It all boils down to what they believe NATO's response would be.
Anywhere that Russia has "annexed" has had a majority ethnic Russian population and historical ties to Russia. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are not majority ethnic Russian, do not speak Russian, and are part of the EU (and NATO) so they're clearly not aligned geopolitically with Russia and it would cause major regional ramifications, undoubtedly triggering a war with NATO, and/or the EU (both nuclear entities). It would be wholly unprecedented in modern times.
Baltics and Crimea are not comparable. - Crimea has Russia's only warm water port and would never be given up - Russia already has Baltic access (Kaliningrad and StPetersburg) - Crimea has been majority ethnic Russian for centuries and welcomes Russia - Baltics hate Russia
In summary, there is absolutely no logical reason Russia would annex Baltic state.
However, there are plenty reasons why non-Russian interests always repeat this narrative.
Why would Russia need several bankrupt dying states? To feed and develop them like in Soviet times getting nothing but hatred in response? Ditto for Ukraine BTW.
This is in the book that forecasts that Japan will attack the US in 2050 except that it'll be all space-borne battlestars and lasers and hypersonic weapons. Among other preposterous scenarios. Riiiight.
> It is advantageous to them to have Western Europe dependent on its oil and natural gas supplies.
Loaded language. Don't you think Western Europe has thought of this? And hey, if Russia turns off the tap they turn off their revenue stream. Besides, Europe, like the US, keeps strategic fossil fuel reserves.
> The United States' main geopolitical imperative is to maintain global hegemony.
> Not saying this is a good or bad thing. Depends on your perspective and what country you live in.
Seems to me that if the US keeps sanctioning foes and allies alike every country bar the US will consider this a bad thing.