It does not seem to me, that "protagonisti" in our area didn't change. They did. That's true, that heros of non-productive polemics here appearing from time to time are still the same. As well as some methods of work, which I find not Leninist but cynical and not usable, from time to time appear to be proposed again.

1. Probably I must give some additional information concerning the circumstances connected with Lepekhin.

Mr. Lepekhin, MP, is not yet member of Radical Party. That is true, that yesterday evening Maria Ivanjan called the office in order to inform "that we must insert Lepekhin into the list of passengers", and - responding to the question about his membership - she told that he's agree and his coupon is on her table.

Does it mean, that being so happy yesterday to know that great Mr. Lepekhin finally declared to Maria about membership, we must cancel the invitations already made to other MPs?

In fact, Mr. Lepekhin was already member of RP 1992, for the last Congress. Thus, really, he didn't disappeared completely: he disappeared only for time between completing the passengers lists in 1992 and 1995.

I don't know a lot about his political activity in Duma, where he is a direct chief of Maria. I know that he is director of Novaja Ezhednevnaja Gazeta, which recently attacked Radical Party by brutal way for its position in favour of "UN-American genocide of Serbian people". I know that he is member of PRES (Party for Russian Unity and Concordance) group in Duma. This group - apart of 1 deputy - voted two weeks ago for displacement of Sergej Kovalev from the post of Human Rights Commissioner. But he is very simpatico for me, because - being absolutely non-ideologic in some sense, absolutely non-Leninist - he considers as nothing to pay $ 8 for the third tourist trip to Rome (even if it is connected with shameful "membership" in a strange "party"). Maybe it was fault, because Maria mistakenly informed him, that payment of this small sum is an integral part of travelling formalities...

I don't want to spend more your and my time to describe this person and his "membership". I would like only to add, that he is in some sense a typical product of the attitude to work with deputies (as well as with members at all) which was practiced in Russia in 1990-93.

But from the other hand we can not worry much: such kind of deputies will at least not spoil the Congress and if we have some extra $700, we can organize for him such a pleasant trip, if Antonio will give his last word. Exactly Antonio, because apparently till now he still is coordinator of party's activity in CIS and Baltic countries.

2. About Maria Ivanjan. I like very much the way which Marino uses to defend her. But there is no attack, no insult. Just giving of some facts.

That is absolutely true, what Antonio had already wrote in this conference on the subject.

I cannot judge for the period since December 1993, because I appeared for work in Moscow office from Kiev only in March 1994, after Andrea's death. But it's interesting to know, which information sources uses Marino, stating that "Maria gives a hand to the party"? I don't know nothing about her hand given to New York, or Rome, or Ouagadougou offices, but as for Moscow office, the only hand given was two or three times given permission to enter Duma. And two times of refusal to give such a permission for distributing letters addressed to the MPs and prepared in Moscow office, because that letters were considered by Maria as provocative and disturbing her personal work as a secretary of commission dealing with conscientious objection draft bill. That is another matter of discussion (attempts to prevent any actions in the framework of our anti-militarist campaign), but frankly speaking, is it possible to consider as "giving the hand" refusal "to enter Duma with your stupid letters"?

About participation in other actions of party (for instance, petition campaign for ICC, also considered as not deserving spending time) or party assemblies, many reunions in the office, etc. etc. etc. - ANTONIO HA GIA DETTO.

Psychologically I understand very much, why it is important for anybody to bring the body of his/her chief to Rome but I prefer not to speak about it.

To close this unpleasant question about Maria Ivanian, I would like only to say: statement that she's giving hand to the party are either absolute blindness, or cynicism and insult of those really voluntary people who help the party, take part in its initiatives etc. without being part of staff (a rimborso).

3. About Hakamada. I am surprised to know that neither Dmitrij Petrov, nor me and Mamuka, but Maria invited Hakamada to the drug conference in Rome last year. Boh... Va bene, non e' importante.

4. About Jakunin. I am surprised to know that not Antonio spoke with him personally many times (last time, when they agreed about participation in the XXXVII Congress - in the conference on fascism just after Chechnya voyage). It is not Antonio's problem (as well as not mine, or Maria'a, or Mamuka's) that padre Gleb cannot participate now in the Congress (as he told me yesterday, because of his illness).

5. About Kovalev and other invited. It is not true, that we do not obtain any answer. There are several faxes in Moscow office from Kovalev and his secretary with apologizing for non-participation. Same for Hakamada. I hope her address to the Congress and March will soon appear in Conferenza Partitio Radicale. Yes, some prominent MPs cannot participate, unlike some others. But it does not speak for them bad. They make politics now for electoral campaign, unlike some others who - spiting on the party and its activity - is always ready to make a tourist trip for nothing.

6. And last - about my message to Antonio, which was answered by him in this conference. Really, I send a message to Antonio, containing some questions concerning problem of responsibility - after Maria's call to the office informing me, that "according to the order of Luca Frassineti" I am obliged "to care about flight tickets, hotel reservations, etc. for Lepekhin and those other MPs, whose names she cannot tell yet, because their decision about membership is not yet final decision". However, the tone of my message and words used there prevent me from placing it in a public conference. Now I use the case to apologize in front of Antonio for that message. Thus, if one wants to get that message, I can resent it to the private mail box (if Antonio, as the second owner of the message, does not mind) but not to put here.