@Yoshimichi, you are speaking in too definite of terms. When you say "the west"and "its policy", you are oversimplifying the realities of the situation. As it is, war and most all geopolitical affairs are not conducted by the slightest "say so" of a handful of men. Certainly less so in the west, where more democratic systems have constructed institutions to "check" the power of the state/oligarchy, albeit not perfectly of course.



With this, you should assume the perspective of "the west" in the form of what constitutes the term. When you say it, do you mean from an industrial standpoint, or even more specifically, a corporate standpoint? Are you speaking in regards to military supremacy and NATO? How about the nation-states that form NATO, or the EU? Each of these countries has its own interests, populations, and commitments to look after. For example, here in Czech Republic, Ukrainians make up the second largest nationality after Czechs. This isn't just due to the "civil war" that began last year. It is due, to whatever degree, to the instability of what has been an effective mafia-state since the disbandment of the Soviet Union. This fact certainly plays not only in the minds of Czech political leaders, but in the people they represent.



What this means, however flawed of a perspective it is (hey, that's conservatism), is that there are less public resources allotted to the average Czech citizen. Hence a partiality of the political aspect of the situation. With that said, there are obviously defensive/offensive strategic values, speaking in terms of Crimea. No geopolitical analyst worth any salt, would have assumed that Putin would leave the fate of Russian-held Crimea up to any chance, given its value in the economic/political/military nexus we call geopolitical reality.



Considering the policies and policy stances of each faction that makes the whole, of the west (or any division within it), it is far easier to conduct a game theory analysis in regard to their (much more transparent) objectives.



While "the West" would welcome a different dynamic from Moscow, an adversary you know is better than one you do not know. Though, I will disagree with your belief that Putin has strengthened his hold on power. Further consolidated, maybe. But, strengthened? I'd argue, not.



I'm not quite sure what you meant in reference to "stabilizing the West's relations with Moscow."



Thinking in terms of spheres of influence and bargaining power, Russia may have lacked an interest in Middle East stability for the last 60 years, but China certainly has much interest in the future of the region (see the silk road infrastructure initiative). Now that the West has economically pushed Russia into China's influence and regional vision, resolutions to Middle Eastern conflicts may finally be imaginable.



As far as educated and Democratic Russians are concerned, they are just going to have to struggle for their rights like everyone else has had to. It'll be tough, but it will happen.



With all of that said, I believe that your question regarding liberal foreign policy is at the moment, incomplete. Human evolution is no short-term, small game affair. And it is certainly not simply "a western ideal". It is a natural progression of human existence on a sociological scale. If it wasn't then it would not exist, nor would it be the clear progression from authoritarian and totalitarian states.