It appears you have not registered with our community. To register please click here ...

!!

Welcome to Russian Women Discussion - the most informative site for all things related to serious long-term relationships and marriage to a partner from the Former Soviet Union countries!

Please register (it's free!) to gain full access to the many features and benefits of the site. Welcome!

+-

Author Topic: Prenuptial Agreements:Reasonable Protection of Assets or the Embodiment of Patriarchal Hegemony?  (Read 8225 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online calmissile

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2003
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 0-2 years
  • Trips: 4 - 10

Calmissile,
 
I already asked you in this thread, but don't think you;ve replied: Are you going to have a prenup with your fiancee?

Pit,
My fiance has been reading this forum as well as the whining RW forum for months.  Her attitude appears to be similar to Tulip's.  She does not want our relationship poisoned by a bunch of angry, bitter, people that are insignificant to us.

Since I love and respect her, I will comply with her request.  We only share personal information with trusted friends and members off-lline.   It does not take long for someone to realize this is the safest route for couples to take.

Doug (Calmissile)

Offline Boethius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6282
  • Country: 00
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: No Selection
  • Trips: No Selection
Quote
She does not want our relationship poisoned by a bunch of angry, bitter, people
that are insignificant to us.

No offense intended, but, to be frank, if she thinks a bunch of strangers online, who she likely will never meet, can poison your relationship, you don't really have a relationship.

Offline pitbull

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1001
  • Country: 00
  • Gender: Female
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: Married 5-10 years
  • Trips: None (yet)
Pit,
My fiance has been reading this forum as well as the whining RW forum for months.  Her attitude appears to be similar to Tulip's.  She does not want our relationship poisoned by a bunch of angry, bitter, people that are insignificant to us.

Since I love and respect her, I will comply with her request.  We only share personal information with trusted friends and members off-lline.   It does not take long for someone to realize this is the safest route for couples to take.

If you both believe a prenup is a way to go, and you have been defending this route as a sensible option for FSUW-AM marriages, I do not see anything too personal in disclosing whether you are going this route or not. I believe every participant in this thread has stated if they have/will have a prenup or not, and this generally coincides with their position.
 
To be fully open - I do not have prenup, the question has never been raised by me or my husband.
Be the person that your dog thinks you are

Russian Women Discussion


Online calmissile

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2003
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 0-2 years
  • Trips: 4 - 10
No offense intended, but, to be frank, if she thinks a bunch of strangers online, who she likely will never meet, can poison your relationship, you don't really have a relationship.

Now that's a silly notion!  For a woman that has not yet experienced being in the US they are susceptible to the crazy stories that are propagated such as all American men are bad and abuse their wives, throw them out penniless, sell babies, harvest organs, etc. and on and on.

You would not believe how many women asked these questions during initial contacts.

I am convinced it would not matter in our case, but why complicate matters or take the risk.  It was her request, not mine.  I would much rather focus on the love we have for each other than have to defend it among the naysayers and negative thinkers.
Doug (Calmissile)

Online calmissile

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2003
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 0-2 years
  • Trips: 4 - 10

If you both believe a prenup is a way to go, and you have been defending this route as a sensible option for FSUW-AM marriages, I do not see anything too personal in disclosing whether you are going this route or not. I believe every participant in this thread has stated if they have/will have a prenup or not, and this generally coincides with their position.
 
To be fully open - I do not have prenup, the question has never been raised by me or my husband.

That's very nice, I hope you two live happily ever after.

Doug (Calmissile)

Offline Boethius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6282
  • Country: 00
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: No Selection
  • Trips: No Selection
Now that's a silly notion!  For a woman that has not yet experienced being in the US they are susceptible to the crazy stories that are propagated such as all American men are bad and abuse their wives, throw them out penniless, sell babies, harvest organs, etc. and on and on.

You would not believe how many women asked these questions during initial contacts.

I am convinced it would not matter in our case, but why complicate matters or take the risk.  It was her request, not mine.  I would much rather focus on the love we have for each other than have to defend it among the naysayers and negative thinkers.
I don't think there is a risk, and the advantage of RW forums is women explaining how things "work", stages of culture shock, even where to shop, etc.
 
I don't think you should defend yourself at all to naysayers, unless you enjoy the debate. :)
 

Offline Ade

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2648
  • Country: no
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Russia
  • Status: Married 3-5 years
  • Trips: 4 - 10
I'm not pro pre-nup by any stretch of the imagination but in Doug's case I'd say he needs the best that money can buy.

Online calmissile

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2003
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 0-2 years
  • Trips: 4 - 10
I don't think there is a risk, and the advantage of RW forums is women explaining how things "work", stages of culture shock, even where to shop, etc.
 
I don't think you should defend yourself at all to naysayers, unless you enjoy the debate. :)

Agree, and to not provide the ammunition (personal data) is the easiest way to avoid it.

Trip reports are one of the most valuable resourses newbies claim to enjoy.  Why do you think there are so few trip reports written.................... because they have read the forum and do not want their lives and decisions ripped apart by those that are inclined to do so.
Doug (Calmissile)

Online calmissile

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2003
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 0-2 years
  • Trips: 4 - 10
I'm not pro pre-nup by any stretch of the imagination but in Doug's case I'd say he needs the best that money can buy.

Thanks for the vote of confidence and the hidden message.  You are such a nice person.     ;D
Doug (Calmissile)

Offline Ade

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2648
  • Country: no
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Russia
  • Status: Married 3-5 years
  • Trips: 4 - 10
Thanks for the vote of confidence and the hidden message.  You are such a nice person.     ;D

Not planning on failing are you?

Let us know how the pre-nip holds up in court.

Offline Boethius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6282
  • Country: 00
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: No Selection
  • Trips: No Selection
Agree, and to not provide the ammunition (personal data) is the easiest way to avoid it.

Trip reports are one of the most valuable resourses newbies claim to enjoy.  Why do you think there are so few trip reports written.................... because they have read the forum and do not want their lives and decisions ripped apart by those that are inclined to do so.
Personally, I am not particularly interested in trip reports, but I think if there is a discussion of the red flags, you will get good advice from those who are intimately familiar with the culture.

BTW, lonedrake wasn't ripped apart in his TR.
 
 

Offline LiveFromUkraine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
Not planning on failing are you?

Let us know how the pre-nip holds up in court.


Ade, if you spend anymore time sitting on the toilet peeing/reading you will have a problem with blood flow to your feet.


« Last Edit: March 13, 2013, 04:08:29 PM by LiveFromUkraine »

Offline BillyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5685
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
    • Good Story
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 0-2 years
  • Trips: > 10
No, most of my clients are already married.  But if a client of wealth is going into a second marriage, yes, I do advise them to get prenups, and if a client asked if it was a good idea from a legal perspective, I would say yes. 



I was under the impression you were against prenups because you agreed with people who called it evil and for people in love with their money more than their spouse.


Although the forum members here aren't paying customers or real life friends and family, you should have give out this quality advice earlier. Although you state the advice is from a legal perspective, it's still good advice at a minimum because the legal system can make it unfair for one party or destroy both parties financially.


I've spoken with attorneys and a spiritual leader about this topic before and they all agree a prenup is a good thing. Considering they deal with a lot of people's problems and pain, I believe them.


If a man or woman won the lottery or became the next Donald Trump, he/she will be a target for insincere people. A prenup may help them ensure their partner is marrying for love and will get nothing more than a fair split in assets if things don't work out.


Some people own businesses and if an ugly divorce happens, the business dissolves and people lose their jobs. A prenup can help prevent that since more lives are involved than just two.


What does prenup mean? Prenuptial AGREEMENT.  Most normal people talk and have agreements before marriage. They talk about what they own and their responsibilities in marriage and who assumes those responsibilities. My wife told me she loves me for me and doesn't need anything I owned and earned before marriage. I did not put her words in writing in a prenup but I don't blame others for doing so or question their love for their spouse.


In essence most of us do a prenup written or verbal. Of course there are people out there that don't talk about critical things before marriage but they will have to sort it all out during and after marriage if it comes to that point.
Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Russian Women Discussion


Online Patagonie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1465
  • Country: fr
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 0-2 years
  • Trips: > 10

I was under the impression you were against prenups because you agreed with people who called it evil and for people in love with their money more than their spouse.


Although the forum members here aren't paying customers or real life friends and family, you should have give out this quality advice earlier. Although you state the advice is from a legal perspective, it's still good advice at a minimum because the legal system can make it unfair for one party or destroy both parties financially.


I've spoken with attorneys and a spiritual leader about this topic before and they all agree a prenup is a good thing. Considering they deal with a lot of people's problems and pain, I believe them.


If a man or woman won the lottery or became the next Donald Trump, he/she will be a target for insincere people. A prenup may help them ensure their partner is marrying for love and will get nothing more than a fair split in assets if things don't work out.


Some people own businesses and if an ugly divorce happens, the business dissolves and people lose their jobs. A prenup can help prevent that since more lives are involved than just two.


What does prenup mean? Prenuptial AGREEMENT.  Most normal people talk and have agreements before marriage. They talk about what they own and their responsibilities in marriage and who assumes those responsibilities. My wife told me she loves me for me and doesn't need anything I owned and earned before marriage. I did not put her words in writing in a prenup but I don't blame others for doing so or question their love for their spouse.


In essence most of us do a prenup written or verbal. Of course there are people out there that don't talk about critical things before marriage but they will have to sort it all out during and after marriage if it comes to that point.
+1
Read : "Operation white panther" and "For newbies : the optimum channel" in trip reports sans responses.
"Je glissais through the paper wall, an angel in the hand, s taboy. I lay on the floor, surgi des chants de Maldoror, je mix l'intégrale de mes nuits de crystal, i belong to the festival.

Offline Boethius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6282
  • Country: 00
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: No Selection
  • Trips: No Selection
I'm surprised you would agree with the absolute misrepresentation of what I have posted, Patagonie.


As for not marrying for love, that happens only when you do not know who you are marrying, or it's not important to you because you are marrying a body, not a soul. 




« Last Edit: March 14, 2013, 08:40:17 AM by Boethius »

Offline TheTraveler

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 529
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Married to a Disproportionately Hot Russian Wife
  • Spouse's Country: Russia
  • Status: Married > 10 years
  • Trips: 4 - 10
my impression has always been (and still is) that prenups are for very wealthy men (or women).  people worth tens or hundreds of $millions.
 
not for men who are deluding themselves into thinking they are wealthy just because their wife-to-be is from a poorer country and only earns a few hundred dollars per month.
 
i never considered a prenup, and i'm glad i didn't.  it would have hung a black cloud over our marriage and lessened the *magic* that we have together.
 
... but that being said, i can understand the viewpoint of men/women who are entering into a second (or third, etc...) marriage, and have children from a prior marriage, and would like to reserve their pre-marital assets (eg business) to pass onto those children rather than be split up (or dissolved) in a divorce.  but in cases where the wife simply outlives the husband, i frankly think the wife should get *everything*.
 
 

Online Patagonie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1465
  • Country: fr
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 0-2 years
  • Trips: > 10
I'm surprised you would agree with the absolute misrepresentation of what I have posted, Patagonie.


As for not marrying for love, that happens only when you do not know who you are marrying, or it's not important to you because you are marrying a body, not a soul.
Hi Boethius, i have missed the point, probably you were making a reference to "It is all intertwined.  As both jason and Faux Pas posted, it is all just stuff.   I could not fathom protecting my "stuff" from someone to whom I have entrusted my soul." i suppose (or may you elaborate it please )?
In case that it i would say that my position has not changed :

"The problem of trust and fairness is two totally differents things and should be strictly evaluated apart. It shouldn't be linked at any time."

In the decision given by the judge trust had never been existing as a factor of any sort.
Situation is only judged on health and age of spouses, time under mariage, type of mariage (prenup or not if you prefer), stuff (include here all about money), number of childrens, estimate future pensions of each, debt or mortages.
ONLY that, no sentiment,

The problem is that you can trust what you want the day of the divorce others people with a huge power are involved and they ABSOLUTELY have no compassion, no sentiment, no trust, no misery (fortunately, if judges want to give a fair decision). They only decide on objectives parameters i have described above (they try because it is not easy in fact).
We have here two camps, very similars to believers and non believers. Why the believers refuse to consider the almost 50% of failure ?
I consider for the reasons i have explained (see one of my previous post) that the normal mariage (shared or shared but previous assets or new inheritance excluded) is obsolete due to all the new laws, the trend given by cases law, and a miscealleneous reasons, which are given a clear advantage to women especially when significant amount of money are involved compare to what she would have had in case of single.
It is to men to help themselves and stop to sign these default contracts, especially when they are above the average folk (but even average must do it also).
 
After everybody is free to do what he wants, connected with his convictions, like religion.

But don't bring the question of trust, soul, because damages suffered by single divorced men are not correctly assessed.


Read : "Operation white panther" and "For newbies : the optimum channel" in trip reports sans responses.
"Je glissais through the paper wall, an angel in the hand, s taboy. I lay on the floor, surgi des chants de Maldoror, je mix l'intégrale de mes nuits de crystal, i belong to the festival.

Offline LiveFromUkraine

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
I do however despise anyone's condescending remarks toward someone else's perceived lack of "substantial assets". ML's remarks were OTT.


Not anymore OTT/condescending then people trying to tell others they have trust issues if they think prenups are not bad. 
« Last Edit: March 14, 2013, 10:11:20 AM by LiveFromUkraine »

Online Faux Pas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7306
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Russia
  • Status: Married 3-5 years
  • Trips: 4 - 10

Not anymore OTT/condescending then people trying to tell others they have trust issues if they think prenups are not bad.

Really? Where was that? I must have missed it.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

Mark Twain

Offline BillyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5685
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
    • Good Story
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 0-2 years
  • Trips: > 10
my impression has always been (and still is) that prenups are for very wealthy men (or women).  people worth tens or hundreds of $millions.
 


I'd say more people do prenups than don't. It comes in verbal form, not written.


We sometimes here about someones trip report and that they are getting married but there are other elements that aren't talked about here. Say the average guy owns a house and he is marrying a RW that owns a flat. I'm sure they talked about assets and what to do with them before, during marriage, and after marriage. How many guys here own something and/or their RW owned something, talked about marriage and didn't discuss separate assets and what assets will become community assets? Can't stay quite on that issue. Love doesn't provide the answer. Two people in the marriage has to sort it out and come to an agreement.


My wife didn't own any significant assets but if she owned a flat, before marriage I would tell her not to sell it, and in the event the marriage doesn't work, she has a place to go back to. In planning for a divorce, it doesn't mean I or she doesn't trust each other or we don't love each other. If a man loves his woman, he'd think about her having a place to live if the marriage doesn't work out. Maybe a marriage doesn't work out because two people find out they aren't compatible or the lady goes into culture shock permanently.

Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Boethius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6282
  • Country: 00
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: No Selection
  • Trips: No Selection
Hi Boethius, i have missed the point, probably you were making a reference to "It is all intertwined.  As both jason and Faux Pas posted, it is all just stuff.   I could not fathom protecting my "stuff" from someone to whom I have entrusted my soul." i suppose (or may you elaborate it please )?
In case that it i would say that my position has not changed :

"The problem of trust and fairness is two totally differents things and should be strictly evaluated apart. It shouldn't be linked at any time."

In the decision given by the judge trust had never been existing as a factor of any sort.
Situation is only judged on health and age of spouses, time under mariage, type of mariage (prenup or not if you prefer), stuff (include here all about money), number of childrens, estimate future pensions of each, debt or mortages.
ONLY that, no sentiment,

The problem is that you can trust what you want the day of the divorce others people with a huge power are involved and they ABSOLUTELY have no compassion, no sentiment, no trust, no misery (fortunately, if judges want to give a fair decision). They only decide on objectives parameters i have described above (they try because it is not easy in fact).
We have here two camps, very similars to believers and non believers. Why the believers refuse to consider the almost 50% of failure ?
I consider for the reasons i have explained (see one of my previous post) that the normal mariage (shared or shared but previous assets or new inheritance excluded) is obsolete due to all the new laws, the trend given by cases law, and a miscealleneous reasons, which are given a clear advantage to women especially when significant amount of money are involved compare to what she would have had in case of single.
It is to men to help themselves and stop to sign these default contracts, especially when they are above the average folk (but even average must do it also).
 
After everybody is free to do what he wants, connected with his convictions, like religion.

But don't bring the question of trust, soul, because damages suffered by single divorced men are not correctly assessed.


I think most of us are a little to old to believe in fairness.  However, I do not believe a relationship can endure over time without trust.  Furthermore, as I noted, I have never, ever, seen a couple with a prenup who did not, ultimately, divorce.

The 50% figure for divorce is misleading.  It is calculated by taking the total number of marriages, and the total number of divorces, recorded in a country in a year.  But it does not account for second or third marriages, which have a higher divorce rate than do first marriages, nor common law relationships. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html?_r=0


I believe you overstate the powers of the courts, and damages suffered by men.  In most North American jurisdictions, any property a man brings into a marriage is his when he leaves.  What is not, pursuant to legislation, is the increase in value of that property.  There is little "screwing" of men in division of assets, generally.  Where men are often treated unfairly is when children are involved.  Typically, a man is the higher income earner, so he will pay a large amount of maintenance for the children.  He will often lose his home to his wife and children, and, if his wife was at home, he often will pay alimony to her until she can retrain to work, often, even longer.  Most of that would be fine, however, often, men's custody rights have been blatantly disregarded by women, in the past, with no consequences to mothers for defying court orders.  That is beginning to change.

Today, I asked my better half what he thinks about prenuptial agreements.  He said he does not care how others choose to live their lives, but to him, it turns a marriage into a business transaction.  It commodifies something that is sacred.

I have to say, I never looked at it this way, but that is, I think, an accurate analysis.  In fact, some prenups include provisions for a woman's weight, how often the couple will have sex (at a minimum), what happens if the man does not provide sufficient income for vacations, if he is not earning $X annually, and so on.   Why not just turn the whole exercise into one of contractual obligation, based on each party's expectation going into a marriage, with the same types of consequences for breaches (pecuniary damages)?  It would make life a lot easier than having to negotiate problems and eventually giving up, would it not? 






« Last Edit: March 14, 2013, 09:41:24 PM by Boethius »

Offline ML

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4371
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: No Selection
  • Trips: > 10
I believe you overstate the powers of the courts, and damages suffered by men.  In most North American jurisdictions, any property a man brings into a marriage is his when he leaves. 

This is not true for one case I know of.

The man had inherited a small fortune before marriage.  He never co-mingled this money and in fact never touched it (spent it) at all as he and his wife both had good incomes from the very beginning of their marriage. 

He was intending to set up trusts, etc., so he could pass it on to future grandchildren and do some generation skipping with regard to taxes, but never got around to it.

At divorce proceedings, the judge acknowledged that was separate property of the man but, in view of this large sum . . .

He gave about 90% of the wealth accumulated during the marriage to the wife.

This had the same effect as splitting the accumulated wealth 50/50 and then giving the wife a portion the the man's pre-marriage assets.

Thus, in theory and even looking at specific wording in divorce decrees, it can be made to look like the pre-marriage assets stay separate; while in fact the monetary value of these assets is shared.
Youth and beauty are fleeting.  The ability to make a yummy chocolate cake lasts forever.

Offline Boethius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6282
  • Country: 00
  • Spouse's Country: No Selection
  • Status: No Selection
  • Trips: No Selection
That is why appellate courts exist.

Russian Women Discussion


Online calmissile

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2003
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 0-2 years
  • Trips: 4 - 10
That is why appellate courts exist.

The same jackasses exist in the appelate courts and the supreme courts.  It's simply a ladder they climb to get there.  They take their prejudices with them.  Where did  the revisionists come from?  Someone that could not read the original documents (law)?        ;D

BTW few people have the funds to appeal court rulings and verdicts.  Appellate lawyers are extremely expensive.   I know this from personal experience.
Doug (Calmissile)

Offline BillyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5685
  • Country: us
  • Gender: Male
    • Good Story
  • Spouse's Country: Ukraine
  • Status: Married 0-2 years
  • Trips: > 10

The man had inherited a small fortune before marriage.  He never co-mingled this money and in fact never touched it (spent it) at all as he and his wife both had good incomes from the very beginning of their marriage. 

He was intending to set up trusts, etc., so he could pass it on to future grandchildren and do some generation skipping with regard to taxes, but never got around to it.

At divorce proceedings, the judge acknowledged that was separate property of the man but, in view of this large sum . . .

He gave about 90% of the wealth accumulated during the marriage to the wife.



Family court judges are allowed a lot of discretion on their rulings. Stuff like this, maybe not to a large degree as this,  happens more often than not.



That is why appellate courts exist.


Maybe that's hope for Canadians that don't agree with a judge but that is not hope here. A person on death row may have a 15% to get his case in appellate court. What chance do you think a person unhappy with the ruling at divorce trial is going to have for an appeal? Appellate court don't have time to listen to everybody and they give precedence to those who's lives could be lost in prison for life.


Also if a person by chance gets heard by appellate court and wins an appeal, that is no reason to celebrate. The appellate court will state why they thought the judge at divorce trial is wrong and send the case right back to the same judge who made the erroneous ruling to make modifications. The same judge who screwed a person over and now embarrassed by higher level judges, may make only slight adjustments to his/her previous decision.
Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

 

+-RWD Stats

Members
Total Members: 8592
Latest: longsmal
New This Month: 3
New This Week: 7
New Today: 2
Stats
Total Posts: 367456
Total Topics: 15406
Most Online Today: 1358
Most Online Ever: 2127
(March 20, 2014, 11:07:42 PM)
Users Online
Members: 63
Guests: 1248
Total: 1311

+-Recent Posts

Re: Putin Can't Stop by JohnDearGreen
Today at 05:31:24 PM

Re: Russian Cultural Differences or Not Interested? by Chicagoguy
Today at 05:21:43 PM

Re: Russian Cultural Differences or Not Interested? by AC
Today at 03:39:38 PM

Re: Russian Cultural Differences or Not Interested? by Drew
Today at 02:32:56 PM

Re: Russian Troops captured in Ukraine. by Muzh
Today at 01:56:29 PM

Re: Russian Troops captured in Ukraine. by fathertime
Today at 01:34:05 PM

Re: The November Man by AC
Today at 01:10:30 PM

Re: Russian Cultural Differences or Not Interested? by Boethius
Today at 12:44:06 PM

Re: Russian Troops captured in Ukraine. by Boethius
Today at 12:43:36 PM

Re: Russian Cultural Differences or Not Interested? by Patagonie
Today at 12:19:02 PM

Powered by EzPortal