No, Just Stop Oil is not an "activist" group. They're in cahoots with the enemy. They're defamation, and their intent is to give the radical right something to point to.
Just Stop Just Stop Oil.
EDIT: There are waaaaaaay too many assumptions happening in this thread.
I once read a pretty good write up somewhere on Reddit with proof that they were getting reasonably large financial support from the daughter of an oil baron, and it's unclear if she supports the left or right.
On the other hand, a friend of a friend was arrested at a just stop oil rally in Manchester, UK a few months back, and I know him well enough to absolutely believe he thought he was doing what was best for the world, although I'm unsure if he'd deface anything.
There's no proof but what else could be these people's problem? They have to know what they're doing to the image of people who do care about the environment. It's not like they're helping. I don't get it.
it doesn‘t seem logical to you that some people are freaking out because everybody is talking about climate change while it is clearly happening and it is becoming obvious that too little is being done too late?
Man I agree with you. I just feel sick when I see harm being done to such an ancient piece of history. What reason is there for it? Go after something actually related to the problem at least.
I think very little can be done to cause public outrage, which is what they want to do. This did it. Also I see no lasting damage being done to Stone Henge. And that‘s true for all their actions, as far as I know.
fair point. I think it is heart breaking that they seem to be losing this battle. No matter what kind of protest they choose, I keep hearing: Well, that‘s not the kind of protest I would support. So yeah, maybe they are at a dead end. But maybe not because they chose the wrong kind of protest, but because the public don‘t want change. Look at the European elections. It seems the other side‘s propaganda works a lot better, yeah.
All I'm really trying to say is their methods make the environmental movements look bad. I hate that. I want things to get better. I don't think they're doing anything to help that. Go after something relevant.
Sure but you can hardly compare this to any of MLK's protests. As far as I'm aware, he never harmed pieces of ancient history. He got to the root of the problem and did things like sit-ins in white only restaurants. It's two different kinds of pissing people off.
Except this doesn't make me care about oil one damn bit. What I do care about it harsh penalties for the perpetrators(including community service and paying for the damage to be undone) and protecting heritage sites like this from other shitty humans. Its not activism, it's vandalism. It has nothing to do with oil. It would be the same as setting the Mona Lisa on fire and screaming about oil. It's just unhinged.
Except this doesn’t make me care about oil one damn bit.
So what? Nobody cares what you think, least of all the Just Stop Oil people. They don't have to win people to their cause; they just have to keep making themselves a nuisance until everybody's so pissed off that The Powers That Be are forced to capitulate just to make it stop.
Not to mention, it takes extremists like them to make the more moderate environmentalists look reasonable. It's the same way that the government was eventually forced to concede to the demands of people like MLK: because it became clear that the demands of people like Malcolm X, not the status quo, were the alternative.
Just the style of writing in this article gives away a lot:
The self-professed aims of these organisations and their millionaire backers are to bypass politics and implement radical measures upon the world’s population without democratic consultation.
the referenced piece here is written by a Breitbart editor by the way.
Anyway, so Just Stop Oil are going to bypass the world‘s democratic order? Yeah? By demanding them to follow through with their climate pledges?
Oh man.
Also, it is no news, that the Getty heir is contributing to various funds, so what. I am a landlord and support Extinction Rebellion, does that make their actions inauthentic?
The reality is that the UK is using pretty straight forward laws to prevent this kind of protest, they don‘t need some kind of internationalist cabal to do that for them.
"Protests must be polite and not ruffle any feathers" is what I'm hearing.
Sorry. But as climate change gets worse and corporations continue to annihilate the living beings on this planet while governments uphold their ability to do so, the protests will only become more radical. We're long past the point of polite protests, and they didn't work.
Radical in my mind is burning down an oil plant. Going after a piece of history is disgusting. At least ruffle the feathers of the people you're standing up to.
I've read the other replies to my comment, but yours is the only counter that I mostly agree with.
Yes, going after an oil plant would certainly be a much more radical form of protest. The main issue is that targeting something like that carries massive risk and is unfathomably challenging. That isn't to say they shouldn't do it though.
My comment was more a response to some of the general negative sentiment that I see in response to other protests that are disruptive. It's usually reactionary claims of "you're making people mad, so it's counterproductive", while ignoring the fact that nothing else has worked.
Protests will always incite rage. The question is "is it justified?". In this case, sure, but your unhinged comment that started this thread is just reactionary drivel.
They give an example of what they consider radical and you respond with "so they should risk everything for you." That's like responding with "so you hate waffles" to a tweet saying "pancakes taste good"
I don‘t think so. He says burning down oil refineries would be great and says himself that the other form of protest is bad.
I didn‘t position myself about that. He did, and I think he‘s a hypocrite for doing so.
Radical in my mind is burning down an oil plant. Going after a piece of history is disgusting. At least ruffle the feathers of the people you're standing up to.
Radical
a: very different from the usual or traditional : extreme
b: favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
c: associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change
d: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs
They said burning down an oil plant is radical. Are you thinking of the slang definition of radical? The only call to action is the ruffling of feathers.
Okay but could they please target things that are actually causing the problem and not thousands of years old stone monuments that can't possibly have any bearing on anything.
Otherwise they're just being vandals. And then bean vandals is counterproductive to their own stated course.
"Protests must be polite and not ruffle any feathers" is what I'm hearing.
I don't think that protests have to be polite, however protests do have to be productive. If your environmental group's political agitation only results in turning public opinion away from the greater movement......I'm not sure if that's a productive use of political capital.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to question a group's motivation who are participating in unproductive political agitation. Especially considering that their funding comes from an oil heiress, who could be using her vast fortune to be lobbying to the people whom actually have access to the power that can bring about real change.
the protests will only become more radical.
I'd hardly say paying some teens to "vandalize" a painting that your family owns is really a radical act of protest. Now if they were conducting these types of actions against oil companies, or the political bodies who support them..... That would be radical.
This is so hilariously wrong. There's a lot of stuff I won't admit to since this is a public account and a public identity. Kairos. What I don't support, however, is vandalism of historical monuments. Especially when the monument in question is so incredibly irrelevant to the crisis at hand.
It's corn starch. The ancient wonder suffers more defacement in the form of erosion because it rains every 4 seconds in the UK. Stonehenge will be perfectly okay.
My wording was trash. It's not so much the "damage" done but that it doesn't feel like a productive protest and that it'll piss of more people than anything.
If that were true, wouldn't their shenanigans be more destructive? Soup over a glass protected painting and colored corn starch on a monument are not really rage inducing.
Didnt read the whole article as my norwegian is not that good but damn. This makes it even worse and I am not even really surprised they still killed him knowing he was not the man they were looking for. They heard him speaking french whoch their target did not know but they still went ahead with it becuase even if he was not a big fish terrorist he was still a terrorist? What kind of sick fucking mentality is that?
Usually when there’s a labor shortage wages go up. This sounds like there’s no labor shortage, just a bunch of people eager to extract additional value for free.
The issue is near global no matter the wealth of a country. Why? We have allowed homes to be investment vehicles like stocks. This is what you get and given that those who own the homes do not want to see their value go down, you better believe they have infiltrated the government to ensure it. It is working. Maybe a little too well as things are getting desperate and surely cannot be sustainable.
We also have a larger population. And we have smaller household sizes, which means that the number of households has grown even quicker than the population.
And higher rates of urbanisation, which means those households all want to live in a few overcrowded urban areas.
And we have more households owning multiple homes, either as investment, for recreational usage or to rent it out.
Solving these issues will not be simple, but it has to be done.
Looks like that at best France won't have a majority, at worst we'll have Ms Le Pen as a Prime minister (France is a semi presidential regime, and if the President doesn't have the majority, most of the power shifts toward the prime minister, with a president only relevant for international policy)
I don't know what kind of 4d chess he thinks he's playing. Is he hoping for the silent majority to rise up against the FN and vote for his party, does he bet on a coalition after the elections, is he ragequitting, or something else entirely?
Le Pen's party polls strong but has few allies. My guess is that Macron hopes that even with his party weakened, he can form a broad coalition that would keep Le Pen out. I have no idea how likely that is to work.
LR already said they won't make a coalition with LREM. They'd be at least as likely to ally with the RN. As for LFI/PC... LREM dislike them at least as much as they do the RN.
Only strategic move I see is let the RN govern until 2027 in the hope they flaceplant hard enough with no plan or coalition to hand an easy win back in the next presidential/legislative elections, which makes twisted sense given that everyone knew they were going to win in '27. Except the risk of that plan backfiring is stratospherically high, especially if the RN lands a majority (which is not unlikely as people were pissed off voting this morning, and will be even more pissed off after a dissolution).
let the RN govern until 2027 in the hope they flaceplant hard enough
I can see how this would make sense but isn't 3 years a bit too short to set up policies and face their consequences? They would have to fail over short-term stuff and unpopular decisions, which (as much as I despise them with every fiber of my body) I don't think they would be dumb enough to do.
A minority government is almost guaranteed to fail, and that's theoretically bound to make them unpopular (as it has with every prime minister of Macron's second mandate).
However, this could backfire if they have a majority. It could also backfire because voters are not necessarily that dumb and might just see through this charade. If anyone can handwave piss-poor performance away, it's the RN.
Yes, I and could also see an alliance between Le Pen and whatever UMP (hard right conservatives that used to rule all the time until Sarkozy drove the party into the wall, for non French people) calls itself these days. So, if indeed the snap election is a gamble to keep himself in power, it's a risky gamble.
If it's a gamble to let them rule and fail, as you hypothesize, that's even riskier. Fash have a way of staying in power somewhat longer than their popular support.
Either way it's not going to be fun days in France for a little while, damn.
Could be a good idea? If the right wing parties won due to low turnout from normal voters then it might be a good idea to call the election while it’s still fresh in everyone’s minds.
One theory some analysts say is that since Macron's second term ends in 2027, and since it's his last, if the FN doesn't govern well, then his party might be able to win again.
Basically, they're saying that Macron is playing a dangerous game of chess.
I agree with this theory. The public opinion changes very fast in France, it is risky but could work. Besides, the far-right would have kept rising till the presidentials anyways.
Normally I'm tepid on this kinda headline getting, but I feel like Stonehenge of all things is not the ideal target for the supposed intent of these kinds of protests.
Why not? They used starch. It's not like Stonehenge is actually damaged. And using symbols people care about is the only way to convey that the crisis we're facing is actually threatening things we care about. Everything else will be, and has been, ignored.
It was the Bronze and Iron age, even the people who swore they didn't do human sacrifice had sneaky backdoor rituals that played out human sacrifice, cough cough Romans cough cough
No it really doesn't, getting called stupid is far below the standard of even the minimal consequences oil and gas companies have faced in those 50 years. Or the public condemnation of such.
These people are the "bUt DeMs SaMe!" of facing the consequences of their own actions. The only way you could genuinely think nothing is being done and that some forever student college kids are getting harsher treatment than the most hated companies in the world is if you're in a position of blinding privilege that obscures the real world movement in the situation.
There are thing done, yes, but these are too little too late and only after massive protests and public outcries for any kind of legislation to somewhat mildly stop climate change (with tummy ache).
So on one hand we have multi millionaires and billionaires actively destroying the planet, spend decades spreading lies about it and bribing politicians (but it’s called lobbying so it’s ok)
On the other hand we have people in their teens and 20s who throw soup at glass and paint at rocks and sit on the street.
Guess which one goes into preventive custody and gets officially declared a suspect of extremism by German intelligence and which one every now and then has to accommodate to some laws taking effect 10 years into the future, which will most likely be abolished before then.
You're just saying all this because you think anything short of guillotining them is "too little too late", I work in renewables, I literally have a paycheck because of how flat out objectively wrong you are about almost everything you just said.
They want you to despair and to think they're untouchable, don't be the idiot who actually buys what they're selling.
I have the suspicion for a while that the people behind those new climate movements are paid by oil companies and others to make climate activists look bad, and shift the public opinion about climate action.
All the actions seem to deliberately targeted to anger the mainstream about them.
Making the naive climate activists at the front the tool of conglomerates.
Idk man, sometimes reality is stranger than fiction. Like wasn't there reporting about the US recently in which the military was spreading antivax misinformation in the Philippines and other countries. Russia and China has their own cyber armies too. It's not too much of a stretch that large conglomerates and corpos may have their own private propaganda wings either.
I also saw some evidence further down this thread that oil companies provide funding to this group that I had previously been unaware of. I deleted my comment shortly after that but it might still be showing up because federation can be screwy.
Hmmm, I would keep an open mind though. It's not like these oil companies are dumb. They know that their reputation is bad. Slip a few million into the pockets of their enemies and "leak" information that they "the big baddies" are funding these seemingly unlikeable people, and that would likely slowly damage their reputation beyond repair. Although that may just be some light conspiracism on my part.
Edit Addendum: I do think that whatever actions that just stop oil has done are ultimately harmless to whatever object they """""vandalize""""". Their actions are very good at getting public attention on climate change, and maybe even boosting donations to less radical climate activist groups.
They gonna vote for rancid ass people and then blame it on us for looking down at them for voting for rancid ass people.
This is why I can't stand le intellectual rural vote understanders,
They have no reasons, they have no causes, they have no explanations or histories, what they have is a blind hatred of anything outside their own horizon, and a ballot they'll cast for whatever rancid ass person makes them feel the most like they'll get to express that without being rightfully called out as a bigot.
We've tried to reach them on class consciousness, and they asked "but can we still say the N-Word?"
Rural people are scared to move to the urban areas where life is actually happening, so they have a special resentment towards people who are brave enough to not just move into the city but do it in a new country with a new language and culture.
Maybe it's because they still remember how things were under Fascism in the times of Franco.
Also there is quite the cleavage in Spanish Politics between a Fascists-turned-Democrate mainstream (plus actual Fascists, in the form of the Vox Party) and the old center-left (which like the rest of the mainstream in Europe have been moving ever more rightwards) which is currently in Government, so maybe there is a "Screw you Fascists!" factor that helped convince the party in Government there to do this.
But yeah, I'm in next door Portugal which has a similar history to Spain (though the Portuguese actually rebelled against and overthrew the Fascists - unlike the Spanish - which is probably why the mainstream Right in Portugal are nowhere as Fascist-inspired as in Spain) and the politicians in power seem to have chosen ultimate neutrality on this (well, at least this time around our provincial limp-dick politicians aren't straight up kissing American and German ass as they usually do) even though the party that recently got power (which is the straighforward Rightwing mainstream one and have a minority Government) earlier in the whole Gaza thing was quite pro-Israel, but seemed to have switched to a "we would rather not talk about it" posture since the coverage in the mainstream news here doesn't seem to try to hide anything when it comes to what's going on in Gaza (with things like showing lines of corpses after an Israeli bombing including clearly child-shapped ones and being pretty open about Israel killing journalists and medical personnel) and in a country were culturally people value empathy a lot, continue to side with Israel as people keep hearing about and at times seeing murdered chilren, journalists and medical personnel on TV would be a very bad strategy for a minority Government - even the local Far Right avoids mentioning that specific subject.
It is also what you get when people vote left, and the reaction of the rest of the EU is to punish the whole country by imposing upon them even worse creditor conditions, lest people in other countries get funny ideas and a Conservative government gets put in check. Greeks have turned into this direction because the alternative got shot dead, and the people who had hope for it no longer have any.
The Central European Bank is governed by the EU. During their debt restructuring negotiations from around a decade ago, Greece's government negotiated with the other EU governments, not with private banks.
I'm not sure visibility is really what we need at this point. Is there anyone left on Earth that doesn't know about it? I think what we need instead is political mobilization and coalition-building to increase our political clout and ultimately win elections and create legislation.
Maybe it’s that this is a better a metaphor for the destruction of the common cultural heritage of the environment? Not many people can relate to or are inconvenienced by a very expensive private boat sinking.
The amount of people justifying calling it global warming is still is kinda shocking to be honest. The ignorance is probably why people are still bringing kt to light.
Theres people in the comments saying it causes warming and that’s why they call it that…..
The amount of people justifying calling it global warming is still is kinda shocking to be honest.
I was told for decades by activists and global leaders it was global warming. For example, An Inconvenient Truth says global warming dozens of times. Are you now telling me those people were wrong?
The term warming is used to detract from the truth, this is shocking how few people understand this simple concept used to create propaganda. And the public perpetuates it.
It’s been climate change for decades as well, you’re just eating into the politics like most people here.
You are right. Sort of, climate crisis would be more appropriate. The word 'warming' is not concerning enough, if at all, and doesn't convey the actual gravity of the current situation very well.
I'm not so sure. That was probably true before the past decade of record breaking heat waves, intensifying storms, etc.
Now it's a variety of other problems, from not giving a fuck and hoping god raptures them before then, to having other priorities like the economy and thinking technical solutions will fix it, to not believing it's human-caused, etc. It's political hurdles now, convincing people of the importance of helpful measures, as opposed to simply trying to remind them of the problem.
The assumption that people think problems need to be solved is just that, an assumption. Conservatives believe in tradition, where problems do not get fixed. Fixing problems = bad, because fixes are changes from tradition.
Most people are somewhere on a scale between conservative and progressive though. But you certainly don't want to just assume most people want things fixed, it's unfortunately just not true. It's just projecting progressive personality traits onto people that have less of them for whatever reason.
So no, not apparently. It's much, much worse than simple ignorance.
I don't have a car.
And took a job that pays less than other offers, cause it's within bicycle distance from my home, which I chose cause it's in a bike-friendly area.
I know the impact is low, but at least I'm not part of the problem. I don't think I could cut down on my CO2 any more while still living in society.
I really don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
They don't vandalize the property of private citizens.
Their critics say they should (spray paint private jets instead of rocks).
This is more like "what if someone vandalized the scenic rock formation I can see from my bedroom window".
And if they spray painted a message about fightng the climate catastrophy on it, I'd love it.
I don't think that there is any purpose to "bringing visibility" to global warming in 2024. Effectively everyone is already aware of global warming and has been for some time.
The issue isn't awareness, but disagreement over the weight to put on policies to mitigate it. And I don't expect that doing stuff like this is going to change people's positions on that weight.
It’s not global warming though, it’s climate change because it causes extremes at both ends. It’s extremely important to stop perpetuating the wrong term.
Maybe the one that needs to grow up is the ones not educating themselves on what the correct terms are and how it’s not just “warming”…? Yeah…
Global warming is still a correct term because the globe is warming.
Some areas aren't getting warmer. But the globe is. Hence global warming, not everywhere without exception warming.
We only moved on to saying climate change because some morons were pushing the same bullshit view that you are - iF gLoBaL wARmiNg iS ReAL hOw CoMe XYZ pLacE wAs CoLdEr tHiS yEaR???4
iF gLoBaL wARmiNg iS ReAL hOw CoMe XYZ pLacE wAs CoLdEr tHiS yEaR???4
Funnily enough, that’s exactly why we no longer use warming, since people need to continually explain that no, it’s just warming since when that’s the word that’s used, it’s used to intentionally detract from the other side.
We seem to agree that it causes extremes at both ends, it just seems like it’s a bunch of dinosaurs in this thread that can’t comprehend they were taught the incorrect term.
When someone says global warming it’s a litmus test, you bring up the extremes at both ends and they give you a blank stare.
Since they literally think it’s only warming since it’s a stupid fucking term….. it’s kinda like how politics used marijuana as a term instead of the correct cannabis term. It’s fucking propaganda lmfao. Keep perpetuating this shit though.
Yes, that's what I said. We generally say climate change now because people have idiotic takes like yours and (puzzlingly) don't appear to understand that global warming means warming of the globe.
We had to change the language used because people like you can't parse basic English or apply the smallest amount of thought to the phrase.
Global warming isn't an incorrect term in the slightest. It describes the warming of the globe, which is exactly what's happening.
What "wrong term"? Global warming? Because The Guardian prefers to call it "global heating"? Or am I missing something, because that complaint would be amazingly petty.
Anyway it's not about bringing visibility to global warming to make people aware that it's going on. It's about making a statement. That statement, as I understand it, is "Climate change! Wake the fuck up and do something about it, people!" I don't know if anything will sufficiently get that message through, but it's understandable that they want to try, and painting Stonehenge orange (reportedly in a non-toxic water-soluble paint that will wash away in the rain) seems like a somewhat effective way to get the attention of the news media.
Yes, the phenomenom under discussion is climate change. Specifically, it's that change which is a result of the anthropogenic net radiative forcing that increasingly puts more energy into the global climate system, making it less predictable, more dangerous in various ways, and generally warmer, a.k.a. "global warming."
It's not a religion. Correct spelling of the magic incantations does not matter. Calling it global warming, like Al Gore did, in casual conversation is fine.
Incorrect, it also make colder temperatures colder, it’s not “generally”, one way or the other.
See, the wrong shit IS STILL being perpetuated, and the wrong term only exacerbates it. Case in point, your ignorant comment that explains it wrong lmfao.
Calling it global warming just shows your ignorance to the issue and your explanation proves it, it’s causes extremes at both ends, not “generally warming” like your ignorant ass is claiming lmfao.
Edit, I see people still love to eat and perpetuate propaganda eh? Correct people incorrectly and call it “warming” lmfao. All shows is your ignorance and how asinine you are, and it’s why it works, the public does the work for them… fucking yeesh.
The earth is getting warmer, which brings chaos to a complex system. The result is extreme weather, sometimes cold and wet. But it is getting warmer on a global scale. In fact, it was never as hot in human history as as it is right now in 2024.
The term global warming is used a political dog whistle, it was used by politicians to further a political agenda. See marijuana, crack, hippies, etc. and now the general public is doing their work by perpetuating the wrong term, to make things seem not as bad.
Marijuana is actually cannabis, and anyone who incorrectly uses the term can be easily seen for their bias or their lack of education on the subject.
It’s okay to be incorrect, the term was outdated decades ago, but continue to use it wrong and do their political work for free. This shit really went deep with these generations didn’t it…? Yeesh.
Doesn't matter. It's a protected site and there's protected species living on the stones. So they should be prosecuted on two counts at least. It's illegal. If I'd have shot a protester for being a cunt I'd be prosecuted.
A monument built thousands and thousands of years ago has no correlation to current day pollution/climate change. I think you missed the context. They should be targeting polluters or protectors of polluters, not an innocent heritage site.
It's relevant to climate change in that it was recently used by Just Stop Oil activists to draw attention to their cause. I guess one could also say that the sudden violent transformation of ancient stones that have stood largely unchanged for thousands of years is symbolically appropriate.
I know "there is no bad press" but more people will think "fuck those guys" than "maybe environment does need saving" upon reading these news.
Also just because they were responsible about their dick move doesn't mean everybody will be. Or something happens that causes long term damage by accident.
I care for environment greatly but I'd slap these people as long as I could lift my hands and then some.
I was really confused because last I heard, Greece had a preposterously high unemployment rate. Assuming this data I randomly pulled off of Google is correct, unemployment has been dropping like a rock from its peak: https://tradingeconomics.com/greece/unemployment-rate
However! It's still above 10%, which in the United States at least would be considered devastatingly high. Sounds like yet another case of "nobody wants to work!"
It's more probable that in reality there are a of people working without the state knowing about it. Much tourism related work is traditionally paid "under the table" in cash, by the day or by the week.
This kind of stuff is trivial for the IRS to find if they wanted to. Just crosscheck revenue, purchases and wage costs and such. And when stuff is off balance, audit. Here in the Netherlands they even look at how much mayonaise and water a restaurant uses to estimate revenue. Same as number of cans of hair product for hairdressers.
And if a company is found at fault they force them to switch to predominantly taking card payments instead of cash to make it even more transparent for the IRS.
Apparently they also estimate people's net worth by looking at registered cars, real estate and the length of you yaght.. and this is pretty accurate to determine if an audit is in order.
I'd be willing to bet this genius maneuver drives it back up.
Yeah, looking more closely at that graph, I'm noticing it starts in 2009, when Greece had The Crisis: sovereign debt soared thanks to the housing bubble collapse, and people taking a closer look at the actual books of the Greek state. Austerity measures are what led to the massive unemployment spike, and this 6-day work week is another version of austerity.
Austerity doesn't work. This graph couldn't be clearer about that fact.
unemployment has been dropping like a rock from its peak
That's all it takes for them to think, "wow, they're doing a great job!" Even when austerity measures mean they can't feed their families. It seems like it's true no matter where you go in the world.
"nazi" lost its meaning mah dude. It's so overused, it means nothing anymore, thanks to people like you. It's a typical boy cry wolf story, literally a meme now:
You disagree with body positivity movement? Nazi.
You think 3 yo cannot decided their genders? Nazi.
You think criticizing a "minority" religious practices is okay? Believe or not, Nazi.
Nothing that I say will change your mind, I'm posting mainly to signal to others, that a non retarded opinion still exist on the federated reddit.
dw.com
Top