of next here on the channel, we have a documentary asking how ready is nato to defend itself. laws like, uh and for me and the entire news team here in berlin. thanks so much for watching . take care bye. the . the innovation green, the green revolution global. so listen to crime, it's probably up to speed. if the carriers by the time is helping subscribe to those channels, we've got new videos every friday. subscribe to plan. it's a, the

nato, the north atlantic treaty organization was born to 75 years ago. its aim to prevent more between solver and countries, the 75 years of europe and history without a war. that's the ultimate expression of a successful alliance. then, on february 24th 2022, russia launched a full scale invasion of ukraine. war had returned to europe. ukraine itself is not a needle member, but russia's actions have prompted the question. is the western military alliance capable of defending itself? how strong is nato? the

russian president vladimir putin viewed the eastern expansion of nato as both a threat and betrayal of a port in promise and put in size. it was a breach of trust that justified russia's attack on another country. he made that clear and an address to the nation 3 days before russian troops invaded ukraine. the city is gonna be just keep close enough to diagnose loan. that's kind of based on a need, but i would like that i substitute system. i be speaking. who does that process? that is the project, right? and they say that again, sort of, i mean, we were supposed to be speaking into that process, the motions. so similar to what are the number one key? this is daniel crane, another. it's a pretty maya mr. holmes. who was the senior basically like by the mass. so it seems like some sort of a kind of shows that they should have it. so even though some guy who comes up some felt of a person of virginia, you might need to trust that on the say,

chevrolet edition to you please. they do it as best, but i need you to see. anyway, him, the piece was to be a matter you might do him must push the button when he is still. i mean, yeah, you don't mind your customer sitting in your way. and the other thing is that the, nothing noise is that's it, that's not one inch east towards. that's the much quoted promise. nato is said to have made to russia, so did the west to betray russia as story. and mary isa reality has spent most of her academic life focusing on that exact question. she's conducted more than $100.00 interviews and scrutinized countless transcripts letters and documents. and ultimately, she found a clear answer. what i would really like would be if the russians would lay down their weapons and go home. i can't make that happen. but in a certain sense, putting this, trying to use history is

a weapon to justify what he's doing. and i am a historians. and so in my own little way, it's very minor compared to what the premiums are doing. but in my own little way, i can perhaps take that weapon away from him by showing and a serious, reproducible scholarly way. the true narrative, the actual narrative of what happened. the story begins shortly after the fall of the berlin wall. germany was on the brink of reunification, but there was a challenge. germany had surrendered unconditionally after the 2nd world war. so the 4 victor powers of the us, france, britain, and the soviet union still had undisputed legal rights over divided germany, and particularly over divided berlin. so in order for germany to unify, all 4 had to give those powers up. the 3 victorious western powers ask themselves what the 4th power would demand. what would the soviet union's last liter mikhail

gorbachev want in return for allowing the reunification of germany the the former west german foreign minister hans dietrich denture was, was certain that corporate charles would want the security of knowing and dentures words that neither poland nor hungary is going to join nato, so venture thought that was reasonable and felt strongly that the western allies, so america, britain, france, and west germany should offer that to gorbachev. denture, propose the idea to us secretary of state james baker. he too thought it was reasonable. on february 9th 1990 baker visited gorbachev at the kremlin and he says roughly the following. how about you let your part of germany go. and we say that nato nato, in its jurisdiction,

will move not one into sports. after the meeting, baker flew back to the us to report back to his boss and a good friend, president george h. w. bush. bush, however, was anything but impressed with the proposal, the bush says, jim, i'm disappointed in you. i don't think we should negotiate about the future of nato . i think nato just won the cold war. i think the data was great just the way it is . so we're not going to do that. and you need to let people know. so one of my more interesting discoveries was a letter that baker then wrote to the west german 4 and ministry at the end of february, saying, i'm sorry, i should have said that i've caused confusion. we need to stop talking about this. and after that, this offer disappears from you american negotiating position. 2 weeks later, bush invited west german chancellor, helmut kohl and his wife to camp david the us president's country residence

bush said to call pretty much the same thing, but he said to james baker, we're not going to negotiate or the future of nato to help with that, that's a direct quote to help with that. and coal responded okay. the corporate job is going to want something in exchange for his burdening tips and goals. coal thought about it and said, perhaps it will be a question of money. and bush responded. you have deep pockets and the later defense minister bob gates, who was basically taking notes around this time, he bob gates later wrote his memoirs. at that moment the strategy became clear. we were going to bribe the soviets out, but with money not with promises about nato enlargement. the 2 plus 4 negotiations dragged on until september 12th 1990. by then nothing stood in the way of german

reunification. and the line, not one inch eastward was not in any treaty sturgess assembly vague and they'll tuck your one does define, you're going to dodge. so and then by truck routes, a field 70 it even guns old past. this was not an amateur. our. these were professionals negotiating, this was the a team is we say in america, and at the end, what actually was in the contract explicitly allows nato to enlarge across the former cold war front line. that i believe is what is most important. and the soviet union not only signed that accord, not only ratified it, but also cashed the associated check from billions of deutsch marks. that doesn't mention. so what put does is he mentioned the early phase when it goes, she ations where that was a possibility. but then he ignores what actually happened. at the end. months later,

the soviet union collapsed. the warsaw pact was officially dissolved. the soviet flag over the kremlin was lowered nato when the west had one. suddenly the question arose. what should they don't do next? month after 1990, there was this idea of the peace dividend all states in europe in the west, but also russia and other former soviet states reduce their arms. the idea was if everyone had to your weapons, it's like no nobody wanted conflict in that one's view of one kind of conflict. and for a few years at least, the idea seemed to work. relations between russia and the west, improved and 1997 leaders of nato countries and russian president boris yeltsin, signed a cooperation agreement called the nato, russia. a founding act. the german diplomat was gong dissing was at the negotiations. give it to him. in the 1st half of the 1990s,

the relationship was by no means confrontational or hostile. russian needed cooperation with the west of a rush. it was later admitted to the g 7 or so suddenly we were the g 8 of the don't. let's see by the us the nato, russia founding act, literally states, nato and russia do not consider each other as adversaries, the phone man, boom. so be the most part who is like apps on ok. let's see if you don't see it. i see it tools tend to be too bad or, you know, or, you know, the overall in the founding that the west made concessions to rush out just because of the beat. couldn't we agree that no nuclear weapons would be deployed on the territory a future? eastern natal member states go to a period and build and vote so i won't even know if sore,

but despite the accept, we also accepted that the deployment of troops from nato member states in those countries would only be allowed to take place in a very limited way with their stuff in dawson and tomato honor. that agreement says andre cartoon of academic director of the russian international affairs council in moscow. the, the license, too young to me have to do. i agree that between 20142022 the north atlantic treaty organization showed us such an restraint, a yacht, people all up in the air from the south dogs because side side of the machine, you will have restraints in deploying new troops and heavy weapons to its eastern flank to roll, it would really not for you all of us pushing of along get it to believe this was

evidently done to avoid any accusation of violating the provisions of the nato russia founding act as local guys to uh, the uh, the right see not the category the act does not allow the parties to station launch off most of weapons along the russian border. really, uh, probably use it like a saying, yeah, let me get the most one. on the other hand, russia is doing things very differently. to me this nuclear, we have to assume that there are nuclear capable missile systems and a collision grad, which wouldn't get much warning to us sitting here in berlin. and here been a lot is happening there. i see it i because we haven't done any of that needs. we haven't done anything in this domain that didn't already exist before reunification or during the cold war exist yet. even when booting came to power in 1999, the relationship between russia and nato was peaceful. the old enemy seemed to have become a friend. meanwhile,

a new adversary had emerged. terrorism to this day, the alliance is article 5 has only ever been invoked once. following the terrorist attacks of september, 11th, 2001 are today, our fellow citizens, our way of life. our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. the pictures of airplanes flying and the buildings fires, burning huge, huge structures collapsing have filled us with disbelief. at the time stephanie bobs was a nato security adviser at headquarters in brussels, watching as events unfolded the as gab down much oh, do you force them during the attacks but also off too it's there was

a sense that we should expect to find them are taxed bites of an i'm and we didn't know why and, and i remember very well how unsettled we felt as employees at nato headquarters come to use. okay. who we so we will also targets, you have an even 5 target and 10. so what if it was directed from abroad? i didn't see and i did see it shall be regarded as an x and some of the 5 of the washington to into fund vargas. these include in that regard, there was a considerable risk in invoking article 5. you pieces by kind of because nobody knew what the situation would be like in a week's time the i'm of their kindergarten and whether the americans would suddenly demand immediate military support from their allies. and nobody could know that for ca, tile is off to the attacks. then honestly, newman sung in response to the attacks us, president george

w bush declared a war on terror in 2170 nations took part in the subsequent war in afghanistan, including all nato countries and russia. a few days after the attacks put in speaking german address to the german parliament in berlin, who did the other. the other is food and was one of the very 1st to express his condolences and a willingness to health after 911. that's relations were still stable. back then w, when the of the dominant have you found that happen? when does the united states you see that was so difficult for them to be getting it shoots and this one thing in the them to them to have kind of a desktop with yeah, it's from september in this out in the time to finish talking to she is, you know, been plus mentioned in the against of is foggins. this is the common cont, once we have that on. so the issue that i need to understand gibson for an

interview. the political, the lead invites us. and i think this is doing this because i know partnership new in duplicate help him get him on the keep getting notes with polling. ready food and supported nato in afghanistan in the fight against dow, kinda some of nato's logistics were routed via russia at the time, putting even considered the prospect of russia joining nato. the . ready ready both russia and nato member states benefit from the cooperation economically and politically. the non you probably, and you have certainly used to move to very much. it was

a very good cooperation between the west and russians. all is uh, essentially in the early 2, thousands a year and then the well yeah, yeah, complete get that goes out to which to are the best example is probably the transportation options that russia offered nato during the war in afghanistan or the out of so posting that you all a while you and that they're not the so called northern transport car at all. well, well, so several years you're going to be around the green book. it proved to be very effective. you can get the category of option because also effects, even though from 2000 to onwards. representatives of russia and nato met regularly in the nato, russia council. the mood among leaders was playful. end up being more like a set the minute the step. quite a few of them. i think even though i just don't study at the go much do i think

the slippery slope. a d, i think started to go downhill with the us decision to intervene in iraq, if not before then gosh and try to because moscow of course had the feeling that a red line had been crossed through that. oh yes is. and what did you knew? it was written in the americans, we're going to start that kind of war means you get the with thousands of tanks and soldiers. and as it turned out, the based on false information and then where, what it ends on it is. it was invested in it was the beginning of the end of good relations between russia and the west. russia, like china and france voted against the invasion of a rock at the un security council. the us invaded any way without a un mandate in 2007, 4 years after the us invaded iraq with its coalition of the willing. booting spoke

at the munich security conference. he took the united states and its allies to task over their policies, the front of my computer. you'll see that you'll see it was more list, it is these new book. but if this a you have to go to a google in it. but yes, and then you know, what's the diploma just give me something in does up with the some fox in the what is the fact the contact was maintained between moscow and brussels was very often seen as some kind of save from nato towards russia. very near a couple of a r c, a pull would show us as the council was almost exclusively considered a mechanism for exchanging information, but one which had no serious decision making functions. uh you got you. uh and of

course with those 2 approaches were bound to clash sooner or later that you, dropbox for the around the loop was the last little bit of salt mode. so we can still void shipping a. but it's really a little while ago shipping to be mean is the problem moisture. ideally, normally the bus will get you, then you've seen a lot. and then what was, is that there's a few days so you almost doesn't finish out of the list late in the notes that you possibly do. let's just see it. if you look on the mac, you've probably to implemented that and i see it in maybe else. so it's under again because of the look. i'm with the front of that come with the $500.00 of actually physically i guess we probably reacted unwisely. zillow, the reaction was basically to assume he just needed to let off some steam. that the next morning it would be back to business as usual. that turned out to be a miscalculation in the field. so we found that out in 2008 at the latest. when

russia responded to the georgian uprisings with massive military force, me to tell them after that, when the thing really went downhill, because a back up in 2014 russian forces occupied crimea. the pro russian insurgents and eastern new crane were supported with arms supplies, logistics, and irregular forces. the official line was that moscow was protecting the russian language and culture. in reality, it was probably also about preventing ukraine from joining nato. after all, no country involved in a conflict is allowed to join the alliance. who should face? rain would follow in 2022. the

rushes for administer essentially declared that the nato russia council was no more they want to go back to the border since 1997. they sent a concept tree to text and later in december 2021. and that means that the basically all the members that since 1997 have become a member of nato, would sort of become a 2nd class member. of course that is unacceptable. who wants less of nato instead? he's getting more of it. finland joining the alliance in 20. 23. sweden, apply for membership in 2022, but wasn't admitted at 1st. for 20 months, turkish president read ship type air to one block, sweden's membership that hungary opposed or even longer.

only no members have the right to veto, for example, when it comes to new member states. as a distribution, obviously shirts which is so sweet and had been preparing for over a year and drop and they've made an incredibly important really quite to story decision. they had to get it through parliament, which was a difficult political fate to. so the sister from that they were more or less dependent on 2 people, missed the old on and missed a other one and all bundled. so they were on the doorstep and they basically have the back of them quotes. i told them bitches. research for you. as a dean says everyone has deliberately used nato to make profitable deals for years . and his role at the german institute for international and security affairs id has observed the turkeys foreign policy of this at all. and there's also a tactical reason for the turkish position with turkey wants to extort more benefits. so to the us, if you want to put it that way, and that's was i kind of escape, it's about acquiring at 16 fighter jets,

for example, jets. turkey isn't going to make it easy. i mean, the country is negotiating this one to 100. meanwhile, nato once again faces an age old question. how united would the alliance be in the event of an attack? polling suggests that nearly 3 quarters of turks now see it's nato partner the united states as their greatest threat. nato itself now has just 23 percent support in turkey. nato's most important member was and is the us. it's key to the alliance of strength and its future. we assembled here today are issuing a new degree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital and in every hall of power. from this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. from this day,

forward is going to be only america. first, america, 1st the united states, please, an extremely important coordinating rule in nato. the president is, is the most important person in the alliance, and without an american president and all of that means in terms of american military and nuclear power. and the, the alliance itself would be just a shadow of itself. good. in july 2018 and nato secretary general young sheldon back and us president donald trump clashed on camera at the nato summit and brussels germany is just a little bit over one percent. where's the united states and actual numbers is 4.2 percent of a much larger g d p. so i think that's an appropriate roles. you know,

we're protecting germany, we're protecting france, we're protecting everybody. and yet we're paying a lot of money to project. now this has been going on for decades, and then numerous of the countries go out and make a pipeline deal with russia, where they're paying billions of dollars into the coffers of russia. and i think that's very inappropriate. and the former chancellor of germany is the head of the pipeline company that supplying the gas in 2014 nato member states agreed to spend a 2 percent of gdp on defense. but apart from the united states modeling, any countries stuck to it, the john bolton was us national security advisor for around 18 months under donald trump until the president forced him to resign. when i took the job, this national security advisor,

i believe that the weight of the decisions that the president had to make and the national security field, the gravity of the responsibility would weigh on donald trump and discipline him in the same way it had for 44 american presidents before him. bolton was there on the 2nd day of the nato summit when trump nearly caused the major incident. the while i was in a car over to our embassy residence in brussels, where the president was staying and he called me in the car and said, uh, i think we should do something historic today. i think we should withdraw from nato . and i said this somewhat surprised by that i said, well, let's discuss it. i'm almost there. as soon as i hung up with the president, i called the mike pompei or the secretary state and called john kelly white house chief of staff. i tried to reach matt as the secretary of defense,

to basically say, all hands on deck. i think this is very serious the for the 1st time and need those history. us withdrawal seemed a real possibility. the, well, i was very worried that the trump would actually announce with wrong right there. not that we had considered it, not that we had discussed it at the n s c. but because trump, once he started talking about something, i often just went ahead and did. and at one point trump said to me that basically he was going to replace me with someone who didn't argue with him. but who just said yes. when he said things like, i want to get out of nato. the last conversation i had was, and he was literally sitting at the big table in the nato meeting room. he called

me up and said, well, shall we do it? and i said, go right up to the line, but don't go over the line. and then i went and sat back down. and when i set down, i had no prediction. what he would do the, i think with a normal president, it would have been seen as a blow because people know that come on the united states needs nato, just as much as nato needs the united states. so nobody would have taken him serious. he comes across is not truly appreciating the significance of the alliance or what it even means or understanding the history or why do we do what we do. he, he understands the world and it transactional sense. quick pro, quote. then if i give you secure, is he what do i get in return? why do i have it was deal when it comes to nature. he didn't appreciate that nature

was important for the us in order to create global stability and security. for him, it's just to do that, but can you give me this and i'll give you that. that's what nato is about. the mission of, of, of the not to do nothing came of trumps threats. but nato allies, especially those in europe. we're concerned me berlin july 29 team simulation was carried out by london's international institute for strategic studies and the cub of foundation security experts from germany, france, the u. k. poland, and the us to part everything happened in secret. neither the location, northern participants were disclosed know how to do that is executive director of international affairs at the club foundation by these. and so now you have them as a sole task for the scenario exercises we invite and government officials but also

people from the academic world and from think tanks of to think tank that i was for sure they come from various countries that are relevant for the scenario we're playing out new and then the funds and uh, and a very important requirement. denise simulation games is that the list of participants remains absolutely confidential. obviously the, the fatality type, the technician scenario was this. during a 2nd, trump presidency. the us announces its withdrawal from nato. it wasn't a military scenario. it was a political one. what concessions would the remaining member states be prepared to make? with nato even collapse under the strain of a u. s. threat. as of the start, your team about doing goals for hyatt of a german team was quite prepared to throw the issue of trade policy into the equation,

voc charlottesville for the pulling volume. and the polish team was relatively quick to enter into talks with the americans along the lines of hey hey, what can we do beyond nieto in terms of a bilateral security policy agreements be that to are, and the, the shots predict the supply involved. so send that, of course was actually a concern for the other players in the game. yeah. and then up to in these, infuse then then the, and because we start making bilateral security agreements with the west mason that the structure you know, will be undermined to this, to not tool. i talked to of that or she went on the new to that and what they expected would happen. but it was a return to a series of bilateral alliance as alliance between 2 states, maybe 3 states in europe. and what they saw was the return to rickety system of alliances like those that had existed in europe before the 2nd world war. and then in some cases, before the 1st world war 2. and they worried that this would be

a very unstable and dangerous situation, where states would have a series of different security obligations that could activate a whole series of dominoes if you will, if a conflict where to begin the scenario secretly played out in berlin in 2019 became relevant once more and 2024. trump has repeatedly made nato, an election issue, and his campaign appearances the and we don't get so much out of it. and you know, i to send you this about nato. if we ever needed the help, let's say we were attacked. i don't believe they'd be there. i very much fear. if he becomes president again, he will withdraw from data that he will probably also band and ukraine. that who knows what else he will do. i think it will be very destructive, very counter productive. i think that the trump will withdraw from nato because he

has felt for so long that it was something he wanted to do. i think he feels frustrated that he wasn't able to do it in his 1st term. he probably blames people like myself and several others. and in, in the 2nd trump term, he will not be burdened by people like me. i can tell you. they asked me that question. one of the presidents of a big country stood up said, well sir, if we don't pay and were attacked by russia, will you protect us? i said, you didn't pay your delinquent. you said yes, let's say that happened. no, i would not protect you. in fact, i would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. you gotta say, gotta pay your bill. and the money came flowing in. we were like the stupid country of the world and we're not going to be the stupid country of the world any longer. we're not going to be the she gives the real danger,

isn't unofficial us withdrawal from nato? that was, that's something that congress made clear. again, in 2019 with legislation on some of my thoughts as you must have, the president does not have the power to break the north atlantic treaty suppression fatigues. treaties have to go through congress the route, but she could 5, does the police? there's a real danger, it is a lack of political will to do anything in the case of an allied being attacked by whether the president and the white house is trump, or someone else i've been from you. that could be it. even if the trump is re elected and doesn't officially withdrawal from nato, because the us congress doesn't allow him to come because still decide to do nothing. if an attack takes place, then put them on a contest. the us congress would still have the power to dictate will, but the us presidents of, of, as military commander could simply not send troops from the i could the world's

largest military alliance. and it's famous article 5 be undermined by just one person. and that's not the only threat to nato global power dynamics have been shifting for years to life. and i think for one thing us society is changing some of that. but also in recent years, there's been a dramatic increase in the perception that china is a french. we own a global play of that could take on the us under the category for rushes and a completely different category. when it comes to that, according to the global fire power index, china is ranked just after the united states and russia when it comes to military strength and worldwide modernization of patients, military is set to be completed by 2035 plus china already has the largest navy, in the world, satellite images from recent years show how china has build up huge military bases on small on developed ad holes in the south. china sea in

china is taking an increasingly aggressive stance towards taiwan and other agents dates those dates are internal, also hoping for assistance from the us and nato. the team that we will assessing this with ukraine. increasingly the question is, can we be equally active and both sides see, it says in both regions. nice. and that's with now spending on ukraine in terms of weapons and supports. should we already be supplying that to tie 12, in case of a conflict, conflicts that the database has going on in the us getting types of options. if i applied 1000, i wasn't part of a delegation to the us in 2019. during our discussions, the americans told us russia 0 problem. it's a european problem. now he's not ours anymore. you have to take care of it. and that's, that is not going to change, even if in 10 or 20 years we have better relations with russia until then,

europeans have to come to terms with the idea that the us may simply not be able to act in the conflict. because they may be busy elsewhere, the ones that was on the mantel challenge for europeans in the future will be to show how they can also be useful. and not just the beneficiary of us security. or is there a need for a plan b, like or unified european army? after roll? particle $42.00 of the treaty on european union contains its own mutual assistance guarantees similar to nato's article 5. the needless to say, the us wouldn't be the military power. it is today if it wasn't centralized and that's exactly why a european army under a unified combined structure is so unlikely because we're not one country like the united states to be able to kind of the european union is made up of 27 countries.

my. they will never let us central command in brussels, for example, take military decision making out of the center. and it's a time come understand the inclusive, somebody. in february 2024 european commission president was that a funded lion supported a proposal to appoint an e u. defense commissioner in the future. but the idea of a european army would have to be approached over the long term the, the festival. what the europeans can do is the line, the armies so that they are complementary, so that they work together. they still wouldn't achieve the necessary level of deterrence against russia. but at least they'd have a foundation on which they could carry out small to medium sized emissions on their own. and then we see one of the dates for you. ok. small to medium sized dimensions are unlikely to discourage russia in the long term. in january 2024,

nato began its largest truth exercise since the end of the cold war named steadfast defender, 90000 soldiers practicing their reaction to a simulated attack. over several months, the hypothetical opponent, russia, the united kingdom diplomat had said essentially, every time natal gets into trouble, the russians come along and save us, which is deal uh, not as to just nato is now. in fact, returning to the reason the north atlantic bulk was founded in 1949 is keeping moscow a day of the afternoon. you must good weather put and likes it or not. russia's war and ukraine has reinvigorated nato. the

instinct is still good to your opinions and of course is gemini. it's the biggest test that we have faced since the end of the 2nd world war. this is not some minor crisis that we can manage from the side lisles. it's kind of minutes. and regardless of external pressure, the looming risk between europe and the us is unmistakable. europeans are facing completely new challenges a side because the ministry power of all european states put together as simply too small compared to what the us has creating a european defense policy that could function without nato would take decades. not to mention require much more than the 2 percent of g d p that's being demanded today. would escape just providing the money isn't enough. things have to be produced. weapon systems would have to be made the kind you up kind of in the dream of today and kind of what the simple helpless for food the post cold war piece

dividend seems to have been used up. defense is once again, part of every day political discourse. been for meaningful. i have a family, a lot of us here. our fathers and mothers, we don't want more than you. it's the very thing we want to prevent the guns and beat. so how can it be prevented a so by for caring for something like it to the end by sending a message to somebody who just over a year ago, carried out an attack on a neighbor he piece by saying get orders to that won't work here. so, so i'm here to house kind of what after 75 years, nato is once again confronting the task it faced when it was found in preventing a war. the

kids need to be looked out. why not for the kindergarten, old age it might sound crazy. and they tried it out with great success, focus on 30 minutes, dw, the,

this shadows, these costs and video shed light on the dog is devastating. colonial har is infected by germany across and he employed the school tactics, bombs and destroy side stuff. what is the legacy of this wide spread races, depression? today, the screen. we need to talk about here, the stories, shadows of german colonialism. do you big deal? companies play a role in the destruction of the rain forest. i have time to raise all over brazilian reprocess 30000 hides a day. 90 percent of that is for the forward market. the auto industry, for example. this will actually cost awesome comes from inigo cattle farms in the

m as in yet the automobile industry doesn't care about the supply chain process. all that much illegal of the stats may stood on d, w, the business dw use, and these are off top stories. israel has confirmed that it has killed 3 sons of announced this political chief as matter of honey and an ass striking gaza is rarely military assess, the men operative send him off. his military wing media report say, some of honeys the grandchildren were also killed in the strikes depends problem in the stuff in the case she is in washington dc for a visit. i am, that's a mentoring relations with abide and administration.