Exercise 3: The Real Link Between the Immunity Decree and Yeltsin's Early Resignation — Possible Solution ================================================================================================================== This exercise asks you to explain a real, plausible causal connection between two documented events, based on their timing and content, rather than treating them as coincidentally sequential. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED, IN ORDER Yeltsin resigned on 31 December 1999, before his own term was constitutionally required to end. Putin, automatically becoming acting president, issued his very first decree granting Yeltsin and his family immunity from future prosecution, including for corruption. WHY THE TIMING AND CONTENT SUGGEST A REAL CONNECTION The immunity decree was not a routine early act of governance - it was specifically and narrowly targeted at protecting the very person who had just handed Putin power. Issuing it as literally the first decree of a new presidency, rather than at some later, less symbolically loaded moment, signals that securing this protection was an urgent priority tied directly to the transition itself, not an unrelated policy choice that happened to come first. WHY YELTSIN HAD A REAL, DOCUMENTED REASON TO WANT THIS By 1999, Yeltsin's own presidency carried real, documented vulnerability to corruption allegations involving his family and associates. Resigning early meant surrendering presidential immunity earlier than necessary - a real risk Yeltsin would only reasonably accept if he had a genuine guarantee that whoever succeeded him would protect him afterward. Putin's own loyalty as Yeltsin's hand-picked successor, demonstrated in real time by the immediate immunity decree, supplied exactly that guarantee. ANSWER: The real, plausible connection is that Yeltsin's early resignation was conditional on a guarantee of future protection, and Putin's own first decree - specifically and immediately granting that exact protection - functioned as the delivery of that guarantee, suggesting the resignation and the immunity decree were two halves of a real, if informal, transactional arrangement rather than two unrelated events that happened to occur in sequence. WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER ------------------------------ It uses the specific timing (first decree) and content (targeted immunity) of Putin's real action, combined with Yeltsin's own documented vulnerability, to build a concrete causal case rather than simply asserting the two events "seem related."