South Australia	Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 5:13 am    Post subject: Mogsfan, surely if Russia is so full of corrupt oligarchs then it's all the more reason for a president like Putin, who is determined enough to deal with them? I see no difference between oligarchs and people like Rupert Muroch etc. The US isn't as sparkling clean as many people claim.
Back to top
Mogsfan WayToRussified Joined: 03 Nov 2004 Posts: 490	Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 6:13 pm    Post subject: I don't know if there is a better choice. I'd have to be fully fluent in Russian and have access to all or most of the Russian politicians' platforms and various sources providing additional info. But, Putin *seems* to be a bad or detrimental choice thus far. Despite these supposed claims that he is benefiting Russia and acting appropriately. These, of course, do indicate according to all the sources of info out there to be bogus claims. You just have a lot of close-minded fools out there that want to believe Putin is doing the right thing. They will only believe this and nothing else. If you check out various sources, you should find that Putin, his party and government often use the media to accomplish his goals and block opponents from their own pursuits. He has re-established state control over the media. The oligarchs in his pocket had majority control over media companies. Democracy is indeed flawed. You could even argue it doesn't work or doesn't work as neatly as most Westerners want to believe. There are too many obstacles and problems including people's nature, greed, power-hungry corrupt politicians and the most critical, the paradox: democracy allows the actual ideal or system to be overthrown or manipulated by virtue of it's participatory essence. Someone anti-democratic can use the system to overthrow it or manipulate it to use it when convenient. The other major problem is that, too often, democracies are controlled by a small number of people who also hold a monopoly on big business or corporate interests. The entire lot of these people are often corrupt and basically "steal" (more or less) from the citizens. You fall into the typical trap of most voters recommending to 'vote for the lesser evil' and tolerate particular political leaders. But, you make another mistake by being heavily critical of Bush but then lenient on Putin. I don't think one can be both. I think it is dangerous and illogical to automatically side against any positions of Bush because you don't like him or his policies. I dislike him and his government but if his government states that a certain other government is corrupt or undemocratic, I won't automatically disagree. However, yeah, I do take what they say with a grain of salt. The U.S. government is definitely not an example any government should take on how to implement democracy but there are principles and ideals that can still be utilized. init6 wrote: While I don't think Putin is right for a progressive, stable, multi-party nation, especially one which has been, throughout most of its existence, a preeminent world power, is there a better choice? I don't think so. Putin is indeed a patriotic Russian and while many of his decisions have cost hundreds of lives (Moscow Theater, Beslan) and I find his repression of the media appalling, I can't see any other party running a better choice for leader of the Russian Federation. I also realize how easy it is to weigh in my opinion from my comfy little gig in Florida, but I do at least try to follow Russian politics and I do care! Simply saying that Putin is "rolling back democracy" is no reason to change one's opinion on Putin and I dislike how easily the word "democracy" is tossed around, like it's some sort of sacrosanct ideal that can never be criticized. So-called democracy is a failure, pure and simple. Do I have an alternative, a better solution? Not particularly, and I'm not saying that democracy is a bad thing. But the fact remains, most people shouldn't vote. They have no idea about the issues, and vote on "gut feeling" which is utterly ridiculous. It's exactly how Bush got elected. I'm for a free media (as a prospective journalist, naturally) and a free society, but Russia's peculiar issues make it impossible to be a carbon copy of any western nation. I'm hardly pretending like I know the answers to Russia's problems, or even America's for that matter (I can get us on the right track, at least! )! But Condi Rice and Bushy expressing "concern" over the "rollback of democracy" in Russia is not going to change my mind; nor anyone else's, for the most part. Last edited by Mogsfan on Sat Jun 11, 2005 6:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
Mogsfan WayToRussified Joined: 03 Nov 2004 Posts: 490	Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 6:26 pm    Post subject: Roller, how long have they been around?!? Since Yeltsin's dismantling of the command system, right? Only now, Putin is supposedly doing things? Don't you think it's peculiar he only really initiates all this after a handful of these oligarchs have had contacts WITH OTHER POLITICIANS not associated with his United Russia party? It smacks with conflicts of interest and flags should be going off! He still has dealings with Abramovich. Why isn't he arrested, also? If you read all the possible sources including that book that was referenced here, I think it's safe to suggest that Putin utilized the oligarchs when it was convenient for him but when they fell out of his immediate control, he had them charged. I never claimed the US was clean. Not at all. Roller wrote: Mogsfan, surely if Russia is so full of corrupt oligarchs then it's all the more reason for a president like Putin, who is determined enough to deal with them? I see no difference between oligarchs and people like Rupert Muroch etc. The US isn't as sparkling clean as many people claim.
Back to top
init6 WayToRussified Joined: 01 Jun 2005 Posts: 363 Location: Москва, Россия	Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 9:00 pm    Post subject: e wrote: ...by force (Iraq, Serbia, etc) or by "peaceful" methods: WTO, IMF, World Bank. BTW Casey, I don't think he's responsible for Beslan and the theatre siege. The Government is just obviously inexperienced in dealing with such things. How often did hostage situations and terrorist attacks happen in the Soviet Union? Especially with extremeley psycho terrorists that they're dealing with. First point - exactly. WTO, IMF, etc. are absolutely horrid institutions, which have caused tghe economic demise of so many formerly-sovereign nations while funneling billions (trillions?) into the pockets of corrupt filth operating under the guise of "modern global capitalism." Call me a red, but it's immoral, illegal and just plain wrong. Check this out - Confessions of an Economic Hitman and http://www.exile.ru/2005-May-20/collapse.html Second point - I can accept that explanation. I must confess, I still think of Russian security forces from the Soviet days, when any "enthusiast" of the Eastern Bloc lived in fear and awe of Alfa Group and Spetsnaz! Even in the theater siege, the breach and takedown went smoothly. But why wasn't the antidote to the gas released quickly, in order to save these peoples' lives? That's what I want to know! In Beslan, I can blame fully 90% of the casualties on the terrorists, and those Wahabi psychos need to be eliminated - the sooner the better. But why is OMON and conscript soldiers getting their asses completely handed to them in Chechnya? Let's switch gears, get a professional army rolling, and handle these douchebags once and for all! Granted, I'm running on extremely limited information, but that's my take on the situation. [quote=Mogsfan]You fall into the typical trap of most voters recommending to 'vote for the lesser evil' and tolerate particular political leaders. But, you make another mistake by being heavily critical of Bush but then lenient on Putin. I don't think one can be both. I think it is dangerous and illogical to automatically side against any positions of Bush because you don't like him or his policies. I dislike him and his government but if his government states that a certain other government is corrupt or undemocratic, I won't automatically disagree. However, yeah, I do take what they say with a grain of salt. The U.S. government is definitely not an example any government should take on how to implement democracy but there are principles and ideals that can still be utilized.[/quote] I did not recommend a "lesser of two evils." I don't vote for the lesser in my own country. I vote for who I want to be President (Green, a socialist candidate, etc.) or I don't vote at all. This idea of "it doesn't matter who you vote for as long as you vote" is utterly moronic, and inherently right-winged (the left being usually-intelligent and studied on the issues). I'm hardly being lenient on Putin! I criticize him constantly, but not as much as Bush, because Putin isn't a bumbling idiot who's a tool of the corporate oligarchy! I don't like his crackdowns on independent media, nor his trying to kill journalists (OK, the FSB tried to kill Anna Politkovskaya, not Putin himself), nor his "party line or the hanging line" method of releasing news to the public. And I don't automatically disagree with a policy simply because it's Bush's. But honestly, I can't think of a single thing, other than letting the 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill (the so-called "assault weapons ban") actually sundown so I can buy AKs with folding stocks, flash hiders and bayonet lugs again. I'm ardently pro-gun, but equally ardently anti-"business." (In quotes because I mean big business, irresponsible capitalism, etc.) I don't disagree with Bush out of spite, I disagree with damn near everything he says and does on principle.
Back to top
Only Frequent Guest Joined: 05 Mar 2005 Posts: 48	Posted: Sun Jun 12, 2005 10:40 am    Post subject: Mogsfan wrote: No, if they don't pay their taxes, it's called 'tax evasion.' It doesn't matter if they like their President/Prime Minister or not. So if say 90 percent of people whose salary doesn't come from from federal pocket refuse to pay their taxes in full or indeed any taxes at all it is called tax evasion, eh? Fine than, let's reopen Gulags, stuff 'em in and see what happens. Who do you think is going to work then? Mogsfan wrote: Of course, most of your Russian friends like him. They brainwash the populace and don't allow opposing views. I won't even go there your clumsy implication leads. Lets just say I'd take the opinion of any w*nker actually living there through past 20 years over yours, as you've apparently never lived there, now next to nothing about culture and don't even have good enough russian language skills to judge their media content for yourself. Amusingly, by virtue of being a poor grammarian even in English, you are actually more right in that sentence above than you could ever imagine, Mogs Mogsfan wrote: All the oligarchs got a free ride and most Russians won't even dispute this. They bought state-owned or bought shares of state-owned companies for much less than they were worth. They built their riches this way but the government allowed it as long as they got their slice of the pie. Now, it seems, the government allows these rich oligarchs financial freedom as long as they don't invest or financially support the opposition. Russia's not known as a corrupt country for nothing. Ah, it is so easy to be smart and righteous after the fact! Now think for a moment, who in Russia could afford to buy that property at it's real value at the time? Should the government just have put it on sale for western investors and distribute profits among population so that they could go and by a new washing machine each, sigh and go to work in some sweatshop in a country that no longer belongs to them? It is not a crime to be rich. Even filthy rich. It is a crime, at least a moral one, to get filthy rich - nearly overnight - in a filthy poor country and *not to give back*. So now, than you are rich enough, pay your taxes: if government provided you with laws that allowed you to get there you are, it's the minimum you could do. Invest in *your* country first and foremost. If you own a bank, keep your personal wealth in that bank as a warrant. Govern Chukotka and invest in its economy. Contribute sizable part of your personal wealth to the arts and orfans, for chrissake. Don't be the nation's richest man who pays his employees less than a competitor does. And don't aim for martirdom or sainthood after that, as you ain't getting there (btw, if you are planning to show some repentance and make amends, it's better be done *before* charges are pressed). And at last - don't think that if you can buy a media lobby not only at home, but in the West, you won: some brands of brainwash just don't sell well in Russia, no matter what your marketing team tells you.
Back to top
Mogsfan WayToRussified Joined: 03 Nov 2004 Posts: 490	Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:08 pm    Post subject: E, stop making up extra accounts and pretending to be someone else. Only wrote: Mogsfan wrote: No, if they don't pay their taxes, it's called 'tax evasion.' It doesn't matter if they like their President/Prime Minister or not. So if say 90 percent of people whose salary doesn't come from from federal pocket refuse to pay their taxes in full or indeed any taxes at all it is called tax evasion, eh? Fine than, let's reopen Gulags, stuff 'em in and see what happens. Who do you think is going to work then? Mogsfan wrote: Of course, most of your Russian friends like him. They brainwash the populace and don't allow opposing views. I won't even go there your clumsy implication leads. Lets just say I'd take the opinion of any w*nker actually living there through past 20 years over yours, as you've apparently never lived there, now next to nothing about culture and don't even have good enough russian language skills to judge their media content for yourself. Amusingly, by virtue of being a poor grammarian even in English, you are actually more right in that sentence above than you could ever imagine, Mogs Mogsfan wrote: All the oligarchs got a free ride and most Russians won't even dispute this. They bought state-owned or bought shares of state-owned companies for much less than they were worth. They built their riches this way but the government allowed it as long as they got their slice of the pie. Now, it seems, the government allows these rich oligarchs financial freedom as long as they don't invest or financially support the opposition. Russia's not known as a corrupt country for nothing. Ah, it is so easy to be smart and righteous after the fact! Now think for a moment, who in Russia could afford to buy that property at it's real value at the time? Should the government just have put it on sale for western investors and distribute profits among population so that they could go and by a new washing machine each, sigh and go to work in some sweatshop in a country that no longer belongs to them? It is not a crime to be rich. Even filthy rich. It is a crime, at least a moral one, to get filthy rich - nearly overnight - in a filthy poor country and *not to give back*. So now, than you are rich enough, pay your taxes: if government provided you with laws that allowed you to get there you are, it's the minimum you could do. Invest in *your* country first and foremost. If you own a bank, keep your personal wealth in that bank as a warrant. Govern Chukotka and invest in its economy. Contribute sizable part of your personal wealth to the arts and orfans, for chrissake. Don't be the nation's richest man who pays his employees less than a competitor does. And don't aim for martirdom or sainthood after that, as you ain't getting there (btw, if you are planning to show some repentance and make amends, it's better be done *before* charges are pressed). And at last - don't think that if you can buy a media lobby not only at home, but in the West, you won: some brands of brainwash just don't sell well in Russia, no matter what your marketing team tells you.
Back to top
Mogsfan WayToRussified Joined: 03 Nov 2004 Posts: 490	Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:24 pm    Post subject: Okay, I will bite and respond to a couple of your comments, your stupid 'wanker' comments notwithstanding... So, everyone in the world stuck with undesirable politiicans, that means the populace is smart, can think, and basically know what they're doing, right? Only a moron would state the same opinion as you do. Just because a citizen actually lives in a country doesn't give that citizen absolute justification and accurate perspective on their political choices. Nah, I don't even think 'e' would hold your opinion. I think those who voted for Bush don't have a clue. So what? Because I don't live there, I don't know what I'm talking about? Perhaps, you should rethink things, huh? After what fact? Are you that stupid that you can't notice something peculiar about all these supposed businessmen obtaining a majority share in former state-owned property - often monopolies? Are you that dense? Not only that, it was at a fraction of its actual worth. What should have been done? Did I claim I'm an expert on economic affairs in Russia? Ask the experts. Personally, I would have various suggestions such as giving every citizen in Russia a chance to obtain a share so that most citizens would own a chunk. Or have a raffle with several business partners or companies vying for the business. Not just allowing certain businessmen and giving them "a deal" at a ridiculously reduced price. Any other way would be preferable to what happened. Geez... Yeltsin was in bed with several oligarchs, duh! Read all the sources. I don't give a shit which one. They all practically have the same reports and info. Putin was handpicked by Yeltsin and his cronies. The oligarchs *were* a major source of money to him. When they went into politics and strayed away from his influence, he decided to act and prevent this from repeating. Putin has bought up the media (monopoly) under much state control and now is introducing an all-English language channel financed via the Russian government. By all means, if you wish to live in denial with E (if you are not, E) and the rest of the Putin worshippers, go ahead. It's a shame, though. Russia deserves much better. Too bad there seems to be little else to choose from. Not unlike the situation of most countries. Only wrote: Amusingly, by virtue of being a poor grammarian even in English, you are actually more right in that sentence above than you could ever imagine, Mogs Mogsfan wrote: All the oligarchs got a free ride and most Russians won't even dispute this. They bought state-owned or bought shares of state-owned companies for much less than they were worth. They built their riches this way but the government allowed it as long as they got their slice of the pie. Now, it seems, the government allows these rich oligarchs financial freedom as long as they don't invest or financially support the opposition. Russia's not known as a corrupt country for nothing. Ah, it is so easy to be smart and righteous after the fact! Now think for a moment, who in Russia could afford to buy that property at it's real value at the time? Should the government just have put it on sale for western investors and distribute profits among population so that they could go and by a new washing machine each, sigh and go to work in some sweatshop in a country that no longer belongs to them? It is not a crime to be rich. Even filthy rich. It is a crime, at least a moral one, to get filthy rich - nearly overnight - in a filthy poor country and *not to give back*. So now, than you are rich enough, pay your taxes: if government provided you with laws that allowed you to get there you are, it's the minimum you could do. Invest in *your* country first and foremost. If you own a bank, keep your personal wealth in that bank as a warrant. Govern Chukotka and invest in its economy. Contribute sizable part of your personal wealth to the arts and orfans, for chrissake. Don't be the nation's richest man who pays his employees less than a competitor does. And don't aim for martirdom or sainthood after that, as you ain't getting there (btw, if you are planning to show some repentance and make amends, it's better be done *before* charges are pressed). And at last - don't think that if you can buy a media lobby not only at home, but in the West, you won: some brands of brainwash just don't sell well in Russia, no matter what your marketing team tells you.
Back to top
Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First

	Way to Russia Talk Lounge Forum Index -> Russian People	All times are GMT + 3 Hours Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 10 of 11