St. Petersburg was specifically founded by Tsar Peter the Moron to be Russia's new capital city as it was much closer to the rest of Europe than Moscow was.
Fair enough - that much I didn't know. I was looking more generally as to why they tend to have settled in the Western part of Russia rather than the Eastern.
Then a couple of centuries later Stalin decided that Finland was too close, just as Putin complains about NATO and the EU being too close.
Well, Finland was invaded and taken over by Russia in 1809, so I'm not sure that's all Stalin's doing. I.e. Finland was part of Russia's empire, and remained so until 1917 when they gained full independence rather than remain an (decreasingly) autonomous duchy of the Russian empire.
But they retained close ties with Russia after that, and prefer not to provoke them, hence neutrality and not joining NATO.
It's not a dissimilar situation to Ukraine: a former part of the Russian empire, now independent. But unlike Finland, Ukraine made quite clear its intention to join the West, overthrowing their leader last decade when he seemed to reject the will of the people and turned back toward Russia.
And if they're allowed to take Ukraine and replace its population like they've done everywhere else, they will complain next that Poland is too close.
Poland, and other previous parts of the Russian empire, have managed to make that step and join NATO. That, hopefully, makes it too late for Russia to do anything to stop them becoming westernised (if that is their will). But Ukraine hadn't taken that step yet, which means it was Russia's last real chance (Belarus aside) to assert authority over a country it previously had control over.
So I don't see Poland being next, or any other NATO country. Maybe I'm being naive, but I just don't see Putin as
that stupid as to engage the US in war, let alone all the other NATO countries.
So what? Compared to 80 years ago Europe is still much farther away than it was previously. What's next, they're gonna say Berlin is too close to occupied Konigsberg?
80 years ago Russia had all the Eastern bloc countries - including half of Germany - between Russia and the West. Now the West (i.e. the EU, NATO) is literally on its border. That's a huge buffer that crumbled with the fall of the iron curtain and the USSR.
I like your take, it seems to align well with what's happening on the ground. I think the riots in Kazakhstan also played a role in this paranoia. In my opinion Putin should indeed be frightened of prosperous democratic countries and he fully deserves to be frightened by them. Of course that's still no excuse for committing genocide nor for others standing by and doing nothing about it.
Kazakhstan isn't really a democracy, but rather an authoritarian regime. It's also part of the CSTO (Russia's equivalent of NATO). They even asked for CSTO "peacekeepers" to help intervene against the what Belarus' Lukashenko termed "international terrorists" (or just demonstrators, as they may well have been). The CSTO force was in and out within a week, but the riots were mostly fuel-price related (sudden hikes) and seemed to mostly end when the government reinstated the price-cap.
I think they either are willing to use nukes and will eventually find an excuse to do so, or they're terrified of the retaliation and wouldn't likely use them unless American troops were marching on the gates of Moscow.
Yeah, I think the latter would be the only scenario. Putin has said (words to the effect of) "what point of a world without Russia in it"... so before the end of Russia I'm sure he would rather end the world.
If you let Putin do whatever he wants in Ukraine just like he did in Syria because nuclear war blah blah blah, then the same logic applies when he decides he wants a piece of Poland, Lithuania, Turkey, France, Alaska etc.
Fortunately he's never put Russia up against a nuclear power. And he's running out of space in Europe to do so, as NATO is a nuclear power (assuming US, UK, France etc, live up to what NATO stands for).
As a collective, I don't give the Russian people a free pass on this one either. Doesn't matter how terrible their media may be and how much the free thinkers are suppressed, they have enough access to the information we provide to understand a far more sensible version of global events, and they have consciously chosen to ignore it out of wishful thinking and dreaming of not being inferior to Americans, satiating their egos by supporting conquests over weaker people. If they're willing to support leaders who are in turn willing to take half the planet down with them rather than humbly accepting their inferiority and living with it peacefully, then they don't deserve any sympathy for getting what they want in full.
I think you're underestimating the level of control that the Russian state has over what people in the country think. But there's also likely a divide: the older generation who still stick to the notion of mother-Russia where they blindly follow Moscow, still fearful of what it means to not follow; and then the younger generation, more used to world-wide information flows, more open to what the West has to offer. They're the ones protesting in Russia, they're the ones who the current regime are going to struggle with in the future.
But there's not a huge amount they can do in a country where elections are clearly rigged, to the point where being an opposition candidate is likely a death-sentence.