Dominic Lieven op-ed in FT.
Nice logic: natural to expect Russian reassertion of influence after the long hangover of lost empire. Tease the bear, like Georgia did, and you get a nasty reply.
How much to worry over Ukraine-Russian relations, now that Moscow has secured long-term naval access (always revocable by successor Kiev govs) to the Black Sea? Do we want to be in the geopolitical business of denying Russia such access?
Key point:
Shedding a land empire is always harder than letting go of overseas colonies. Britain had an empire but Russia was one: abandoning one's property is easier than facing challenges to one's identity. It is easier for London to take a relaxed attitude to events in Asia or the Middle East than for Moscow to remain aloof from chaos in the Caucasus.
Comparison: when land empires were involve (Ireland for London, Algeria for Paris), retreats were very painful.
Fortunately, Russia holds onto Siberia and seeks to reassert itself primarily through energy vice military power or territorial annexations. Please remember what a huge improvement that is for the global security environment.
Piece ends with the usual comparison: is China playing Germany to today's Britain--America? In that working-out process, keeping on good terms with Russia is more than useful.
My point: Russia needs globalization to work as part of its reassertion, just like China needs it badly for its growth trajectory. There is no need to choose but definitely no need to freeze anybody out over current behavior. Gotta keep the big picture in mind.