ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION

“The Tenth Anniversary of IET” The Discussion Participants:
	Dr. V. A. Mau, IET Deputy Director		Dr. A. I. Alekseyev, IET Academic Secretary
	Dr. A. V. Uliukaev IET Deputy Director		Dr. S. V. Prikhodko, IET Director for international projects
	Dr. S. G. Sinelnikov-Murylev, IET Deputy Director		The discussion is moderated by V. A. Natarov, IET Press Secretary

   Sinelnikov: Ye. Gaidar advanced the idea to create an institute for economics in 1987, when he was on the Communist magazine editorial board. At that moment there was no team of scholars in the country which could work, on one hand, at a good theoretical level, and on the other hand, to be knowledgeable about economic practices and be able to advise politicians. This problem became especially urgent in the situation of the economic collapse in the country.

   S.: Certainly, we may refer to “500 Days” program, there appeared other programs as well. However, no program contained concrete economic measures. Gaidar strove to establish a new think tank capable of solving difficult economic problems exactly because of this.

   Uliukaev: “500 Days” program was a set of really effective and necessary measures. However, it did not answer the question of who should implement these transformations, what the respective legal and executive mechanisms should be, were there adequate financial resources, would the transformation be seriously opposed and what should be done in this case – the program did not even state these questions.

   What was the first milestone in IET history?

   Alekseyev: The first milestone was October 3, 1990. On that day the USSR Council of Ministers issued its resolution followed by the order establishing the Research Institute for Economic Mechanism at the Academy of National Economy to be headed by Dr. Ye. Gaidar.

   M. Gorbachev, President of the USSR, supported this initiative.

   How many people worked at the Institute at that time?

   A.: About 40 people.

   What impact the events of August of 1991 had on the Institute?

   S.: It was a difficult time for the whole country; however, for those working at the Institute these events were especially painful. We clearly realized that we faced the historic choice between the attempt to reverse the course of history and the progress, not merely the choice between the “putschists” and B. Yeltsin. All of us working at the Institute had immediately and unconditionally made our choice: both Communists and non-Party people supported the progress.

   A.: On August 20 the Institute meeting of Communist party members practically unanimously (with one abstention) voted to withdraw from the party and to support B. Yeltsin.

   Recollecting the articles published by the Communist magazine at the time Yegor Timurovich Gaidar worked there, this was a rather natural choice. It is clear, what sentiment predominated at the Institute, since it was a rallying point for the people professing liberal values. Was the choice predetermined than?

   S.: Opponents of the system used different methods to fight it. Gaidar’s articles in the Communist seriously influenced the public opinion, which even the Communist party already could not ignore. These articles influenced not only the public opinion at large, but Party leaders, including Gorbachev himself.

   Mau: The Communist of Frolov-Latsis-Gaidar became the most reformist and liberal magazine in the country.

   May it be said that at that period the core of the present Institute team already formed itself? What percentage of this original core has remained at IET?

   A.: About a half of the present staff have been working from the first days, and we closely contact about a third of those who has left, in many matters we rely on those people.

   Many distinguished people had worked at the Institute, and later took important posts at the government agencies, are now successful scholars and businessmen: A. Nechayev, V. Mashits, B. Fedorov, A. Uliukaev.

   So, it’s August of 1991. The Institute is being closed. What happened after the party meeting?

   S.: The Institute continued to work. After that meeting all those at the Institute went to defend the White House. I remind, it was on August 20, when the prospects of democracy in Russia were still very vague.

   At that dramatic moment our country experienced, where the Institute’s scholars worked, at what offices?

   S.: If we speak of the time before November of 1991, they all worked at the Institute. In the period between August and November the Institute published its first semi-annual report. It may be found in archives. This report was structured similarly to our current reports. Certainly, it was a different economy, other experts, quite different level of statistics.

   Did you already execute government orders?

   S.: Yes, we already worked to the orders of the Russian government. At that time the budget war raged between Russia and other Republics, on one hand, and the Union government on the other hand. Russia wanted sovereignty and did not financed expenses. I, as an expert on public finances, look at the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emerging sovereign Russia in terms of the budget. The former economic structure was crumbling, Union government agencies already ceased functioning, while new Russian authorities had no experience of settling problems pertaining to a sovereign state emerging from a former Soviet Republic. Our Institute was responsible for quite a number of estimates the budgetary and other decisions of the time based on.

   So, in December Gaidar was appointed as the acting Prime Minister?

   S.: No, he was appointed as the Vice-Chairman of the Government for the economy. He became the acting Prime Minister before in June he and B. Yeltsin went to Washington to take part in the ceremony of Russia becoming a member of the International Monetary Fund.

   In the period from September till October it was not yet clear about nominations and appointments; however, we understood the logic of the current developments and started to elaborate measures concerning the economic reform.

   U.: The program of economic reforms designed under Gaidar’s direction and with participation of a number of would-be members of the government was very technological and answered not only “what” and “why” of the reform, but “how” and “how much.” This program we provisionally entitled “Program-91” was a set of separate documents, the most important of them being the conceptual “Russia’s Strategy for the Transition Period.” Among the Program documents were even draft laws, instructions and memorandums – so detailed was the Program in contradistinction to many other programs, and that determined its value.

   M.: Ye. Gaidar becoming a member of the government was the peak of our revolution, of the revolution in the broad sense, of the revolution, which began in late 1980s and is being completed just now. There was a clear distinction between economic and political components. For a long time Gaidar was considered to be an expert on the economy, not a politician. It was in accordance with Gaidar’s intentions: he starts economic reforms, Yeltsin, as the head of the government, provides the political cover.

   Gaidar succeeded in including his team in the government. It was a unique case at those times. It shall be noted that in formal terms he was the third most important person in the government after Yeltsin and Burbulis. Now Putin is blamed to form his retinue from friends and fellow townsmen. When I hear that I say: For goodness sake! We have formed a government from the staff of one institute!

   We had clear ideas about what had to be done at that moment; it was the rare occasion when we knew what to do and had courage to do that.

   The main success we achieved during our work at the government in 1992 in terms of economy was apparent: shops were filled with goods. However, from my point of view the main criterion was that if in early November of 1991 it was impossible to find anybody wishing to become the Chairman or a Vice-Chairman of the government, in November of 1992, figuratively speaking, there was a line of those wishing to take the post of the Prime Minister. Speaking of the political success of Gaidar’s reforms, I would mention first this important objective indicator.

   S.: A number of people working at the Institute became governmental officials. I and V. Mau became Ye. Gaidar’s advisers, A. Uliukaev headed the group of advisers, P. Aven became the Minister of External Economic Relations, A. Nechayev – the Minister of Economy. B. Federov also worked at the Institute at that time, later he went to work with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. He became a governmental official after Ye. Gaidar had already left the government. A number of Institute’s employees combined the work at the government and at the Institute. For instance, Ye. Gaidar remained the Director of the Institute while taking various posts in the government.

   M.: It is very important to have this ability: to alternate scientific study with the work at the government. In this way there originates a stratum of people who can work for the government, but are independent of their superiors. These people have an alternative job that sharply reducing the danger of corruption.

   After so many people left, what became of the Institute?

   S.: It continued to function mainly working for the government. The first time Dr. Gaidar became a member of the government he left his post as the IET director. He remained a member of the Supervisory Board, and Vadim Ivanov, now deceased, became the director. Immediately before the Gaidar government resigned in December of 1992, the Institute for Economic Policy had been transformed in the Institute for Economic Problems of Transitional Period.

   Why was that?

   A.: The Institute obtained the status of independent legal person. However, the Academy of National Economy became our co-founder and we maintain close relations with it.

   M.: We are grateful for A. G. Aganbegyan’s unceasing support, he keeps advising and actually helping us.

   The Institute has been at this address (Gazetny pereulok) since late 1992, hasn’t it?

   S.: Since January of 1993.

   It was rumored that the Institute was transformed and this building provided all but by a direct instruction from Yeltsin himself. Is it true?

   S.: When working at the government Yegor Timurovich had no time to settle problems the Institute faced. He turned to the Institute when needing to analyze some problem or other, to obtain an expert estimate, or to elaborate a document. V. Mau and I had to find time to take care about the problem of the Institute obtaining the status of legal person, acquiring premises. Igor Kolosnitsin was actively engaged in these matters. At that time he was the executive director of the Institute, and it was his responsibility to form the Board of Directors, etc. If we failed to accomplish all that at that time, there were probably no Institute today.

   What about Gaidar’s return to the Institute? To what extent was this process natural for the team headed by Gaidar? From the common point of view, after being the Prime Minister a person may always find a sinecure, and it is hardly a research institute, which constantly has to fight for survival.

   S.: As far as I know, on the day the Supreme Council refused to appoint Gaidar as the Prime Minister and Yeltsin nominated Chernomyrdin, Yeltsin asked Gaidar, if he wished any other high office. Gaidar answered that he intended to return to the Institute.

   Gaidar was appointed as an unpaid Presidential adviser and he held the office for a rather long time, until the beginning of the Chechen war, when Gaidar made public his disagreement with the political line Yeltsin pursued.

   M.: When Sinelnikov and I on Gaidar’s initiative actively began to reanimate the Institute in the autumn of 1992, everybody told us that it was pure madness, since it seemed improbable that Gaidar would ever return. However, we knew that in spite of many tempting offers he would head the Institute. Indeed, we managed to create a rather rare type of institution engaged in applied studies turning into politics per se.

   What was happening at the reorganized Institute?

   S.: A serious work has started. Gaidar took care of new approaches and most serious problems, and we focused on training young scholars to create the scientific base the Institute could stand on, and we spared much time to conduct our studies. At that time it was decided that we would spare considerable time to studies and, of course, consulting.

   In other words, you constantly felt that the Institute was needed, didn’t you?

   S.: We consulted the government, the State Duma, regions, large enterprises.

   Do you recollect a first regional project?

   S.: Yes, Yaroslavl, although we had had contacts with regions before that, but those projects were on a smaller scale. We worked with Nakhodka, Kaliningrad – Free Economic Zone.

   Pirkhodko: The Yaroslavl project was the first large long-term project. We contacted Mr. Lisitsin, Governor, for over a year, elaborated the program, investment projects, feasibility plans. At that time we sought investors from abroad, since domestic ones hardly deserved the name. Some other consultants proposed to build a track for F-1 racing. Regions advanced a standard set of ideas at that time: for instance, an international airport, a sea-port (in maritime towns), a business-center. The first considerable benefit our recommendations resulted in was that the project of racing track was abandoned.

   Among our projects we worked on at that time I would mention the project for establishing free-trade zones in Dagestan; it was implemented during the first Chechen war. One of the enterprises involved in the project – Kizlyar Electro-Mechanical Plant was located just five kilometers away from the Chechen border, so during our business trips we used to stay in a dispensary where soldiers were stationed.

   What did happen to the Institute later on? For instance, 1993 was a dramatic year in the history of Russia.

   S.: The next stage of our work was connected with the aggravating conflict between the executive and legislative authorities. B. Fedorov executed a rather tough budgets, while the Duma insisted on absolutely inconceivable budget figures.

     Did expenses considerably outrun revenues?

   S.: Yes, the budgetary deficit was set at about 25 per cent of GDP. The government could not execute such a budget. Naturally, it is only one instance of this conflict. This conflict was to a considerable extent a clash of ideologies: the “red” Supreme Soviet resisted B. Yeltsin.

   The Institute professed liberal values. How did opponents reacted, what did they say about the Institute? What criticism did they voice? How did it manifest itself in 1993?

   S.: Indeed, after Dr. Gaidar left the government, there were mixed attitudes toward our Institute. Many representatives of regions asked the Institute for consultations, assistance in facilitating economic recovery. Two our first projects were for Norilsk Nikel and consultations for the Yaroslavl Region. Both projects, from our point of view, were rather good. However, somebody did not like them, and some negative comments appeared in the press.

   It was impossible to discuss the Institute’s activities in academic terms, was it?

   S.: Make your own conclusions. In 1994 we made a contract to elaborate the concept of economic development for the Bryansk Region. We completed the first phase of the project: the analysis. Much money was spent, including Institute funds, the parties signed the acceptance certificate for this stage of the work. The costs outran the advance payment we had received. So, the administration of the Bryansk Region should transfer to us the remaining amount, but at that time there was elected a new governor, Communists took power. They did not pay us anything; moreover, they say that we did not completed the work and that are us who should pay them. The Communists initiated the hearing on the topic that Gaidar’s Institute received the money, but did not complete the work at the Duma Committee on Security.

   M.: In 1995 and 1996 our Institute was subjected to an investigation concerning alleged mishandling of public funds. The investigators’ finding was that the Institute did without public financing at all. So Communist members of the Duma Committee on Security initiated a new investigation to find out to whom and at what price the Institute sold state secrets. All this nonsense quickly faded away in the autumn of 1996.

   Let us return to the discussion of the events of the autumn of 1993.

   S.: At a certain stage B. Yeltsin realized that the government headed by Chernomyrdin should be made more popular by appointing Dr. Gaidar, who would attract the support of the democratically minded strata of the society. In September of 1993 Gaidar accepted the post of the first Vice-Premier for the economy.

   Had this fact some impact on the Institute?

   S.: In October through December of 1993 all our draft documents on the economic policy became sought after again. Many serious government documents were based on our projects.

   Speaking about the time of the dramatic conflict between the President and the Parliament, Gaidar’s vigorous actions at the time are well-known.

   A number of those working at the Institute (although this number was less than in 1992) took government posts. Gaidar formed his staff of Institute’s experts, he again invited A. Uliukaev, V. Mau, A. Radygin, me, and many others. A. Chubais and B. Fedorov still remained in the government.

   In December Gaidar’s influence on the government started to quickly fade away.

   Why was that?

   S.: It happened after the elections, when much less voters than expected supported the Democratic Choice of Russia (Russ. abbr. DVR). The outcome was the diminishing Gaidar’s influence on the government, Chernomyrdin now took many decisions, which were within the competence of the Vice Chairman for the economy, without consulting Dr. Gaidar. This was the case of the monetary union with Byelorussia, the new building for the Parliament. Gaidar and Fedorov rather demonstratively resigned in January.

   I think it positively affected the later economic policy at large. From that time on Chernomyrdin was the only one wielding the levers of the economy, therefore he had to carry out a sound monetary policy. In case Fedorov and Gaidar kept their offices, the policy might have been a softer one, since there would be scapegoats to blame. In 1994 Gaidar regained his post of the Director of the Institute and has been heading it ever since.

   May we say that there was a progress in the work of the Institute in 1994 through 1999, both in quantitative and qualitative terms? Did the number of projects increase, did new experts join the Institute?

   S.: It would suffice to compare the shares of researchers under 30 and above 50 years old. This ratio has changed sharply in favor of the young. Many researchers were employed immediately after graduating. They have realized that the people here are engaged in research, that there is an opportunity to earn much, because the Institute works on many contracts and receives many grants. At the same time there is an outflow of researchers from economic institutes of the Russian Academy of Science.

   Many of them have already joined the core staff, the former young inexperienced researchers have turned into distinguished experts. Some of them have already defended their theses, some are preparing to obtain the degree in the near future. This is our main achievement. The inflow of the young signifies that the Institute is growing, not dying.

   The same may be said about the amount of orders. Each year the number of orders grew; therefore the Institute required much less amounts of budgetary financing. We have been doing without financing from the federal budget for at least six years.

   M.: An important indicator is that six doctoral theses have been defended at the Institute over that time.

   What are Institute’s products? At the start of the discussion it was mentioned that the Institute published its first semi-annual survey of the Russian economy in the autumn of 1991. How has the situation changed since that time?

   S.: We continue to publish surveys of the Russian economy on the regular basis. As a rule, we publish the surveys twice a year.

   In 1993 we initiated our monthly surveys of the Russian economy. For a time this work was directed by V. Ivanov, later this responsibility was vested with S. Tsukhlo, who is currently the editor of this publication. Monthly surveys are completed by the end of a month, in five to seven days they are published in Russian and in English. Of course, their quality improves. The consumers of our products are, first of all, various governmental agencies, both federal and regional, large companies, banks, mass media, foreign press including, etc.

   How many copies do you circulate?

   A.: The number of printed copies is small. They are circulated only among governmental agencies; therefore, the circulation is small – about 200 to 300 copies. We focus on the circulation by e-mail and publish the data on our Internet site.

   The Internet is a milestone in our development. Since the Internet had become available we could widely circulate our products in spite of Institute’s limited financial resources. Judging by the number of visitors on the Institute Web page our products are in strong demand.

   How does the regional cooperation develop? What are its dynamics as compared to the first regional projects? Could you please just outline the main results?

   P.: As concerns recent years, we have been carrying out more projects, the projects have become more focused. The regional cooperation is wide in geographical terms: from Norilsk to the Krasnodar Area, from Kaliningrad to Nakhodka, I might mention the Republic of Altai, Tyva, the Kaliningrad Region. I think we have been cooperating with the latter for the longest time.

   The cooperation starts when a representative of a regional administration contacts us and asks to carry out a project concerning the regional economic policy. The Institute practices price differentiation, for instance, we are ready to work for free if a region lacks the funds, but strives for the reform. In some cases the Institute and the region find a grant to finance the project. For instance, we receive grants from Know-How Fund, EU, etc.

   There occur some rather strange situations. For instance, we carried out a project in Kaliningrad than under the administration headed by Mr. Matochkin. He is a democrat, he often invited the Institute to carry out some project or other, an expert evaluation, some planning. As a result of an election he was replaced by Mr. Gorbenko, who won because of a strong Communist support. As it turned out, he needed advice along the same guidelines Mr. Matochkin had followed: what to do with the free economic zone, why it functions so poorly, how to gain access to international markets for amber products, what agrarian policy to pursue. As soon as the ideological shell is removed it turns out that a pragmatical manager needs assistance along the same guidelines and often takes similar decisions.

   A large regional project is aimed to settle the so called “problem of the North,” isn’t it?

   P.: Yes, over recent years we have been working on the problem of facilitating migration from the Northern regions on the contract with the World Bank. It is well known that under the Soviet regime the Northern regions experienced the overflow of population. As the restructuring of the Russian economy progressed, the price structure changed, the budgetary financing of Northern towns and regions dwindled, many people, mostly pensioners and unemployed, were stranded in the North. How might they be helped?

   We analyzed the situation and found out that the state financing of the migration from the North not only could help alleviate social problems, but was beneficial for the budget in economic terms, since the costs required to maintain the safety net for the unemployed living there were too high. It would be much cheaper to assist their migration even providing housing in other regions. We worked much with Northern regions: Vorkuta, Magadan, Norilsk.

   What about the international cooperation?

   S.: The Institute maintains a broad spectrum of international relations. To a large extent they depend on Dr. Gaidar, since the Institute use the relations he established, and Dr. Gaidar’s authority is the authority of our Institute at large.

   Since 1992 we have maintained close cooperation with the University of Grenoble (France), this cooperation was supported by TACIS. This cooperation is still underway. Thanks to this cooperation we could improve the economic education of younger researchers and render our studies more effective. Four our scholars defended their theses at that University.

   In 1994 we carried out a large project in cooperation with the University of Maryland. We also established working relations with the Ford Foundation. After the term of our cooperation with the University of Grenoble had expired we received some other TACIS grants in the framework of the PROMETEE project. We cooperated also with the Carnegie Endowment. We have been receiving a considerable aid from the US AID (US Agency for International Development) over two last years, while working together on a large project. Thanks to this project we could focus on a number of serious fundamental studies, which allowed us to take an active part in working out the Tax Code and the Governmental Program.

   The assistance provided by the US AID over two last years and the materials we were able to prepare due to this assistance allowed us to present the concrete recommendations currently discussed by the government, at the State Duma, etc.

   On the regular basis the Institute holds international conferences, takes part in a number of scientific economic forums. Our researchers often travel abroad, we gladly finance such trips, search for grants, since this broadens the range of their vision. We plan to actively develop international relations.

   What other remarkable events have taken place over last years?

   S.: Two years ago we established a post-graduate department, it also was a stage in the development of our Institute.

   Who entered the post-graduate department? How many post-graduate students attend the courses?

   S.: The post-graduate students may be conditionally divided into two groups. The first group includes the people wishing to be scholars. These are mainly those working at the Institute. The second group embraces the businesspersons striving to improve their qualification. They work on their theses not merely to facilitate their careers, but to learn and upon getting modern education write good theses. To facilitate the rapid development of the Institute we need additional qualified staff: the demand the society places upon the Institute outpaces our development. In other words, we either have to abandon the fundamental research, or limit the output of applied studies.

   Two years ago we started to work out a project related to training of personnel we need in cooperation with the Moscow Physico-Technical Institute (Russ. abbr. MFTI). MFTI is among best Russian institutions of higher education, its diplomas are recognized around the globe; however, this institute is known mostly as a forge of physicists, mathematicians, programmers. Together with the rector of MFTI and the Higher School for Economics we decided to train economists as well, the more so that the modern economic science requires an extensive acquaintance with natural sciences.

   May it be said that the Institute has completed its development over the last decade, or does it continue in quantitative and qualitative terms?

   M.: The Institute has never developed in quantitative terms, the number of scholars has always been at approximately the same level. It is important to mention that our Institute is in transition not only because of its name, not only because we study the economy in transition, but because of its organizational model as well. Judging by its form it yet belongs to the Soviet past, because as a rule a modern institution consists of the director and some clerks, five persons altogether at most. However, the Institute operates as a modern institution, i.e. the Institute is oriented toward orders and grants. It is especially important that the Institute aims to balance between carrying out orders and conducting scientific research. Our Institute in its present form is a transitional model, its form resembles a Soviet institute, while the working style is up to modern realities.

   What do you wish the Institute to become in five years from now?

   S.: At present we have a sufficient number of researchers speaking the same academic language as scholars belonging to leading world schools of economists. I would like that in five years all Institute staff could work at the level of best international standards.

   M.: In the future the Institute may become an association of research groups sharing similar academic views, as sometime in the future the rising generation of scholars will want to establish their independent research groups.

   How can ideological stereotypes affect these plans? The extreme scenario: can anybody attempt to close the Institute?

   S.: I think it could be possible in the environment of 1991. I believe that now the society is well beyond permitting to close any institute. Of course, there are various indirect ways, but I hope it will not happen. Moreover, it is apparent that there appeared voters defending liberal values – look at the results the Union of the Right Wing Forces (Russ. abbr. SPS) achieved in the course of the last election. Moreover, it seems that the liberal economic views were freed from the ideological component. Many people have realized that liberalism is good, even if it differs from the Socialist dogmas of our recent past.

	IET ON INTERNET

WWW.IET.RU

   In Russia IET was among the pioneers who discovered the Web as a tool to present scientific information and databases.

   The IET Web-site became operational in January of 1995 and rapidly gathered in popularity in this country and abroad as IET presented publications both in Russian and English. In the situation of “information hunger” users from over 8000 URLs visited the IET site.

   In 1998 IET started its own Web-site. At present www.iet.ru- is among the most elaborated and still rapidly developing sites of Runet (Russian section of Internet). It is included in top 20 to 50 most visited web-pages registered by largest Russian search machines (Rambler and Yandex) in the categories of economics and science.

   IET Web-site presents a full range of publications by its scholars in Russian and English languages, monographs, current information about the Russian economy, IET “hot news.”

   Besides, the Web-page provides the opportunity to access the IET archives.

   It is important to notice that all information is provided for free, without any limitations. This fact is in accordance with the principal IET mission set by the IET Board of Directors: to ensure maximum transparency and free access to all IET works.

   The banner and link system of the site allows users to get access to IET partner organizations in Russia and abroad and contact IET experts via e-mail.

   Since 1998 the number of IET Web-site visitors has been growing by 1000 hits a week and at present is at over 70 thousand a month.

   In a short time IET plans to present its database and a search system ensuring an operative and efficient access to databases of all UN member countries, new publications of IET experts and links to IET partner organizations on its site.

IET Guest Book Excerpts

… I am very grateful to IET for the opportunity to access economic information and current analyses and forecasts. I am especially grateful to the authors of the book on the reform in the post-communist Russia, and personally to Yegor Timurovich Gaidar, whom I hold in very high esteem. Being a student of the economics, the information you provide is very important for me. Your frequent visitor

Yeugeni Sigal, student

…Many thanks for the free access to economic materials! Thanks to your site there is an ample opportunity to keep informed on current economic research.

A. Zorin, post graduate student of economics, TvGU

…Interesting materials concerning the management of regional budgets, including Moscow.

V. V. Bulatov, General director of “Index-XX” broker company

…I liked everything… Terrific! A lot of good information (useful, current). I especially liked the section “Russian Economy: Trends and Perspectives.” Keep up the good work!

Yevgeni Semenov

…Thanks Lord, at last there are people in the country who care about visitors in stead of showing off their intellect! The site is superbly designed. Practically all materials may be accessed and used in course papers. The liberal idea lives!

Dmitri Tsaregorodtsev

..5 points, a great site, much useful information. I liked it. Wish you prosperity.

Krista Ulaffson