How Trump’s Syria strikes play into
Putin’s hand
It’s always good news for Moscow when
the U.S. gets bogged down in a military conflict far from its shores.
By LEONID
RAGOZIN 4/7/17, 7:45 PM CET
Updated 4/8/17, 6:32 AM CET
The Russian reaction to U.S. airstrikes in Syria was a
predictable show of disingenuous outrage that bordered on trolling. In comments
that echoed the language Western governments use when referring to Russia’s
involvement in Ukraine, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov described the airstrike
as “an aggression against a sovereign state violating the international law.”
But the Kremlin is not making a tragedy out of being snubbed
by U.S. President Donald Trump, who is often described as Putin’s admirer —
even his appointee — in Western media. For Moscow, the accompanying benefits
will far outweigh the loss of face.
Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad did his Russian patron a huge
disservice that bordered on betrayal when he launched a chemical attack against
civilians in Idlib. It was Putin who brokered the agreement on the use of
chemical weapons in Syria in 2013, preventing then-President Barack Obama from
doing what Trump did Friday morning.
It is always good news for the
Kremlin when the U.S. gets bogged down in another military conflict far from
its shores.
The Kremlin had widely touted that agreement as a huge
diplomatic breakthrough. Assad grossly undermined the importance Putin places
on that perceived victory. His punishment by the U.S. will certainly not be
unwelcome in Moscow. In what sounded like a reprimand, Peskov told The
Associated Press, hours before the American strike, Russia’s support for Assad
was “not unconditional.”
It is always good news for the Kremlin when the U.S. gets
bogged down in another military conflict far from its shores. It is especially
useful to Russia’s propaganda machine. If Washington can intervene in wars on
the other side of the globe, then why can’t Russia do the same in its immediate
vicinity, say in Ukraine?
Among Russians, fear of NATO’s advancement is very real.
Similarly, anti-Americanism is high among radical left- and right-wing parties
in many European countries. So Russia’s argument that the U.S. is overreaching,
yet again, will play well with both domestic and foreign audiences.
Whatever the Americans do in Syria — and especially if they
launch a ground operation — they will have to coordinate it with the Russians,
who are already on the ground. The threat of direct conflict between world’s
greatest nuclear powers will trump all other considerations. That fact creates
new opportunities for negotiations and trade-offs with the U.S., which was the
whole point of Russia’s intervention in Syria in the first place.
Russian government spokesman Dmitry Peskov called the U.S.
missile strikes “aggression against a sovereign state in violation of
international law” launched “under a far-fetched pretext.” | Getty Images
Meddling in the Middle East, a key region in U.S. foreign
policy, was the Kremlin’s way of detracting attention from its Ukrainian
quagmire. Putin rightly calculated that the U.S. would prioritize Syria at the
expense of Ukraine. It even hoped the U.S. would be more inclined to
compromises on issues like Crimea or sanctions imposed on Russia in response to
its occupation of the peninsula and the subsequent war in eastern Ukraine.
This is the context in which we should interpret Russia’s
decision to withdraw from the air safety agreement with the U.S. Moscow is
raising the stakes in the future bargain, even though it is Russian soldiers
who will be subject to greater risks because of this decision.
Dragging the U.S. into another conflict in the region is a
dream scenario for the Kremlin. Brinkmanship is where Putin has always
excelled. He has faced far worse dilemmas than many of his Western colleagues —
home-grown terrorism or the Chechen war, for example — and is far more
confident. He is also way more cynical.
Trump being paraded as the Kremlin’s friend was deeply
awkward for the Kremlin. The political regime in Russia is existentially
dependent on the U.S. being openly hostile to it. In the aftermath of Russia’s
occupation of Crimea, Putin’s approval rating soared from just over 60 percent
to almost 90 percent, but support has started to evaporate since. In recent
weeks, Russians have visibly warmed to the idea of street protests and
opposition leader Alexei Navalny. On the eve of presidential elections in 2018,
this is a big problem for the Kremlin. This conflict could be the ideal way to
shore up domestic support.
Putin desperately needs an enemy in the White House, ideally
a cartoonish and hapless one; someone that fits a collection of clichés that
confirm common Russians’ worst perception of the American political
establishment. Where Obama refused to play the hypocritical “frenemy” game — an
eight-year nightmare for Putin — Trump is bound to become an ideal partner.
Russians have historically been great at rallying together
in the face of an outside threat. It’s a deeply embedded social instinct that
Putin has manipulated masterfully from Day One. His response to Trump’s
airstrikes will be no exception.
Leonid Ragozin is a freelance journalist based in Moscow.
Authors:
Leonid Ragozin
Trump’s airstrike: a convenient
U-turn from a president who can’t be trusted
Jonathan Freedland
The attack on Bashar al-Assad was
welcome – but the US president’s own aims were more important to him than
saving Syrian babies’ lives
Friday 7 April 2017
17.15 BST Last modified on Friday 7 April 2017 23.44 BST
Sometimes the right thing can be done by the wrong person.
Donald Trump’s bombing of a Syrian airfield seems to belong in that category,
though even that verdict depends on events yet to unfold. For one thing, we
don’t yet know if the 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles that rained down on the
Shayrat base in the early hours of Friday morning were a one-off or the start
of something more.
Antony Blinken, who served as Barack Obama’s deputy
secretary of state, recalled that the US intervention in Libya, which he
backed, began with a very narrow, legitimate goal – the protection of civilians
from an imminent threat of slaughter – but “ended in regime change”. Blinken
warned Trump of the dangers of “mission creep”, urging him “to avoid falling
into an escalation trap.”
But let’s say the Shayrat strikes are not repeated. Given
that the century-old prohibition on the use of chemical and biological weapons
is a rare and valuable taboo, one that crumbles if not enforced, it’s hard not
to welcome an act of enforcement. As Robin Niblett, the director of Chatham
House, told me: “There are so few norms that are considered sacrosanct. If you
don’t enforce this one, you create a sense of global anarchy, a global
free-for-all.”
Reporting from the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhun by the
Guardian’s Kareem Shaheen allows for little doubt as to both the human calamity
of the chemical attack that befell that place on 4 April and where culpability
lies. Shaheen’s eye-witness account leaves the Russian claim – that sarin was
released into the air accidentally when Russian jets bombed a rebel-run
chemical weapons plant – in shreds. There are some who still doubt that Bashar
al-Assad’s forces were behind the sarin attack: they include US-based
conspiracy theorists Alex Jones and Mike Cernovich, backed in the UK by Katie
Hopkins, who uses the hashtag #Syriahoax. But their numbers are dwindling. The
evidence points to Assad.
That still leaves a legal question. Trump acted alone; he
did not have UN authorisation or even try to get it. Which means he might have
been breaking international law in order to enforce international law. But
that’s not the prime source of my discomfort. What troubles me more is that
this necessary act was performed by someone who, in the words of radio host
James O’Brien, you wouldn’t trust with scissors.
On Syria, Donald Trump has performed a U-turn so screeching,
so dizzying, you can smell the burned rubber from here. Just 72 hours before
these airstrikes, his administration was all but flashing a green light at
Assad, hinting that he could do what he liked. Pull back further, and the
volte-face is even more stunning. For years, Trump was adamant that he would
stay out of Syria. Even when chemical weapons were used in August 2013, killing
an estimated 1,300 people in Ghouta, Trump was firm: “What will we get for
bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long-term conflict?” he tweeted.
It’s the abandonment of that stance that has so disappointed Trumpists such as
Hopkins, Nigel Farage and the neo-Nazi leader Richard Spencer. They thought
they were getting a true isolationist in the Oval Office.
Their mistake was to think Trump had a consistent foreign
policy, rather than just a series of wildly contradictory impulses that can
vary from day to day. Trump might well see this unpredictability as an asset.
Recall how Richard Nixon encouraged Henry Kissinger to travel to foreign
capitals, whispering to foreign leaders that the US president was unhinged.
Nixon believed that if he were seen as a madman, capable of anything, it could
only increase his leverage. He would be feared.
It’s not reassuring to think that the American president
only acts when a tragedy hits primetime
In this context, North Korea and Iran may both be adjusting
their calculus of risk. Now they know that Trump is willing to strike, with
little warning. That he authorised the operation while at his Florida resort,
where he was hosting the Chinese president, may have been an accident of
timing, but it will please Trump. Think of it as a dominance display in front
of a rival.
Above all, Trump will relish the comparisons with his
predecessor. In 2013, Obama hesitated and havered over Syria’s use of chemical
weapons, a Hamlet on the Potomac, his hand eventually stayed, in part, by Ed
Miliband’s decision to vote down UK support for military action against Assad.
Again, Trump was among those urging Obama to do nothing, further insisting that
Obama needed congressional approval.
That scruple, along with everything else, will be forgotten
now, as Trump revels in a comparison that, in his view, makes him look more
decisive, more macho and even more humane than Obama. As Niblett says: “Trump
has upheld a norm which Barack Obama, the great values president, did not.”
But that cannot alter the fact that, even as you welcome the
act, its author remains wholly untrustworthy. Trump wanted us to believe he had
been moved to action by the pictures of dead children in Khan Sheikhun. But
what of all the “beautiful babies” killed away from the TV cameras these last
six years, by bombs of a different variety? When they were being slaughtered,
Trump was happy to shrug off their deaths, sending his secretary of state and
his UN ambassador out just days ago to give Assad the wink that he could carry
on as before. It’s not reassuring to think that the American president does not
listen to his intelligence briefings or even read the papers, but only acts
when a tragedy hits primetime.
But what makes his newfound compassion ring all the more
hollow is that while Trump is ready to bomb a runway for those beautiful babies
who are dead, he still won’t let America open its doors to those who cling to
life. Refugees from Syria remain on Trump’s banned list, including every “child
of God” traumatised by Assad and his barrel bombs, raining fire from the sky.
And forgive me if I don’t accept that this volte-face is
quite as complete as the White House would have us believe. How convenient that
Trump, under fire for being Vladimir Putin’s poodle, now stands up to him in
Syria. How neatly this blows away all those allegations of secret links and
election hacking. Yes, there have been ample statements of condemnation from
Moscow, but those don’t cost either side anything. The US appears to have given
Russia sufficient warning to ensure their men weren’t hit, and Russia used none
of its ample capacity to hit back. It all worked out very nicely.
Analysis By bombing Assad base, Trump made his point. But
what happens next?
Any reaction from Moscow will depend on whether Russia was
complicit in Syria chemical attack, while Beijing may have to recalculate
stance towards US
Read more
Some will believe none of this matters: the faded red line
prohibiting chemical weapons has been painted scarlet once more. But intention
matters, in foreign policy as much as in morality. There were those in 2003 who
wanted to see the US-led invasion of Iraq as a humanitarian operation to topple
an evil dictator. But humanitarianism was not what drove the architects of that
mission: if human life had been the motive, they’d have heeded the warnings
that they were making a terrible mistake, or at least planned for the
aftermath. But they didn’t care enough to do either – and the result was
catastrophe.
I didn’t trust Bush and Cheney, and I don’t trust Trump. I’m
glad Assad’s ability to poison his own people has been reduced, if only a
little. This deed is welcome. But I cannot applaud the man who did it.
US warns Assad over using chemical
weapons again
Tensions mount with Russia as Sean
Spicer says Assad must ‘abide by agreements not to use chemical weapons’ but
fails to outline US objectives
Spencer Ackerman in New York and Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday 8 April 2017 09.13 BST First published on Friday 7
April 2017 17.24 BST
The US says it has put Bashar al-Assad on notice that it
will act again if he repeats the use of chemical weapons, while appearing to
back away from wider military involvement in Syria, less than 24 hours after
launching Tomahawk missiles at a regime airbase.
“The United States will no longer wait for Assad to use
chemical weapons without any consequences. Those days are over,” the US
ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, told a special session of the UN security
council
“The United States took a very measured step last night,
Haley added. “We are prepared to do more, but we hope that will not be
necessary. ”
However, the White House press secretary, Sean Spicer,
refused to discuss any next steps – military or diplomatic – as the world
struggled to understand Trump’s policy towards the grueling civil war.
Syrian warplanes were reported to have taken off from the
airbase targeted by the US missiles, suggesting that the military impact of the
overnight attack had been minimal. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights also
said that government aircraft had bombed the outskirts of Khan Sheikhun, the
town targeted in Tuesday’s chemical weapons attack
Spicer called the missile strike on the airbase “very
decisive, justified and proportional” and entirely justified by “humanitarian
purposes”.
But he demurred on saying whether Assad had to leave power,
despite secretary of state Rex Tillerson’s insistence before the missile strike
that diplomatic steps to oust Assad were already “under way”.
“At a minimum,” Spicer said, Assad had to agree “to abide by
agreements not to use chemical weapons”, but he did not say what, if any, further
objectives the US had in Syria, even as Trump came under renewed congressional
pressure to present a comprehensive strategy for the US in the Syrian conflict.
America’s mixed signals on Assad are likely to unsettle or
disappoint the Syrian opposition that initially viewed the strike as a glimmer
of hope amid a relentless onslaught.
Trump’s missile barrage suggested a reversal from his
previous indifference to Assad’s continued rule; the US president now faces
conflicting demands from Congress to escalate militarily – and from Russia to
back down.
Humanitarians, meanwhile, are demanding evidence of a
strategy to end the conflict peacefully.
The first big diplomatic test comes as Tillerson is
scheduled to travel to Moscow next week for talks, which will include Syria.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon is attempting to revive a critical
military communications hotline between the US and Russia that has become the
first geopolitical casualty of Trump’s abrupt decision to attack Assad in
Syria.
By shutting down the so-called deconfliction channel after
the missile strike on Russia’s Syrian client, Vladimir Putin has dared Trump to
choose between attacking Assad and attacking Islamic State, Trump’s priority.
The military channel is pivotal for ensuring US and Russian
pilots avoid accidentally colliding, confronting one another in midair or
attacking each other’s forces or proxies in north-eastern Syria. It also has a
significant political component, according to former defense officials: to
ensure competing air wars in Syria do not accidentally spiral into a
confrontation between two nuclear powers.
The morning after ordering missile strikes, Trump held a
meeting with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, at his Mar-a-Lago estate in
Florida. Trump made no mention of his decision and ignored shouted questions on
whether he would also consider military action against North Korea. Trump spoke
only about the relationship with China, claiming “tremendous progress” had been
made in the one-day summit.
Xi replied: “President Trump has given us a warm welcome and
treated us very well.” Without referring to Syria or North Korea, he stressed
the need for “peace and stability”, “partnership”, and “prosperity”.
In the aftermath of the US missile strikes, the Kremlin
denounced them as an “act of aggression in violation of international law”.
At a UN security council session, Russia’s deputy envoy,
Vladimir Safronkov, warned the “consequences for international stability could
be extremely serious”.
“It’s not hard to imagine how much the spirits of the
terrorists have been raised by this attack,” Safronkov said.
The Russian defense ministry said it was beefing up its air
defenses in Syria.
A Russian defense ministry spokesman, Maj Gen Igor
Konashenkov, said a “complex of measures” would be carried out shortly to
“protect the most sensitive Syrian infrastructure facilities”.
The Russian navy was reported to be sending a frigate aimed
with cruise missiles to Tartus, on the Syrian coast.
St Petersburg metro explosion leaves 11 dead and dozens
wounded
Read more
Konashenkov insisted that the effectiveness of the US strike
was “very low”, claiming that only 23 of the 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles
reached the Shayrat airbase in the province of Homs. He said the strikes had
destroyed only six MiG-23 fighter jets of the Syrian airforce, which were under
repair, but didn’t damage other Syrian warplanes at the base.
The US military insists all but one of the missiles reached
their targets.
The US was supported by its western allies and Turkey.
France’s president, François Hollande, and the German chancellor, Angela
Merkel, said Assad bore “sole responsibility” for provoking the missile strike.
The UK’s defense secretary, Michael Fallon, said the strike
was “wholly appropriate”. He added that the UK would not be directly involved
in any military action without parliamentary approval. Fallon said he had been
in “close discussions” with his US counterpart, James Mattis, but stopped short
of claiming to have been consulted on the decision.
The UN security council was convened on Friday to hear
briefings on the situation in Syria and to hear arguments over the chemical
weapons attacks and retaliatory missile strikes. No vote was scheduled on the
competing resolutions on Syria currently before the council, and it was not
expected to lead to an agreed course of action.
An opportunity for Russia and the US to stop the slide
toward confrontation will come on Tuesday, when Tillerson is due to make his
first trip to Moscow as secretary of state. He has signaled that the missile
strikes had limited objectives – to deter the use of chemical weapons – and
that the US priority remained fighting Isis first, and dealing with political
transition later.
In the days before Tillerson’s visit there are expected to
be urgent efforts to repair the suspended deconfliction channel.
The Pentagon would not address whether its airstrikes on
Isis had already been reduced in response, nor if it had anticipated Russia’s
move to abandon the channel before Mattis, the defense secretary, briefed Trump
on options for the missile strike. But the Pentagon left little doubt it wanted
Moscow to reopen military-to-military communications.
“The Department of Defense maintains the desire for dialogue
through the flight safety channel. It is to the benefit of all parties
operating in the air over Syria to avoid accidents and miscalculation, and we
hope the Russian ministry of defense comes to this conclusion as well,” said Lt
Col Michelle Baldanza, a Pentagon spokeswoman.
After Russian forces moved into Syria to bolster Assad’s
then faltering regime, “we recognized in the fall of 2015 that the airspace
over Syria was going to get much more crowded, and we didn’t want to kick off
an international incident from our planes being in proximity to one another,”
said Andrew Exum, the senior Pentagon official with the Middle East policy
portfolio when the US established the communications channel.
Whatever the tactical military advantages of opening the
deconfliction channel, it also had a substantial political component.
“We’re not talking about going head-to-head, nor locking
radars at each other,” said Christopher Harmer, an ex-navy pilot and a defense
analyst at the Institute for the Study of War. “The fact that we’re no longer
actively deconflicting is a political escalation, not a military one.”
The channel also had propaganda value: Putin has sold his
intervention in Syria at home and abroad as a necessary measure to fight Isis,
despite his overwhelming tactical focus on helping Assad regain territory.
Exum said: “We didn’t want to give the impression we were
coordinating with the Russians. The Russians very much wanted to give
impression we were working together in a great endeavor against violent
extremism in Syria and that’s just not the case.”
The aftermath of the strikes saw congressional pressure,
even from Democrats normally opposed to Trump, for the White House to escalate
its involvement in Syria’s brutal civil war. Several legislators pressed Trump
to deliver a strategy to guide future US action and welcomed a renewed debate
for congressional authorization of future strikes, a measure that failed in
2013 when Barack Obama proposed it.
“I fully support a robust US role in ending the Syrian civil
war as soon as possible,” said the Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein, who
asked Trump for a “comprehensive strategy to end Syria’s civil war”.
However, others also insisted the military strike must be
followed by the difficult and complex process of diplomacy. David Miliband,
former UK foreign secretary and now president of the International Rescue
Committee humanitarian aid organisation, said: “We share the fury of the
president at the use of chemical weapons against civilians. The impunity of
those who wage war against civilians, whether by chemical or conventional
attacks, must be brought to an end.
“The question we have for all those engaged in military
action in Syria concerns their plan to stop the killing and build a durable
peace. That question is even more important after the events of the last 72
hours. Every Syrian is waiting for that question to be answered.”
Trump marcou pontos. Que vai
acontecer a seguir?
O que estava em causa era punir Assad
e, sobretudo, restaurar a credibilidade político-militar americana.
Jorge Almeida Fernandes
8 de Abril de 2017, 6:51
Depois de eleito, Donald Trump prometeu negociar com a
Rússia numa posição de força. Avisou também o Irão e a Coreia do Norte de que
não hesitaria em usar o poderio militar americano. A Síria era o terreno ideal
para uma demonstração de força. Bashar al-Assad ofereceu o pretexto.
O Presidente sírio enganou-se no cálculo da reacção
americana perante o crime de Khan Sheikoun. Apostou na impunidade. Não imaginou
que estivesse a convidar Trump para uma demonstração de força com baixos
riscos. Era tolerado pela Administração americana como um mal menor.
Subitamente volta à condição de “pária” internacional, designado como principal
culpado da tragédia síria. Devemos dar um desconto à miopia de Assad. Desde a
sua eleição que Trump tem feito ziguezagues irresponsáveis nas declarações
sobre política internacional.
Desta vez, mudou de estilo e obteve uma vitória política, o
que os aliados apreciaram. Ele e os seus generais aproveitaram uma oportunidade
dourada não apenas para punir Assad, mas sobretudo para restabelecer a
credibilidade político-militar americana. Ganharam com a rapidez e a surpresa.
Ser imprevisível é uma vantagem. Trump emerge na cena internacional como
“comandante-chefe” dos EUA.
O tabuleiro sírio
Até que ponto o ataque marca uma viragem de fundo na sua
política síria? Parece ter sido um ataque pontual. Nada indica que os Estados
Unidos se pretendam lançar numa escalada. A versão oficial é que o ataque foi
lançado não contra as forças sírias mas para destruir armas químicas, o que não
obriga a mais acções. Seria a aplicação da “linha vermelha” sobre as armas
proibidas. Washington continua a não defender uma política de “mudança de
regime” nem a exigir a deposição imediata de Assad.
Primeiro, para russos e iranianos, por razões diferentes,
abdicar de Assad é uma perspectiva intolerável. Têm em jogo “interesses
vitais”, incomparavelmente superiores aos dos americanos. A Síria, em si mesma,
não constitui um interesse vital americano. É a guerra civil, com uma projecção
regional, que significa uma ameaça para os EUA. Em segundo lugar, o general
David Petraeus aprendeu a lição do Iraque e explicou aos americanos que, quando
se cria na região um vazio de poder, são os jihadistas quem dele beneficia.
Note-se que a mensagem americana não visou apenas Assad, mas
também os seus aliados ou protectores russos e iranianos. O que acontecerá
depende em larga medida da reacção deles. Os EUA têm de estar preparados para
eventuais retaliações. Assad perdeu uma base. Mas seriam necessários muitos
mais ataques para o debilitar militarmente. Anotam observadores que o ataque
americano não o paralisará, a não ser que toda a sua aviação seja impedida de
levantar voo. Para tal seria necessário impor uma zona de exclusão aérea, o que
está fora de questão pelo risco de conflito aberto com a Rússia.
Aos russos, Trump envia a mensagem de que são também
responsáveis pelos crimes de guerra de Assad. Foram os russos que mediaram a
crise das armas químicas em 2013 e que deram a garantia da sua completa
destruição. E sabem o que se passa nas bases sírias. A propósito da guerra
química comentou o secretário de Estado, Rex Tillerson, que visitará Moscovo na
próxima semana: “A Rússia ou foi cúmplice ou foi incompetente.”
Putin tem a noção de que os Estados Unidos continuam
impotentes perante o conflito sírio. Será tentado a demonstrá-lo? De momento, é
um enigma. Parece evidente que Washington assume o risco de ver congelada a
perspectiva de uma rápida cooperação com a Rússia nos grandes dossiers
internacionais. Ou conseguirá Tillerson obter concessões de Putin após a
demonstração de força na Síria? Há as maiores dúvidas.
O futuro não está apenas nas mãos de Trump mas também nas de
Moscovo e Teerão. Reacções inesperadas podem fazer resvalar os EUA para um
envolvimento mais sério no campo de minas da guerra civil síria. Moscovo ou
Teerão poderão ser tentadas a forçar Trump a “mostrar o jogo”.
Um recado para Kim?
O bombardeamento de Sheikoun coincidiu com a cimeira entre
Trump e Xi Jinping. Um dos temas da agenda era a Coreia do Norte. É óbvio que a
demonstração de poderio foi também um recado para Kim Jong-un.
Acontece que o caso norte-coreano é muito mais ameaçador que
o sírio, envolvendo cenários apocalípticos. Há muito que os norte-coreanos
deixaram de visar uma negociação sobre o seu programa nuclear. A lógica da sua
política é prosseguir a nuclearização até às últimas consequências. A sua
doutrina estratégica visa impor o seu reconhecimento como potência nuclear,
como única forma de garantir a sua segurança. A Coreia do Norte já não
constitui um problema de não-proliferação, mas de dissuasão nuclear. Vai ser
este o dossier mais duro para Donald Trump, avisou Obama.
O analista americano Steven A. Cook, especialista do Médio
Oriente, escrevia ontem a propósito de Trump: “O ataque a Khan Sheikoun foi
aquilo a que se chama um ‘momento clarificador’. Mostrou uma vez mais a
monstruosidade do regime de Assad e também as limitadas opções na Síria.
Bem-vindo ao mundo, Presidente Trump.”
Também a Coreia do Norte o aguarda na sua aterragem na
realidade.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário