Turkiye’s EU adventure, which began in 1959, continued with the Customs Union in 1996 and full membership negotiations in 2005. Turkiye was the first country to be accepted into the Customs Union without being granted political membership rights. After 2002, the AKP government made vital concessions that had serious repercussions in terms of its founding principles, state structure and internal stability in line with its goal of full membership in the EU, but it could not receive anything in return from the EU.
The EU’s pressure policies towards Turkiye’s geopolitical centers of gravity have continued in every period.
The Turkish Republic of North Cyprus (TRNC) was targeted with the Annan Plan, the Blue Homeland with the Seville Map, and Southeastern Anatolia with the EU Harmonization and Kurdish Initiative (Açılım) Process.
Today, the pressures on these centers of gravity continue in line with the USA as the EU continues historically to view Turks as the other.
Europe has had a history of conflict with Turks since the 11th century. Today, Germany and France’s support for the PKK (Separatist terror movement) and FETÖ (The Gulenists) and the fact that almost all EU countries, as well as the UK and the US, stand against Turkiye in the Turkish-Greek conflicts are indicators of this historical continuity. Although the EU sees Turkey as a rival for its own geopolitics, it does not accept Turkey acting in alliance with Russia and China, namely Asian powers, turning towards Asia, or leaving the EU/US influence.
As long as Turkiye is dependent on the vision of full membership with the EU and at the same time remains within NATO, it cannot achieve its own geopolitical sovereignty. Therefore, it is unrealistic for Turkiye, whose sovereignty is targeted in many areas, to continue its ambition for full membership with the EU. From a geopolitical perspective, it is like Stockholm Syndorme. On the other hand, in the economic field, Ankara has gained some gains from the Customs Union Agreement with the EU since 1996, but it has also suffered losses to the same extent.
Image: Former German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 de)
Former German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel said the following at the beginning of the Customs Union membership period:
“Türkiye is now our Algeria. At the end of this union, Turkey has opened its own market to Europe without becoming a full member, that is, without gaining all partnership rights.”
Although Turkey’s acceptance to the Customs Union without being accepted as a full member of the EU facilitated trade, allowed for easier movement of goods and encouraged foreign capital inflow, the fate of our industrial sector and agricultural sector, which are vital for the country’s economy, was left to the EU, where we never had a place in the decision-making mechanism. In terms of agricultural exports, we faced restrictions that could prevent the growth of this sector and we shrank. Today, we have become a country dependent on foreign countries in agriculture. With this agreement, Turkey opened its doors to European goods. In return, we were restricted from making free trade agreements with other countries and blocs. Most importantly, we accepted all the EU’s commercial decisions, whether they were in our interests or not. On the other hand, there is almost no political will and desire among the 27 countries for Turkey’s full membership in the EU. The fact that Turkey lags far behind in areas highlighted by the EU’s acquis, such as law, human rights, combating corruption and transparency, plays an important role.
However, the EU’s standing on the same front as Israel, which has destroyed human rights to the point of genocide, especially in the Israeli-Palestinian Crisis cripples its status as law abding structure. Futhermore its increasing hostility towards Russia to the highest level in order to focus on continuing the Ukraine War despite Ukraine’s great losses just for the astronomical increase of the EU’s defense budget reflects another shortcoming for Peaceful Settlement. As it encourages the ban of the AfD in Germany, Marine Le Pen in France, and Calin Georgescu in Romania and openly aligning itself with neo-Nazis in Ukraine have weakened the EU’s credibility and ideal-forming features.
So, what is the EU’s situation today? Where is the EU being thrown by the two blows it has received from the US, the first geopolitical and the second economic? Why does it support the Ukraine-Russia war despite the fact that it has caused great economic losses and has no ability to intervene? The answers to these questions are undoubtedly guiding in Turkiye’s perspective of approaching the EU.
EU Geopolitics
The EU is an imperialist structure. It has remained completely dependent on the US in terms of defense and security, and has become an inseparable part and representative of the imperialist Atlantic geopolitics alongside the US.
When the Cold War ended, it could not intervene in the Yugoslavia crisis, where Bosnian massacres at an almost genocidal level were taking place, and withdrew, having become dependent on American weapons power.
Later, it encouraged all Central and Eastern European countries that were formerly in the Soviet sphere of influence to become NATO members and to enter the American sphere of influence and make destructive moves that would provoke Russia.
After September 11, the major powers of the EU, France, England and Italy, surrendered unconditionally to American neocon policies (Global War on Terror – GWOT), and believed in the tale of Saddam’s nuclear weapons invented by the Neocons, even though they knew it was a lie.
It has raised its threshold of risking hostility and even war with its border country Russia, on which it is dependent for energy supply security, to a level higher than the Cold War years.
With the end of the Cold War, the European Armed shrank like the US in the intoxication of achieving a major war without firing a bullet through NATO.
Warships, aircraft, and armored units were rapidly retired. In 1993, the Maastricht Treaty brought the European Common Foreign and Security Policy (CSFP) to the agenda. They decided to expand in the same year. However, expansion did not apply to defense capabilities. NATO, under the control of the US, first opened the door to defense autonomy for the EU with the European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI). The transformation of this identity into policy (ESDP) was only achieved in 1999.
.
Stone memorial in front of the entry to the Limburg Province government building in Maastricht, Netherlands, commemorating the signing of the Maastricht Treaty (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)
.
In the intervening years, despite a few ambitious initiatives (European Army, PESCO, etc.), the EU could not increase the specific weight of its collective military capabilities against either Russia or the US. Because the US accustomed European countries, except for England and partly France, to strategic laziness after 1949.
Europeans, pleased with the almost free defense and deterrence offered to them, utilized their defense expenditures in the economic field and established a welfare society.
Now the EU has had to move from a community of welfare states to a community of security states and is having difficulty.
They need a resource of nearly 800 billion Euros by 2030. These resources cannot be provided without serious austerity policies on the people. Today, while the US is regressing, the EU and the UK are weakening in every field, the Ukraine-Russia war is nearing its end. Ukraine has also lost Trump’s open military support. Apart from France, there is no country in Europe that will provide troops to the structure that will provide security guarantee in Ukraine. On the other hand, for now, the EU cannot provide deterrence against Russia on its own without the US by its side.
However, this weakness is in line with the geopolitical interests of the US. Because the US does not want a rapprochement between the EU and Russia and therefore a power that has ensured the unity of the Eurasian island in the west.
For this reason, Russia has always been encouraged to act in a way that would pose a threat to Europe. On the other hand, it can be said that the EU’s current management cadres, the London-centered global Oligarchic Financial structure and monarchy are in the sphere of influence of the US neocons.
This structure does not allow Russia to grow as a state with the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, the richest natural resources and the largest surface area, right next to Europe. However, although they do not have the military power to support Ukraine, they insist that Ukraine continue to fight and harm Russia under any circumstances.
Let’s add that this situation also encourages the US military industry to continuously sell weapons to EU countries. Last year, the US sold 120 billion dollars worth of weapons to European countries. In order to continue this very valuable trade, the US always wants a threat to Europe.
While the US is moving away from Europe in search of balance with China, it wants the EU to increase its defense spending and remain a constant enemy with Russia. For this reason, the EU did not attend the Victory Ceremonies held in Moscow on May 9, 2025, even though the Soviets were the main power that saved Europe from the Nazi occupation and regime in World War II.
The EU and Its Achilles Heels
Former European Commission Vice President Josep Borrell described Europe as “a garden of prosperity surrounded by the wild forest of the rest of the world.”
However, first with the Covid period, then the Russia-Ukraine crisis, and finally with the statements and practices of Trump’s MAGA regime that can be considered a direct attack on the EU’s Defense and Economy, the EU is rapidly moving away from being a garden of prosperity.
The European Union (EU) entered a serious crisis after the Trump administration came to power on January 20, 2025. As of today, it is facing significant challenges in various areas.
These challenges seriously threaten the EU’s internal integrity and global effectiveness. These can be considered as the EU’s “Achilles Heels.”
These challenges can be listed as
- Economic Stagnation and Loss of Competitiveness;
- Weaknesses in Immigration and Asylum Policies;
- Strategic Weaknesses in Foreign Policy and Defense;
- Energy Deficit and Deindustrialization;
- Political Instability Among Member States;
- Agricultural Policies and Farmer Protests,
- Population Decline and
- Lack of Institutional and Strategic Cohesion.
These weaknesses make it necessary for the EU to define a new vision and chart a course in the last 75 years of the 21st century.
Economic Recession
The EU is aging and its productivity is falling. They are behind the US and China in terms of digitalization and green transformation. The locomotive Germany’s economy, which is dependent on its industrial base, is seriously affected by Chinese competition and the pressures exerted by the US due to the Russia-Ukraine War.
The EU economy has attracted attention with its low growth rates in recent years. While a growth of 1.5% is projected in 2025, this rate is behind major economies such as the US and China. In addition, high public debts and budget deficits restrict economic flexibility, especially in countries such as Greece, Italy, France, Belgium, Spain and Portugal.
In 2023, the EU had a trade deficit of 291 billion euros with China, indicating an imbalance. Today, this deficit has reached 305 billion euros in China’s favor. China supplies about a third of the more than 200 products the EU depends on, including rare metals, pharmaceuticals and chemicals, and some sectors reach a dependency of up to 90%. China will surpass the EU in automobile production, which is the EU’s most ambitious sector, by the end of 2025.
The strictness of the EU’s own internal rules also plays an important role in this process. There are warnings in the media that if the EU does not simplify and reduce environmental regulations, the European automotive market could shrink by more than half in ten years.
The Trump administration has already set its sights on reducing the increasing trade deficit with the EU and reducing imports from the EU through new tariffs. While the US had a trade deficit of $131 billion in favor of the EU in 2022, this deficit increased to $235 billion in 2024. Trump aims to weaken the EU economies in order to reverse this ratio, while at the same time desiring to increase defense spending. This situation will undoubtedly create major vulnerabilities.
On the other hand, France, another locomotive of the EU economy, is faced with increasing debt stocks and unbalanced domestic politics. France, which is struggling with immigration and intercultural conflicts, recorded a budget deficit equal to 5.8% of its national income in 2024. Experts point out that in this case, the interest on the debt alone could exceed $108 billion per year in 3-4 years. This amount is equal to the total of France’s education and defense budgets. On the other hand, youth unemployment in the EU was 14.5% in February, reflecting the difficulties in integrating young people into the labor market.
The Illegal Migration Problem
Due to the North African and Middle Eastern crises caused by US neocons, Israel and NATO, the EU has witnessed serious illegal migration and refugee flows after the Arab Spring. The interesting thing is that despite the fact that this movement was anticipated via the Mediterranean, the EU unconditionally supports US and Israeli policies (Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria).
Between 2011 and 2015, 604 thousand refugees and illegal immigrants entered EU territory. Almost two million were added to this number in 2015. Although this number dropped to half a million in 2016 after Turkey and the EU signed a humiliating illegal migration agreement worth 9 billion euros, a total of 1.8 million more Middle Eastern, North African and Sahelian migrants managed to cross into EU countries between 2017 and 2025.
As of today, there are three million Middle Eastern/African refugees/people under temporary protection within the EU borders, in addition to 6.2 million Ukrainians.
In addition, between 900,000 and one million initial asylum applications are made annually, while between 200,000 and 250,000 irregular migrants enter the EU.
While there are a total of three million Middle Eastern/African refugees/people under temporary protection in the 27-member EU, it is extremely saddening and thought-provoking that there are 2.8 million Syrians in Turkey alone.
On the other hand, the EU’s migration and asylum policies cannot be effectively implemented due to incompatibilities among member states. The EU is almost defenseless against the increasing forced migration movements since 2015. The fact that new and binding regulations on this issue will come into force in 2026 delays the solution of the current problems.
The EU’s perspective on Africa, which is the biggest cause of migration, has not changed. The biggest reason for Africa’s underdevelopment today is the millions who were enslaved as cheap labor between the 15th and 17th centuries and the unlimited and ruthless exploitation of valuable minerals and ores, especially gold.
The EU is currently overflowing with refugees and illegal immigrants who migrate from the countries they exploit for various reasons. The people of the African continent and especially the Sahel region are trying every way to reach European ports via the Mediterranean coast. Stopping this migration depends on stopping the bloodshed in Africa, ending the civil wars and establishing economic stability.
Africa’s current population is 1.4 billion. At the beginning of the century, this population was 133 million. In order not to be affected by this 11-fold increase, Europe should create stability in Africa or cooperate with forces that will create stability. Today, the biggest stability-creating state in Africa is China. The EU should not see China as a rival in Africa, but as a collaborator.
The EU sees China as a rival, while it should see it as an element. Europe is disturbed by China’s growing strength in Africa with its colonial identity. Although this situation serves to prevent migration to Europe, they cannot get rid of this understanding.
Foreign Policy and Common Defense Problems
The EU is having difficulty developing a common strategy in foreign policy and defense. This weakness re-emerged its dependence on the US in the Russia-Ukraine War. The fact that member states are not keen on transferring authority in their areas of sovereignty has made the union militarily weak and dependent on the US. This situation also limits the EU’s potential to become a global actor. In particular, the situation of countries close to Russia, such as Hungary and Slovenia, does not allow the EU to develop a security policy within consensus.
On the other hand, the majority of EU states, which have been allocating an average of 2% or even less from the national income to the defense budget for the last 76 years, have not yet received a serious reaction from the public when they increased their defense budget to 2% after the 2022 Ukraine-Russia war.
The EU, which spent 240 billion euros on defense in 2022, spent 326 billion euros in 2024. However, after Trump’s administration, the pressure from the US and EU elites to increase this rate to 5% for the sake of hostility with Russia continues.
In this context, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed a strategic defense initiative called the ReArm Europe Plan on March 4, 2025.
This plan envisages investing up to 800 billion euros to strengthen Europe’s defense infrastructure by 2030. It is certain that this increase will be provided through new taxes to be imposed on the public. Let us remind you of the potential of this situation to create serious social explosions. Even if this resource is found, it is not easy for the people of Europe, who have been transformed into a welfare society for the last 76 years, to switch to a warlike and ready-to-die security paradigm.
Energy Deficit and Deficit Induction
After the start of the Ukraine-Russia war, the European Union turned away from cheap Russian natural gas in energy (from 41% to 10%) and turned to expensive LNG supplies from the USA (from 20% to 45%). This situation has more than doubled the total energy bill of households, and the total number of people experiencing energy shortages has increased from 30 million to 80 million. No investigation has even been opened into the status of the Nord Stream pipelines that were destroyed as a result of sabotage in Germany in the summer of 2022. This sabotage, which was an operation of the intelligence and special forces of the USA, UK and the Baltic countries, damaged the German national wealth, but no explanation was even made.
On the other hand, not only was trade with Russia, especially in energy, prevented, but all kinds of manipulations were made to ensure that European industry, especially Germany, continued production in the USA, and heavy tariffs were eventually imposed.
European industrial production decreased by 3% in 3 years. Similarly, the countries have been made more dependent on each other by the interventions in the electricity cycles of the sovereign EU countries as a result of the EU acquis and commission decisions. In the spring of 2025, a state of emergency was declared in the EU due to the panic caused by the mass power outage in some regions of Spain, Portugal and France. Thus, the failure of Europe to ensure energy security has also been revealed in this area.
Lack of Common Policy
Today, the EU, which has 27 members, is expanding. However, the real reason for the expansion is geopolitics. The most typical example of this is Cyprus. Although the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus was divided and involved in serious political and military problems, its membership in 2004 was aimed at expanding the EU’s sphere of influence in the Eastern Mediterranean basin. (Turkiye’s approval of this move as a guarantor state was one of the biggest mistakes in the history of the republic.)
The EU’s decision-making mechanism is based on unanimity, especially on sensitive issues such as foreign policy, taxation and budget. This situation can lead to the inability to make decisions due to the veto of any member state. There are 7 separate political groups in the European Parliament (European People’s Party, Socialists and Democrats etc.) in the geopolitical perspective, western, eastern, northern and southern member groupings; in the economic perspective, there are Schengen and Eurozone divisions. Although these diversities are presented as the richness of the EU, the US’s withdrawal from European security and Trump’s tariffs will, on the contrary, accelerate the division even more, which will negatively affect the decision-making processes.
Integration within the EU has progressed at two different speeds so far. While the “core Europe” focused on Germany and France continues deep integration, eastern and southern countries want looser integration.
According to the dominant view of the EU, countries such as Hungary and Poland create problems with democratic values and the principles of the rule of law, and this creates cracks within the union.
Ukraine’s membership process is also kept on the agenda for completely geopolitical reasons. However, it is not realistic. Germany and France, the two largest economies of the EU, are struggling with domestic political problems.
In Germany, the economic slowdown, while in France, both the economic crisis and the government crises continue to weaken the leadership roles of these countries within the EU.
The EU, which is going through the most difficult period in its history, is currently suffering from a serious blow to its capacity to develop common policies. Differences of opinion and lack of a common vision among member states prevent the union from responding effectively to crises.
Agricultural Policies and Farmer Protests
Farmers in Europe are negatively affected by EU agricultural policies. Farmers are organizing protests against increasing production costs and EU agricultural policies. High energy, fuel and fertilizer costs and cheap agricultural products coming from foreign countries are drawing farmers’ reactions. This situation raises questions about the sustainability of EU agricultural policies. Farmers’ production costs have increased significantly due to the increases in energy, fertilizer and transportation costs following the Russia-Ukraine war. On the other hand, farmers’ incomes have decreased.
Environmental regulations such as pesticide and fertilizer restrictions or fallow obligations within the scope of the EU’s Green Deal have also made production processes difficult.
On top of this, the EU not collecting customs duties on agricultural products coming from Ukraine and the free trade agreements it signed with South American countries (MERCOSUR) have put pressure on farmers.
The subsidies provided by the EU within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy going to large enterprises have also triggered protests by farmers, especially in Eastern European countries. These problems are still continuing to grow.
Population Decrease
The demographic problems that the EU faces until 2050 will seriously affect economic growth, social security systems and labor markets. The EU population will reach 453.3 million in 2026 and then decrease to 448 million by 2050. The population over the age of 65 will increase from 94 million to 136 million. The burden on the state under the responsibility of social security will increase significantly.
This situation will reduce the working population between the ages of 15-64 from 64% to 56%. This means that the number of people working in 22 out of 27 members will decrease, which will create weaknesses in production capacity and economic growth.
The EU is experiencing serious difficulties even today, especially in sectors such as health, construction and informatics. It loses approximately 1 million workforce every year.
It needs migrant workers to fill these gaps. Although refugees and illegal immigrants work illegally and fill the gap in some sectors, this situation can fuel political polarization and xenophobia in some countries.
Therefore, the social problems that these masses will create will be much greater than today’s economic gains. What is happening in France and the UK is an example of this.
Evaluation
The hegemonic power of the US is declining in every field. In parallel, both the economic and geopolitical power of the EU is also declining.
Russia and China, together with the Global South, have now become the determining forces of global politics.
Despite the serious moves that the EU opposes, whether it will leave the US’s orbit will be a function of its defense capabilities and political integrity.
However, it is very difficult for a community of welfare states to transform into a security state.
The US’s Vietnam experience during the Nixon era after 1968 is obvious.
The US will continue to use EU countries, primarily Germany, Poland, Romania and Greece, as vassals for its own hegemonic interests.
However, the US, which cannot establish a superiority against Russia and China and has vital polarization problems that have brought up serious democracy, economy and civil war debates within itself, is rapidly causing a loss of trust in other EU countries.
The EU nomenclature, which cannot take a strong stance against the US, is also causing a loss of trust within EU countries.
The situation of Hungary and Slovenia is obvious. This situation will make it difficult for the EU and the US to prevent many EU countries from establishing friendly relations with Russia and China in the future.
In such a complex conjuncture, the EU will be able to develop its relations with Turkiye and open up the perspective of full membership only if Ankara bows to collective Western geopolitics and makes concessions in the TRNC, the Aegean, the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea.
This process will also be kept open-ended. Even if Turkiye becomes a full member, it will have to resolve the burning issues of 21st century geopolitics against itself for the sake of the EU.
This is also impossible. On the other hand, the fact that Turkiye maintains a security state and a large armed force offers opportunities to develop the defense capabilities of Europe, which has been forced to leave the US defense umbrella.
For this reason, they have been approaching Turkiye very complimentarily in recent months.
However, it should be remembered that this situation is a one-sided interest relationship. The EU is a club with open enemies of the Turks, such as Greece and the Greek Cypriot Administration, and many indirect enemies of the Turks. Turkiye should never, ever fall into this trap without ensuring its geopolitical interests.
Undoubtedly, Turkiye’s interests, not the interests of the EU, from which it has been excluded for the last 66 years, should play a leading role in Turkiye’s future.
Instead of an imaginary EU membership, Turkiye should create and implement its own multi-dimensional foreign and defense policy centered on Eurasia, as required by its geography, economy, trade and history. Turkiye should remain in an anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist stance in the 21st century. On the other hand, this situation should not make our state anti-Western.
The Turks’ orientation towards Europe as a Western civilization has continued since the Ottoman Empire.
Turkey should act within the framework of universal culture, law, rules and human rights norms, which are described as Western civilization, while preserving its identity as a secular, democratic, social and state governed by the rule of law.
Although political parties based on religion and ethnicity create obstacles in reaching these goals, the Turkish nation should stand against deception through religion, corruption through material values and lawlessness resulting from oppression.
We should be alert against the unconditional surrender to the West that has been regressing under the mandate doctrine, and we should not fall into the traps of polarization and provocations that have the potential to drag our country into an environment of internal chaos, no matter what the conditions are.
The fact that Turkiye still maintains a dream that does not match geopolitical realities, such as “our goal is full membership to the EU,” shows that the mentality of admiration and dependence on the West that has continued since the Ottoman times continues.
EU membership is no longer a concrete and attainable goal for Turkiye, but a stalling station in a gray area.
The role that the EU has assigned to Turkey does not go beyond being a depot for migrants and a peripheral country.
The Customs Union, from which we have gained some advantages but suffered as many losses since 1996, should be reviewed again, and the benefit and disadvantage analysis should be re-conducted considering the very serious areas of weakness that the EU is facing today.
Instead of stalling with an abstract goal such as the EU goal, which is very difficult to achieve due to geopolitical reasons, BRICS+ and Eurasia/Africa-centered policies can provide Ankara with the opportunity for development and multi-faceted diplomacy based on independence.
This transformation has become necessary in terms of both economic independence and geopolitical sovereignty.
The EU is no longer a target for Turkiye; it should be considered as an actor with whom limited cooperation can be made based on mutual respect.
Turkiye’s main priority is its own geopolitical interests. A foreign policy that maintains its institutional relations with the EU on an equal footing but is free from the obsession of membership should be the basis.
It should be essential to build its own strategic autonomy by establishing balanced relations with both sides, rather than being fully engaged with the West or fully oriented towards the East, with an independent, multi-faceted, pragmatic foreign policy.
Turkiye should maintain its foundations as a state that has distanced itself from the global financial trap dependent on hedge money flows in the coming decades, has turned to a production economy, and has come closer to the parameters of economic independence.
Such a Turkiye can achieve active neutrality within the world order of persistent non-alignment and multi-polarity.
The prescription for this is undoubtedly to fill the six arrows of Kemalism, namely statism, populism, revolutionism, nationalism, republicanism and secularism, not in words or in theory but in essence and in practice.
The Father of the Turks, the Great Turk, Atatürk did not write this prescription for nothing.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.
Ret Admiral Cem Gürdeniz, Writer, Geopolitical Expert, Theorist and creator of the Turkish Bluehomeland (Mavi Vatan) doctrine. He served as the Chief of Strategy Department and then the head of Plans and Policy Division in Turkish Naval Forces Headquarters. As his combat duties, he has served as the commander of Amphibious Ships Group and Mine Fleet between 2007 and 2009. He retired in 2012. He established Hamit Naci Blue Homeland Foundation in 2021. He has published numerous books on geopolitics, maritime strategy, maritime history and maritime culture. He is also a honorary member of ATASAM.
He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image source
Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.
Counter Information publish all articles following the Creative Commons rule creative commons. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.
No comments:
Post a Comment