There's no security without a strong state, it turns out. And without security, there's no "civil society." Applebaum, like a lot of baby boomer, 60s-90's style center-liberals, lives in an intellectual world of turgid contradictions and silly "resolutions." They want the 'civl society' and the middlebrow professions that populate it -- themselves and their friends, writers, journalists, academics, doctors, lawyers, etc. -- to be the center of attention, to be rewarded for being the Trägers of civilization, but at the same time they want to hang on to their 60s-hangover "libertarianism", whereby the state is the enemy and the big brother who tries to tie them down to boring institutions and abuses their liberties, their right to live in a certain comfortable style. They want and need the personal protections that only the state can offer, but they don't want to acknowledge their dependency.

Hence, somehow Putin is responsible for both: a) the excesses of the state; and b) the absence of any state control, a lack of any police function, for instance. The tendency to over-react, over-compensate, push to far on security issues in foreign policy leads Applebaum to accuse Putin of Cold War Evil Empirism. But then, how to explain the evident weakness of state institutions at home, which so plagues the civilly social professionals who should be profiting from Russia's economic boom (damn those welfare oldies with their pensions!)? Applebaum ends up falling back on a metaphysical notion, Putin-the -Devil, to explain how the Presidents' perfidy is causing not an excess of arrests, but the failure to arrest enough folks, the kind who like to sneak into apartments and hotel rooms and snatch stuff -- it's all one big "inside job," of course!

"Security concerns" can be used to motivate any sort of overbearing political behavior you like. Putin and Bush both know this. Putin very savvily offered to join his own brand of politically motivated paranoia to Bush's at the recent G8 summit; it's not that he's Anti-American, you see, why, he'll even let us put up a radar station right next door, in Azarbaidjan! After the free-for-all of robber baron capitalism in the 80's, when state assets were just handed out to cronies, the atmosphere in Russian was ripe for a strongman. The wonder is that Putin hasn't been worse, I would say. Meanwhile, it's time for the "civil libertarian" professionals, the "Blame the State First" crowd, to make up their minds about how much statism their professional self regard will allow them to acknowledge, and about their own physical and economic dependence on Big Brother.

I consider myself a libertarian though thank God not of the strain you speak of and defintely not of the generation. Well said and well written my friend.

Good points, overall. A few overstatements, however.

1) "Libertarian" seems to miss the point. US liberals, whose counterparts in Europe are Socialists and not Liberals, are rarely libertarian. They favour regulation and government at the mean, with variances defined by defined tolerances.

2) Where Putin's Russia is concerned,
a) It is not the direct concern of the US as to whether or not it is statist or liberal, in the European sense. It matters only that Russia is not imposing its will on the US or its allies, which seems to be a diminishing list.

b) US protests about real or perceived humans rights violations are less credible given the exposure of its own abuses, a growing segment of society that appears "failed" or "failing", and arrogance at the national and popular level due to the post-911 paranoia Bruce Fein describes in his article this week.

c) It is inappropriate to attribute all crimes and humans rights abuses in Russia to "Putin", as the US media and public tend to do. Increasingly. Readers here know that Russia is full of mafias and strong-armed interests. Putin has endeavoured and succeeded beyond expectations to restore rule of law. The breakdown was in the Yeltsin '90s and not the '80s as noted in the posting, although the Soviet system was quite corrupt--as opposed to totalitarian--by the end of the Breshnev years.

d) Putin brought with him a number of bargaining chips when he arrived in Kennebunkport. More than Short George had to play with. Thus, Condi, the so-called Sovietologist who never stepped on Communist soil until a 3-day conference in post-Communist Prague in 1993, stayed in the back while some serious Russia pros were invited to sit with Putin at the table (Tall George and Brent Snowcroft; I think Barbara Bush knows more than the sitting US Secretary of State). These cards included:

--exposure of Yeltsin-era contracts with US defence and energy companies that exploited the times and Russian ignorance of US legal games;

--US and UK support for (and arguably complicity with) Berezovsky, Khoudourovsky, and others found, rightfully, in violation of tax codes and laws that would put them into US jails and bankruptcy courts; and

--an upper hand and deep knowledge of Iran, the Middle East and Europe that few in Washington seem to be able to match. It seems very few can begin to appreciate that Putin is respected amongst European leaders, who are quite wary of Russia's needs and growing appetites. Putin's challenge to US plans to construct some missile defence system in Poland is well founded. This grandiose plan is nothing but repayment to Poland and Czech for their blind support of US military missions in Iraq and elsewhere. It is a two-way jobs programme--for US contractors and for these former Soviet-bloc states. the Azerbajian proposal confirms that Putin is, in the end, just another political man. It served to discredit all and permit the US corporate and DoD aparatchiks to proceed. I'm certain Putin took pleasure at dinner in Maine in explaining what Mr Kascynski meant when he nearly scuppered the EU treaty by claiming the Poland had suffered immeasurably from German aggression and deserved a special "handicap" in the bloc's voting formula. (It will take too long to explain here, but recall at least that Poland was given nearly a third of Germany's historic territory as compensation for the thrid of its land taken by Stalin with Roosevelt's encouragement. Churchill talked out of both sides of his mouth on this one. Truman didn't think much of the deal when he signed off on it at Potsdam.)

3) Putin is not a dictator. He is obsessively focussed on achieving his agenda, however. This side of his leadership deserves criticism and check. I believe Bush instinctively envies something in Putin. We hope he is beginning to appreciate what it might be. At the same time, this is not a man I'm prepared to be excited about or inspired by. Like many running corporate America, he is just the type of guy one needs to get the share price up. It is up, but Gazprom and Russia Inc. are not bottomless resources. Putin knows this and shows some sound strategic thinking that has won boardroom respect in Europe, including the UK, Netherlands, Germany and France.

4) Russia is politically much healthier than your media will ever permit you to understand. Gorbachev, a Putin political opponent, credits Russia's current health fully to his successor (see the Al-Jazeera interviews with David Frost of the past two weeks). Furthermore, despite excesses (Russians display marginally worse taste and less moderation than Richistan Americans), Europeans are increasingly comfortable with our Russian neighbours. A poll taken here today on a choice of strategic partner would likely favour Putin's Russia over either Bush's or Hillary Clinton's America.

I forgot the point that made me respond in the first place:

It is time for America to move away from its "good guy-bad guy" view of Russia. Russia doesn't look at you that way.