The Kinshasa Interviews: Bryan MacDonald - Lord Da Da
Bryan on Putin, on Russia-China-USA, the decrepit western media, the glory of working at RT.com, and the condition known as 'being Irish'
Bryan MacDonald went to St. Petersburg for a stag party a little over a decade ago where, piss drunk, he passed out in a snow-covered ditch. Since then, he has sobered up only to find out that he has been working as the Head of Russia Desk, RT Online, all this time. His real interest lies in fashion photography where he likes to model clothes in bizarre locations as he’s firmly convinced himself that he is rather good looking. I found a dishevelled Bryan in a Holiday Inn in Kinshasa, worse for the wear after a two-week long bender. He begged me to bring him a bottle of Jameson Whiskey “just to get the edge off, you know what I mean?”. I used this leverage to coax an interiew out of him, the same one that you’re about to read now.
Why did you decide to become a traitor to democracy and the West?
I'm from Ireland. Are we even part of the Western political/military bloc lined up against Russia? We're in the EU, but not in NATO, and it seems the latter is where the real rabble rousing takes place.
When I was growing up, and I am not sure if this is still the case, most people in Ireland seemed to intensely dislike NATO, seeing it as a war machine and as a danger to peace. We even had special clauses put into EU treaties, so we wouldn't have to join. I am no longer sure if that sort of perception still exists there today, but there's certainly no big movement that I can detect that is trying to pull Ireland into the organization.
I see Russia as part of the broader West, so I really don't see what's traitorous about being here. It's in Western Europe's interests to closely align with Russia as it’s the second largest economy in Europe in purchasing parity terms (and would likely quickly become the biggest, if it had easier access to pan-European markets, and sanctions were removed) and Moscow has at its disposal the most powerful military in Europe by far. Russia is also the only European state which has domestically-created rivals to some of the top US tech giants (VK for Facebook, Telegram for WhatsApp, Kaspersky for Norton, etc). It is also the one European country, other than the UK (and there are doubts about the effectiveness of its formula), to independently come up with a Covid-19 vaccine quickly.
For all of the supposed advanced nature of German science, the Germans had to team up with the Americans to get a vaccine ready, and the Italians, Swiss, Dutch etc. came up with diddly-squat. I genuinely feel it's in Western Europe's interests to bring Russia into the wider European security, political and economic systems. And the real traitors, in my view, are the ones who oppose that vision. These types instead align with the foreign policy objectives, whether knowingly or not, of the US - which, obviously, has its own agenda, and it's not to make Europe stronger. Two of the last three US governments have been hostile to Western Europe - the Bush and Trump teams - and the other, Obama, was disinterested.
It's clear that many powerful people in America see Europe as a potential competitor that must be kept down. And it's also obvious to me that Washington has been doing its best for three decades to prevent any potential alignment between Moscow, Paris and Berlin. Indeed, George Friedman (Stratfor - aka "the shadow CIA" founder) has openly said it.
Also, the idea that Russia's political system means it can't be considered for European integration is bullshit. Look at Poland and Hungary….or Turkey, which is a full-on dictatorship, yet a member of NATO and still an EU candidate country, ahead of the likes of Ukraine and Moldova who continue to wait in the queue. The real issue, Niccolo, is that certain people in Germany, particularly in the CDU/Green end of things, don't want Russia in the EU structures because it would quickly become the top dog, replacing Berlin. And NATO doesn't want Russia, because, without Moscow as the bogeyman, NATO would have no reason to exist. Who would be its enemy then? And imagine how much money would be lost to the Western military-industrial complex?
The reality is that Russia was, uniquely for a post-communist European state, expected to Westernize, without the prospect of structural Western integration. While Poland, for example, was brought into the EU and NATO, Moscow was kept outside. The real traitors to Europe are the clowns who let that happen. History won't be kind to them.
You really, really took that question seriously, Bryan.
RT.com and the Media
I was recently awarded the honour of being named one of the 10 Media Heroes of 2020 by RT.com. Alongside myself in 8th spot were Bronze Age Pervert, Anna Khachiyan, and Dasha Nekrassova. This means that both BAP and I have sexual rights towards Anna and Dasha, and we also have the same right regarding Glenn Greenwald, who finished one spot below us in 9th place. A source informed me that Putin had the final say on the actual list and insisted on the inclusion of the four of us in 8th spot. Can you confirm or deny?
I have no idea who the fuck in RT gave you this award, but it definitely wasn't anyone who works for me. Putin has no direct editorial input into RT (despite what conspiracy theorists in the US/UK think), so I reckon I can give you a firm denial. Have I just crushed your hopes and dreams? Did you want Putin to recognize your existence? Were you hoping he read this blog? Sorry Soldo, but look on the bright side; you apparently have sexual rights over some people (which I doubt would stand up in a court of law)....but you can't even meet them until you get vaccinated with Sputnik V.... do tell me you have been vaccinated?
Don’t worry about my safety. How worried are you about your personal safety? Russia has a law whereby Vladimir Putin must kill at least one journalist per month or he loses his position as Head of State of the Russian Federation. We in the West are aware of Thug Putin's personal jihad against journalists who only strive to tell the truth about the World's most evil regime.
Have to say I never heard of that law. Are you really sure you fact checked it? It used to be super dangerous to be a journalist in Russia, especially in the Yeltsin-era and the early Putin years. However, over the past decade killings of journalists have become rarer, and in 2019 (I think), none were murdered in Russia. There was a killing in Ireland that year, Lyra McKee, God rest her soul, up in Derry. As far as I know, there were also no journalist murders here in 2020. There seems to be more pushback now against attempts to target the press.
The public reaction to the Ivan Golunov frame up case in 2019 was a very positive thing to happen as it united people across the aisles. I must admit though that I do think the Ivan Safronov treason charges are hard to understand.
As regards to my personal safety? Well, I'm from Carlow, Ireland, which is a pretty tough town. I've probably been in the Foundry nightclub there a couple of hundred times and have lived to tell the tale. After that, Russia was a doddle. I've been living here for most of the past 10 years. I got physically attacked once, on a bus in Khabarovsk (in 2011, by a drunk). But he wouldn't have punched his way out of a wet paper bag. Russians are peace-loving people, in the main. Just don't fuck with them too much. And it's easy to avoid doing that....simply avoid being a prick.
The people at Russia Today aren't real journalists like those at the New York Times, UK Guardian, or Teen Vogue. You lack the dispassionate objectivity of journalistic stalwarts like Christiane Amanpour, Luke Harding, and Rachel Maddow, and are little more than propagandists held hostage by the Putin regime. This is your opportunity to apologize to the Americans and the Brits to whom you have caused so much harm by way of your so-called "reporting".
Ha! The funny thing is I am one of the few English-language hacks here who could be classed as a "real" journalist in terms of training. Most seem to be just liberal arts graduates who come over and "take it up" or fall into it. There are very few Western reporters in Russia who have ever worked in a real national newsroom in their home countries. Muggins here actually studied it at college, and I've done a decade myself of a mixture of freelancing and full time with Irish newspapers before I even visited Russia for the first time. I had my first article published aged 15, and at 19 had a daily column (The Dubliner's Diary) in the Evening Herald, which at the time was a big deal as it sold over 100,000 copies every single day.
In retrospect, it now seems mental that Gerry O'Regan (the editor) gave me the gig. Now that I'm working in that sort of capacity, I'd never dream of pulling a stunt like that. Anyway, my mission here is to cover Russia objectively (which is what I was told journalism was about). However, I've come to realize that most Western reportage from here has more in common with activism than journalism.
As Yasha Levine (formerly of The Exile!) says, it's mostly "PR boosterism" for the Moscow liberal opposition. The reason I work for RT is because it’s the only Russia-focused outlet (and it's not even Russia-focused enough in my view, although that’s slowly changing) in the English language which is interested in covering the country fairly, and not just acting for fanzine for Alexey Navalny and other opposition figures who are palatable to the West.
What's the competition? The Moscow Times? It's funded by the Dutch state (and other Western concerns) and its funding is clearly dependent on pursuing a hostile posture to Russia. It hasn't got a single op-ed writer who is balanced and fair, and willing to see things from Moscow's point of view. Instead, it's various nincompoops from the Western Think Tank racket such as Bruno Macaes and the perennially wrong Mark Galeotti, inventor of the Gerasimov Doctrine hoax.
Some decent reporters have passed through the Moscow Times, and there's a couple of very capable hacks there now, but they are working with their hands tied behind their backs, given the outlet's ideological posture on which its financial survival depends. Meduza, which was set up with Swedish state funding (and possibly other states too) is actually not a bad product, and Kevin Rothrock is a decent guy, but, again, it wouldn't be for me. So, the only alternative would be to work for US/UK media, and, to be honest, I'd rather stick pins in my eyes. No US/UK outlet is willing to let its correspondents cover Russia objectively, with the possible exception of the Christian Science Monitor, which, with the greatest respect to Fred Weir (who is excellent and deserves a bigger audience, in my view), nobody reads. At RT, I have put together some great writers on Russia: Fyodor Lukyanov (the top Russian foreign policy expert), Paul Robinson (the best Western Russia analyst), Glenn Diesen and great young talent like Jonny Tickle, Gabriel Gavin, Ciara Haley and Katya Kazbek. What I am trying to do is help bring up a fresh generation of Russia writers who don't have the dumbass ideological baggage of their predecessors.
As as aside, did you see the NYT's add for a new Russian corro (this is fake journo speak for correspondent - ed.)? It basically demanded that the successful applicant hate Russia and be willing to write strictly within the tight parameters established by the desk in New York City. It will be interesting to see who accepts that propaganda posting! By the way Niccolo, wasn't Teen Vogue the magazine that told 14-year-olds that "Sex work is real work?" I’m not going to comment on the journalists that you have named, except to say that the fact Maddow still has her show after four years of openly lying about Trump and Russia tells you all you need to know about the standards in US media today.
Bryan on Russia
I love democracy. I think there is no greater cause on Earth today than spreading democracy to every corner of the globe by way of economic coercion, or peaceful, overwhelmingly one-sided military campaigns, so that every country resembles the USA as much as possible. The trick with democracy is to make sure that your local variant is approved by the US State Department because if it isn't, violence occurs. And we certainly don't want any violence now, do we?
In Ireland, my formative years were surrounded by political violence. I remember stuff like a dentist's fingers being found in the local Cathedral after he'd been kidnapped by 'Republicans' and a shoot out in Enniscorthy between the IRA and the cops. Then you had things up north like the Omagh and Enniskillen bombings. So, no, I am not a fan of religious or political violence. But I also understand the frustration when people feel they don't have the right to choose their leaders. The problem in the post Soviet space is that every time a street movement kicks off, the US and its NGO network immediately meddles or coordinates and makes it a geopolitical issue. Look at Belarus; Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, who I was initially very sympathetic to, ends up being advised by the Atlantic Council (basically NATO's propaganda arm), and the main Belarusian activists bringing news in English are quickly signed up by CEPA (a NATO and US arms industry bankrolled 'think tank' in Warsaw and Washington).
Years ago, US-backed Mikhail Saakashvilli led a transition in Georgia from the street. In 2014 Ukraine, the democratically elected, if corrupt (but it’s replacement was just as corrupt) government, is toppled after it decided to reject a (very bad) deal with the EU and instead chose an alignment with Moscow. The whole shebang was obviously heavily influenced by the USA, which openly admitted in 2013 that it had invested $5 billon in Ukraine's 'civil society' to promote its 'European aspirations (sic).' John McCain turns up on Maidan Square, the US ambassador - Geoff Pyatt - is heavily involved (at one point directing traffic on the street), Victoria Nuland was spotted handing out cookies, etc. The question is: has life improved for ordinary people in Ukraine or Georgia since those events? The answer is clearly no. Belarus has a lot of problems, but the fact is that its people live better than Ukrainians or Georgians (GDP per capita, measured by purchasing power parity, is about two times higher).
I also love democracy man, but the problem is every time the US dips its oar around here, it makes things worse. The exception would be the Baltics which are a) tiny and b) were quickly integrated into the EU. Their relative 'success', however, is based in mass emigration, so whether it will still look so great in 20 years is still to be determined. Look at Russia itself. The 90s, when the Americans were partially running the show, was the most miserable decade here since the 1940s. Today some Russians will shudder, and a haunted look runs across their face, when you broach the topic. $100 was a middle class monthly salary in Moscow around 1999 (!!) and the country was effectively being asset stripped.
Putin came along, and did what he did. The US hates him for it. He's not a 'liberal democrat,' but neither was Yeltsin, who used tanks to destroy his own elected parliament with American backing. The difference is one did what the US told him, and the other does not. The problem, as I see it, is that the Yeltsin/Putin system is too personalized and Russia's institutions are rather weak. So don't be surprised if Washington is back here in 10 years time, pecking at the carcass, if Putin fails in managing a successful and sustainable transfer of power. By that, I mean one Russian society will accept in the same way it has accepted him.
We all know very well that Russians are yearning for Navalny to bring freedom and prosperity to Russia, and that manlet in the Kremlin is the main obstacle to this. My prediction is that Navalny will be President of the Russian Federation within the next three weeks because Bellingcat will find child porn on Putin’s laptop.
I’m personally not a Putin supporter. But I do sometimes fear the alternative for Russia. I’d rather see some leftist movement emerge with its primary focus on reducing the obscene inequality which is holding Russia back and leaving so much talent left behind. That, however, isn’t on the horizon. The alternatives at present are basically far-right or libertarian. If not Vladimir Putin, you’re gonna get something like the US tea party.…on steroids. You’re going to end up with either some power mad type who is initially acceptable to the West like Navalny in the vain hope he’ll be a nice little poodle like Yeltsin was, or some sort of statist Far Right person like a younger Zhirinovsky.
I have an awful feeling that if Putin left tomorrow morning, for all his faults, the West would quickly come to realize that he wasn’t that bad after all. Westerners don’t understand the dynamics at play here. What about places like Chechnya and Dagestan under an anti Muslim regime? Liberal Moscow under a far right set up? Or on the other hand, the conservative heartland under a liberal? Running Russia is a delicate balancing act.
"Russia is a gas station with nukes" - John McCain. It's the world's biggest country, and that is rather unfair because of all the natural resources contained within it. Russians are Slavic barbarians, devoid of any culture, who are constantly drunk and beating their wives when they are not stealing elections in the West.
'Slavic barbarians' who gave Europe much of its high culture. I often wondered why McCain hated Russia so much. One theory is because he was shot down over Vietnam by a Russian pilot (Trushechkin, wasn't it?). But I wonder is it because all that ballet and literature was too sophisticated for his palate? This is the guy who sang about bombing Iran, for fuck's sake. He always struck me as sort of American Zhirinovsky. Anyway, yeah, the idea that Russians are wife beating drunks who can also manipulate the world is a weird feature of Western propaganda. It's like the other strange trope where Russia is constantly on the verge of collapse, but also constantly about to annex all its neighbours, and even further away places like Sweden! It's a form of insanity. I've dubbed it 'Russophrenia.'
Chekov, Dostoevsky, Turgenev, and Pushkin cannot compare to the Marvel Universe. Do you dispute this obvious fact?
Let me throw a question back at you: Chekhov, Dostoevsky, Turgenev, and Pushkin vs. Beckett, Joyce, Heaney and Yeats? Who wins? To be honest, I'm quite nationalist in my literature. I think Ireland kicks ass, and I won't hear anything different. America doesn’t interest me at all.
Modern Russian literature sucks. Fuck me, Pelevin is awful rubbish and don't get me started on Minaev. The other absurd thing here is the popularity of Frederic Beigbeder, a very mediocre French writer who is loved. I just don't get it. Nor do I understand why so many Russians love Cecilia Ahern (daughter of the former Irish Taoiseach). I do admire Andrei Makine (Dreams of Russian Summers is fabulous) but Limonov was probably the last great one and he's dead now. I'd rather read Colm Toibin, to be honest. I come from the south east of Ireland. It speaks to me.
Bryan Still Won’t Shut the Fuck Up About Russia
What is the mood in Russia regarding the continual attempts by the USA to stop the construction of the Nordstream 2 pipeline that intends to bring Russian gas to German consumers by way of the Baltic? Is this a last hurrah for Russian-EU projects? Will Russia now definitively turn towards China as an economic and strategic partner? Or is the relationship with the EU salvageable?
Russia and the EU are over. It's done. What Moscow will do, going forward, is deal with EU members individually and refuse to engage with the bloc. Sergey Lavrov has already flagged it. Nordstream is more of a Russian-German project. The Poles and the Balts are fiercely opposed. The reason Berlin is so keen is because Merkel - in one of her populist moves which are never labelled populist because she's a 'good' liberal and the 'Klimakanzlerin' - pledged to phase out nuclear energy in Germany. Now, that's not realistic, but it does mean new projects in that sphere are not an option. The reality is that Fukushima scared the fuck out of the Germans, and they don't want coal-fired plants, so the best option is Russian gas. It's reliable. As for China and Russia....long term I am a skeptic. Despite the present stand off, Russia has far more in common with Western Europe than it has with China. Beijing can be a partner, but it will never be a real friend. I think Russia will long term just do its own thing.
What is the tone of the ever-growing closeness of Moscow and Beijing? Is it a relationship of non-equals? Is a strategic military alliance in the cards?
It's marriage of convenience. Neither side loves the other, but neither has a better suitor right now. It's something like the 'Ballroom of Romance' by William Trevor. The attitude is 'if we can't have the ones we want, these guys will do'. Also, contrary to the prevailing Western narrative, I think China needs Russia more than the other way around. If Moscow were to re-align with the West it would be a disaster for Beijing. There is no love for Chinese culture in Russia, and that's a major drawback, whereas Russians, despite everything, lap up American movies, British rock, French fashion, Italian design etc... Even Chinese food is not super popular here; Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese are all much more prevalent when it comes to Asian cuisine. For example, if you go to Khabarovsk (20km from China) they have no interest in Chinese culture, and are much more drawn to Korea and Japan. What does that tell you?
The Biden regime is taking shape and reports from earlier this week indicate that Vicky "Fuck the EU" Nuland is coming back. She played a critical role in Ukraine's Maidan Revolution. This bodes ill for US-Russian relations for the foreseeable future. Are we going to see a replay of the Post-Reset Obama regime change policy towards Russia?
I think the next four years are a prelude to a generational change on both sides. Since Clinton, the US has been governed by the post WW2 generation, and that's a long time now (almost 30 years) and Russia has, in turn, been run by 'Brezhnev's children.' Ignore Yeltsin, he was barely there. The folk who really ran the show in 90s, Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky, Chubais, etc... then Putin, Medvedev, Lavrov, Ivanov, Shoigu... were all raised and educated in the Brezhnev era. In 2024, both Russia and the US will have pivotal elections, and these will amount to passing of the baton. Biden and Pelosi’s successors will certainly be a lot younger, and even if Putin stays on (I don't think he will, at least as President - but I may have to swallow those words), he'll simply have to surround himself with younger people. You see that transition already happening. Just hang on for four years. It's not a very long time.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently stated that the USA is 'agreement incapable'. What exactly did he mean by this?
He meant that the Trumpist US was unwilling to do a deal that wasn't a 100% win for Washington. Biden's team will be more flexible. I say “team” because he won't be running the show day to day. He's too old to micromanage. This may be good thing, or this may be a recipe for disaster. I have no idea of Biden's cognitive function. Perhaps he's far sharper than it seems, who knows? The problem is some of his team may well be consumed by ideology (as Obama's staff were), and with a potentially weak President at the helm, there is the chance that rogue elements could upset the applecart. We already saw this in Ukraine back in 2014. Let's be clear: Obama didn't give a shite about Ukraine, or Russia. He outsourced policy to the likes of Victoria Nuland and Michael McFaul, with disastrous results. Let's just pray Biden and Kamala Harris don't make the same mistakes.
Is a normalization between Russia and Ukraine possible? What prevents this from occurring? What forces are intent on this not happening?
Yes, normalization is possible and is happening. The question is with what sort of Ukraine? It's clear the Maidan 'regime' or 'philosophy' is running out of puff. Polls now show the more Russian tolerant 'Opposition Bloc' is the most popular party. There is a chasm between what Kiev (and Lviv's) pro-western elites want and what the bulk of Ukraine wants. Zelensky won the first round of the Presidential election in 2019 on southern and eastern votes and it turned into a national landslide when he faced the toxic Poroshenko in a 2nd round. However, he has let those voters down. Right now you have an incredible situation when the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, Dmitry Kuleba, is saying Kiev will reject Russia's Sputnik V Covid-19 vaccine because they want to deny Moscow a 'propaganda' victory. This is despite the fact that the USA, Ukraine's supposed ally, is refusing to help Kiev with a vaccine. This is nuts. It means the ruling elite in Kiev would rather watch thousands die needlessly than just do a deal with Russia.
Another issue is the water supply to Crimea. Kiev blocked the canal that used to supply it with water. This could be a flashpoint in 2021. All I know is this: most Ukrainians don't hate Russia like their elites do. And surely by now most realize they were sold a pup at Maidan (the polling suggests they do). So, yes, I think over the next 3-4 years Ukraine will likely get closer to Russia, but, as I said, I don't know what sort of Ukraine that will be.
I am going to ask you to speculate here a bit: friends of mine have begged me to ask you who you think Putin's eventual successor will be. Is Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu a candidate? What about former President Dmitri Medvedev?
Barring a 'Black Swan' moment, Putin's eventual successor is likely somewhere between 35 and 40 now. And definitely no older than 50. That rules out those two. If I had to make an educated guess (and because I don't want to let you down), I'd say Dmitry Patrushev is best placed. He's been agriculture minister for a few years now at a time when the sector is booming, and the value of food exports has passed out the arms industry. Also, he speaks English fluently (which is important), and his dad is the head of the Security Council and FSB royalty. This means he has a Siloviki connection. I think Patrushev ticks a lot of boxes.... but, hey, what do I know? (fuck, all -ed.)
The perception in the West is that Russia is a cold, unfriendly place. Yet you yourself have reported from places like semi-tropical Sochi and Krasnodar. It is rather a very diverse country, and not just geographically. What are some of the things along these lines that Westerners should be made aware of?
For a foreigner covering Russia for a living, I'm weird in that I've never lived in Moscow. I did stay there for two months in 2016, and I nearly went mad! I've been all around the country and there are profound differences. Ironically the most Slavic "Russian" places are probably in the Far East (with a healthy mix of Ukrainians), due to the way the population was dispersed. So, you go to a city like Khabarovsk and it's more the stereotypical Russia than Moscow or Rostov are. Then Krasnodar, which is Europe's fastest growing city, is literally a stone’s throw from the mainly Muslim regions of the 'Kavkaz' but is more 'European' than Moscow or Saint Petersburg, with most migrants coming from the Urals or Siberia rather than Dagestan or Chechnya. Russia is just very unique and there's no uniform way to define the path it trods.
Bryan in the Firing Line
Have you ever been in a fist fight with Ramzan Kadyrov?
No, and if I had I'm sure I'd remember it.
Is it true that Russian women have only cartilage where the human heart is supposed to be?
No, it's not. I have no idea how these sort of stereotypes about Russian women started in the West, aside from pure xenophobia. They are far warmer and kinder than German or British women in my experience (to name two other major European countries, I know reasonably well).
As you never tire in repeating to us ad naseum, you yourself are Irish. Have you ever wondered what it would feel like to actually be human? I know I have.
Some dude from Dublin once said, "you're on Earth: there's no cure for that." But, you know, given I am stuck here for now, I'd rather be Irish than anything else. We're really not that bad, are we? What harm do we do? Far more was visited on us.
Are you drunk right now?
I've been permanently drunk since 1997 Niccolo, it's how I make people like you interesting. I did give it up for a day in 2003, and it was the best day of my life, but I believe nobody deserves that kind of happiness.
"Death must be so beautiful. To lie in the soft brown earth, with the grasses waving above one's head, and listen to silence. To have no yesterday, and no tomorrow. To forget time, to forgive life, to be at peace."
The same guy said that nothing is more real than nothing. The quote you reference sounds like either Wilde or Shaw. It's very Irish in its construction, but it likely predates Joyce, who was more blunt. I'd guess Shaw... perhaps from something like Man and Superman. Am I wrong? Guess I likely am. I like being alive Niccolo, and I know too many people I admired who are no longer here. I doubt any of them would refuse to trade places with us. The problem with death is there's no future in that shit. Don't you agree?
You are standing in a square in Kazan, blindingly drunk because you are Irish and that is your default state, and a beautiful Volga Tatar woman approaches you with a flash drive in her hand, offering you the whole of herself if you leave RT and go to work for Mikhail Saakashvili as a media specialist. Mel Gibson bizarrely shows up out of nowhere and pulls you aside, smacks you in the face to sober you up, and tells you that she’s a ‘fucking cunt’ and ‘a complete and total whore who should stick to her profession and leave decent men be’. How fantastic is Mel Gibson in your professional opinion?
I would listen to Mel. Life has taught me that there are plenty more fish in the Volga. I used to say the same shit in Ireland, but it was the Corrib or Liffey. Was I born tired and cynical? Or did I just arrive there at an early age? I like you, Niccolo, but you ask weird questions. What would you do if Severina Vuckovic suddenly jumped out of the Adriatic and offered herself to you, if you agreed to go work for George Soros? Because obviously Sevi & Gyorgy would be a dream team, and an example of cross-border cooperation, what would you do? WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
Severina is a disgusting old hag. F**k her? I wouldn’t even lean my bicycle on her.
You are encouraged to call Bryan a shill, sell-out, traitor, and all-around prick on Twitter @27khv.