I just read a commentary on openDemocracy by Rein Mullerson, an expert in international law and the rector of Tallinn University Nord.  In it, Mullerson argues that cooler heads who sincerely want to understand Russia must realize that the Kremlin simply acts in its own perceived interest, that it does not seek to wipe out democratic movements (abroad), and that the West should not reflexively view it as the bad guy in its periodic clashes with other states.

He  writes, “Rather, the identification of a single “bogeyman” is part of the problem that belongs to a world where foreign policy is guided by historical memories and even obsessions.”

This is probably good advice for policymakers trying to figure out how to deal with Moscow. But what’s that niggling feeling that something has been left out? What about Russia’s presumption that it should have a say in the foreign policy of other countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union but are now sovereign states?

He continues: “What matters to the Kremlin is not the ideology of other states but their actions towards Russia. In this respect, the comment of Dimitri K Simes and Paul J Saunders are correct to observe that: ‘Moscow has worked quite successfully with democracies such as Germany and Italy, demonstrating that Russia does not have a problem with democratic governments as such…[whereas] Russia’s problem with Georgia is not its democracy but its hostile conduct.’ ”

That could be, but Germany and Italy do not share a border with Russia and neither was part of the Soviet Union, although East Germany was obviously behind the Iron Curtain.  Maybe ideology does not matter to the Kremlin, but who’s in charge does.  And in those regions where it still has influence, Moscow has shown a strong preference for autocrats.  And it is not only the western historical memory that insists on casting Russia in a particular role. Does any reader of this blog need reminding that popular television polls as well as serious surveys show a longing for power among many Russians that can fairly be described as global or even imperial? To be sure, Russia is not the only nation capable of overreach or presumption. But I don’t think its perceived self-interest can be separated from its pursuit of a state of affairs in nearby countries that is often hostile to the west and sometimes hostile to those countries’ own self-determination.