Populations who find themselves atop the world’s biggest oil and gas deposits seem doomed to live under despotism of one sort or another. Whether in Iran’s kakistocracy, Saudi Arabia’s Wahabbism, or Venezuelan Hugo Chávez’s weakened dictatorship, freedom is the exception in the richest oil nations. Not only does oil provide despots wealth and power, it is also a weapon they are not loath to use.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia for a brief while seemed it would avoid that fate. But the glimpse of democracy was fleeting. Under Vladimir Putin, Russia has reverted to aggressive authoritarianism. The coming Russian elections, scheduled for March 2, will provide redundant proof that Putin’s new Russia is as dangerous as its Soviet forebear. Anyone who doubts the danger should speak with Estonia’s President, Toomas Ilves.

Estonia was conquered by the Soviet Union in 1940 and became independent when the Soviets fell. Roughly the combined size of Vermont and New Hampshire, the Baltic nation of 1.3 million achieved both NATO and European Union membership in 2004. In 2006, controversy erupted over Estonia’s plan to move a statue of a Soviet soldier out of Tallinn, its capital. Over Russia’s objections, the Estonians proceeded. So Putin’s regime struck.

On April 26, 2006, in what Air Force Magazine characterized as a “full-blown cyber assault resembling an act of war,” Russia assaulted Estonia. No Russian boots trod Estonian soil, no shots were fired, but for days government and commercial computer networks were shut down by what computer experts call a “denial of service” attack. The New York Times reported that the attack resulted in “clogging the Web sites of the president, the prime minister, Parliament and other government agencies, staggering Estonia’s biggest bank and overwhelming the sites of several daily newspapers.” The message was clear: defying Putin will have grave consequences.

Such consequences – even fatal ones – have befallen reporters, such as the murdered investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya. Perhaps most famous is Alexander Litvinenko, a former F.S.B. (the Russian State Security Services – actually the same old K.G.B. under a new name) who was assassinated by poisoning with Polonium-210, a hard-to-manufacture radioactive element that is fatal if inhaled or otherwise consumed. The Polonium-210 used to kill Litvinenko left a clear trail back to Russia.

Putin’s regime has also used its oil and gas wealth as a weapon against Ukraine, another former Soviet satellite. Ukraine had accused Russia of siphoning gas bound for Ukraine from Turkmenistan from pipelines running through Russia. Russia denied those accusations and demanded an almost five-fold price increase for gas sold to Ukraine. On New Year’s Day 2006, the Russians cut off the Ukraine supply altogether, affecting much of Eastern Europe as well. The message – not only to Ukraine but to all of Western Europe – was the same one sent to Estonia: do not defy Putin.

Six years ago, President Bush first met Vladimir Putin and declared he was “able to get a sense of [Putin’s] soul” and that he’d looked in Putin’s eyes and judged him “trustworthy.” A few months later, when Putin visited Bush’s Texas ranch, Bush said, “The more I get to know President Putin, the more I get to see into his heart and soul, and the more I know we can work together in a positive way.” Relations with Putin’s Russia have chilled since, although no one will claim that they are as cold as they were in the 1960s. As a child of that era, Putin is bent on restoring Russia to its former place in the world by turning to despotism and away from democracy.

Putin’s “oiligarchy” apparently rose on the corruption that so often accompanies oil wealth. In 1996, under UN Resolution 986, the “Oil for Food” program was created to allow Saddam Hussein’s Iraq (then under U.N. embargo) to sell oil only so it could buy food, medical supplies, and humanitarian aid for its people. About three years later, Putin, with the support of Boris Yeltsin and about two dozen regional governors, formed the new Unity Party, which quickly spread across Russia through a growing network of alliances with governors and local officials.

Four years later, Saddam’s government fell to the U.S. In January 2004, the Iraqi newspaper Al Mada published a list of 270 people, companies, and nations that had received bribes in the form of vouchers, which allowed the holder to sell oil on the world market. (The oil was hugely discounted.) Among them were more than 12 Russian citizens, companies, and political parties, receiving a total of about 1.4 billion barrels of oil. Putin’s Unity Party, now known as the United Russia Party, was one.

Since he resigned from the K.G.B./F.S.B. in 1991 (after serving for about 20 years), Putin has risen quickly. Now Putin has reached the constitutional two-term presidential limit. Nevertheless, after the March 2008 presidential election, he will retain every bit of power he has accumulated over the past 16 years.

Opposition to Putin’s power had popped up in many places: among journalists, among the Russian expatriates, and – as with Litvinenko – even among the F.S.B. But like a gardener with only a pair of shears for his tool, Putin has cut off the opposition as soon as it has shown itself.

Of the opposition journalists, Politkovskaya’s murder case is the most infamous. But she’s hardly the only one. Boris Stomakhin, whose newsletter criticized Putin, has been imprisoned. In a recent article, dissident Russian politician Vladimir Bukovsky reported that Putin has revived the Soviet use of “psychiatric repression,” exemplified by the hospitalization of Andrei Novikov for insanity, because he wrote articles opposing Putin. The list of political prisoners grows long.

In preparation for the March elections, Putin has occasionally imprisoned opponents such as former chess champion Garry Kasparov, who was arrested and held for five days last fall for participating in an anti-Putin protest. On his release, Kasparov said, “Fear is the only chance this regime has to survive.” But fear is an effective weapon against dissent.

Putin’s protégé, 42-year old Dmitry Medvedev, has known Putin since the early 1990s and entered government as deputy head of the presidential staff in 1999. If (as expected) he is elected president, Medvedev says that he will name Putin as the next Russian prime minister, ensuring that his mentor retains power. Medvedev said, “I find it extremely important for our country to keep Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin at the most important position in the executive power, at the post of the chairman of the government.” All they have to do now is “win” the March presidential election.

And win they shall, because the election is sure to be held in the same manner as last December’s parliamentary elections. Pre-election polls are not permitted, nor are election forecasts. According to The Economist, there was no doubt that the December election was rigged. On December 3, the magazine wrote:

“The election was not fair and failed to meet standards for democratic elections,” concluded the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe in a joint statement. Nothing was left to chance to ensure a high turnout. In Moscow your correspondent spotted several “tourist” buses stuffed with people from far-flung regions. They voted early and often. The buses were guarded by men in black leather coats and ski hats who, every few minutes, would let a small group out of the vehicle to cast their ballots. They would move to the next polling station and repeat the exercise. The “leader” of the group said the men were workers from a nearby factory….“We have been going around polling stations since lunch time,” grumbled one man, “and they have not paid us yet.”

They were, I am sure, paid for their work – as many shall be who vote to ensure that Medvedev is elected in March. Those of us who weary of the seemingly endless presidential race here – the almost-daily debates, the incessant polling, speechifying, and punditry – should gladly bear its burden. As tiresome as it may be, it is at least the product of free speech and free association, and the result will be the expression of a free people. .

Jed Babbin, a former deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration, is editor of Human Events and HumanEvents.com.