18.9 C
London
Saturday, August 29, 2026
Subscribe
Home Blog

France Warns of Growing Threat of Violent Attacks Amid Hybrid Warfare Concerns

By
IwPost
-
0
france-warns-of-growing-threat-of-violent-attacks-amid-hybrid-warfare-concerns
France Warns of Growing Threat of Violent Attacks Amid Hybrid Warfare Concerns


France’s domestic intelligence chief has warned that the country must prepare for the possibility of more violent hostile acts on its territory as foreign interference and hybrid warfare intensify across Europe.

Céline Berthon, director-general of France’s DGSI security service, pointed to the recent discovery of an explosive device near a Ukrainian cargo plane at Leipzig Airport in Germany. The airport is an important logistics hub for military equipment being transported to Ukraine.

Speaking at a major business gathering in Paris, Berthon said the incident should serve as a warning that hostile actions could become more direct and violent.

German authorities are still investigating the failed attack and have not publicly attributed responsibility. While Berthon did not directly link the Leipzig incident to Russia, she described Moscow’s increasingly aggressive posture as a major concern.

She said France had experienced a sharp rise in interference since 2022, including symbolic acts, vandalism and disinformation campaigns attributed to Russia-linked networks.

According to Berthon, these activities form part of a broader conflict that falls short of conventional warfare but nevertheless targets European societies and national security.

via Politico

Trump has exposed the leaking guts of the US war machine

By
IwPost
-
0
trump-has-exposed-the-leaking-guts-of-the-us-war-machine
Trump has exposed the leaking guts of the US war machine

The war propaganda machine in the US is a ceaseless, multifaceted contraption that includes legacy media, the educational system and the entertainment industry. A nation does not eviscerate tens of millions of “enemy” civilians without first laying a meticulous foundation of brainwashing.

I can run the tapes backward to a moment in my own childhood, riveted to the black and white TV absorbing the 1955 Disneyfied tale of Davey Crockett at “The Alamo.” There is Davey outsmarting a gambler, beating up an “Indian,” and bringing both along as conscripts to fight for an Independent Texas. Crockett met his end at the Alamo, but the manner of his death will never be resolved.

Did he surrender to Mexican forces (and face execution) or did he die fighting to the death, wielding his exhausted rifle like a club, and falling from a bullet while standing on a hill comprised of Mexican corpses?

Of course, the Disney version has Davey Crockett swinging his rifle madly against a vast onslaught of faceless Mexican soldiers as the background song plays out:

The story books say they were all cut low.
But the truth of it is that this just ain’t so,
The spirits will live and their legends grow,
so long as we remember the Alamo.

The film ends with the inscription: “March, 6, 1836, Liberty and Independence Forever.” Regarding the Alamo, Raul Ramos wrote (in the context of the 2019 effort to remove confederate monuments):

It’s not that the Spanish-built presidio should be demolished or stashed away in some remote museum. The story of the Alamo should be widely studied—but it should be the real history, the one that intersects with and embodies the nation’s history of enforcing a racial order through violence, and the campaigns of white supremacy and slavery that accompanied America’s expansion.

The Alamo’s history and myth belong to a war that was inspired, in part, by the drive for slavery, and by a belief in the superiority of whites and their divine right to conquer lands. The Alamo is where the campaign of southern slavery and Native American genocide migrated west and expressed itself in the demonization of Mexicans. I

t came to symbolize belonging, or, more accurately, defining who belongs and who doesn’t. Rather than being remembered for its historical context, the Alamo represents a litmus test for entry into participation and membership in civic society: Accept the dominant myth, or be marginalized.

The Alamo became a rallying cry, a foundational component of the emerging concept of “manifest destiny”—the ideological core of the most expansive colonial settler state in all of history.

But for me it is personal — Davey Crocket at The Alamo inducted me into US war culture at the age of 7. I had my faux coon skin cap, my “smoke gun” that emitted a loud crack and a puff of smoke. The cocking mechanism on this “toy” sometimes snapped shut violently, and many children endured a trip to the ER to have a few stitches to repair a bloody thumb. I remember that well 71 years later.

Every child in the US has a story of this sort, a rendezvous with military propaganda (disguised as amusement) at a defenseless early age. War is implanted into our fragile subconscious at the very dawn of our awareness. But we are not largely destined to embrace warrior culture in the sense of the mythical Davey Crockett, but, rather, we have been trained to get out of the way.

American warfare since Vietnam has aspired to be fought by gadgets that attack civilians from the sky. For most of us military patriotism means politely deferring to veterans with a muttered, “Thank you for your service.” We who do not enlist balance personal fear with the idea that war participation manifests the purest virtue.

Vietnam exposed a quiet ambivalence in public opinion—the American people have no stomach for massive body counts of US soldiers, and yet poll after poll reveals an atavistic longing for military strength. 

A Gallup poll taken last February showed that 64% of respondents felt that it was important for the US to have the most powerful military on Earth. While the US military budget is larger than the combined military budgets of the next nine highest spending nations, Gallup polling seldom shows more than a third of people complaining that spending is too high.

The public is little more than a shadow of the media culture. In 2014 William A. Galston lamented about President Barack Obama’s minor military funding cuts in a piece posted on The Brookings Institute (a centrist, Democratic Party-adjacent think tank) website.

Senator Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) recent proposal to cut military spending by a token 10% fell 88-11 in a Senate vote in which both parties reflexively succumbed to orthodox US jingoism. War is not a partisan issue. We all come together to praise and feed the military. US political performance art might be seen as a slavish competition to grovel before the war industry.

There is, however, a new and sudden trickle of hope—Trump’s ham-fisted version of imperialism allows for the public to witness the unflattering inner machinery, the leaking guts of the wounded military organism. The ongoing war in Iran offers something brand new—a nation with a US$9 billion military budget has just thrashed a country with a trillion-dollar war budget.

The US defeat at the hands of Iran is unprecedented — while the US hasn’t won a significant war in 80 years, we have never suffered a defeat with comparable financial consequences. The Iran war, according to Reuters, has a disapproval rating of a staggering 63% of the electorate.

The economic fallout from the bungled attack on Iran threatens to escalate to the point of financial collapse in future months. We all live within walking distance of a filling station offering $6 diesel—and that runaway price will almost certainly expand and double, threatening to strangle the US commercial transport system. Mass hunger looms.

We also have American Israel Public Affairs Committee approval ratings at an all-time low and Trump’s approval ratings at catastrophic and utter decline—ostensibly due to his war in Iran. There may never have been a time in US history so ripe for an attack on military spending and militarism.

War once had such an esteemed role in human progress that even the peaceful transcendentalist, Ralph Waldo Emerson, could not wholly dismiss its virtues:

The student of history acquiesces the more readily in this copious bloodshed of the early annals, bloodshed in God’s name too, when be learns that it is a temporary and preparatory state, and does actively forward the culture of man.

War educates the senses, calls into action the will, perfects the physical constitution, brings men into such swift and close collision in critical moments that man measures man. On its own scale, on the virtues it loves, it endures no counterfeit, but shakes the whole society, until every atom falls into the place its specific gravity assigns it.

Emerson believed that war would become obsolete, but I doubt that anyone from the mid-19th century could have imagined that war would one day be the cornerstone of societal and biological collapse. No other era has been forced to see war with the unflinching clarity that this moment demands.

War elevates the need for oil and oil demands war. The oil industry, the military-industrial complex, Big Tech, and mass media have all been structurally conjoined at the intersection of war. War is where capitalist profits interface with mass psychology. But the gig is up. Public opinion has shifted as Trump and his goons have driven the war machine off a cliff.

Climate sustainability abides no compromise with war. We are on the cusp of extinction, and war is the primary driver. The US, under Trump, has taken war out of the closet and decoupled it from its patriotic slogans and jingoistic habits. It’s all about the oil, stupid. War has followed the magnet of fossil fuels unerringly to the Middle East.

And to compound the predicament, war is environmentally filthy, annually burning more fossil fuels in aggregate than most nations. The US military coughs as much CO2 into the atmosphere yearly as the nation of Portugal. War is also the gauge of our fossil fuel addiction, for US leaders have spent decades murdering millions to procure it.

We all have our psychological histories, our childhood encounters with Disney’s Alamo, with the domino theory, with Saddam Hussein’s invisible weapons of mass destruction. We have reverentially gawked at our father’s and grandfather’s WWII uniforms hanging in the attic, but we all need to thank Trump for creating history’s most transparent war machine.

The US military needs to be gutted, cut out like a metastasizing lesion. The patient heaves at death’s door. Do we merely watch?

Phil Wilson is a retired mental health worker who has written for Common Dreams, Counterpunch, Resilience, Current Affairs, The Future Fire, The Hampshire Gazette, and other publications. Phil’s writings are posted regularly at Nobody’s Voice. Follow him on X at @Phil_Will_Write

– Common Dreams

I asked 100 companies for my data. Some deleted it instead.

By
IwPost
-
0
i-asked-100-companies-for-my-data-some-deleted-it-instead.
I asked 100 companies for my data. Some deleted it instead.

I filed a request with McDonald’s earlier this month to access all of the personal data the fast food company collected about me, and I received a stunning 515-page report a few days later that detailed my app interactions in granular detail and predicted I would never stop eating there.

Under the California Consumer Privacy Act, I have the legal right to request access to information from large companies that collect personal data. So I was curious what others might have on me, and I spent the next week filing more than 100 requests.

The CCPA went into effect in 2020, and three of its key provisions are the right to opt out of the selling of personal information, the right to delete that info, and the right to request a copy for yourself.

I focused solely on the latter—access requests—to better understand what data is being collected. Most companies must list two ways for you to file. These are often via a web form, phone number, or email address, as designated in their privacy policy. After you submit a request, companies can take 45 days to complete it.

My experience placing these data access requests was incredibly time-consuming, from finding the right filing methods to verifying my identity multiple times. Most exasperating during this process were the companies that either responded to my access requests with messages concerning the deletion of information, which I explicitly said not to do, or refused to process the request through a method listed in their privacy policy.

Consumer advocates I spoke with were upset with how these requests were handled. “That’s crazy,” said Ben Winters, director of AI and privacy at the Consumer Federation of America. “That’s not an acceptable status quo.” Winters sees these examples as exhibiting the weaknesses of policy frameworks that rely on companies to act responsibly and in good faith.

In accordance with WIRED’s policies, I am disclosing that I used generative AI to draft bureaucratic emails and update my tracking spreadsheet as part of this report. I wrote the body of this article mainly by hand in my scratch notebook.

One of the first errors came from Crunchbase, known for its database about tech startups. I emailed my access request to its privacy address on August 17. My message laid out the rights I wanted to exercise and included a direct request not to erase anything: “I am not requesting deletion at this time. Please do not treat this as a deletion request.” I received a reply two days later from a Crunchbase support representative.

“Thanks so much for your patience. Your account has been permanently deleted from Crunchbase. Please let me know if you need anything else!” the message read in full.

I followed up via email almost immediately, reiterating that I wanted data access, not data deletion. “Your Crunchbase user account was deleted. Other data located on Crunchbase was not deleted,” read the follow-up support response explaining what happened. If I wanted to have a Crunchbase account, I would have to reregister.

When I reached out to Crunchbase for comment, a spokesperson blamed the mistake on a “processing error” and said that the company would proceed with my original access request as filed. The spokesperson also claimed the misclassified response came from “a person on our customer success team” and not a generative AI tool.

My interactions with BeenVerified, a searchable database that gathers public records, also encapsulate my friction-filled experience placing these access requests.

I emailed BeenVerified’s dedicated CCPA compliance address on the morning of August 19. It laid out that I was a California resident placing an access request, not a deletion request. You’ll never guess what happened next.

Two days later, I received a message from a BeenVerified support representative about removing information. “It appears your person report has already been removed from our Person Search results,” read its initial response. “In addition, we have removed the requested phone number and email address from our search results. This change should be reflected within 24 hours.” Not at all what I asked it to do.

When I sent my next email explaining that I had submitted an access request, not a deletion request, the support representative followed up 15 minutes later, denying my claim and saying the company couldn’t verify my identity. That was perplexing, since it located some of my details earlier in the message thread and didn’t even attempt to explain what I might need to share for verification.

At my wit’s end, I sent another email explaining how confused I was feeling by these responses. “Please be assured that we’re able to process your opt-out request and have removed your information from our website,” read the support representative’s response. If I wasn’t already bald, I would have pulled out the rest of my hair at that moment.

I found solace in chatting with an academic researcher who had previously helped place access requests with over 500 data brokers under the same California law and also encountered multiple misclassifications. “Sometimes I would make an access request, and the automatic answer was ‘We will opt you out’ or ‘We will delete your data,’” says Elina van Kempen, a PhD student at UC Irvine and coauthor of Consumer Beware! Exploring Data Brokers’ CCPA Compliance. While some data brokers followed up with corrections, other times the researcher was left without any resolution.

When I reached out to BeenVerified for comment, Greg Hammond, senior counsel and senior director of compliance at its parent company, claimed via email that support agents receive annual privacy training, including how to process CCPA requests. “Unfortunately, despite the training, the agent who handled this matter was mistaken and misunderstood the request type,” he wrote. Hammond says the company now plans to provide refresher training on correct processing and to audit recent work.

My attempts to place an access request with Cash App, a money-sending service offered by Block, were equally frustrating, even without a deletion mistake. The company’s privacy policy, in bold, states that California residents can place access requests through Cash App’s website or by a toll-free phone call. I opted to test out the phone number.

The first time I called and explained that I was a California resident who wanted to place an access request, it was as if I had started speaking in a language from outer space. I was placed on hold multiple times before being told to check the privacy policy and call the number listed there, which I had just done to get to this point. My attempt to process an access request over the phone was being effectively denied.

“OK, sure, I’ll call this number right back,” I said before I hung up, a bit of anger bubbling up in my voice despite my best efforts to remain professional. My interactions with the next customer support agent were similarly burdensome. After being put on hold, I was asked to call back later so the support team would have more time to review their resources and understand how to handle my call.

“Customers can access or delete their personal information directly through Cash App, which allows us to more quickly verify identity before providing access to financial account information or deleting an account,” a Cash App spokesperson wrote over email when I reached out for comment. “Our phone support teams are trained to help customers understand how to submit these requests, and we also provide customers with instructions they can access through our online Help Center.”

The spokesperson did not respond to follow-up questions asking why the phone number was explicitly listed in Cash App’s privacy policy as a way for consumers to exercise their data rights.

Experts I spoke with questioned whether companies are putting in enough effort to be legally compliant. “It shows how potentially little resources the companies are putting toward compliance and making sure that people can have access to their data,” says Mayu Tobin-Miyaji, a law fellow at the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Both Winters and Tobin-Miyaji mentioned a beefed-up approach to “data minimization” as a potential better path forward for consumers. This would essentially mean companies can collect only the data they need to process standard business operations. For example, saving your credit card information in the app for future purchases might be allowed, but collecting personal demographic information to sell to brokers might be blocked.

Data minimization is a more holistic approach that shifts the burden away from consumers, who are currently forced to navigate a bureaucratic obstacle course just to see what companies know about them. Instead, by limiting what companies can collect about you in the first place, consumers can have more peace of mind without going through the headache-inducing process I endured.

This story originally appeared on wired.com.

Armed Trump Golf Course Intruder Targets Melania

By
IwPost
-
0
armed-trump-golf-course-intruder-targets-melania
Armed Trump Golf Course Intruder Targets Melania


An armed man arrested at President Donald Trump’s California golf club allegedly had a disturbing cache of information about First Lady Melania Trump — including details about her personal schedule and the Secret Service agents assigned to protect her.

Jeanine John Taele, 38, was arrested earlier this month after plainclothes federal agents allegedly spotted him taking photos and videos while walking around Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles in Rancho Palos Verdes.

Authorities say the encounter quickly became far more alarming.

Agents allegedly found a loaded magazine in Taele’s pants pocket, while a later search uncovered notebooks filled with more than 200 pages of writings, drawings and information connected to the Trump property and Melania.

According to the Associated Press, Taele allegedly possessed 208 pages of notes and sketches, including drawings of the golf club, details about Secret Service personnel and information about the first lady’s personal schedule.

The notebooks reportedly also contained extensive lists about how to survive “off the grid.”

Investigators then searched Taele’s pickup truck, where they allegedly found a loaded handgun with a round already in the chamber, along with another loaded magazine containing hollow-point ammunition.

The discoveries did not stop there.

Authorities searching Taele’s home allegedly recovered an “illegally modified AR platform rifle,” a .45-caliber pistol, body armor, high-capacity magazines and additional ammunition.

Investigators also said they found “multiple notebooks containing concerning statements” and two radio signal devices.

The case was serious enough for Los Angeles County Judge John Lonergan Jr. to describe the allegations as “alarming.”

“This case itself is alarming in this day and age, with the violence that is creeping into our everyday lives, especially with our partisanship in the political environment,” the judge said during a hearing.

Taele pleaded not guilty to four criminal charges connected to his arrest.

However, the criminal proceedings have now been suspended after a pretrial evaluation concluded that he was not mentally competent to stand trial.

The case has been transferred to mental health court, and Taele is expected to remain behind bars until a Sept. 9 hearing at Hollywood Mental Health Court, according to the AP.

Taele’s public defender, A.J. Bayne, has urged people not to jump to conclusions about his client’s intentions.

Bayne pointed out that Taele is a Marine veteran who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

“He’s a veteran; he served our country, and I don’t know enough right now, but he has a family that loves him, that has huge support for him,” Bayne said, adding that “people assume too much” about what may have motivated him.

Authorities say Taele initially told federal agents that he worked with the State Department and was at the golf club as part of a security detail.

Trump later weighed in on the bizarre arrest with a characteristically defiant response.

“Well, the only thing I get a little solace from is, they say only consequential presidents,” Trump said. “And I am definitely consequential.”

The incident comes after Trump has already faced serious security threats at golf properties.

In 2024, Ryan Wesley Routh was accused of positioning himself near Trump’s West Palm Beach golf course with plans to kill the then-presidential candidate before a Secret Service agent spotted him.

Prosecutors said Routh had prepared what was described as a “sniper’s nest” near the course.

“This was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump, but I am so sorry I failed you,” Routh wrote in a note addressed “to the world.”

Routh was later sentenced to life in prison.

“Your plot to kill was deliberate and evil,” Judge Aileen Cannon told him at sentencing. “You are not a peaceful man.”

Now, the discovery of alleged weapons, golf course sketches and sensitive information connected to Melania Trump is raising a new round of chilling questions about security surrounding the president and first lady.

India-China competition in the Indian Ocean: stability is not a reset

By
IwPost
-
0
india-china-competition-in-the-indian-ocean:-stability-is-not-a-reset
India-China competition in the Indian Ocean: stability is not a reset

This article first appeared in Pacific Forum and is republished with permission. Read the original here.

There are multiple interpretations of where the India-China relationship stands today. Is there a thaw? Are the two sides gradually moving toward a reset? Or are ties still tense?

The reality lies somewhere in between. Since the Galwan Valley clashes in 2020, India has sought to manage ties with China, and there has been some momentum. The August 2025 meeting between Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi, along with some easing of restrictions on Chinese investment, suggests that both sides are now inclined toward preventing bilateral tensions from escalating further.

However, stabilization should not be confused with a reset. The fundamental sources of tension, including the boundary dispute, trade imbalance, security competition in South Asia, and broader strategic contest in the Indo-Pacific remain.

The disengagement along parts of the border has reduced the immediate risk of another confrontation but has not resolved the underlying differences and strategic mistrust that has deepened since 2020.

The developments of recent years have created a sense of normality, but not normalization. In this context, the current situation could only be described as fragile stabilization alongside continued strategic competition.

That competition, however, is not confined to the land border. The boundary dispute remains at the core of India-China tensions, but both countries have also strengthened their maritime capabilities and expanded their presence in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), where their interests increasingly intersect.

Maritime competition between the two is not new, but its implications for regional security and stability are growing. This matters, particularly for India, because the IOR is part of its immediate neighborhood and a region in which it has longstanding interests.

As China’s military presence expands, India needs to consider not only how to respond, but what kind of role it wants to play in the Indian Ocean.

Maritime contestation in the IOR

India’s interests in the IOR span geography, economics, strategy, and civilizational connections.

Its geographical position offers it a direct stake in the security and stability of the region, while its economic dependence on the Indian Ocean makes the security of maritime routes particularly important. A large part of India’s trade and energy supplies pass through the maritime trade routes and sea lanes of communication of the Indian Ocean.

India’s strategic interests in the region also translate into a greater maritime role. India has sought to establish itself as a net security provider in the IOR and expanded its naval engagement with countries across the region. Its role as a first responder has helped consolidate this image.

India has strengthened its role through humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR), naval exercises, capacity-building, and other forms of maritime cooperation. There is also a strong civilizational dimension to India’s relationship with the Indian Ocean. India has had longstanding connections with countries across the region through trade, migration, religion and cultural exchange.

China, though not an Indian Ocean littoral state, has rapidly expanded its economic, diplomatic, and naval presence in the region over the past decade. Its interests include energy security, trade, maritime routes, anti-piracy, and the protection of its growing overseas interests.

The scale and nature of this expansion raise a broader question: Does China seek only to secure its interests in the IOR, or to shape the maritime regional order in its favor? Undoubtedly, China has clear economic and security interests in the region, but its activities suggest ambitions beyond securing trade routes, energy supplies, and overseas interests.

Its growing military and dual-purpose presence give China greater capacity to sustain operations in the Indian Ocean and project power farther from its shores. Gwadar Port, China’s 99-year lease of Hambantota Port, and its first overseas military base in Djibouti illustrate that its economic and strategic presence increasingly intersect.

For India, the concern is that China’s growing capabilities could allow it to translate its interests into sustained maritime power and influence. Over time, this could give China a greater role in determining the regional balance and potentially allow it to dominate parts of its maritime sphere.

Its expanding military and dual-purpose presence in India’s neighborhood consequently add a maritime dimension to an existing security challenge and has become an important part of India’s assessment of the regional environment.

From China’s perspective, India’s position and capabilities are also central to its calculations in the IOR, allowing New Delhi to monitor and potentially constrain China’s regional maritime activities. India’s presence also forms part of the strategic environment that China must account for as it expands its Indian Ocean presence.

The competition extends beyond naval capabilities. Both India and China seek to build relationships with Indian Ocean states through political outreach, development, connectivity, maritime cooperation and security partnerships.

India has given greater attention to the IOR, particularly under the Modi administration. Modi’s consequential visits to Indian Ocean littoral states, including Maldives, Seychelles and Mauritius over the past decade signal a more sustained political outreach to the region.

India has also supported regional mechanisms and dialogues, including the Indian Ocean Rim Association, the Indian Ocean Dialogue, and the Indian Ocean Conference. Initiatives such as SAGAR, Samudra Manthan, Project Mausam and the Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative also point to India’s effort to give greater strategic depth and coherence to this engagement.

This has been accompanied by regular naval deployments and port visits across the region, making naval diplomacy an important part of India’s engagement with Indian Ocean states.

China pursues its own regional outreach, establishing the China-Indian Ocean Region Forum in 2022 and expanding its naval engagement, including port visits, exercises, maritime security cooperation, and HADR, among other forms of cooperation.

A more proactive Indian Ocean strategy

India’s response to China’s growing presence cannot be to match China ship for ship. China has a much larger industrial base, much greater shipbuilding capacity, and substantially greater resources available for sustained naval expansion.

India is unlikely to close this gap in the foreseeable future. The objective should instead be to build a maritime strategy suited to India’s own geographic advantages and regional interests.

India has already begun to move in this direction. Attention to the IOR under the Modi government represents a departure from India’s traditionally more continental strategic focus. But India’s outreach remains spread across a number of initiatives rather than a clearly defined long-term IOR strategy.

First, India needs to move from individual initiatives toward a more coherent and institutionalized IOR framework. Rather than treating maritime security, HADR, connectivity, capacity-building and development partnerships as separate strands of engagement, India should find a way for different tools to serve its broader regional objectives. A clearer coherent framework would also help provide greater continuity across governments and institutions.

Second, India should use this coherent framework to build on the partnerships it has already established. Modi’s outreach to countries in the region has already created the much-needed political momentum, while India already has a range of development, connectivity, HADR, capacity-building and maritime security initiatives across the region. The priority now should be to make sure of the implementation of the initiative and that these engagements more reliable, sustained and predictable.

This means following through on existing commitments, strengthening institutional mechanisms with partner countries and ensuring that India’s engagement responds to their priorities. India does not need to match every Chinese initiative, and it cannot, but it needs to focus on building a reputation as a consistent and dependable long-term partner.

Third, India needs to strengthen the security component of its regional engagement. India’s broader developmental engagement in the Indian Ocean is an advantage, but it needs to be complemented by a stronger security-oriented presence if India is to fulfil its ambition of becoming a net security provider.

This could involve expanding logistical support agreements, coastal surveillance, information sharing, and joint operations. India should also make greater use of partnerships with countries that share an interest in a stable and open Indian Ocean.

France is particularly important in this regard, given its territorial presence and military capabilities in the region. Closer cooperation with France, as well as other partners, can expand India’s maritime reach and capabilities without requiring India to replicate China’s scale of naval deployment.

Finally, India needs to be more confident in articulating what kind of regional role it wants to play. India does not need to choose between being a security provider and a development partner. It needs to strengthen the mechanisms and partnerships it already has rather than continually creating new initiatives.

Its geographical position, naval capabilities, development partnerships and longstanding relationships with Indian Ocean states give it a strong foundation on which to build. China’s growing military presence in the IOR is likely to remain a feature of the regional security environment and will continue to pose a direct challenge to India.

India’s response should not be limited to reacting to Chinese moves. Instead, Beijing’s growing presence should push New Delhi to sharpen and strengthen an Indian Ocean strategy that builds on its existing interests, partnerships, initiatives and capabilities.

India’s greatest advantage is also its most obvious one: It is a resident Indian Ocean power with the geographic position and maritime capabilities to shape the regional order and safeguard stability.

Sana Hashmi, PhD, (sanahashmi2@gmail.com) is a fellow at the Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation. She is an affiliated scholar with the Research Institute for Indo-Pacific Affairs. She has also served as a consultant with India’s Ministry of External Affairs’ Southern Division. The views expressed here are personal.

EXPLAINER – From Ebla to Iran: How Sanctions Became the Weapon Between Diplomacy and War 

By
IwPost
-
0
explainer-–-from-ebla-to-iran:-how-sanctions-became-the-weapon-between-diplomacy-and-war 
EXPLAINER – From Ebla to Iran: How Sanctions Became the Weapon Between Diplomacy and War 


Economic pressure has evolved from ancient trade restrictions into a global system of asset freezes, embargoes, financial penalties, and export controls 

Sanctions are a form of nonmilitary pressure imposed by governments, groups of countries, or international bodies on a state, armed group, company, or individual. They restrict trade, financial transactions, travel, or access to technology in an effort to change behavior, deter prohibited conduct, or limit a target’s capabilities. 

Governments now use sanctions as a central instrument of Middle East policy, particularly in relation to Iran, Yemen, Libya, Syria, and armed groups operating across the region. 

The modern sanctions system is largely a product of the 20th century, but rulers employed trade restrictions and other forms of economic coercion thousands of years earlier. 

One of the oldest surviving diplomatic agreements is the treaty between Ebla, a city-state in what is now northwestern Syria, and neighboring Abarsal, dating to about 2400–2350 BCE. The agreement regulated movement, supplies, and obligations between the two polities and prescribed penalties for violations. Although it would be anachronistic to describe the treaty as a modern sanctions regime, it shows that ancient rulers used economic restrictions and punitive measures to manage relations with neighboring states. 

A clearer early example of an embargo dates to around 1230 BCE. Hittite King Tudhaliya IV ordered Shaushgamuwa, the ruler of the Hittite vassal kingdom of Amurru, to sever commercial ties with Assyria. Merchants from Amurru were barred from trading with Assyria, Assyrian merchants were to be denied passage through Amurru, and Assyrians who entered could be seized and handed over to the Hittite king. 

Athens’ Megarian Decree of 432 BCE remains the best-known early Western example. It excluded Megarian merchants from Athenian markets and ports and became one of the disputes preceding the Peloponnesian War. States in the ancient Near East, though, had used coercive restrictions on trade and movement centuries earlier. 

Today, sanctions may be imposed unilaterally by one country, collectively by groups such as the European Union, or multilaterally through the UN Security Council. Those imposing them generally present sanctions as a way to address war, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, human rights abuses, corruption, or violations of international law without immediately resorting to military force. 

Common sanctions include: 

  • Asset freezes prevent a targeted person, company, or state entity from accessing money, property, or investments held within the jurisdiction imposing the measures. The assets normally remain the target’s property but cannot be moved, sold, or used without official authorization. 
  • Trade restrictions prohibit or limit the sale, purchase, or transfer of goods to or from a target. They may apply broadly or focus on specified products, such as weapons, oil equipment, software, advanced technology, or goods with both civilian and military uses. 
  • Export controls restrict the transfer of specified goods, software, or technology for national-security or foreign-policy reasons. Although often used alongside sanctions, export controls are generally administered under separate legal authorities. 
  • Financial sanctions limit access to banking services, loans, investments, insurance, payment systems, or foreign currency. They can make international business difficult even when the underlying trade is not formally prohibited. 
  • Travel bans prevent named individuals from entering or traveling through participating countries. They are often imposed on political leaders, military commanders, financiers, or members of armed groups. 
  • Arms embargoes prohibit the sale, supply, or transfer of weapons, ammunition, and related military equipment. They may also cover training, technical assistance, and financing connected to military activity. 
  • Shipping sanctions target vessels, cargoes, owners, operators, insurers, or port services involved in prohibited trade. They are commonly used to disrupt illicit oil exports, weapons transfers, or sanctions-evasion schemes. 
  • Secondary sanctions threaten penalties against foreign financial institutions, companies, or individuals that conduct specified business with a sanctioned target. They allow a country to exert influence beyond its own borders by forcing foreign businesses to choose between the sanctioned market and access to the sanctioning country’s economy. 

The word “sanctions” can therefore describe very different measures. Some impose sweeping restrictions on a government or a major economic sector; others target a single commander, company, ship, or financier. 

Primary sanctions generally govern the conduct of people and companies within the sanctioning country’s jurisdiction. US primary sanctions, for example, commonly prohibit US citizens, residents, companies, and financial institutions from conducting specified transactions. Secondary sanctions target certain conduct by foreign parties even when no US person is directly involved. 

Iran is subject to the Middle East’s most extensive current sanctions regime. The US maintains broad restrictions related to Iran’s nuclear and missile activities, support for armed groups, human rights abuses, petroleum trade, military procurement, and other conduct. 

On Aug. 24, the US Treasury Department expanded the Iranian economic sectors covered by Executive Order 13902 to include aviation, digital assets, gold, shipping, and technology. The action did not create an entirely new Iran sanctions system. It broadened the categories of activity that can expose people and businesses to designation or secondary-sanctions risk. 

The European Union maintains separate sanctions connected to Iran’s nuclear proliferation activities, human rights violations, military support for Russia’s war against Ukraine, support for armed groups in the Middle East and Red Sea region, and threats to freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. 

Yemen is not subject to a comprehensive UN embargo. UN measures focus on designated people and entities judged to threaten the country’s peace, security, or stability. They include asset freezes, travel bans, and a targeted arms embargo. 

Libya remains subject to a separate UN framework that includes an arms embargo, asset freezes, and travel bans. The Security Council has also authorized measures against vessels involved in illicit exports of Libyan crude oil and other petroleum products. 

US policy toward Syria shifted substantially in 2025. President Trump revoked the comprehensive Syria sanctions program, but Washington retained targeted authorities covering members and associates of the former Assad government, human rights abusers, Captagon traffickers, terrorist organizations, people linked to chemical-weapons or proliferation activities, and others considered threats to Syria or its neighbors. 

Elsewhere in the region, sanctions are generally narrower. US measures concerning Lebanon and Iraq tend to target particular people, companies, or networks accused of corruption, terrorism financing, destabilizing conduct, or other threats to security rather than either country’s economy as a whole. 

Middle Eastern governments also use economic coercion against neighboring states and rivals. 

The 2017–2021 blockade of Qatar was a prominent recent example. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt severed diplomatic relations and sharply restricted transport and commercial ties with Qatar, accusing it of supporting terrorism and interfering in other countries’ affairs. Qatar denied the accusations. 

Qatar initially faced disrupted supply routes and travel but developed alternatives through Turkey, Iran, and new shipping arrangements. The blockade ended in January 2021 without Qatar publicly accepting the full list of demands originally presented by the four countries. 

Regional economic pressure is often less formal than US, EU, or UN sanctions. It may involve border closures, airspace restrictions, boycotts, banking constraints, trade restrictions, or pressure on companies not to deal with a particular state or organization. A coercive economic measure does not have to carry the formal label “sanction” to produce similar effects. 

Sanctions can raise the cost of prohibited conduct, restrict access to money or technology, isolate key individuals, and create incentives for negotiation. They tend to exert greater pressure when major economies act together and the target depends on them for finance, trade, military equipment, or essential imports. 

Measures are less reliable when the objective is regime change, the reversal of a deeply rooted security policy, or the collapse of a determined government. Targets may find alternative buyers, employ intermediaries, expand smuggling, draw on reserves, or shift the economic burden onto their populations. Governments may also blame foreign sanctions for economic failures caused partly by their own policies. 

Sanctions can impose humanitarian costs even when food, medicine, and humanitarian assistance are formally exempt. Banks and suppliers may refuse otherwise lawful transactions because they fear inadvertently violating complex rules or suffering legal and reputational consequences. This practice, often called overcompliance or derisking, can impede humanitarian work and access to essential goods, particularly in countries already affected by war, institutional collapse, or economic mismanagement. 

Whether sanctions work depends less on their severity alone than on the objective, international cooperation, enforcement, available exemptions, and the target’s ability to replace lost markets and financial relationships. 

 

 

Meta makes AI glasses slightly less creepy with limit on nonconsensual recording

By
IwPost
-
0
meta-makes-ai-glasses-slightly-less-creepy-with-limit-on-nonconsensual-recording
Meta makes AI glasses slightly less creepy with limit on nonconsensual recording

Meta is rolling out an obvious fix to make its AI glasses less creepy amid backlash over the glasses’ non-consensual recordings that have flooded the Internet.

On Friday, The Verge reported that Meta closed a loophole that made it easy for smart glasses users to cover up an LED light that is supposed to alert bystanders that the device is actively recording. Meta had previously deactivated recording if a user attempted to start capturing video after placing a sticker over the light, but people quickly learned that they could get around that by reversing the order of the steps and covering up the light after they started recording.

In a post on Threads, Meta’s executive vice president of wearables, Alex Himel, explained that an update would be rolled out soon that ensures that “the camera will now stop working if the light is covered during a recording.” That way “the capture LED can reliably alert bystanders when photos or videos are being captured for someone’s gallery,” Himel said.

According to Himel, “only a tiny minority of people try to get around these protections, and the fact they have to go to these lengths shows our efforts are working. We’ll keep improving and evolving our approach.”

However, bad actors may still be able to modify the glasses or tamper with the light without affecting recordings. And it’s unclear if popular bypasses, like using semi-transparent stickers that make the light less noticeable, would block recording under Meta’s new safeguard.

Data regulators in the European Union are currently probing privacy concerns with Meta’s glasses and have suggested that Meta may not have properly field-tested the LED light to ensure that the public would understand its safety functionality. Germany is considering banning the glasses after a nonprofit filed a criminal complaint alleging that they breach Germany’s strict privacy laws, Politico reported. And Germany is not alone, as many countries in the EU mull a crackdown on the technology, which they see as invasive and carrying a risk of expanding mass surveillance. Another Politico report confirmed that the European Data Protection Board will release a report later this summer to decide what actions should be taken to ensure no one in the EU is recorded without their consent.

Meanwhile, there’s a proposed nationwide class action lawsuit advancing in the US that accuses Meta of continually lying about privacy risks in the marketing of its AI glasses. Meta has yet to file a response in that litigation, but in its statements and marketing campaigns, the tech giant continues to insist the glasses are designed with privacy in mind.

Privacy risks remain, users say

In addition to the tweak to block some smart glasses users from bypassing the only safeguard that helps prevent nonconsensual recording, Meta also launched a new marketing campaign to spread awareness about the LED light feature, The Verge reported.

In Los Angeles, for example, there’s a billboard that shows an image of a smiling girl wearing Meta glasses, with her fingers placed to draw attention to the recording light that shines as brightly as her grin. The caption reads, “The camera lets you capture the moment. The light lets everyone around you know when you do.”

“Designed for everyone,” the billboard says. “Not just the people wearing them.”

Whether that messaging is going to drive it home to people breezing past the billboard that Meta glasses may be recording you if you see a light on, the EU suspects that we don’t really know.

However, people who bought into the privacy promises and are now suing Meta for false advertising have warned that Meta has long been pushing this messaging, claiming in prior ads that Meta AI Glasses are “Built for your privacy and others’ too.” But “in reality, users of Meta AI Glasses cannot control what happens to their data, or the data they capture of the people around them,” the users alleged.

Although the class action complaint is not explicitly focused on nonconsensual recording, the complaint alleged that its core claims reveal another layer of the issue that many members of the public likely don’t understand from the marketing campaigns.

The lawsuit challenges Meta’s advertising claims that glasses users control data, saying this is “false” and alleging that Meta does not inform users that human data annotators in Kenya review all footage captured by the glasses, allegedly in order to train Meta AI. That reportedly includes watching “deeply personal” videos, including those depicting sexual activity or bathroom visits, as well as sensitive content, like credit card information or private text messages.

As one example of how this ropes in unwitting people who aren’t aware of the privacy risks of nearby glasses, the complaint cited one video where a user set down his Meta glasses on his nightstand, which then captured video of his wife undressing.

“The video was sent to people halfway around the world to view and annotate in order to train AI—all without the woman’s knowledge that the video of her had been captured in the first place,” the lawsuit said.

Users suing are hoping to force Meta to pay out damages, including potentially punitive damages, to every person in the US who bought smart glasses under the allegedly false premise that Meta cared about user privacy.

“Despite their actual knowledge of the human review pipeline and the inherent safety and privacy risks associated with such sharing of data, Defendants have continued to market the Glasses using the same ‘designed for privacy’ representations,” the lawsuit said.

They’ve also asked the court to force Meta to change its messaging. That would include blocking Meta from continuing to advertise glasses as privacy-protecting, which users alleged would ensure that Meta’s future customers aren’t exposed to “unreasonable risks of dignitary harm, emotional distress, stalking, extortion, identity theft, and reputational injury.” In a loss, Meta could also be required to improve its public awareness campaigns and fully explain the privacy risks of its smart glasses.

If Meta’s alleged deception goes unchecked, users suing have claimed that the company will continue treating smart-glasses wearers as a lucrative new source of data, without meaningfully protecting them or the public from the most significant privacy risks.

“The consumer data is extremely valuable to Meta,” the lawsuit said. “New data input is central to AI production, but as AI labs exhaust publicly available data, proprietary sources of new data can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. But instead, Meta can farm personal data from unknowing consumers who have already purchased the Products—turning consumers themselves into commodities without them ever knowing it.”

Poland rules out hosting nuclear weapons

By
IwPost
-
0
poland-rules-out-hosting-nuclear-weapons
Poland rules out hosting nuclear weapons


Poland “does not want” allied nuclear weapons stationed on its territory, the country’s Deputy Defense Minister Paweł Zalewski said, despite growing worries of a Russian incursion into NATO territory.

“I would like to say very clearly and openly: Poland does not want to have nuclear warheads on its territory,” he told reporters at NATO headquarters in Brussels. “We want to participate in NATO nuclear deterrence, [which] does not mean to have a nuclear warhead on our territory.”

Zalewski’s statement is Warsaw’s most categorical statement on the topic. While it has previously expressed skepticism toward hosting nuclear weapons, Poland has also said it was in early-stage talks with the U.S. around a potential expansion of Washington’s nuclear deterrent in Europe, and had in parallel joined a French initiative aimed at extending Paris’ own deterrent in Europe.

Separately, Polish President Karol Nawrocki has left the door open to Warsaw eventually building its own nuclear weapons program.

Western officials have warned Russia could attack NATO territory by the end of the decade, while recent U.S. intelligence suggests an attack could come even sooner.

Via Politico

Nepal glacial disaster and the new geography of climate risk

By
IwPost
-
0
nepal-glacial-disaster-and-the-new-geography-of-climate-risk
Nepal glacial disaster and the new geography of climate risk

On August 26, the Himalayas seemed to move. An enormous mass of ice and rock broke loose near the Nepal-Tibet border, plunging into the Lhende Khola River and unleashing a wall of water, mud, boulders and debris down the mountain valleys.

What followed was not merely a flood but a cascading geological event: glacier collapse, debris flow, river surge and infrastructure failure compressed into minutes. The torrent swept away homes, bridges, roads and hydropower installations along Nepal’s Bhote Koshi and Trishuli river systems.

By Thursday, 353 were declared dead across Nepal and Tibet, with more than 1,300 missing. Reportedly, these include 517 citizens of more than 33 countries, including 178 from India, 65 Americans, 55 Malaysians, 53 Ukrainians, 25 Canadians and others from Germany, France, UK, Italy and so on.

It may be tempting to see this as another distant natural disaster. But what has happened is a warning about a rapidly changing geography of climate risk. Mountains around the world are becoming less predictable, infrastructure more vulnerable and environmental hazards increasingly transnational.

Glaciers becoming geopolitical actors

The most unsettling was its speed. The US Geological Survey and satellite imagery reveal an ice-rock mass broke away at high altitude, “collapsed about 1.2km vertically” before entering the river system. The resulting surge pushed river levels dramatically upward, in places reportedly by as much as nine meters in 30 minutes.

A glacier did what diplomats and armies do; it crossed a political boundary with dangerous consequences. The collapse occurred on the Tibetan side of the Himalayas; the devastation raced into Nepal; downstream rivers carried the consequences farther downstream, with India placing its neighboring under high alert.

This is the beginning of the new geopolitics of the cryospheres. Climate change is turning ice into an instrument — not of political intention, but of geopolitical consequence. Of course, the question is no longer whether Nepal should develop its hydropower, roads and tourism. The question is whether 20th-century infrastructure can survive 21st-century mountain physics.

Much of Himalayan development remains conceived around a relatively stable understanding of mountain hazards. Roads are carved into unstable slopes—Hydropower projects constructed in narrow valleys. Towns expanded along rivers. Tourism and pilgrimage routes multiplied. Bridges and transmission lines followed the logic of accessibility rather than the increasingly complex logic of cascading risks.

But the climate has changed faster than these engineering assumptions. The 2021 Melamchi flood demonstrated how a single catchment can threaten both urban settlements as well as Kathmandu’s critical water-supply infrastructure. An Asian Development Bank assessment subsequently argued for catchment-wide hazard mapping, early warning and a fundamentally new design basis for infrastructure.

These underlying assumptions must also move from national to regional level. A road should not merely be designed against yesterday’s landslide. A hydropower plant can not be assessed against a historical flood record that assumes the climate is stationary.

Urban expansion cannot treat riverbanks and floodplains as empty real estate. The central engineering question must become: What happens when several hazards occur sequentially — or simultaneously?

Himalayas feed two billion people

The Hindu Kush Himalaya contains more than 63,000 glaciers that provide water and ecosystem services to nearly two billion people, roughly one-quarter of humanity. Agriculture, drinking water, hydropower and major Asian river systems depend upon the mountains’ snow and ice.

The Himalayan cryosphere is changing at extraordinary speed. ICIMOD reported in 2023 that glaciers in the Hindu Kush Himalaya disappeared 65% faster during 2011-2020 than during the preceding decade. Its 2026 assessment found that glaciers have lost up to 27 meters of ice thickness since 1975, with ice loss accelerating markedly since 2000.

For centuries, societies learned to live with monsoon floods, landslides and avalanches as recurring features of Himalayan life. But the Anthropocene is changing those parameters. Warmer temperatures accelerate melting; thawing permafrost weakens mountain slopes; expanding glacial lakes create unstable reservoirs; intense precipitation can mobilize enormous quantities of sediment and rock.

With rampant urbanization downstream, the mountains are becoming more important as water towers but also more dangerous as hazard systems. The result is not simply more floods. It is more complex floods.

Cascade disasters to come

Scientific research now describes Himalayan disasters as compound or cascading events. A 2025 analysis of 1,015 floods across High Mountain Asia found a significant increase in flood frequency since 2000 and, crucially, greater unpredictability in when floods occur. Climate change is interacting with snowmelt, rainfall, glaciers, landslides and topography to create hazards that no longer fit neatly into one category.

The June 2021 Melamchi disaster had combined extreme rainfall with landslides, glacial-lake outburst and temporary river damming. In October 2023, the South Lhonak glacial lake outburst in India’s Sikkim destroyed 13 bridges and a major hydropower plant and affected more than 60,000 people. The 2021 Chamoli disaster in Uttarakhand killed or left missing more than 200 people after a massive rock-and-ice collapse generated a destructive flood.

These are not identical events, and scientists rightly caution against attributing every individual glacier collapse directly to climate change. But the larger physical system is unmistakably changing.

The danger lies precisely in the cascade: a warming climate destabilizes ice and slopes; human settlement increases exposure; infrastructure channels the consequences; and one failure triggers another.

No longer a faraway problem

This Himalayan catastrophe must not be ignored as a faraway challenge. The world has become increasingly intertwined.

A large number of foreign nationals, for example, are among those reported missing in Nepal; subsequent counts may change as authorities reconcile lists. Many victims were trekkers, tourists or pilgrims traveling toward Mount Kailash during the peak pilgrimage season.

The tragedy exposes one more novel dimension of climate insecurity: mobility. Global citizens increasingly travel into climate-vulnerable landscapes — from Himalayan valleys to Arctic communities, wildfire zones and hurricane corridors.

Therefore, governments must collectively think beyond evacuation and disaster relief toward innovative, anticipatory diplomacy:: satellite monitoring, consular preparedness, cross-border search and rescue, emergency communications and reliable early-warning systems.

The answer does not lie in abandoning the mountains. It lies in stopping treating them as static scenery for livelihoods, fun and adventure.

The Himalayas need a transboundary climate-risk architecture: shared glacier and river monitoring; interoperable early-warning systems; real-time data exchange; climate-adjusted engineering standards; hazard-sensitive urban planning; and much stronger community-level preparedness.

The way forward

For over two centuries, modernity has imagined mountains as obstacles to be conquered, rivers as resources to be harnessed and glaciers as permanent features of the landscape. The Anthropocene is fast eroding such illusions.

The mountains are moving. The ice is retreating, and rivers are becoming less predictable. And the infrastructure built to master the Himalayas may increasingly find itself at the mercy of cascades.

These flash floods must compel Nepal, India and China to build functioning mechanisms for communicating about hazards that do not respect their borders. A glacier does not wait for a diplomatic note.

Nations with expertise in these sciences too have a role — not merely through emergency assistance but through satellite technology, climate science, disaster-risk finance, insurance expertise and resilient infrastructure investment. The great lesson of Nepal’s flood is therefore way larger than Nepal.

The question before Asia — and increasingly before the world — is no longer how to control the mountains. It is how to live intelligently with mountains whose climate, ice and hazards are shifting beneath our feet.

Swaran Singh is professor of international relations at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

US Democratic senators urge Israel to halt settlement plan in occupied West Bank

By
IwPost
-
0
us-democratic-senators-urge-israel-to-halt-settlement-plan-in-occupied-west-bank
US Democratic senators urge Israel to halt settlement plan in occupied West Bank

A group of Democratic senators is urging Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to cancel a planned settlement project in the occupied West Bank that they say would effectively divide the Palestinian territory, Anadolu reports.

In a statement Friday led by Arizona Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego, 29 lawmakers criticized Israel’s decision to open bidding for construction in the E1 area east of Jerusalem, according to The Hill.

“The United States must remain committed to a two-state solution that delivers lasting peace and security for both the Jewish, democratic State of Israel and for a future Palestinian state,” the Democrats wrote. “Construction in E1 would take us further away from that goal.”

The project includes seven residential compounds totaling 1,234 housing units. Israel’s Construction and Housing Ministry opened bidding on Aug. 18, with a deadline of Oct. 19.

The senators warned that the development could further isolate occupied East Jerusalem from Palestinian population centers such as Bethlehem and Ramallah. The E1 project has been stalled for decades amid regional and international opposition.

“For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have recognized that development in E1 would seriously jeopardize the prospects for a Palestinian state,” the lawmakers wrote. “That concern remains just as urgent today.”

The statement also referenced a separate letter signed by 44 Democratic senators and independent Sen. Angus King calling for action over reported violence by Israeli occupiers against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.

“We urge the Israeli government to immediately rescind these tenders, halt settlement expansion in the West Bank, and take urgent action to rein in settler violence,” the Democrats wrote.

They also warned that failure to change course risked weakening Israel’s international standing.

123...863Page 1 of 863
0FansLike
0FollowersFollow
0FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe
- Advertisement -
Google search engine

Recent Posts

POPULAR POSTS

POPULAR CATEGORY