In this passage, the author explains why the presidents that will follow Yeltsin will inevitably end up like him by describing every socio-political dynamic and how these push presidents against their own initial ambitions. There are several key obstacles that make it hard for presidents to have an effective central government due to the decentralized nature of the Russian federation. The 89 semi-autonomous regions make it hard to centralize the power in the president's hand and create a fragmented structure, which enables economic criminals, tax evaders and oligarchs to evade accountability by exploiting regional corruption. This is due do decentralization of the power, because in these regions the central government is unable to enforce uniform legal standards, since the leaders of these regions will offer protection and hide illicit activities. The leaders of these regions hold enough power to actually put the president in a position where he has to compromise with them. The author also mentions how the upper house of parliament can veto federal legislation, making it harder to implement reforms and creating institutional Barries that prevent the passing of major reforms. The comparison with the U.S. is to highlight how difficult it is to change institutions that have regions with deep entrenched power structures given to regions that have economic and political influence. We always say that history repeats itself, and this article explores exactly that, showing how no matter who is in power in Russia, the political system will remain the same, unless a revolution of the people takes place, but this would compromise the integrity of the country and cause complete chaos.

This passage, like many others above, explains how leaders that came after Yeltsin ended up following into his footsteps, willingly or unwillingly. Treisman makes a point that all the presidents that will follow Yeltsin will end up "becoming Yeltsin" and he gives us a few different examples of leaders that will go into office with big ambitions and end up having to adhere to the same political dynamics that Yeltsin had to face. Zyuganov himself came into office with a mandate that opposed Yeltsin's oligarchic system and will end up bound to the same dynamics as Yeltsin. In reality, Russia's political system is controlled by established structural realities and different elite leaderships. The leaders that came after Yeltsin did not essentially want to become like him, but the Russian political structure would force them to, creating a cycle. In this, we can raise questions about whether it is the leader that creates systems within the government, or if it is these systems that dictate the behavior of the leader.

In this passage, the author underlines the patterns of the Russian political life and how they are associated with individual leadership. Treisman claims that, regardless of who will succeed Yeltsin, the individual will face the same challenges and follow the same behavioral and contradictory tendencies. This passage also points out the internal tensions within the Russian political system, between the central government and economic elites. The author criticizes the Russian hypocrisy when it comes to international relations, showing how on one side the next presidents (but in reality his predecessors too) will "scold the West" and at the same time "negotiate for IMF aid", proving how the nation's sovereignty is acclaimed but still dependent on Western countries. In summary, what the passage is really about, is the fact that every political leader will or may enter office with ambitions and intentions of reforms, but the corruption, influence from elites and rivalries will eventually make them end up just like Yeltsin and his presidency.

Group 1 has no summary posted

Group 2: Gorbachev’s Non-Violent Revolution. Key points: Perestroika was about empowering the people and breaking away from totalitarian power. Gorbachev had a very humanistic approach that was against violence His attitude towards women was of true respect There was a lack of a clear plan from Gorbachev in the beginning

Conclusions: How and why was he able to gain power under communism? Gorbachev’s goal was to reform the system in which the people had continuously been oppressed by, and his reform was called Perestroika. His upbringing was full of hardships and famine, making him more understanding towards the people in his policies and shaping the way he took on his non-violent revolution and New Thinking.

Group 4 has no summary posted

Group 5: Linking Gorbachev’s Domestic and Foreign Policies Key points: The Soviet Union has a neutral position regarding the conflict between ex-Union countries. Gorbachev’s policies are seen as “ambitious” by the author of the article There was an anti-alcohol campaign that failed Gorbachev’s international goals are focused on improving relations with countries like the US, UK and Israel, which was unusual in Russian policies.

Conclusions: Gorbachev’s domestic reforms are linked to his foreign policy actions during this crucial time in Soviet history. The ongoing tension between Armenia and Azerbaijan, both of which used to be part of the Union, bring the Soviet Union at a neutral state, and shifting its attention towards foreign relations, driven by the realization that China was no longer a dependable ally, so there was a need to form new allays and have stability.

Reading this file was very helpful. The concept I got from it was a “You get the grade you deserve,” and this is not based on how much work you do, but rather on how much you can actually go beyond what is required, because you are genuinely interested. It does not matter how much work you get done, if it does not show genuine intention and interest, and I feel like that is a good grading scale, because it pushes the students to develop curiosity.