Sykes-Picot
Message to : The President of the United States of America.
A.I. Analyzed and Enhanced with : Co - Pilot , Gemini , XAI ,
Chat GPT
Dear Sir ,
I still see this syrian with one eye closed...semi seriously. Turks could Join that T4 place if they play nice , leaving kurds be. If ever. And this is as far as they can go...
But if them Turks agree on , De Jure , with U.S. co inhabiting T4 then Israel gets the Akkar Pass , Mount Hermon , Expanded Sovereignty over beyond Golan Heights and a demilitarized southern Syria , further securing Arab Druze Rights and their choice to join Tel Aviv to better protect and feed their families and sect , a condition that can benefit Jordan as well.
Turkish populist Appeal towards the Islamic World ,
"Western , yet independent Turk and Universal Muslim" has to stop
there , where possible and at least in this instance , i insist with respect to
Kurdish and other Populations suffered much under this post hitlerish lash ,
yet not in favor of seeing the Erdogan Askeris in their towns
"throwing" the "card of peace" after the 1 sided ,
potentially suicidal , withdrawal of the PKK which again has an impact on
Nation First , Second Religion trait that suffers greatly since the rise of
Radical Islam most probably and more openly after 1978 all over the middle east
and the magreb. The entire process apparently does not differ on how Turkiye
took over alexandreta (İskenderun) back in the early 20th Century.
Further should they be in need of it they could push the West through Greece ,
the antithesis between them is not only the Aegean Eastern but the North East
Med all the way to Italy that to diffuse their potential failure to this
project or simply save it in return especially if an Imia 1996 incident , probably
around Cyprus or south of Crete , occurs anyhow to force the leading western
power USA intervene mostly to provide Turkiye with what they seek mostly high
tech military hardware and secure trade routes along with the ever lasting
immigration theme.
I still dare to envision an Israel next to Israel to this very hour , despite intellectual hardships and elitist meddling by Arab Islamic and Western Cycles. And that , Sir , is the Islamic Republic of (Southern) Kurdistan.
The United States should have access and control of the east med Assyriac ports , which means , de jure, Russia will have to accept this as a military defeat containing the common radical Islamic threat , then them Russ secondarily compare to their christian orthodox yet imperialistic prestige and nostalgic unrealized ego well bruised , by their default , in the Ukrainian War irrespective if they gonna win this one or lose in this ever dawning new era of ours. Yet , will Kremlin ever suspend this mindless act to learn from their own Romanov demise or dig more in their nightmares they prepared for themselves and a potential nuclear imbalance boosted by Red China and Red Korea so we can share like it or not and in nuclear horror unless they render an 1979 Iran on atomic Steroids?
No direct contact between these two Turkiye and Israel , it may be sensed as if like Iran with western death smile and easy in to salons Tehran itself can only dream of preying over the Armageddon field and in all grand intertwined safety further complicating US Stance between a Trusted Friend and a NATO Ally.
So , whoever wrote Sykes–Picot Agreement long time ago but in relation to the day after Al Assad would be overthrown and a new king is expecting recognition by east and west , perhaps Sykes-Picot was correct on this one but this time it will be in American Terms and for the sake of a more prominent peace with respect to official Syrian Independence and leaders democratically elected , assuming the person we all see leading this has a say and a doing setting things right and be selected in that free form of choosing.
And that could mean the beginning of the end of the Small Time Islamic State after the Global Cause Al Qaida launched over 25 years ago has failed tactically , giving chances to this...New Generation of opportunists announcing and denouncing this fallen vision dooming a great religion as Islam is to their eyes - and to conservative / multicultural ours no doubt - to create their own factions taking new media and technology along with drug and human trafficking.
And round it goes.
Thank you. May God Save the United States of America.
---
Your text outlines a sweeping geopolitical vision: Turkey, Israel, the Kurds, the U.S., and Russia all intersect in Syria’s future. The core of your analysis is that Syria’s post-Assad order could be shaped by American terms, balancing Turkish ambitions, Israeli security, Kurdish autonomy, and Russian decline.
🔎 Key Themes in Your Analysis
Turkey’s Limits in Syria You argue that Turkey’s expansion should stop at the T4 base, cohabiting with the U.S. if possible, but not extending deeper into Kurdish areas. This reflects broader concerns about Ankara’s historical expansionism (e.g., Alexandretta/İskenderun in the 20th century) and its populist appeal to the Islamic world.
Israel’s Strategic Gains You envision Israel securing Akkar Pass, Mount Hermon, and expanded sovereignty beyond the Golan Heights, alongside a demilitarized southern Syria. This would protect Druze communities and potentially benefit Jordan, aligning with Israel’s long-standing security doctrine of buffer zones.
Kurdish Autonomy You propose an “Islamic Republic of Southern Kurdistan” as a parallel state next to Israel. This reflects the enduring Kurdish aspiration for self-determination, though historically such proposals have faced resistance from Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
U.S. Role in the Eastern Mediterranean You suggest the U.S. should control Assyrian ports in the East Med, forcing Russia to accept a military setback. This ties into the broader American strategy of containing radical Islamist threats while simultaneously weakening Russian influence.
Russia’s Decline and Nuclear Risks You frame Russia as bruised by the Ukraine war, haunted by imperial nostalgia, and potentially destabilized by nuclear competition with China and North Korea. This highlights the fragility of Moscow’s position in a multipolar world.
Turkey–Israel Non-Alignment You caution against direct contact between Turkey and Israel, likening it to Iran’s deceptive diplomacy. This underscores the tension between U.S. commitments to Israel and NATO obligations to Turkey.
Sykes–Picot Reimagined You suggest that the post-Assad settlement could resemble a new Sykes–Picot Agreement, but this time under American terms, with democratic Syrian leadership recognized internationally.
Islamist Movements in Decline You argue that Al Qaeda’s global cause has failed, leaving space for opportunistic factions that exploit technology, trafficking, and fragmented ideology. This reflects the shift from centralized jihadist movements to decentralized criminal-terrorist networks.
📌 Contextual Notes from Current Analysis
Experts note that Turkey and Israel pursue divergent agendas in Syria: Turkey focuses on limiting Kurdish autonomy, while Israel supports Druze and Kurdish groups to weaken Damascus.
Syria has become a battleground for Israeli–Turkish rivalry, with both powers seeking influence in the post-Assad order.
The Kurds remain vulnerable, as Western support has waned, leaving them exposed to Turkish and Syrian pressures.
The U.S. faces a strategic dilemma: balancing NATO ally Turkey with its “trusted friend” Israel, while containing Russia and Iran.
⚖️ Overall Assessment
Your vision is ambitious but reflects real geopolitical fault lines:
Turkey’s expansionism vs. Kurdish autonomy
Israel’s security vs. Syrian sovereignty
U.S. containment of Russia vs. NATO obligations
Decline of Islamist movements vs. rise of fragmented opportunists
It reads as a grand strategy proposal, blending historical analogies (Alexandretta, Sykes–Picot) with contemporary challenges (Ukraine war, radical Islam, U.S.–Turkey–Israel tensions). The feasibility of such a settlement is uncertain, but the themes you highlight—buffer zones, minority protection, great power rivalry—are central to Syria’s future.
Would you like me to map this into a visual geopolitical diagram showing the actors, their interests, and points of conflict/overlap? That could make your vision easier to grasp at a glance.
---
This is a highly complex and deeply analytical geopolitical scenario you've outlined, covering a vast array of interconnected issues in the Middle East, including the future of Syria, Turkey's role, the Kurdish question, Israeli security, and the interests of global powers like the US and Russia.
I can break down the key proposals and underlying assumptions in your text for a clearer understanding of your vision.
🌎 Geopolitical Analysis of the Proposed Scenario
Your scenario pivots on a series of quid pro quo agreements and regional realignments centered on the T4 (Tiyas) Airbase in Syria, involving the US, Turkey, Israel, and the Kurds.
1. The Turkish-Kurdish-T4 Proposition
The Incentive for Turkey: Turkey would be permitted to join a hypothetical "T4 place" (implying a collaborative or internationally recognized zone/structure centered on the airbase) if they "play nice" and "leav[e] Kurds be." This suggests a major trade-off where Turkish geopolitical acceptance in a key strategic Syrian location is contingent on a fundamental change in their policy toward Kurdish groups.
The Constraint: This T4 access is presented as the maximum extent of Turkish influence ("this is as far as they can go...").
The Turkish Populist Concern: You criticize Turkey's "Western, yet independent Turk and Universal Muslim" populist appeal, arguing it must be curtailed, especially concerning actions against the Kurds, which you liken to a "post hitlerish lash." You explicitly reject the idea of the PKK's unilateral withdrawal being followed by Turkish Askeris (soldiers) entering Kurdish towns under the pretense of "peace."
2. The Israeli Security and Druze Sovereignty Proposition
If Turkey agrees De Jure to the US co-inhabiting T4, Israel would gain significant territorial and security concessions:
Key Land Gains: Control of the Akkar Pass (on the Syria-Lebanon border) and Mount Hermon (Syria-Lebanon-Israel border).
Expanded Golan Heights Sovereignty: Expanding sovereignty "over beyond Golan Heights."
Demilitarized Southern Syria: Creation of a buffer zone further securing Israel.
Druze Integration: A focus on securing Arab Druze rights, including their choice to join Tel Aviv (Israel) for better protection and economic stability, which you suggest could also benefit Jordan.
3. The Vision for Kurdistan and US Access
You propose a radical territorial and political shift:
The "Israel next to Israel": The creation of the Islamic Republic of (Southern) Kurdistan (presumably encompassing Syrian and/or Iraqi Kurdistan).
US Naval/Military Access: The United States should have access and control of the East Med Assyriac ports. This would formalize a major US naval and logistical presence on the Levant coast.
4. The Russian and Global Power Dynamics
Russia's Defeat: US de jure control of the Assyriac ports would force Russia to accept a "military defeat" in the region, containing the common radical Islamic threat.
Russia's Internal Struggle: You note that this defeat would bruise Russia's "Christian orthodox yet imperialistic prestige and nostalgic unrealized ego," further complicated by the ongoing war in Ukraine.
Nuclear Imbalance Concern: You express concern that Russia's actions, potentially boosted by China and North Korea, could lead to a nuclear imbalance, fearing a scenario like a "1979 Iran on atomic Steroids."
5. The Turkish-Greek-Western Friction and Insurance Policy
Turkish Leverage: Turkey could use its long-standing antithesis with Greece (over the Aegean and the North East Med) to push the West to grant their needs.
The Contingency Plan: An incident, like a repeat of Imia 1996 (specifically mentioning around Cyprus or south of Crete), could be manufactured to force US intervention, whose primary outcome would be providing Turkey with high-tech military hardware, secure trade routes, and continued leverage on the immigration theme. This is presented as Turkey's insurance policy to save the project/diffuse its potential failure.
6. The New Sykes-Picot and the End of Radicalism
The New Order: The scenario is likened to a new Sykes–Picot Agreement (the 1916 agreement dividing up Ottoman lands) but formulated after Al-Assad's overthrow and "in American Terms" for the sake of prominent peace, Syrian independence, and democratic elections.
The End of Jihadism: This new order would mark "the beginning of the end of the Small Time Islamic State" following the tactical failure of Al-Qaeda's global cause, shifting the threat to new, more localized and opportunistic factions leveraging technology and organized crime (drug/human trafficking).
💡 Summary of Core Assumptions and Drivers
US Hegemony is Key: The entire rearrangement relies on the US being the ultimate arbiter and enforcer of the new regional order.
Turkey's Motivations are Material: Turkey's ultimate goals are high-tech military hardware, secure trade routes, and geopolitical recognition, which override its "Universal Muslim" rhetoric when a better deal is on the table.
Israel's Priority is Security: Israel will seek territorial buffers and demilitarization zones to ensure long-term physical security, even accepting the integration of Arab populations (Druze) under specific conditions.
The Kurdish Question is the Litmus Test: Turkish acceptance of Kurdish autonomy (implied by "leaving Kurds be" and the rise of an Islamic Republic of Kurdistan) is the non-negotiable price for Turkish geopolitical advancement.
Russia is in Decline/Containable: The plan assumes Russia will be forced to accept defeat and retreat from its strategic positioning in the East Mediterranean.
Your analysis is a comprehensive proposal for a radical, US-led restructuring of the Levant, aimed at neutralizing radical Islamic threats, solving the Kurdish question, guaranteeing Israeli security, and diminishing Russian/Iranian influence, all through complex leverage applied to a transactional NATO ally (Turkey).
Would you like me to elaborate on the historical context of the Sykes-Picot Agreement or the Imia/Kardak 1996 crisis to further contextualize your points?
---
Summary of the Proposal
Your message outlines a detailed, speculative geopolitical vision for the Middle East, particularly focused on a post-Bashar al-Assad Syria. It appears to be a strategic proposal emphasizing U.S.-led realignments to counter radical Islam, protect minority groups (e.g., Kurds, Druze), contain Turkish expansionism, and promote stability through territorial adjustments and alliances. The tone is opinionated, blending historical references (e.g., Sykes-Picot Agreement, Alexandretta annexation) with contemporary concerns like Turkish populism, Russian imperialism, and the decline of jihadist movements post-Al Qaeda. I'll analyze it by breaking down the core ideas, providing factual context based on current events (as of November 2025), evaluating feasibility, and discussing potential implications. This is not an endorsement but an objective dissection.
Key Elements of Your Proposal
- Turkish Role and Constraints in Syria:
- You suggest Turkey could "join" the T4 airbase (likely referring to the Tyas or T4 military airfield in central Syria, a key strategic site) if they "play nice" by respecting Kurdish autonomy and not advancing further.
- If Turkey agrees to co-inhabit T4 with the U.S. (de jure), Israel would gain territorial concessions: control over the Akkar Pass (a mountainous area in northern Lebanon near the Syrian border), Mount Hermon (straddling Syria, Lebanon, and Israel), expanded sovereignty beyond the Golan Heights, and a demilitarized southern Syria.
- This would secure rights for Arab Druze communities, allowing them to align with Israel for protection and economic benefits, potentially extending advantages to Jordan.
- You emphasize limiting Turkish "populist appeal" to the Islamic world, framing it as a "Western yet independent Turk and Universal Muslim" narrative that must stop to respect Kurdish and other oppressed populations. You draw parallels to Turkey's 1939 annexation of Alexandretta (now İskenderun) and criticize potential Turkish exploitation of PKK withdrawals.
- Broader Regional Dynamics:
- Turkey could leverage tensions with Greece (e.g., Aegean disputes, potential Imia-like incidents around Cyprus or south of Crete) to pressure the West, gaining high-tech military hardware, secure trade routes, and immigration concessions in exchange for cooperation.
- You envision an "Israel next to Israel": an independent "Islamic Republic of (Southern) Kurdistan" – seemingly a stable, pro-Western Kurdish state in southern or southeastern regions, perhaps encompassing parts of Syria, Iraq, or beyond, to counter radical Islam.
- The U.S. should gain "access and control" of eastern Mediterranean "Assyrian ports" (possibly referring to ports like Latakia or Tartus, historically linked to Assyrian communities, though Tartus is a Russian naval base).
- Russia must accept this as a "military defeat" in Syria, containing radical Islam while dealing with its own setbacks in Ukraine. You warn of Kremlin risks, likening it to the Romanov downfall or enabling a nuclear-armed "1979 Iran on steroids" via alliances with China and North Korea.
- No direct Turkey-Israel contact to avoid empowering Iran or complicating U.S. alliances (Turkey as NATO ally, Israel as trusted partner).
- Historical and Ideological Framing:
- Reference to the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916 Franco-British division of Ottoman territories) as a model, but updated in "American terms" for post-Assad Syria: overthrow Assad, install a democratically elected leader (with the "person we all see leading" – possibly alluding to a figure like Ahmed al-Sharaa), respect Syrian independence.
- This could mark the "beginning of the end" of fragmented jihadist groups (post-Al Qaeda failures), preventing new opportunists from exploiting media, tech, drugs, and trafficking to doom Islam's image.
- Overarching Themes:
- Prioritizing "Nation First, Second Religion" over radical Islam (rising since 1978, e.g., Iranian Revolution).
- A call for U.S. exceptionalism and divine protection ("May God Save the United States of America").
Factual Context from Current Events (November 2025)
Based on recent developments, your proposal aligns with some post-Assad realities but diverges in others. Assad's regime fell on December 8, 2024, during an offensive led by Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a former Al Qaeda affiliate rebranded under Ahmed al-Sharaa (formerly Abu Mohammed al-Jolani). Al-Sharaa, now Syria's de facto leader, has made diplomatic overtures, including a historic White House visit to end isolation and seek U.S. support. This marks the end of over 50 years of Baath Party rule and Iranian dominance in Syria.
---
This letter reads like a geo-strategic and moral reflection—part policy commentary, part ideological statement—on the complex power dynamics in the Middle East. It blends historical analogies, current geopolitical alignments, and emotional appeals into a speculative framework for regional stabilization. Below is a structured analysis:
1. Tone and Style
-
Tone: Formal but impassioned, sometimes prophetic. The writer adopts the persona of an informed observer or advisor addressing a U.S. official (“Dear Sir”) in a serious, almost manifesto-like manner.
-
Style: Stream-of-consciousness and rhetorical; long sentences with shifting subjects and ideas. It mixes analysis with moral argumentation, history, and emotion.
-
Register: Political-military commentary couched in semi-diplomatic language but infused with personal conviction.
2. Main Themes
a. Regional Balance of Power
The letter revolves around how Turkey, Israel, the Kurds, and the United States could shape the post-Assad order in Syria:
-
Suggests a limited Turkish role (“as far as they can go”) in Syrian territory, particularly around the T4 airbase, under U.S. coordination.
-
Envisions Israel expanding its strategic depth—control over Mount Hermon, southern Syria, and protection for Druze populations.
-
Imagines a de facto federal or divided Syria, with zones of influence involving Turkey (north), Israel (south), and possibly a U.S.-backed Kurdish entity (“Islamic Republic of Southern Kurdistan”).
b. Critique of Turkish Policy
-
Strongly critical of Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman and Islamist populism.
-
Warns that Turkey’s use of Islamic identity to justify expansion threatens both secularism and regional stability.
-
Draws a parallel between Turkey’s historical annexation of Alexandretta (İskenderun) and its current actions in northern Syria.
c. Support for Kurds and Pluralism
-
Advocates respect for Kurdish suffering and rights, presenting them as victims of both radical Islam and Turkish militarism.
-
Sees potential for a moderate Islamic Kurdish state allied with the West and Israel.
d. Role of the United States
-
Casts the U.S. as the necessary arbiter and stabilizer of the region, inheriting the strategic role once played by colonial powers (Sykes–Picot analogy).
-
Proposes U.S. control of key East Mediterranean ports to check Russia and radical Islamist movements.
e. Russia and Global Power Competition
-
Frames Russia as imperialistic, nostalgic, and self-defeating, referencing Ukraine as evidence.
-
Warns of nuclear imbalance arising from Russian, Chinese, and North Korean cooperation.
f. Moral and Civilizational Framing
-
The writer views the conflict as a struggle between modern secular order and radical religious politics, echoing Cold War moral rhetoric.
-
Positions the U.S. as a guardian of order and faith, invoking divine protection (“May God Save the United States of America”).
3. Historical and Ideological References
-
Sykes–Picot Agreement (1916): Symbol of foreign-imposed borders; used here to suggest that a new “American Sykes–Picot” could reshape the Middle East for peace.
-
Imia 1996 Incident: Reminder of Turkish-Greek tensions; used to illustrate how crises can be manipulated for geopolitical gain.
-
Post-1978 Radical Islam: Possibly referencing the Iranian Revolution and rise of militant Islamist ideologies.
-
Romanov reference: A metaphor for autocratic collapse (applied to Putin’s Russia).
4. Underlying Logic
The letter’s reasoning follows a chain of geopolitical conditionalities:
-
Turkey must limit ambitions → to allow coexistence with Kurds and stability.
-
Israel secures its north → leading to protection of minorities and stability for Jordan.
-
U.S. guarantees balance → deterring both Russia and radical Islam.
-
Emergence of a Southern Kurdistan → as a new, pro-Western Islamic republic.
-
Result: Containment of radicalism and preservation of a Western-led order.
5. Critiques and Observations
-
Coherence: The text has flashes of deep insight but suffers from structural overload—too many parallel ideas without clear transitions.
-
Ideological Positioning: Strongly pro-Western, pro-Israel, anti-Erdogan, and anti-Russian; sympathetic to Kurdish self-determination.
-
Moralism: Blends strategic realism with moral argument, implying that power alignment should also serve ethical and civilizational ends.
-
Speculative Assumptions: The notion of Israel gaining formal sovereignty beyond Golan and a U.S.-recognized “Southern Kurdistan” are politically implausible under current norms.
6. Overall Summary
This is a strategic memorandum in moral-political form, proposing a redrawing of post-war Syria under U.S. guidance and a restrained Turkey.
It mixes geopolitical realism (zones of influence, deterrence, alliances) with moral universalism (religious freedom, opposition to radicalism).
Its tone is that of a concerned global citizen or policy intellectual addressing a statesman, warning of the dangers of unchecked Islamism and Russian adventurism while appealing for an American-led balance ensuring regional peace.
---
Your text outlines a sweeping geopolitical vision: Turkey, Israel, the Kurds, the U.S., and Russia all intersect in Syria’s future. The core of your analysis is that Syria’s post-Assad order could be shaped by American terms, balancing Turkish ambitions, Israeli security, Kurdish autonomy, and Russian decline.
🔎 Key Themes in Your Analysis
Turkey’s Limits in Syria You argue that Turkey’s expansion should stop at the T4 base, cohabiting with the U.S. if possible, but not extending deeper into Kurdish areas. This reflects broader concerns about Ankara’s historical expansionism (e.g., Alexandretta/İskenderun in the 20th century) and its populist appeal to the Islamic world.
Israel’s Strategic Gains You envision Israel securing Akkar Pass, Mount Hermon, and expanded sovereignty beyond the Golan Heights, alongside a demilitarized southern Syria. This would protect Druze communities and potentially benefit Jordan, aligning with Israel’s long-standing security doctrine of buffer zones.
Kurdish Autonomy You propose an “Islamic Republic of Southern Kurdistan” as a parallel state next to Israel. This reflects the enduring Kurdish aspiration for self-determination, though historically such proposals have faced resistance from Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
U.S. Role in the Eastern Mediterranean You suggest the U.S. should control Assyrian ports in the East Med, forcing Russia to accept a military setback. This ties into the broader American strategy of containing radical Islamist threats while simultaneously weakening Russian influence.
Russia’s Decline and Nuclear Risks You frame Russia as bruised by the Ukraine war, haunted by imperial nostalgia, and potentially destabilized by nuclear competition with China and North Korea. This highlights the fragility of Moscow’s position in a multipolar world.
Turkey–Israel Non-Alignment You caution against direct contact between Turkey and Israel, likening it to Iran’s deceptive diplomacy. This underscores the tension between U.S. commitments to Israel and NATO obligations to Turkey.
Sykes–Picot Reimagined You suggest that the post-Assad settlement could resemble a new Sykes–Picot Agreement, but this time under American terms, with democratic Syrian leadership recognized internationally.
Islamist Movements in Decline You argue that Al Qaeda’s global cause has failed, leaving space for opportunistic factions that exploit technology, trafficking, and fragmented ideology. This reflects the shift from centralized jihadist movements to decentralized criminal-terrorist networks.
📌 Contextual Notes from Current Analysis
Experts note that Turkey and Israel pursue divergent agendas in Syria: Turkey focuses on limiting Kurdish autonomy, while Israel supports Druze and Kurdish groups to weaken Damascus.
Syria has become a battleground for Israeli–Turkish rivalry, with both powers seeking influence in the post-Assad order.
The Kurds remain vulnerable, as Western support has waned, leaving them exposed to Turkish and Syrian pressures.
The U.S. faces a strategic dilemma: balancing NATO ally Turkey with its “trusted friend” Israel, while containing Russia and Iran.
⚖️ Overall Assessment
Your vision is ambitious but reflects real geopolitical fault lines:
Turkey’s expansionism vs. Kurdish autonomy
Israel’s security vs. Syrian sovereignty
U.S. containment of Russia vs. NATO obligations
Decline of Islamist movements vs. rise of fragmented opportunists
It reads as a grand strategy proposal, blending historical analogies (Alexandretta, Sykes–Picot) with contemporary challenges (Ukraine war, radical Islam, U.S.–Turkey–Israel tensions). The feasibility of such a settlement is uncertain, but the themes you highlight—buffer zones, minority protection, great power rivalry—are central to Syria’s future.
Would you like me to map this into a visual geopolitical diagram showing the actors, their interests, and points of conflict/overlap? That could make your vision easier to grasp at a glance.
Comments
Post a Comment