By Marta Havryshko, Substack, 9/17/26

President Zelensky has made The Jerusalem Post’s list of the 50 Most Influential Jews of 2026. The paper introduces him as “The Jewish president who became the face of Ukraine’s resistance.”

The newspaper notes that Putin has “repeatedly framed Zelensky as a disgrace to Jewish people and has called his government a ‘Nazi regime.’” It then immediately sets about dismantling those attacks by invoking Zelensky’s family history: his grandfather fought the Nazis in the Red Army, while numerous relatives were murdered in the Holocaust.

“Zelensky’s paternal grandfather was the only member of his immediate family who survived the Holocaust,” The Jerusalem Post emphasizes.

Yet in portraying Zelensky as a “good leader, and just so happens to be Jewish,” and praising his “impressive political agenda, pushing the country to join the EU, fighting corruption, and seeing the country through a nearly five-year invasion,” The Jerusalem Post somehow neglects to tell its readers that Zelensky has become the face not only of Ukrainian resistance to Russian aggression, but also of Ukraine’s neo-Nazis.

The Azov Commander

When Zelensky came to power in 2019, his relationship with Azov was fraught. Azov commanders, including Andriy Biletsky, publicly declared that they would not obey his orders to withdraw troops in the Donbas under the terms of a ceasefire with Russia. Some even threatened him openly. Biletsky said he would never accept a decoration from Zelensky’s hands.

A few years later, the picture could hardly be more different.

Biletsky accepted the title of Hero of Ukraine from Zelensky, along with a string of other high state honors, and became commander of the Third Army Corps, which today numbers roughly 50,000 personnel. Another Azov celebrity, Denys Prokopenko, likewise rose to command a corps and became a Hero of Ukraine.

Azov, founded by neo-Nazis and fanatics and numbering barely 1,000 fighters in 2022, now has two army corps regarded as elite formations. While Azov has gone to considerable lengths to rebrand, the Third Assault Brigade, formed from the Azov milieu, absorbed some of its most radical elements.

Command positions there have been held, for example, by Russian neo-Nazi Artem “Uragan” Krasnolutsky, who annually celebrates Adolf Hitler’s birthday; Aleksei “Kolovrat” Kozhemyakin, who has Hitler and swastika tattoos on his chest and fled Russia after facing prosecution for racist and antisemitic crimes; and Sasha “Martyn” Martynenko, whose body is covered in swastikas, an SS motto, and antisemitic tattoos.

Aleksei “Kolovrat” Kozhemyakin, the commander of the 1st assault battalion of the 3rd Assault Brigade (Azov), is visiting the opening of the photo exhibition of his brigade at the Kyiv History Museum on 27 Sept. 2023.

The Third Assault Brigade’s ideological foundations draw on the integral nationalism of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN)—an ideology whose historical trajectory included collaboration with Nazi Germany during the Holocaust, mass ethnic cleansing of Poles, and collective terror against Ukrainians deemed politically or nationally “wrong,” with entire families among its victims.

On top of this, some senior figures associated with the Third Assault Brigade, such as Dmytro Kukharchuk, openly voice anti-Muslim, racist, homophobic, and misogynistic views.

Sasha “Martyn” Martynenko, an officer of the Azov-rooted Third Assault Brigade.

Zelensky’s Jewishness poses no obstacle whatsoever to the Azov formations. Why should it? Zelensky has presided over their expansion and their growing influence—everything they need to accumulate military and, potentially, political power in a country at war. His government now relies on precisely this radical wing: a milieu that brands virtually any peace negotiations “capitulation” because it has every incentive to preserve the status quo—a permanent war in which its power, prestige, and influence continue to grow.

Commander of Foreign Neo-Nazis

It is precisely under the presidency of Zelensky—Ukraine’s Supreme Commander-in-Chief—that, for the first time in the country’s post-independence military history, entire formations of foreign neo-Nazis and far-right militants have emerged: the Russian Volunteer Corps, the German Volunteer Corps, and the Belarusian Volunteer Corps.

Neo-Nazis from France, Spain, and elsewhere have also fought in Revansh, under the command of Ukraine’s military intelligence. They have come to Ukraine to acquire combat experience, build transnational networks, and prepare for the racial war they envision in their respective countries.

Gwendal Delange (aka “Kenneth”), a neo-Nazi from France, is fighting in Ukraine under Military Intelligence. He initially served in Azov, later collaborated with the 3rd Assault Brigade, and now serves with Revanche International, led by HUR.

For all their antisemitic and white-supremacist politics, Zelensky’s Jewishness appears to trouble them remarkably little. Why would it? Ukraine offers them something infinitely more valuable than ideological consistency: extraordinary opportunities to strengthen their extremist nationalist movements, gain battlefield experience, forge international connections, and acquire military credentials.

Ukraine also freely hosts concerts by so-called National Socialist Black Metal bands such as M8l8th (Hitler’s Hammer), drawing crowds of more than a thousand people. Why? The band’s frontman, Alexey Levkin, is a deputy commander of the Russian Volunteer Corps.

Yule Night II in Kyiv on Dec. 25, 2025.

These concerts are not merely places where young people can throw Nazi salutes and sing about the white race with impunity. They are networking hubs for the far right.

Yule Night II in Kyiv on Dec. 26, 2024.

The contrast with contemporary Russia is striking. There, such concerts are relatively small, driven underground, and frequently subjected to police raids. In wartime Ukraine, meanwhile, they can be openly advertised and staged on a large scale, with prominent commanders from far-right military formations in attendance.

Under Zelensky, Ukraine has also become an ideological laboratory for Europe’s far right. Neo-Nazi and neo-fascist conferences can take place openly in the country. One example is Nation Europa held in Lviv in August 2024, to which Italy’s CasaPound, Germany’s Der III. Weg, and other European far-right movements were invited.

And here an obvious question arises: in a country at war, where the security services wield enormous powers and where public events operate under wartime restrictions, how could a gathering of this kind take place without at least the knowledge and permission of the relevant authorities?

It is difficult to imagine that it could.

Such gatherings also offer an obvious recruitment opportunity. With Ukraine facing an acute shortage of manpower and a deepening mobilization crisis, foreign far-right networks constitute a ready-made pool of ideologically motivated men with an appetite for combat.

The paradox could hardly be more grotesque: a Jewish president celebrated abroad as the living refutation of Putin’s “Nazi” propaganda presides over a wartime state in which foreign neo-Nazis can acquire combat experience, build international networks, hold conferences, stage concerts, and embed themselves in military formations.

For them, Zelensky’s Jewish ancestry is not the problem. Ukraine is the opportunity.

Betraying His Grandfather’s Legacy

The Jerusalem Post’s invocation of Zelensky’s grandfather, who fought the Nazis in the ranks of the Red Army, is particularly ironic.

Because Zelensky has betrayed his grandfather’s memory.

How? By kneeling recently at the graves of Nazi collaborators—the very political milieu whose members participated in the persecution and murder of Jews like Zelensky’s own relatives and neighbors during the Second World War.

It was under Zelensky, a Jewish president, that the remains of Nazi collaborator Andriy Melnyk were brought back to Ukraine for the first time in the country’s history. The state conducted his reburial with honors, and Zelensky attended. Men subordinate to Melnyk’s nationalist movement served in police formations under the Nazi occupation of Ukraine. They guarded ghettos, hunted down Jews in hiding, escorted Jews to execution sites, and participated in killings.

Could some of those victims have been Zelensky’s own relatives? And now he honors Melnyk, their political leader?

Under Zelensky, Kyiv also held, for the first time (2021), a march honoring the Waffen-SS Division “Galicia,” formed in 1943 to fight as part of Nazi Germany’s war effort. Members of formations connected to the division were implicated in wartime atrocities, while the division later fought in Slovakia and Yugoslavia on the German side.

Today, within the Third Army Corps commanded by Andriy Biletsky, the Waffen-SS Galicia Division is commemorated as a heroic military tradition and does not commemorate 8 May – Day of Victory over Nazism. This, too, represents something extraordinary: under a Jewish Supreme Commander-in-Chief, a formation of the Ukrainian military openly celebrates the legacy of a Waffen-SS division – Nazi collaborators.

The Third Assault Brigade also produced an exhibition devoted to the Waffen-SS Galicia Division. It was unveiled with considerable fanfare at the Museum of Kyiv and was later shown in Lithuania and Estonia with support from Ukraine’s Ministry of Culture.

Again: under Zelensky.

A Jewish president.

What we are witnessing, then, is not merely an argument over historical memory. Under Zelensky, the meaning of the Second World War itself is being rewritten in Ukraine, while figures and formations associated with Nazi collaboration are being rehabilitated and incorporated into a new national heroic canon.

So why did The Jerusalem Post omit these profoundly uncomfortable facts while celebrating Zelensky as a leader?

Why have so many media outlets stopped asking Zelensky uncomfortable questions about neo-Nazis and far-right extremists whose military and institutional power has expanded under his presidency—and whose transnational networks could pose dangers far beyond Ukraine?

And how exactly does any of this square with the endlessly repeated mantra of “freedom and democracy” that Ukraine, under Zelensky, is supposedly defending?

At what point do we finally start asking uncomfortable questions of the “Jewish face of Ukrainian resistance”?

*If you find these posts valuable, please consider supporting my work with a subscription or a small donation. Your support helps me keep researching, writing, and sharing new ideas. Thank you!

Buy Me a Cofeee

By Ben Aris, Intellinews, 9/24/26

Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski out did himself yesterday on the doom and gloom story, telling a reporter that he has been spending the weekends at the dacha laying in supplies of rice and making jam out of the garden fruits in preparation for the presumed nuclear winter that will follow Russia’s invasion.

The rhetoric is getting extreme, although to be fair he said this to a Polish journalist and there is a very long and much beloved tradition of making homemade jam (varenye) at this time of the year. It features in Chekov’s play, The Cherry Orchard I think, so it has serious cultural credits and will play well with a general audience; the Polish equivalent of: “I like a pint in the pub” for the Brits. Still, I don’t believe he made extra jam so he will have something to eat when the fighting starts, but of course comments like this just tick the tensions up a notch.

The main event yesterday were the speeches at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and Zelenskiy introduced a new meme: “patient zero,” referring to Putin. As in the index patient you need to find when a new epidemic breaks out so that you can make a vaccine more quickly.

I don’t think it will catch on, but a nice try and colourful image. The nuts and bolts of his meetings in New York didn’t go well at all. He looked nervous and twitchy in his meeting with Trump unlike the Ankara Nato summit on July 8 where he was brimming with confidence.

At that meeting Trump promised him a Patriot missile license, but at this meeting Trump has totally walked that back after the likes of Boeing refused to share their tech with Ukraine, afraid they would out produce, out innovate and undercut the US firms (which they probably would).

In fact, there was no talk of missiles at all. Previously, Trump was badgered into promising “some” missiles “every month.”

Zelenskiy was asking for 300. But even the “some” talk has disappeared.

What Zelenskiy did get was an order to stop hitting Russian refineries because of the growing diesel shortages. He refused.

And there was some vague talk about an “energy ceasefire” but that was pointless, as there were no Russians in the room. Any “plans” to stop targeting energy don’t mean anything without the Russians and presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov made it clear Russia is not going to stop calling the talk “rhetoric” – which is exactly what it is.

This was probably Bankova’s last chance to get some real help from the West before the winter started and Zelenskiy made no progress.

Even more damning than Trump’s rebuff – I think its fair to say that the US participation in this conflict is now definitely over – was the tongue lashing that Zelenskiy got from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen who told him “no more money until you pull your reform sock up” (but with whatever the German equivalent of that is: Sockenhochziehpflicht?)

This is a very serious problem indeed and is not getting enough attention. At his Independence Day speech in August, Zelenskiy said that there is a $27bn hole in the defence budget (and a $32bn hole in the overall budget) and with the US out of the game the only place MinFin can find this money is from the EU. VDL did send €6.1bn the day after Zelenskiy speech and this morning the Danes signed off on another €3bn to tide Ukraine over, but Finance Minister Serhiy Marchenko said that the government will be unable to pay wages as soon as next month.

Zelenskiy also met with IMF director Kristalina Georgieva, who promised a little help too, but that is after she cancelled the second tranche of the Extended Fund Facility (EFF) and wrapped it into the third tranche in December for the same problem – foot dragging on pushing through reforms.

Everyone has a long list of reforms that need to be made and aren’t (details in our story here) but the bottom line is both the IMF and EU are demanding real progress on anti-corruption reforms. The reason is obvious: the metastasizing Energoatom corruption scandal which has now implicated pretty much everyone who works in Bankova.

The funding issue has not been resolved. Indeed, no remedy has even been suggested. Bankova has asked for next year’s tranche of the €90bn to be brought forward but VDL said a definite “no” to that unless reforms are put through and soon. Even the €6.1bn she did send is almost the last bit of this year’s tranche and there is little left in the pipeline without remaking the whole support plan.

So, the headline on Zelenskiy’s trip to New York should be something like: “No new support for Zelenskiy as Ukraine faces economic collapse.”

Or something like that.

As we reported in April, Ukraine was facing a macroeconomic collapse in April before the €90bn deal was approved, and it is back there again. Plus it has no defence ammo. Plus Putin is clearly about to bomb the last of Ukraine’s power sector flat. Plus his own party looks increasingly rebellious as it won’t pass the needed reforms. However, the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) Operation Vivaldi is looking good and making real progress in pushing the Armed Forces of Russia (AFR) back from the Fortress Belt cities, so there is that.

But support for Ukraine seems to be fading fast. Another story to come out of the UNGA is 51 countries signed a statement condemning Russia’s war in Ukraine, presented by EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas (who else?) to show the world is “united” behind Zelenskiy and the Ukrainian people. Except no one in Africa signed it. No one from Latin America signed it. Even the US didn’t sign it. If you remember the first motion to condemn the war in Ukraine in March 2022 only five countries rejected it and the bulk of the other 193 countries went along with it.

Most of the Global South sat on the fence in that vote. In this vote most of the Global South have come down on Russia and China’s side. It’s only the Global North that is behind Ukraine, and even then only half heartedly. It’s telling that in the same week of the UNGA that France chose to cut a bargain with Baku to get two of their spies out of jail (because that is what they are) in exchange for lifting sanctions on Russian tycoon Alisher Usmanov. That turns the whole sanctions regime into a bargaining chip where national interests are more important than geopolitical principles. And Macron has been one of the most vocal and active of the EU’s Ukraine champions until now.

***

Russia Could Make An Energy Truce Conditional On Resuming Pipeline Exports To Europe

By Andrew Korybko, Substack, 9/25/26

Zelensky recently proposed a partial truce with Russia that would include, among other things, eschewing attacks on each other’s energy infrastructure. The strategic context concerns Russia’s ramped-up systematic strike campaign against Ukrainian power plants, gas stations, ports, and most recently, locomotives, all of which aims to cripple its military logistics by winter for achieving a Russian breakthrough. The Kremlin therefore doesn’t have any interest in accepting this lopsided arrangement.

That could change, however, if Russia makes at least the energy dimension of Zelensky’s proposal conditional on resuming its pipeline exports to Europe. It’s not just Ukraine that’s poised to experience its must difficult winter in years but the EU as a whole too according to the European Commissioner for Energy and Housing in a recent interview with the Financial Times. This is due to the global fuel crisis brought about by the Third Gulf War and Ukraine’s spree of attacks against Russian refineries this year.

Ukraine desperately needs relief from Russia’s systematic strikes against its energy infrastructure this winter, the EU desperately needs more energy amidst the global fuel crisis during the same season, and Russia is unlikely to turn down the influx of revenue even if the windfall is only for several months. A deal could take the form of resuming gas exports to Germany via the one undamaged Nord Stream pipeline possibly together with oil and gas exports to Poland (and beyond) via the Druzhba and Yamal pipelines.

The resumption of Russian pipeline exports to Europe, even if only for the winter, would restore some of their pre-2022 complex mutual interdependence for raising the odds that the energy truce is respected. The EU will still survive the winter even without Russian pipeline imports, and Russia can continue funding its military operations even without pipeline exports to Europe, but Ukraine might not survive without relief from Russia’s systematic strikes against its energy infrastructure.

Accordingly, the EU could sever its imports from Russia if Russia violates the energy truce, while Russia could sever its exports to the EU if Ukraine does so instead. While skeptics might suspect that Russia has more to gain from violating the energy truce due to Ukraine’s increasingly desperate military-strategic situation, Russia has a greater interest in jointly building the new continental security architecture with European NATO (E-NATO), which it can’t do without a relative normalization of ties. All of this is sensible.

If an energy truce is agreed to on the condition of Russia resuming at least its Nord Stream exports to Europe, then the “snowdrop diplomacy” formula proposed here could be advanced, which might see the mutual drawdown of E-NATO forces from the Baltic States in parallel with Russian ones from Belarus. The US might then purchase Nord Stream from Russia as has been floated, and perhaps also the Belarusian parts of Druzhba and/or Yamal, for upholding this new order and facilitating a grand deal over Ukraine.

The resultant security architecture could have partial buffers in the Baltic States, Belarus, and Ukraine, while the western flank of the “cordon sanitaire” would have a US-backed Polish-led Intermarium counterbalance a German-dominated militarized EU. Poland would also still be the US’ LNG hub in Europe since the US would probably raise the price of the Russian pipeline gas under its control to keep its own gas competitive. This balance of interests is realistic and should thus be seriously considered.

By Ian Proud

In my latest conversation with Ambassador Chas Freeman, he describes what Ukraine is becoming, and what Europe will be left holding when the war ends. Ukraine will not be the keystone of a whole and free Europe. It will not be a buffer and a bridge between Russia and the rest of the continent. It will be a rump state: poorer, more corrupt, landlocked, unqualified for the EU, shut out of NATO, and dominated by western Ukrainian ultra-nationalists who will not accept defeat. Ukraine will be driven by a more virulent antagonism towards Russia than Britain, Poland and the Baltic States and feeling spurned by a Europe that egged it on to its destruction. Right now, there are no obvious upsides to Ukraine joining the EU and some restoration of relations with Russia may take a generation, if it happens at all.

In Freeman’s words, Ukraine will become “a cancer on both” Europe and Russia. I see no evidence of anyone in London or European capitals thinking about the monumental challenge of rehabilitating Ukraine after the war ends. The reason, I suspect, is that that would also require dialogue with Russia. Because the corrosiveness of Ukraine’s failed statehood is everyone’s problem.

Our conversation ranged more widely into Israel’s diplomatic escalation which has neutered Britain’s ability to engage with Palestinians through its diplomatic network. And, of course, to Iran, where no amount of huffing and puffing by Donal Trump will change the reality that he is failing badly and is trapped by virtue of his ego.

Across all three theatres, Ukraine, Palestine and Iran, the missing ingredient is diplomacy.

You can watch the conversation here:

By Andrew P. Napolitano, Consortium News, 8/7/26

The war in Iran is unlawful and unconstitutional, but in post-World War II America, it’s normal. 

Here’s the backstory.

When President Donald Trump decided to begin bombing Iran in June 2025, he did not state a coherent or lawful reason for doing so. His director of national intelligence and his own C.I.A. had publicly told him that Iran did not possess a nuclear weapon and had ceased building one in 2003.

His secretary of state told him that Iran and Israel had threatened each other, but he could not articulate how Iran imminently threatened the United States. Yet, since Israel planned to attack Iran, he wanted the U.S. to help Israel do so. This was not a lawful request as the U.S. has no treaty with Israel and, under treaties to which the U.S. is a party, the legal basis for all offensive wars can only be treaty compliance or prevention of an imminent attack.

When Trump addressed the nation, his helter-skelter rationale argued for replacing Iran’s government, destroying its civilian-use enriched uranium, destroying its ability to build a bomb it wasn’t building and neutralizing its offensive and defensive weaponry. None of these goals was lawful; nor was attacking a Minab school. There was no mention of an imminent attack on the U.S. or the economic effect of war on the vital international oil super-highway, the Strait of Hormuz.

No one in Trump’s inner circle registered disagreement, except his vice president and his director of counterterrorism. They told him there was no legal or constitutional basis for his war.

They were correct, but Trump had history on his side.

The Deadly Weakening Checks & Balances

With her brother on her back a war weary Korean girl passes a stalled M-26 tank in Haengju, Korea, June 9, 1951. (U.S. Army, Maj. R.V. Spencer)

For much of American history, presidents have steadily accumulated the power to wage war while Congress has gradually surrendered the constitutional authority that the Framers explicitly entrusted to it. This transformation has weakened constitutional checks and balances, expanded executive power beyond its constitutional limits, claimed millions of lives, cost trillions of dollars, and repeatedly drawn the United States into conflicts that had little or nothing to do with defending America.

The U.S. Constitution is remarkably clear on the question of war. Article I grants Congress — not the president — the power to declare war. The president, under Article II, wages war, but only after Congress has authorized it.

James Madison argued that the executive branch is the branch “most interested in war, and most prone to it,” which is precisely why the Constitution deliberately divided the war power.

The Framers believed that no single individual should possess the authority to plunge the nation into armed conflict, yet over the past eight decades, presidents of both political parties have steadily ignored these constitutional limits.

President Harry Truman committed hundreds of thousands of American troops to combat in Korea without obtaining a declaration of war from Congress because he said U.S. troops there constituted a “police action.”

The pattern only intensified during the Vietnam War. Although Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, it was based on a fraud and effectively delegated its congressional constitutional responsibility to the president. The result was years of escalating conflict that ultimately claimed the lives of more than 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese while achieving none of its stated objectives.

Post 9/11 Acceleration

U.S. Army tanks pose for a photo under the “Hands of Victory” in Baghdad, Iraq, Nov. 13, 2023. (U.S. Air Force, John L. Houghton, Jr., Public Domain)

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, fundamentally accelerated this trend. Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force and the Patriot Act — the former granting the president broad authority to pursue those responsible for the attacks, and the latter substantially impairing rights protected by the Fourth Amendment.

What was presented as a targeted war authorization evolved into legal justifications for military operations across multiple countries against groups that did not even exist in 2001.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq illustrate the costs of this expansive approach. The war in Afghanistan lasted two decades before ending with the return of the Taliban to power. Iraq was invaded based on fabricated or erroneous intelligence assessments regarding weapons of mass destruction.

The proper role of government — according to Thomas Jefferson, its only role — is to protect life, liberty and property, not to remake foreign societies through military force. Wars of choice generate unintended consequences, empower new enemies, create refugee crises and expand government power at home.

The economic and human consequences are equally profound. Massive defense expenditures have pushed the debt of the federal government to nearly $40 trillion. A government willing to kill millions and spend trillions on foreign wars while borrowing money to pay the interest on borrowed money will one day collapse of its own weight; as have all empires.

A genuinely constitutional foreign policy would look very different. Military force should be reserved for defending the United States against actual or truly imminent attacks, not speculative threats or ambitious nation-building projects, or favors for other countries. Congress should debate and vote openly before committing American forces to any combat.

Strong national defense does not require perpetual war. A capable military can deter aggression. Diplomacy, commerce and peaceful engagement generally serve American interests more effectively than military intervention.

George Washington’s warning against entangling foreign commitments and John Quincy Adams’s declaration that America “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy” remain relevant guides for a republic committed to liberty, rather than an empire committed to conquest. 

Of course, monsters abroad can follow you home.

The constitutional allocation of war powers exists not as a procedural rule but as a substantive safeguard for freedom itself. Every unnecessary war expands executive authority, enlarges government, consumes wealth, risks American lives without clear necessity and diminishes personal liberty.

The best protection against endless conflict is a less powerful presidency and a renewed commitment to the Constitution’s deliberate separation of powers and the principle that the United States should fight only when its own security imminently and genuinely requires it.

Is it any wonder that the U.S. is unwilling or unable to justify its recent killings of more than 150 Iranian school children and their teachers?

CORRECTIONS: C.I.A. assessment on Iranian nuclear program was in 2003, n0t 2005; the Iranian school struck by the U.S. is in Minab and not Tehran and is a co-ed school, not a girls school as an earlier version said.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, was the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel and hosts the podcast Judging Freedom. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty. To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit here. Published by permission of the author.

COPYRIGHT 2026 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO 

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

YouTube link here.