Russia after collapse

I know very little actually, about events in Russia as of late. The reviews and short descriptions and comments n the following book though seem to make a case for the way a state(s) arise and also to simultaneously make a case for the inevitability of states.

(Violent Entrepreneurs: The Use of Force in the Making of Russian Capitalism - Vadim Volkov)

If anyone has some insight or suggested book/article reading (like the book above which I have  yet to read as well) that deals with the issue of a collapse in Russia and its consequences with the market for defense from a libertarian perspective, I would greatly appreciate it.

There are plenty of problems with Russia but I think it is worth mentioning that 9 years ago Russia was a basket case.  A flat tax was introduced: one main tax which is an income tax of 13%.  Since then Russia has boomed.  Yet another correlation between lower tax and economic growth. 

(To put Russia' move in perspective, some Tax Havens such as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man impose a 20% income tax, and Hong Kong's spectacular growth was fuelled by a 17% flat tax.)

Just a remark here.

By its very definition, a free market is free of violence. The reasons why can be studied on mises.org :-) .

What is usually called capitalism is in fact mercantilism, that is a system, where certain groups of entrepreneurs lobby for state privileges to hinder the free market from working. There is, in fact, no difference between those ctions and the way labor unions try to get priviliges to force others into submission. Any hampering the market by means of violence is an evil act and it just makes no difference if entrepreneurs or laborers or whatever other group tries to employ them.

Free market is not the freedom of capitalists and entrepreneurs to opress the masses, it is quite the opposite. The real power is in the consumer, and that is something neither the laborers nor the capitalists or entrepreneurs like to much.

East Europe was a lost opportunity.   They turned to the "capitalist" west for help and we sent them Harvard MBAs who still thought that the state remnants or the replacement state had authority to distribute or sell state property.  Those state remnants used that ability to solidfy their power and then the opposition used the injustice of the communist fire sale to solidify their power as well.

Hoppe's "Democracy: The God That Failed" has some parts in it about Eastern Europe.

After the USSR went down the main problem everyone was focusing on was finding a way to distribute state assets. They worried about things like fairness, economic efficiency, political effects, and so on. They should have focused on exposing state industries to international competition and on making the assets of the state industries available for sale on the open market as soon as possible.

From an economic perspective it doesn't really matter who gets first ownership of a factory or a farm. If the first owner isn't suitable the market will eventually take the asset away from him, provided there are no protective measures. But of course in Russia and Ukraine there are many protective measures and that is the problem.