. . .
This was predicated on the assumption that Russia would become a “normal” nation along Western lines, but that obviously did not happen. Why not?
It seems to me that one big reason is that the Austrian school economists, the Libertarians, the Ayn Randites and suchlike idiots pushed for, and got, an instant, “shock therapy” transition to capitalism in Russia. This had devastating consequences, with mass unemployment, soaring inflation and other defects of the dog-eat-dog doctrine of economics. Russia went through a decade of penury and it soured tens of millions on the Western economic, social and political model. Then Putin came along in 1999 and in the next decade Russia began to recover, mainly because of the energy sector. Thus millions put their (misplaced) trust in Herr Putin. Even today polls show that about half of Russians long for a return of the cosseting system of shared scarcity that prevailed under the Soviets.
Had Russia transitioned gradually into a quasi-Western system with Russian characteristics, and had it adopted a Scandinavian model of social arrangements (which the U.S. ought to do as well), things might have been very different and Russia might well today be a more or less “normal” country with a decent president and authentic elections — and posing no threats to its neighbors.
You made the mistake of telling him that the fascists are in the Kremlin rather than Ukraine. Calling a Russian or Ukrainian a fascist is one of the most insulting things you can do in that part of the world, and that is why he makes a big point of branding all those in Ukraine who oppose Putin Nazis and fascists. So those who wish to stay off his dreaded ignore list should not tell him that the leaders of his beloved country are fascists or Nazis. 
