The author analyzes Putin’s first year in office by comparing it to the last fifteen regimes in Russian history. Putin shares many common features with the leaders of the past. He belongs to the group of leaders who were not so concerned about the progress of society as in removing the threat to the existing political order. He is also among those who moved toward authoritarianism in their first year. As all new regimes in the 20th centuries, Putin used democratic ideology for the legitimization of his rule, though he almost immediately began to curtail the fledgling democracy in Russia. While Putin’s regime was similar to the previous regimes in some respects, it was very different in others. First of all, no ruler rose to power from such a politically obscure position. Putin came to power with far less experience than his fourteen predecessors. The circumstances under which Putin came to power have no precedent in recent history. Another uniqueness of Putin’s first year in office was the extent to which various elements of the old regime were preserved. The author dwells on Putin’s first year with special attention. As a predictor of the future, it suggests that Russian society under Putin will remain essentially the same as it was shaped by 1995.

Eurasianism is a quasi-political and intellectual movement. Its representatives state that Russia is a unique blend of Slavic and non-Slavic cultures and ethnic groups. Eurasianists also emphasize the corporate nature of the Russian state which makes it quite different from the West. Eurasianism emerged in the 1920s as an anti-Bolshevik movement. Yet, through its evolution, Eurasianism has become closer and closer to the Soviet brand of Marxism. In its blending of Marxism with nationalism, Eurasianism was one of the precursors to the present-day ideology of post-Soviet Russia.

Historians usually saw bureaucratization of the revolutionary party as beginning only upon its accession to power, disregarding the importance to revolutionary politics of material incentives and control over funding. Yet the case of the Bolshevik party demonstrates that bureaucratization began long before the Bolshevik victory, and that material resources were essential for maintaining discipline and increasing the party size. Indeed, a revolutionary became a “professional” who often received a competitive salary. It was for this reason that the Bolsheviks paid such attention to obtaining money.