There is reason to discuss something, only if when writing we mean exactly what is the matter about, but not some hidden intentions having nothing common with the essence of the dispute. Since I still suppose such kind of "innocence presumption" for every participant of the discussion, I decided to write ones more.

I am completely agree with the strong and clever logic expressed by Marino. There is however one small problem: he is speaking about Italy of the early 70s, but not about Russia of 1995. In Italy at that time conscientious objectors (COs) were going in prison in absence of at least any law. In Russia, vice versa, they avoid both military and civilian service in absence of law. That's the only small difference.

I think Marino didn't read Russian constitution as well as the text of draft law on CO, and it is not his fault of course. I know also that sometimes it can be difficult to see the details of Russian political situation from New York, Rome or Brussels. But I cannot suppose, that Marino did not read my previous texts here, as well as A.R.A.'s appeal itself. Therefore, I would like to ask him kindly to respond just one question: WHY THIS LAW IN TODAY'S RUSSIAN SITUATION IS BETTER THAN ITS ABSENCE?

I do not ask this question to Marija Ivanjan, although if she has some political reasons in favour of passing now the law it could be interesting to read it here. But it seams to me that I understand the main "human" reason: it is HER law. It's a pity, that every political opposition to the law she accepts as a personal attack against her. She may see a lot of "enemies" around in this case: not only poor and small new-born ARA, and even not only 68 committees of soldiers' mothers throughout Russia, but several millions of young Russian potential draftees. It's a pity to have such an approach, I repeat, but what can we do? it's more or less her own problem. Anyway, nobody intends to attack or offend her.

But what about Marino, why he considers this law progressive in comparison with its absence? I sincerely hope, not because only, that it is "a Masha's and Sasha's law"?

Coming back to the role of ARA. Frankly speaking, I didn't suppose yet that ARA could play a substantial role in Duma's voting on Wednesday. But yesterday I knew that together with Zhirinovsky's group, a big part of "Russia's Choice" voted against (the exact percentage I hope to insert in couple of days)! It means, that they changed their position exactly thanks to our letters distributed in Duma one day before the voting among almost all the MPs, thanks to a number of personal conversations with "Russia's Choice" deputies rapidly realized on Tuesday. Really, Zhirinovsky has not enough votes to block anything, he needs a support from other groups. Well, I am happy that ARA managed to convince the most clever MPs among democrats, and by such a way our position now is not position of ARA, Soldiers' Mothers, and students/youth organization, but also a position of big part of democratic MPs. That's a first big political victory and one should not underestimate this fact.

For the rest, now I haven't anything to add to my and Olga's and Antonio's previous interventions, as well as to the "official" texts of ARA and CSM. One having eyes can see. Of course, if he has good will and honest intentions.