Ongoing discussion of Ukraine

[Zoraptor]

Yeah, not like Iran doesn't have reasons for being hostile- though there'd almost certainly be a lot less hostility if points 6-8 in the Parker Manifesto had been adhered to historically.

 

They won't ever be a superpower though, just a regional one.

[BruceVC]

This has been a very good exercise to see what Russians think around those questions, I have to be honest they answered some of questions better than I thought but you can still see the influence of the propaganda machinery especially  around the younger Russian. For example thinking that Stalin was a great leader and that the Ukrainian separatists are defending there families, also he is basically in complete denial around the degree that Russia is supporting the separatists. The younger one also doesn't  seem to have much knowledge of history which is always a problem when you want to understand current events in the world and how history defines current decisions leaders make . But once again good idea Chilloutman. And well done Sorophx for getting those response from your friends

 

I'm also disappointed with several of KP answers, I hope other Americans answer and give other perspectives . I'll gladly answer those questions if you guys don't mind but obviously I'm not American so you need to say its okay

Edited August 21, 2014 by BruceVC

[Barothmuk]

For example thinking that Stalin was a great leader.

In western academia, once the archives were opened, the most prominent historians in the Soviet field (J. Arch Getty, Robert Thurston, Sarah Davies, Sheila Fitzpatrick etc) more or less debunked the "evil totalitarian" paradigm. Yes, they don't support Stalin in the sense that they're Stalinists or whatever but they do acknowledge although ruthless he was indeed a competent and thus "great" leader of the time (much like Sorophx's Russian pals).

 

Of course the West can't be peddling an educational curriculum that's sympathetic to the reds so instead they stick with the flawed historical narrative of Cold War works like Robert Conquest and Service.

 

But you know, crazy Russian propaganda vs glorious Western freedom.

 

EDIT: RE: The comments provided by sorophx's Russian friends) Although I have no love for the Russian, nor U.S state I can't help but find it amusing that the "brainwashed" Russians have a more level headed (albeit wrong) approach to this whole situation compared to many of the "Free-minded" people of the West. Of course this is only two people so we can't be making sweeping conclusions but it's amusing none the less.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Barothmuk

[BruceVC]

 

For example thinking that Stalin was a great leader.

In western academia, once the archives were opened, the most prominent historians in the Soviet field (J. Arch Getty, Robert Thurston, Sarah Davies, Sheila Fitzpatrick etc) more or less debunked the "evil totalitarian" paradigm. Yes, they don't support Stalin in the sense that they're Stalinists or whatever but they do acknowledge although ruthless he was indeed a competent and thus "great" leader of the time (much like Sorophx's Russian pals).

 

Of course the West can't be peddling an educational curriculum that's sympathetic to the reds so instead they stick with the flawed historical narrative of Cold War works like Robert Conquest and Service.

 

But you know, crazy Russian propaganda vs glorious Western freedom.

 

EDIT: RE: The comments provided by sorophx's Russian friends) Although I have no love for the Russian, nor U.S state I can't help but find it amusing that the "brainwashed" Russians have a more level headed (albeit wrong) approach to this whole situation compared to many of the "Free-minded" people of the West. Of course this is only two people so we can't be making sweeping conclusions but it's amusing none the less.

 

 

I won't deny Stalin did something's right,  but he had a complete and callous disregard for loss of Russian lives in whatever initiative he decided to implement. Whether it is was the war of attrition against the Nazi's or his disastrous agriculture reform programs, millions of Russian died to prove his policies didn't work . Surely the definition  of any good leader  needs to be measured by a comparison of the number of citizens who died during a persons reign? This should matter and if this is true then everything that Stalin did that was good is overshadowed by the horrific loss of Russian lives he is responsible for?

[Barothmuk]

Surely the definition  of any good leader  needs to be measured by a comparison of the number of citizens who died during a persons reign?

Nah, that's far too simplistic.

 

More Americans died under Lincoln than Bush but that doesn't mean the latter is a "better leader" than the former.

[BruceVC]

 

Surely the definition  of any good leader  needs to be measured by a comparison of the number of citizens who died during a persons reign?

Nah, that's far too simplistic.

 

More Americans died under Lincoln than Bush but that doesn't mean the latter is a "better leader" than the former.

 

 

Under Lincoln people didn't die because of policies he implemented to change how food was produced. Under Stalin anything from 10 million to 30 million Russians died of starvation

 

You can't count the loss of American lives in the Civil war as a direct  fault of Lincoln, the Civil  war wasn't his decision. It would have happened irrespective if he had been president or not ?

 

So that's not an accurate analogy

[Barothmuk]

Under Lincoln people didn't die because of policies he implemented to change how food was produced.

This wasn't done arbitrarily.

 

The state capitalism of the NEP had restored Russia and the republics to pre-war levels and begun to plateau. Not wanting to continue presiding over capitalism longer then necessary (kind of looks bad for a CP) and desperately needing to industrialise to "build socialism" and catch up with, and defend themselves from, the rest of the world they believed they had to simultaneously, collectivize agriculture, rapidly industrialize and abolish the remnants of "capitalist relations" (e.g. the kulak class).

 

Given the large landspace, primitive technology, competing interests of individuals (both in and out of the party), poor-planning and ****-ups of the party combined with a massive draught (a common occurrence in the Slavic states) this naturally resulted in an catastrophic loss of life. Despite all this their policies were a success, industrial productivity surpassed the Western powers and they were able to defend themselves from the growing fascist threat.

 

So a success with lots of tragedy. Worth keeping in mind is that the rest of industrialized powers took hundreds of years of colonialism, imperialism, raw worker exploitaton and slavery to achieve the same thing.

 

Under Stalin anything from 10 million to 30 million Russians died of starvation.

Lol those statistics are ridiculous.

 

The Black Book of Communism, a widely discredit piece where even the authors themselves admitted to inflating deathtolls says the maximum deaths in the era was 6 million.

 

You can't count the loss of American lives in the Civil war as a direct  fault of Lincoln, the Civil  war wasn't his decision. It would have happened irrespective if he had been president or not ?

 

So that's not an accurate analogy

You said "Leader quality = number of deaths", I was merely following your logic. Edited August 21, 2014 by Barothmuk

[BruceVC]

 

Under Lincoln people didn't die because of policies he implemented to change how food was produced.

This wasn't done arbitrarily.

 

The state capitalism of the NEP had restored Russia and the republics to pre-war levels and begun to plateau. Not wanting to continue presiding over capitalism longer then necessary (kind of looks bad for a CP) and desperately needing to industrialise to "build socialism" and catch up with, and defend themselves from, the rest of the world they believed they had to simultaneously, collectivize agriculture, rapidly industrialize and abolish the remnants of "capitalist relations" (e.g. the kulak class).

 

Given the large landspace, primitive technology, competing interests of individuals (both in and out of the party), poor-planning and ****-ups of the party combined with a massive draught (a common occurrence in the Slavic states) this naturally resulted in an catastrophic loss of life. Despite all this their policies were a success, industrial productivity surpassed the Western powers and they were able to defend themselves from the growing fascist threat.

 

So a success with lots of tragedy. Worth keeping in mind is that the rest of industrialized powers took hundreds of years of colonialism, imperialism, raw worker exploitaton and slavery to achieve the same thing.

 

Under Stalin anything from 10 million to 30 million Russians died of starvation.

Lol those statistics are ridiculous.

 

The Black Book of Communism, a widely discredit piece where even the authors themselves admitted to inflating deathtolls says the maximum deaths in the era was 6 million.

 

You can't count the loss of American lives in the Civil war as a direct  fault of Lincoln, the Civil  war wasn't his decision. It would have happened irrespective if he had been president or not ?

 

So that's not an accurate analogy

You said "Leader quality = number of deaths", I was merely following your logic.

 

 

Oh well it was only 6 million people who died due to his agricultural polices, and here I thought it was a significant amount

 

The point is that Stalins leadership was and is tarnished by the loss of Russian lives due to various initiatives he tried to implement, no rationale person can think he was  a great leader unless you don't consider the death of millions of your citizens as relevant?

[Chilloutman]

Thanks sorophx I appriciate your time.

 

older guy seems very reasonable, however I woul not sit at same table with any of these two. Can you imagine talk to some german guy who would answear question about Hitler like this?

 

What do you think about Hitler, you know guy who start WW2 and killed milions of people?

 

"The only thing to say about them is that he was big political figure. The scale of their personas in history is immense. Other than that I can't say anything."

 

I dont have anything particular against russians, but their attitude to close eyes if its about their stains of history is little too much for me. They think that they are perfect

[Barothmuk]

Oh well it was only 6 million people who died due to his agricultural polices,

Annnnnnd you've missed the point.

 

The Soviet leadership is indeed responsible for a significant loss of life in this period however it is incorrect to say they are wholly responsible and that all of these deaths were a direct consequence of these policies. The U.S.S.R at the time was a huge collection of republics that were at most semi-industrialised. Death on a large scale was going to happen regardless of who was in charge.

 

Where the Soviet leadership succeeded was in pulling out of this crisis and managing to rapidly industrialise and eclipse the productivity of the West:

 

 

Reducing it to merely "Stalin implemented policies than everyone died" is an inaccurate and dishonest portrayal that fails to capture the success and severity of the period.

 

and here I thought it was a significant amount

An excess of 4-24 million is quite the overshoot.

 

And like I said, with a population that size, in a collection of republics with limited levels of industry, in a time of severe drought, a large scale of death is going to happen no matter what man or party is "in charge".

 

The point is that Stalins leadership was and is tarnished by the loss of Russian lives due to various initiatives he tried to implement, no rationale person can think he was a great leader

Have you studied the era perchance?

 

I say this because all of the historians I first mentioned, although they by no means support Stalin, they highlight his success and effectiveness as a leader.

 

To quote a famous historian who certainly felt no love for the man: "[stalin] had found Russia working with wooden ploughs and left it equipped with atomic piles". - Isaac Deutscher

Edited August 21, 2014 by Barothmuk

[BruceVC]

 

Oh well it was only 6 million people who died due to his agricultural polices,

Annnnnnd you've missed the point.

 

The Soviet leadership is indeed responsible for a significant loss of life in this period however it is incorrect to say they are wholly responsible and that all of these deaths were a direct consequence of these policies. The U.S.S.R at the time was a huge collection of republics that were at most semi-industrialised. Death on a large scale was going to happen regardless of who was in charge.

 

Where the Soviet leadership succeeded was in pulling out of this crisis and managing to rapidly industrialise and eclipse the productivity of the West:

 

 

Reducing it to merely "Stalin implemented policies than everyone died" is an inaccurate and dishonest portrayal that fails to capture the success and severity of the period.

 

and here I thought it was a significant amount

An excess of 4-24 million is quite the overshoot.

 

And like I said, with a population that size, in a collection of republics with limited levels of industry, in a time of severe drought, a large scale of death is going to happen no matter what man or party is "in charge".

 

The point is that Stalins leadership was and is tarnished by the loss of Russian lives due to various initiatives he tried to implement, no rationale person can think he was a great leader

Have you studied the era perchance?

 

I say this because all of the historians I first mentioned, although they by no means support Stalin, they highlight his success and effectiveness as a leader.

 

To quote a famous historian who certainly felt no love for the man: "[stalin] had found Russia working with wooden ploughs and left it equipped with atomic piles". - Isaac Deutscher

 

 

This will be last ,my comment around Stalin on this issue because you don't seem to be understanding my point

 

Stalin's agricultural reforms, known as Collectivization, were implemented between 1928-1940.  This was his idea and his concept to make reform agriculture more efficient. It was an absolute disaster and millions of Russians died. It was not the Soviet leadership who decided this, it was Stalin as he  was the undisputed leader of  leader of the USSR  at the time

 

Even if only 100k people died its not the point, the point is if a leader of a country makes a policy decision around something like agricultural reform and the result of that means millions of your citizens die them you have made a bad decision and history will remember you as are bad leader. Of course Stalin made lots of other terrible policy decisions but I am not going to focus on that

[Shallow]

It's not really fair to call Stalins policies failed, they did exactly what they were intended to do, he made steppe nomads settle down, and he industrialized his nation, I'm sure the dead were, in Stalins eyes, acceptable collateral.

Russian guy 1#s quote fits him very well: "Stalin was a very hard man, but a man of his word and of action. He was a leader in the true sense of the word."

 

Stalin was willing to do what had to be done if Russia was to become a great and advanced nation without it taking centuaries, he sure as hell wasn't a nice guy, and I doubt he's a guy anyone would want running their country, but he knew what he was doing, and the results were something beforehand thought impossible; Russia becoming almost fully industrialized in the duration of one presidents rule.

[Barothmuk]

This will be last ,my comment around Stalin on this issue

Likewise.

 

Stalin's agricultural reforms, known as Collectivization, were implemented between 1928-1940.  This was his idea and his concept to make reform agriculture more efficient. It was an absolute disaster and millions of Russians died.

And I assert that collectivization was a success as it fulfilled its stated goal. It rapidly collectivized agriculture turning millions of ineffective small scale farms into a couple of hundred thousand large, efficient collectively owned farms serviced with tractors and machinery; in turn this was able to provide a push for mass industrialization in urban centres which doubled the urban populace.

 

Naturally such a large scale endeavour was not executed flawlessly; disruption of agricultural norms certainly antagonized sections of the populace, local officials often used coercive means to encourage collectivization. Furthermore this was obviously the final rift between the Soviet state and the enemy capitalist Kulak class, as the Kulaks resisted Soviet collectivization and tried to sabotage it by slaughtering cattle and so on (although the extent of this was greatly exaggerated by the Soviets). Of course this all coincided with a terrible draught which combined with heavy handed Soviet policies, Kulak sabotage and an all around ****ty harvest resulted in a terrible famine.

 

Despite all this, agriculture stabilized by 1935 and became much more efficient than ever before thereby bringing an end to major famines in the region.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Barothmuk

[obyknven]

 

 

It would be nice to read from some Russian who is not obliviouse troll or idiot to see his point of view

what would you like to know? I could ask my friends from Russia.

 

1) do you see 'West' as an enemy?

2) If so, why?

3) do you still 'like' Soviet union idea?

4) what do you think about Lenin, Stalin?

5) do you think that what Russia done to east Europe in last 50 years was good or bad?

6) Do you think that anexing Ukraine teritory was just?

7) Do you think that separatism in Ukraine is just?

Do you think that separatism in Chechna was/is just?

9) Do you agree with Putin?

10) Do you think that Russia is not in control of Oligarchs?

11) Dont you fear of nationalism wave running through Russia?

12) Doesnt seem as oximoron to call Ukraine fashists while large part of russia population actualy support nationalist ideas? (from my point of view)

13) Do you think Russia is supporting Donbas separatists?

14) Do you agree with it if you think they do?

15) How do you feel about Putin lies (eg. claim that there were no troops on Crime and then give medals to soldiers which were there?)

16) do you want war?

17) Do you think there is freedom in Russia?

18) Do you think there are political processes in Russia?

19) How do you feel about state censorship of internet and media (blogs, TVs etc.)

20) do you prefer 'pseudo' democracy or dictatorship?

 

Few of them would be nice to have answear

 

Just for comparison

1.Yes. 

 

2. During 80s we give to West great opportunity to create new bright world without wars and many other bad things. But we overestimated West, they are too barbaric and too backward for this, they f***d everything during own childish attempts of rule the World. In result we are very skeptical  about peaceful coexistence with West. Problem even not in Western rotten elites, but in whole Western culture quite backward but aggressive culture, with all this supermacism, self-idealization, racism and constant expansionism.  Though this don't meant what all Western people are bad, but majority (mainstream eaters) is bad exactly.  We not hate West really but considered them as potentially harmful thing ( monkeys with grenades - its always so scary ).

 

3. Soviet Union die and cant be resurrected. But anyway its very cool state, just uncial and greatest social experiment in story of humanity. Just to say what  all world history of XX century is just reaction to events in USSR.

4. Lenin is cool progressor who implement in life ideas of Robida. Stalin backward petit bourgeois men who cancel everything, return orders of Russian Empire back and become new tsar. 

5. They do good things and bad things too, though in comparison with current state of East Europe USSR rule looks mostly positive.

6. Yep. In Crimea nothing Ukrainian exist - everything is build by Russian Empire or Soviet Union, local population consider yourself as Russians, Russian business owe everything here etc, and most important thing - locals dont want be pert of failed state Ukraine.

7.Yep.  When your country is piece of s****t - it's quite logical wish to create own state instead.

8. Nope, because no economical reasons exits for this, this is only worsened life of people here (In same time Tatarstan refuse separatism by this reason). In present time i don't notice significant separatism  in Chechnya (while some sponsored by West "Russian" Neo-Nazi demand separate them).

9. In case of Crimea - yes, in case of protective self-isolationism -yes too. I not his supporter, but anyway he is more competent leader than all Western politician's.

10. Yes, Russia under control of Oligarchs, bu this is not meant what we must replace them by Western Oligarchs.

11. Nope, nationalism has no perspectives here, too multi-ethnic Empire we is ( more than 180 ethnicities  ). Just to say most of Russian Neo-Nazi  movements are Western creatures (i known one Nazi leader who constantly visit Norway where someone fund him ). 

12. Fascism is power of corporations really and Ukraine quite fitted  for this regime. Russian xenophobia and anti-Western alignment is not nationalism, nationalist's are marginals  here.

13. Yes, but our support too small, we must give much more support to them.

14. Yes, national interests blah blah.

15. His speeches is just good trolling. Probably something missing during translation to foreign languages, we understand who really acting in Crimea from first days.

16. Current world order is terrible, but can't be changed without war. Sad but True, big war in Europe happened soon by same  reason which cause WW1. 

17.Yep, government control only huge cities as Moscow, while 90 % of Russian territory has  independent life. Some sort of Wild West we are. 

18. Yes, but these processes Western media don't showed, only artificial shows created by Kremlin's own hands (**** Riots).

19. Any censorship is bad. Personally i don't have problems with censorship in Russia, actually i more censored here (or on 4chan where i banned for political speeches). 

20. Why i must prefer between these sort's of s**t? I refuse both.

[BruceVC]

 

This will be last ,my comment around Stalin on this issue

Likewise.

 

Stalin's agricultural reforms, known as Collectivization, were implemented between 1928-1940.  This was his idea and his concept to make reform agriculture more efficient. It was an absolute disaster and millions of Russians died.

And I assert that collectivization was a success as it fulfilled its stated goal. It rapidly collectivized agriculture turning millions of ineffective small scale farms into a couple of hundred thousand large, efficient collectively owned farms serviced with tractors and machinery; in turn this was able to provide a push for mass industrialization in urban centres which doubled the urban populace.

 

Naturally such a large scale endeavour was not executed flawlessly; disruption of agricultural norms certainly antagonized sections of the populace, local officials often used coercive means to encourage collectivization. Furthermore this was obviously the final rift between the Soviet state and the enemy capitalist Kulak class, as the Kulaks resisted Soviet collectivization and tried to sabotage it by slaughtering cattle and so on (although the extent of this was greatly exaggerated by the Soviets). Of course this all coincided with a terrible draught which combined with heavy handed Soviet policies, Kulak sabotage and an all around ****ty harvest resulted in a terrible famine.

 

Despite all this, agriculture stabilized by 1935 and became much more efficient than ever before thereby bringing an end to major famines in the region.

 

 

I enjoy having debates with you because I do think you are a reasonable person who makes good points, we just don't  agree on Stalin being a good leader. So when I said I don't want to debate this particular point anymore its not that I am annoyed or frustrated, its just that I can't say anything more on this topic to convince you

[Zoraptor]

You're arguing the difference between a (morally) good leader and an effective leader. Look at Churchill- effective, sure, if you exclude the Dardanelles, Dieppe and a few other follies; but then you have to exclude a fair few mistakes for Stalin as well. Morally good? Nah, to both. Churchill wanted to gas Iraqis for having the temerity of being brown, uppity and sitting on his oil and he was PM when millions of Indians died in famine as a result of deliberate inaction.

 

Of course, the millions dead there were Indians and Churchill was a hero, democrat, capitalist and westerner, as opposed to Stalin, so people only care about the dead that are politically expedient to care about.

[obyknven]

Blast from the past.

Spiritual Precursor of Ukrainian Junta is Duvalier Regime from Haiti. Too many similarities here.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1963/6/3/the-duvalier-regime-paccording-to-haitis/

 

Washington has two reasons to worry. First, some South American countries resent the United States's financial and military support of a regime that mocks the purpose of the Alliance for Progress. Since 1957, the U.S. has given Haiti $435 million in aid and loaned American troops to train Duvalier's army. Understandably, many have considered Duvalier the United States's man in Haiti....

But to equate the end of the Duvalier regime with the solution of Haiti's problems would be short-sighted. If what Adolf Berle has said is true, loss of Duvalier might only leave Haiti to the Communists. Even without the Communists, there would be other serious complications

 

 

 

 http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14832-will-the-us-continue-to-obstruct-justice-for-duvaliers-victims-in-haiti

In Haiti, for the first time, there appears to be genuine hope that Haiti's former dictator Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier will face human rights charges in court. But there's still a difficult road ahead, and one of the main obstacles may be the US government. 

 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2844.htm

 

FRANCOIS & JEAN CLAUDE DUVALIER

Presidents of Haiti

In 1957 Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier became Haiti's President-For-Life, establishing a strategic relationship with the US that lasted until 1971, when he was succeeded by his son Jean Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier. During the 30 years that they ruled with an iron hand, 60,000 Haitians were killed and countless more were tortured by the Duvaliers' Tonton Macoutes death squads. While Haiti became the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, the Duvaliers enriched themselves by stealing foreign aid money. In 1980, for instance, the International Monetary Fund granted Haiti a $22 million budget supplement. Within weeks, $16 million was "unaccounted for". Baby Doc made Haiti into a trans-shipment point for Colombian cocaine. Nevertheless, as long as Papa and Baby Doc were anti-communists, they could do no wrong in the US government's eyes. Their regime finally ended in 1986, when Baby Doc fled angry mobs of Haitians for asylum in France, with a fortune estimated at $400 million. It has been estimated that under Baby Doc's rule 40,000 Haitians were murdered.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-timeline-of-cia-atrocities/5348804

 

1959

Haiti — The U.S. military helps “Papa Doc” Duvalier become dictator of Haiti. He creates his own private police force, the “Tonton Macoutes,” who terrorize the population with machetes. They will kill over 100,000 during the Duvalier family reign. The U.S. does not protest their dismal human rights record.

 

1971

Haiti — “Papa Doc” Duvalier dies, leaving his 19-year old son “Baby Doc” Duvalier the dictator of Haiti. His son continues his bloody reign with full knowledge of the CIA.

 

1986

Haiti — Rising popular revolt in Haiti means that “Baby Doc” Duvalier will remain “President for Life” only if he has a short one. The U.S., which hates instability in a puppet country, flies the despotic Duvalier to the South of France for a comfortable retirement. The CIA then rigs the upcoming elections in favor of another right-wing military strongman. However, violence keeps the country in political turmoil for another four years. The CIA tries to strengthen the military by creating the National Intelligence Service (SIN), which suppresses popular revolt through torture and assassination.

[BruceVC]

You're arguing the difference between a (morally) good leader and an effective leader. Look at Churchill- effective, sure, if you exclude the Dardanelles, Dieppe and a few other follies; but then you have to exclude a fair few mistakes for Stalin as well. Morally good? Nah, to both. Churchill wanted to gas Iraqis for having the temerity of being brown, uppity and sitting on his oil and he was PM when millions of Indians died in famine as a result of deliberate inaction.

 

Of course, the millions dead there were Indians and Churchill was a hero, democrat, capitalist and westerner, as opposed to Stalin, so people only care about the dead that are politically expedient to care about.

 

That's true we are comparing moral and effective, but I will maintain that you have to have some morality to be remembered as a good and effective leader

 

There is no such thing as a perfect leader because  the question of morality around a leaders actions become subjective

 

But on the question of Churchill vs Stalin, you not seriously putting them in the same camp are you?

Edited August 21, 2014 by BruceVC

[obyknven]

Ukrainian punishers teach East-Ukrainians how to be a patriots of Ukraine.

 

US government fully support this. Do someone yet wondering why "police" (by some reports they are military contractors) act so brutally in Ferguson? If US thugs do this in another countries why they must have different behaviour at home?

[Sarex]

LoL, what an idiot, hitting with a rifle like that. If it went of he would have shot himself... Dumbass...

[Rostere]

LoL, what an idiot, hitting with a rifle like that. If it went of he would have shot himself... Dumbass...

 

I read that as "Donbass" first...

[Tale]

Past the 500 mark, I've started a new thread.