(Not reviewed by the person himself)

(March 19, 1965)

[Hong Tao is the pseudonym used by Chin Peng, General Secretary of the Malayan Communist Party, after arriving in China.]

Time: 12:50 to 4:20, March 19, 1965
Place: East Lake, Wuhan
Participants: Wang Renzhong, Zhao Yimin, Tang Mingzhao, Zhang Shangming
Interpreters: Qi Xiyu, Wu Yingguang
(No stenographer was present during the conversation; this record was written from memory)

Chairman Mao (hereinafter referred to as Chairman): (Introducing Coe and others to the Malayan Communist Party guests) These are revolutionaries from the West, who have now come to the East to help with revolutionary work. In the future, the East will also help the West. The East had a Chiang Kai-shek; he was defeated and fled. Japan was defeated. Nehru is dead. The West's Kennedy is also dead.

Coe (hereinafter referred to as Coe): Johnson's days are not easy either.

Chairman: (To the Malayan Communist Party guests) We have bureaucratism. You have been here for a long time, and I have not yet met you. We have a Li Qixin here, this person is a great-power chauvinist. He oppressed you, treated you with an imperialist attitude. But we did not know, and only discovered it recently.

(Asks Zhao Yimin) When was it discovered?

Zhao Yimin (hereinafter referred to as Zhao): Last year.

Chairman: Therefore, you should not think that everything in China is good, nor should you think that I am good in every way. We have revisionism here; we have great-power-ism, for example, Li Qixin; we also have bureaucratism, for example, myself.

I have invited you here today because I am not yet sure about this document (referring to the article "Comment on the Moscow March Meeting"), so I have invited you to discuss it further.

The first question is: should this document be produced? The second question is: is it better for the content and wording of the document to be sharper, or a bit milder? Or should it be as it is now?

These are the two main questions. I am only raising the questions, and I ask you to answer them. (Everyone laughs)

Please consider: if this document is not put out, what are the advantages and disadvantages? If this document is put out, what are the advantages and disadvantages? Is this document on solid ground?

In a word, is this document basically correct? As long as it is basically correct, we will not be afraid. If not, then we will make a mistake and must reconsider. What are your views? Let's have an informal chat!

This draft was revised again yesterday. The basic tone has not changed, the title has been changed, and four subheadings have been added. It is put forward more prominently.

Coe: In my view, it is necessary to publish this article. In the past, China suggested that Khrushchev not hold a meeting, but now his successors have held one. Although many people in the world have an understanding of this meeting, many others do not. Many people have already expressed their attitude towards this meeting, but China has not yet formally expressed its own.

Chairman: We have not yet spoken out.

Coe: We come from the most backward region of the communist movement. For many people in our region, the ideas in this article are probably too sharp. But, precisely because of this, publishing this article can be effective. In my view, I can see the danger of not publishing this article, but I cannot see any danger in publishing it.

Chairman: What is the danger of not publishing this article?

Coe: Please allow me to ask a question in return. Are there still widespread illusions about the new Soviet leadership? Before Khrushchev stepped down, everyone knew who and what we were opposing. After Khrushchev stepped down, many people were confused.

Chairman: People have expectations for the new Soviet leadership. From appearances, they are united, they talk about revolution, and they talk about anti-imperialism. But at the same time, they beat demonstrating students on the streets of Moscow.

Nineteen countries attended this meeting. At the meeting, they also talked about revolution and unity. But the Western countries, including the United States, Britain, France, West Germany, and Japan, gave it very little praise this time. Why they gave so little praise this time, I don't understand either. (Everyone laughs)

Coe: The imperialists don't think much of them either.

Chairman: Don't they talk about wanting unity? But imperialist reporters say they are engaging in splittism. I told Kosygin that the imperialists will not be polite to you, nor will they be polite to us. The imperialists may help us to unite.

Is it possible for the United States and the Soviet Union to jointly wage war on China? Seeing that they cannot deal with China by peaceful means, is it possible that they might try to use war to eliminate us? Even so, it's no big deal. It would be nothing more than them occupying major cities like Beijing, Nanjing, Wuhan, and Chongqing, and we would go to the mountains, to the countryside, and return to the state we were in during the Japanese occupation. What do you think is the possibility of the U.S. and the Soviet Union cooperating to attack China?

Epstein (hereinafter referred to as Ep): The United States undoubtedly hopes for a conflict between China and the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union would not be unwilling to see a conflict between China and the United States. But the possibility of the U.S. and the Soviet Union cooperating to attack China is very small, because what divides them is much greater than what unites them.

Chairman: We are prepared for this. If the U.S. and the Soviet Union cooperate, and are joined by India, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Chiang Kai-shek, we are also prepared. Fortunately, China is a relatively large country with a relatively large population. They cannot occupy every village in China, so people like us will still have a place to live. Even if they use atomic bombs, they cannot kill all the Chinese people; at most, one-third or one-half would die. I won't talk about numbers anymore, because I made a mistake by talking about numbers in 1957. (Everyone laughs) I spoke about this issue at the 1957 Moscow Conference, and it is on the record. We don't have atomic bombs now, only hand grenades.

Now let's return to the main issue. What are the disadvantages of publishing this document? And what are the disadvantages of not publishing it? If it is published, will people see it this way: Moscow held a meeting, talking about unity, revolution, and anti-imperialism, but the Chinese say this is all false. It's not unity, it's splittism; it's not revolution, it's betrayal; anti-imperialism is false, uniting with imperialism is the real thing. Isn't this going too far?

The document originally contained a concept that seemed to equate the new CPSU leadership with U.S. imperialism, but this was later removed. U.S. imperialism is not completely identical with the CPSU, nor does it completely listen to the CPSU. Johnson and the new CPSU leadership, these two friends, are not without contradictions. The Soviet Union advocates a conference on the Vietnam issue, but the United States has issued a white paper saying that a conference can only be held if Vietnam stops its "aggression," as if it were the Vietnamese who are invading Vietnam, and not the United States. On the Congo issue, the U.S. and the Soviet Union are not so aligned either. The Arab world is not so aligned with Britain and the United States. France and the United States are not so harmonious either.

Coe: Not just not harmonious. The United States now hates de Gaulle second only to China.

Chairman: The student demonstrations are a signal. Students demonstrating in Moscow, students demonstrating in the United States—this is a signal that the broad masses of people all over the world want revolution. Our embassy did not know in advance that the students in Moscow were going to demonstrate; the students organized the demonstration themselves. We people in Beijing learned the news even later, only after the demonstration had taken place.

Let's talk about the world situation. For example, are the United States' days better now than before, or worse?

Coe: Is the Chairman referring to the United States' days internationally or domestically?

Chairman: Domestically.

Coe: As Chairman Mao said, the student demonstrations are a signal. When I was a student, American students were never as active as they are today. The Black movement in the United States has never been at such a high tide as it is today. Economically speaking, the American people are currently better off than in the past, but there are still many signs that there is great unrest and dissatisfaction within the United States.

Adler (hereinafter referred to as Ad): I'll add a point. The international economic position of the United States is now the worst it has been since World War II. The kind of pressure France is putting on the United States now would have been unimaginable 10 years ago.

Chairman: There must be some reason why France dares to challenge the United States like this. The student demonstration in front of the U.S. embassy in Manila would also have been impossible in the past. Kuala Lumpur in Malaya also held an anti-U.S. demonstration and attacked the library of the United States Information Service. This demonstration was instigated by a deputy prime minister. I can't remember the reason, probably because the price of goods the U.S. sold to Malaya was too high, or the interest on loans was too high.

Hong Tao (hereinafter referred to as Hong): It was because the loan interest was high.

Chairman: In less than three years, USIS offices or libraries in 30 countries have been attacked, and one American was beaten to death. These 30 countries are all in Asia and Africa. This too was unimaginable in the past.

In the United States, students in New York held demonstrations, and Black people across the country also held demonstrations. A Black leader was killed, but the Black movement was not suppressed as a result.

It seems not in Canada?

Coe: There were, too. Students at the university in the city of Toronto demonstrated in front of the U.S. consulate for three consecutive days and nights. I taught at that university during the Great Depression from 1929 to 1933, and the students then were not as active as they are today.

Chairman: That was more than 30 years ago? You were still very young then.

Coe: Unfortunately, my age is now older than my appearance.

Chairman: You became a professor at such a young age?

Coe: The most junior kind of professor. At that time, Buck taught me Marxism-Leninism. (Everyone laughs)

Chairman: I have spoken with Buck. He told me that he was expelled by the revisionists who controlled the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Canada. Later, he formed another Central Committee and expelled the 12 revisionist leaders who had expelled him from the party. But now he himself has become a revisionist.

Here is another example of our bureaucratism. Some translators in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs published translations without consulting the three of you (to Coe, Ad, Ep), and as a result, the quality was poor. We didn't know about it originally.

Coe: The quality of the translations we participated in was not good either.

Chairman: It must be a bit better. Without you, I always feel a bit uneasy.

Coe: Straightforward articles are easier to translate, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs translates them relatively well. What is difficult to translate are articles whose meaning is more implicit or very colloquial. For example, "hanging a sheep's head to sell dog meat," if translated literally into English, people won't understand.

Chairman: They won't understand?

Coe: For example, Comrade Hill from Australia said he couldn't understand it.

Tang Mingzhao: Now Comrade Coe and the others have found a similar English idiom: selling horsemeat as steak.

Chairman: Do Westerners eat horsemeat?

Ad: They did during the war. Steak is expensive, horsemeat is cheap.

Coe: (Smiling) I heard that the Chairman likes to eat dog meat, so I originally thought the Chairman would not agree to use the saying "hanging a sheep's head to sell dog meat," because that would be demeaning to dog meat.

Chairman: I didn't eat dog meat in the past. It was only after going up to the Jinggang Mountains that I slowly started to eat dog meat.

Coe: I would like to ask the Chairman another question. If this question is clarified, then it will be easier to answer the question the Chairman just raised. The question is: what is the next step in the struggle against revisionism?

Chairman: The next step? I'm afraid the next step is still to oppose revisionism.

Ad: I'll add a small reason for advocating the publication of this document. The imperialists believe that the Moscow March Meeting was a sign of weakness. This view is basically correct. The Chairman's military thought teaches us that when the enemy is weak, we should pursue the victory and not give the enemy a chance to catch their breath.

Chairman: (Smiling) You are putting me on the spot.

The Japanese comrades also advocate this. The change in the Japanese party is worth noting. Some of the articles the Japanese party wrote at first, and the representatives from Japan who attended some international mass organization meetings, advocated forming a united front with the revisionists on the issue of anti-imperialism. We said no, we were fooled once. At the Moscow Disarmament Conference in the summer of 1962, we did not sing a different tune from the revisionists, and as a result, the Korean comrades were unhappy on the spot, and the African representatives were also unhappy. Only Khrushchev was greatly satisfied and wanted to award us a gold medal. We said, we cannot accept this medal. Do you know about this matter?

Coe, Ad, Ep, etc.: No.

Chairman: So, it seems that one cannot touch revisionism. Whoever touches it will have their reputation damaged.

U.S. imperialism has taken over all of the Soviet Union's slogans: peaceful transition, peaceful coexistence, peaceful competition, general and complete disarmament, easing of international tensions, and so on. Dulles also approved of peaceful transition and peaceful competition. As for peaceful coexistence, the imperialists naturally have a different interpretation. For example, in Vietnam, in the Congo, in Cuba, can that be called peaceful coexistence? As for general and complete disarmament, I told Kosygin that there is no such thing as general and complete disarmament in the world, only general and complete arms expansion.

Take Britain, for example. In Singapore, Malaya, North Kalimantan, and Hong Kong, Britain has a total of 50,000 troops, including the original ones and newly transferred ones. This is to deal with Indonesia and (to the Malayan Communist Party guests) you. Of course, on such a long line from Singapore and Malaya to Hong Kong, what can 50,000 troops do? They are of no use. I told Subandrio this, saying that they are now too busy to take care of themselves.

Coe: The United States is greatly perplexed that China has chosen this time to restart the public debate. In the view of the United States, for China to do this is simply insane.

Chairman: Why?

Coe: Because the United States believes that China must now try to unite with the Soviet Union to oppose the United States, or at least pretend to do so.

Chairman: (Laughs) They think we are insane, that's good!

Why did the new CPSU leadership insist on holding this meeting? They dared to hold a meeting without soliciting opinions. No, one could also say they did solicit opinions. They solicited our opinion, and we opposed it; they solicited the opinions of the parties of Korea, Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia, and others, and everyone opposed it. But they still insisted on holding the meeting. Since they insisted, there must be some benefit, but I just can't see what benefit they could get. Perhaps they thought that by talking about anti-imperialism, revolution, and unity, they could deceive people like us, or at least shut our mouths, or perhaps they wanted to make people sympathize with them, to feel that they only say nice things while we only say unpleasant things.

I told Kosygin that I have two crimes to my name: one is dogmatism, and the other is being a warmonger. I am very stubborn. No matter how many nice things you say, I will still say unpleasant things.

Coe: In North America and Western Europe, many people and many communists will undoubtedly think this article is too sharp. However, these people have always thought China's articles were too sharp, but later they all gradually absorbed China's views. Conversely, if we don't explain it to them clearly early on, they will later complain, saying, why didn't you tell us earlier.

Chairman: That is to say, if you want others not to waver, you must first not waver yourself. Probably many people like mild language. There are quite a few such people. But after a period of time, they themselves are not so mild anymore.

I argued with Attlee of the British Labour Party delegation for over two hours. I said, Britain is imperialist. He said, it was in the past, but not anymore. I said, it still is now, but it won't be in the future. (Smiling at Adler) This name Attlee seems to be similar to yours.

Britain still occupies South Yemen and Aden. Have those islands in the Mediterranean become independent?

Ad: They are independent in name, but in reality, they are still controlled by Britain.

Chairman: But Britain can no longer control the Suez Canal. Nasser is a strange person; on the one hand, he is anti-communist, and on the other hand, he is anti-imperialist.

The United States is now powerful in form. It has troops on all continents: Europe, Africa, Latin America, and Asia. It has a total of 2.7 million troops, one-third of which are stationed abroad. The army has 18 infantry divisions, 9 of which are abroad, 4 in Europe, and 2 in South Korea. Okinawa and Manila have a total of 1 division, which is the Marine Corps. The United States has 3 Marine divisions, and also 1 cavalry division, but they don't ride horses, (everyone laughs) so in total there are 22 army divisions. The morale of the U.S. army is not high; its Marine Corps can still fight a bit. It was tested in Korea. But it is not as good at fighting as the Japanese army. The Japanese army in the trenches does not need to smoke, drink coffee, or eat canned food.

Ad: And ice cream.

Chairman: (Laughs) Right, ice cream is also a necessity for American soldiers. The Turkish army can also fight, but the Indian army is completely useless.

(At this time, a staff member came to announce that lunch was ready) Alright, let's go eat. People need to eat; this is the first principle.

(During lunch, the Chairman toasted the Malayan Communist Party guests and Coe, Ad, Ep, etc., and talked about there being several Gods and these Gods fighting each other, etc. The following is the conversation after lunch)

Chairman: Let's chat some more. (To the Malayan Communist Party guests) What are your views?

Hong: We completely agree with this article, and basically agree with its tone. We believe it is necessary to publish this article. The reasons are: first, it can expose the deceptive nature of the new CPSU leadership; second, they are currently weak, and we should pursue the victory. If they were not weak, Kosygin would not be running around everywhere, doing all that. In his radio speech after returning home, he even used his meeting with Chinese comrades while passing through China as his capital. Overall, we agree with this article.

Chairman: Some parts of this article have been changed, but the basic tone has not. Some words that are difficult for ordinary people to accept and some inappropriate parts have been removed. For example, words like calling them traitors, or saying they are exactly the same as the United States. They are, after all, a bit different from the United States.

Ep: I think one of the most obvious (though not necessarily the most important) reasons why it is necessary to publish this article is: before the meeting, we said in strong language that if the meeting were held, such and such would happen. Now the meeting has been held, and if we don't speak, others will interpret this as us backing down.

Chairman: Correct.

Ep: Regarding the question of the advantages and disadvantages of publishing this article, it is relatively simple in the short term. Because, as Chairman Mao said, the actual effect of this article is to expose the problem. The new Soviet leadership's current approach is to hide behind and let countries like Algeria and Cuba come forward. Therefore, the centrists in the international communist movement may think our article is too harsh, and they will be shocked. They might also think: after Khrushchev stepped down, the Soviet Union did not attack China, so why is China still attacking the Soviet Union? However, if we don't speak up, the centrists will later say, why didn't you tell us earlier?

Chairman: Correct, we were late in saying some things in the past. Some people criticized us for agreeing to include the 20th Congress of the CPSU in the documents of the two Moscow Conferences.

Ep: I feel that the new Soviet leadership is now trying to take over the slogan of unity. The document of the March meeting pretends to be positive, proposing unity and revolution. In reality, they are the splittists, but they want to appear as the unifiers of the revolutionary forces. Therefore, our article can talk more about unity and take the slogan of unity into our hands.

I have another small question: who is the main audience of this article? Is the main audience the ranks of the international communist movement, or the world revolutionary movement? If it is the former, we can emphasize more the struggle between revisionism and Marxism-Leninism; if it is the latter, we can emphasize more the struggle between splittism and unity, and more the issue of the unity of the revolutionary forces in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Chairman: These two ideas are worth noting. Unite the majority, including the majority of the Soviet people, party members, and cadres. This point was not prominent enough originally and was added later. Please ask Comrade Zhao Yimin to go back and discuss with the comrades who wrote the article to see if there are any other places where this can be emphasized.

As for the audience of this article, it is of course addressed to the majority of people all over the world. If this point is not prominent, it should be added. As for the revisionists, they are actually a minority and do not represent the people, but they deceive and control the people.

There is another question here. We say in the article that we want to unite with the majority of party members and cadres of the revisionist parties, especially the CPSU. Can this be realized? If it cannot be realized, wouldn't our words lose their credibility? History tells us that the social democratic parties of the Second International did not return to the revolutionary side. Britain has the Labour Party; France, Italy, Japan, and Indonesia all have socialist parties, which are non-revolutionary parties. Does Malaya have one?

Hong: The name is different. They call themselves democratic socialists.

Chairman: If we say we want to unite with them but cannot, what then? If the parties in the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, France, Italy, Britain, etc., cannot be changed and become new social democratic parties, similar in nature to the parties of the Second International, then wouldn't our words lose their credibility?

It doesn't matter if our words don't prove true. Engels also had times when his words didn't prove true. He did not expect that the party he himself established would become a counter-revolutionary party. We express a wish, and if it is not realized later, that is nothing. For example, if I say I want to be friends with you, and you refuse, that is nothing to me. But if I first say I will not be friends with you, then I become a sectarian, and you have a reason to oppose me.

We ourselves have also misjudged some issues. For example, our view of the Indian bourgeoisie: for a time, we saw it as a national bourgeoisie that had achieved independence, but it turned out not to be. They are a comprador bourgeoisie. Isn't that a misjudgment?

We often misjudge issues. But, at that time, when Nehru was visiting Beijing and before the Tibet incident, if we had said that Nehru was a running dog of imperialism, then not only would Nehru himself not have been able to accept it, but the Communist Party of India would not have been able to accept it either. Because, at that time, the contradictions had not yet been exposed; their nature of oppressing the people, being pro-imperialist, anti-China, and opposing the Indian people had not yet been exposed. So no one blames us for not speaking then as we did later.

For a period, the Communist Party of Japan regarded the United States as very democratic. (On this issue, we saw it clearly. The correct faction was Comrade Miyamoto's, and the JCP later corrected itself.) This was because during that period, U.S. imperialism, MacArthur, created a constitution for Japan. Its Article 9 stipulated that the Japanese army could not fight abroad, and another article allowed the JCP to operate openly. The Socialist Party of Japan once formed a cabinet, there were many JCP members of parliament, and land reform was carried out. So many "good" things were done! Later, Japanese monopoly capital recovered and expanded, carried out a purge, and forced the JCP to go underground for a period.

It now seems that the imperialist countries, including Britain, the U.S., France, Italy, West Germany, and Japan, are a bit more confident than the so-called socialist countries of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. They still allow the Communist Party to publish newspapers openly. The British government, for example, is not afraid of the British Communist Party and lets it publish newspapers. The revisionist countries are afraid of us, scared to death. We publish Khrushchev's things, everything, without selection. We don't just publish what suits our taste; we especially select things with views different from ours and publish them in bold type. They dare not publish anything of ours.

For a period, even Chiang Kai-shek was bolder than the current revisionists; he allowed our party to publish newspapers in Chongqing and Wuhan. He also allowed it in Nanjing. But the words of the bourgeoisie cannot be trusted. After the Japanese surrender, the Kuomintang, the Communist Party, and other democratic parties held a meeting in Chongqing and passed a resolution to jointly build the nation. Chiang Kai-shek also made four great promises. The first was to implement democracy, including freedom of speech, assembly, and association; the second was to release political prisoners; the third was to disband the secret police agencies; I can't remember the fourth. He did this because they were not yet ready at that time. Just 10 days after this resolution was passed, the incident of people being beaten to death occurred at Jiaochangkou in Chongqing. Not a single one of Chiang Kai-shek's four promises was fulfilled.

The United States had McCarthyism in the past, but U.S. monopoly capital believes that McCarthyism was not as effective as later methods. Now Johnson has come up with some Civil Rights Act, but Black people are still oppressed. Britain is so civilized and democratic, but it has also killed many people. Nehru also killed many people.

I think it's not good for reactionary rulers not to kill people. If Chiang Kai-shek had been so democratic, convened a national assembly, not killed communists, and let us enter the national assembly and publish newspapers openly, then (we) would surely not have been so revolutionary. Do you believe it? I myself would not have been. Wasn't it because Chiang Kai-shek wanted to kill me, and I couldn't stay in the cities, that I went to the mountains and the countryside to fight guerrilla warfare? Many Latin American comrades have come, and I ask them: can your party operate openly? Can it publish newspapers? They say, yes. I ask them again: are there many arrests and killings? They say, not many. I have asked comrades from both factions of the Brazilian party, and they all answered this way. So I said, the conditions for guerrilla warfare are not yet ripe in your country.

Ad: After the military coup in Brazil, the situation seems to have changed.

Chairman: The Brazilian military government is not that harsh either; it doesn't kill people in batches and still allows newspapers to be published. The October Revolution was the result of Tsarist repression. Without the Tsarist system, the Bolshevik Party would not have emerged. People are not born revolutionary. There are now also two kinds of Communist Parties: one is revisionist, and the other is dogmatist. (Everyone laughs)

(To Coe, Ad, Ep, etc.) When did we last meet? The year before last?

Coe: January of last year.

Chairman: That's more than a year ago. We can compare the situation of our meeting today with that of our last meeting. At our last meeting, you asked me if I had made up my mind to openly struggle against revisionism. At our last meeting, an old comrade, Anna Louise Strong, also participated. At that time, we had just published the 25 Points not long before. I heard she was not happy with the 25 Points, could not yet accept them, and wanted to leave. This old comrade is older than me, 79 years old, but she is still working now.

Coe, Ad: That did happen, but she didn't leave later. She is happy now.

Chairman: The situation now has changed compared to a year ago, a great change. The world is changing, changing towards revolution and brightness, not towards reaction and darkness. Comparatively speaking, the imperialists and revisionists are more panicked. Comparatively speaking, we are not so flustered, we are more stable, and not so impatient. Since then, Khrushchev has fallen, Khrushchev's good friend Kennedy has died, and Nehru has also died. It probably won't be so easy for India to find another Nehru. After the Pleiku incident (referring to the great victory of the South Vietnam Liberation Army's attack on the important U.S. air base—Holloway Airfield—and a U.S. military barracks in Pleiku, northeast of Saigon, on February 7, 1965, killing or wounding 357 enemy troops and destroying 42 U.S. aircraft), Johnson did not sleep all night.

Looking back over this past year, the people of South Vietnam have achieved further victories. The United States has had to send more troops and bomb North Vietnam. Four out of twelve aircraft carriers have been deployed. They are very tense. Phantoms appear on the radar, and the night watchmen see everything as an attack. Of the three Gulf of Tonkin incidents last year, the first time the Vietnamese side did fire a few torpedoes, which missed. The next two times, there was nothing at all; it was entirely their imagination. So a U.S. ship captain later admitted that probably nothing had happened, but the U.S. government dared not admit its mistake.

(At this time, the staff member attending to the Chairman suggested a break) Alright, he has given the order, I have to obey.

Source: "Newly Discovered Speeches of Mao Zedong from Secret Archives," edited by Song Yongyi, Guoshi Press, July 2018

Thanks to Vissarion for collecting and organizing.