Russia and Ukraine

[pocaracas]

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. 

Ah... "Russia" fears a regime change and a puppet government, all the while they want their own puppet governments around them, like Belarus, all the Khazakstan and all the other Stans, Georgia.... and they want it also in Ukraine. Also, Russia provides weapons and insurgencies in Africa and Latin America that have had the wonderful results you imply as not so good things that the US somehow did in those regions. I'm not saying the US didn't try and succeed to install puppet governments in those places. Just that Russia helped make it worse.

All that aside, the "regime change" that I'd like to see in Russia is one where there are no oligarchs (I'd like to see the same everywhere else, US included) and where the country is governed in such a way that most people can enjoy their lives in the 21st Century as much as we enjoy our lives in Europe and the US.

There's also the implication here that all the European countries have somehow US puppet governments running them... I'd say that's not accurate at all.

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. 

Are you really comparing St. Petersburg, the second most important city in Russia (if not the first, pop. 5million) with Trenton, NJ (pop. 90 thousand)?
Why not compare Trent with Michurinsk or Magadan instead?
Average Salary in Michurinsk: $540 https://bdeex.com/tambovskaya-oblast/michurinsk/
Average Salary in Magadan: $1 840 https://bdeex.com/magadanskaya-oblast/magadan/
Average Hoiusehold income: $66,002 (yearly), $5500 (monthly)  https://www.point2homes.com/US/Neighborh...phics.html

Heck, even St. Petersburg doesn't look great: $1 230 (https://bdeex.com/saint-petersburg/)

I'm pleasantly surprised by Magadan's average income, but find that Russia's average is closer to Michurisnk ($880, https://bdeex.com/russia/)
Compare that with $5500 from Trenton and we can see who lives in relative poverty.
If you don't like the conparison with some US city, because, let's face it, they need super high wages there to cover stupidly high housing costs and lack of education and medical access.
Shall we compare with Paris, France? Big city with big city.
Average Salary in Paris: $3 300 (https://bdeex.com/france/paris/)


So, all in all, Russian people are poor when compared to "The West". They don't have to be, given that they live in a country full of resources. But clearly those are being held from them.

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.

Yeah... the inability to see parallels might be a symptom of having blinders on. Have it checked.


The North Korea comparison refers to the fact that there's a perfectly functioning democratic country right on the other side of the border and does NK feel threatened to the point of invading SK? We are assuming that South Korea has a US puppet government, right?

The French revolution analogy refers to the people rising up against the oligarch ruling class, which the Russian government would fear if the people were to know how better things could be for them in a "US puppet government country".
Napoleon was just the guy that took over from the previous ruling class.
And I agree, the US could use a revolution too.