Russia and Ukraine

[Belacqua]

why would Russia feel "threatened" or "provoked", when neither happened when Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia joined?

They did feel threatened. It was obvious what was going on: the US was surrounding Russia with military bases. Russia put up with a certain amount, but drew a line past which they would not tolerate greater incursion. Ukraine has important resources and a strategic location. 

Why is it "existential for Russia"?

This has been explained over and over. I'm surprised it's a question. 

Many US officials have made no secret of the fact that the long-range goal is regime change in Russia. They would even like to break the country up, so as to ensure that it is permanently weakened. 

Regime change, here, means a government chosen by America that is obedient to America. It is well known, in Africa, in Latin America, and elsewhere, that a puppet government run by the US imposes austerity on the people. The US wants its potential rivals weak, and has no interest in the lives of the populace. There are so many examples of this that only Americans are unaware -- everyone else knows what goes on.

It's been a commonplace since the 19th century to say that if Russia and Germany ever join forces they would be far stronger than the US. This is why the US constantly works to weaken both and to keep them at odds.

And perhaps the main reason the US wants a weak Russia is to counter China. China is eating America's lunch, in terms of economic production, innovation, trade surpluses, etc. Millions have been lifted out of poverty and the infrastructure, compared to America's, looks like a sci-fi picture of the future. America can't compete, so they can only attack. 

Or is it only existential for the Russian elites that insist on maintaining the vast majority of the country in poverty, while they live better than most of the rich folk in "the West"?

Is the "vast majority of the country in poverty"? Really?

There was widespread poverty after Clinton and the IMF imposed "shock therapy" on the Russian economy. As the IMF always does, it privatized all public goods and handed them over to well-connected rich people. Regular Russians saw the value of their life savings drop to near zero, and life expectancy fell precipitously. (And keep your eyes on Ukraine, after the war is over and the US media forgets about it. Zelensky has turned the economy over to the IMF and Goldman Sachs, which means shock therapy and strict austerity for the surviving Ukrainians, whose infrastructure has mostly been destroyed.)

Putin is very popular in Russia because he tamed the oligarchs that the IMF created. Look what happened at Gazprom. While some shares were owned by regular Russians, the lion's share was turned over to private owners who stripped it of assets and refused to pay the agreed-upon dividends to the Russian government. Putin leveraged the government's shares to kick out these corrupt officials and demand payments of the government's share. Perhaps you think it's bad for the government to get money from the sale of the country's natural resources, but I'm old enough to remember when large profitable corporations had to pay the government a lot -- these used to be called "taxes," the kind of thing that US oligarchs, e.g. Exxon Mobile, no longer pay. 

Putin returned the country to a semblance of economic normalcy and most people benefited. For example, Mercedes Benz does good business in Russia (or they did until they patriotically pulled out last year). And these sales don't go to oligarchs, who mostly live in London. Luxury brands and lifestyle brands do well in Russia -- most of them said they would pull out due to the war but didn't. Currently Chinese-made electric cars (like Teslas only good) are selling well in Russia. Sanctions have had almost no effect, and the economy is growing faster than that of Germany or Britain. There are poor people, of course, as there are everywhere. I would rather live in St. Petersburg than in Trenton, New Jersey.

So your image of a few mega-rich sitting on top of a suffering populace is not accurate. 

Is it a utopia of transparent private enterprise? No. Putin knows how to use the oligarchs to his advantage. Is it more corrupt than the US? Maybe about the same. It is less corrupt than Ukraine. 

Is it fear that, if Ukraine could turn around their oligarchy, then the Russians would think why should Russia keep at it? See how well that sort of thing is working in North Korea.... I know, I know, smaller border, easier to control in NK. But it's the same principle.

Sooner or later, they get a French Revolution style event. I don't think Napoleon needed NATO to get it going.

I see no comparison to North Korea. Perhaps you could explain to me why that's relevant. 

The US needs a French Revolution style event more than Russia does. And I don't see the relevancy of Napoleon here. Russia defeated Napoleon. While many in Europe saw Napoleon as a new type of hero and a savior from the corrupt monarchy, that changed fast when they saw what he was really like. 

Neither the North Korea comparison nor the Napoleon one make sense to me here.