Russia is the rump of an empire, with a lot of ethnic minorities that in themselves are a bit of a problem as far as Moscow is concerned. They created problems in the early '90s and as long as they behave themselves they're okay.
Russia's demographics say that it can't absorb many more "ethnics". It's got a falling Russian population and a strong nationalistic, quasi-imperialistic view ("messianic" is one word for it).
Putin's view, IMO, go in two directions.
(1) Unite Russians. Pull them in where they're safe; where they form a bloc; where they're a clear majority and call the shots. Racial purity? Nah. But certainly ethnicity; nobody's put that clear a racial spin on it.
There are Russians and then there are Russians. Belorus is Russian enough for a union with Russia. Talk was of including Ukraine. Even now you hear calls of "we're one people"--with Russia as the big, older brother. Which is how it was billed by the Slavophiles 150 years ago. Same rhetoric; same basic idea. It's tempting and easy to view them as the same, but there are differences. Even if Putin does cite those folk and the 20th-century heirs to Slavophilism, the modern version of Slavophilism, of the Russian Idea, isn't quite the same as before. Some is nuance. Some probably goes deeper, but it's hard to separate out all the strands cleanly because there's not a single spokesman that represents a clear-cut, neat view.
(2) Dominate everybody nearby. That gives you a market, a dominant sphere; it nurtures both your paranoia as well as your megalomania. Paranoia, because then it means they can't be subverting you, dominating you, offending you. And megalomania because you get to demand not just acceptance of your awesomeness, but gratitude for being as awesome as you are. (Putin's still pissed that all the statues saying how wonderful Russia and expressing undying gratitude and loyalty were taken down in much of Eastern Europe. The proper response to that arrogance, uppity-ness, is to utterly humiliate them and then condescendingly ask them to rejoin the family.)
Mixed in is the idea that the Russians are just plain superior in terms of their culture. It's like a soccer match with two sides rooting, both saying there team is better. Stronger, sure, but that's an exponent of superior culture. Hence the demand for the preservation of Russian culture. Belorusian's going to be wiped out in a generation or two because between the Empire and the USSR, it's a minority language. Even Lukashenka doesn't want to protect it all that much. Russians wouldn't mind the same fate for Ukrainian.
Even the whole "homophobia" business is Western weakness; look closely you can find views that the idea of GLBT rights is foisted on Russia by the Jews. Numerous religions are all but banned because they're Western weakness. Putin and conservatives hate people like Sorokin, who are bit players in the cultural scene in Russian (but considered very good writers by the "weak" intelligentsia). Instead you get all sorts of popular crap that revels in Russia killing other countries and dominating them. The stuff that American Democrats mostly find repulsive.
All sorts of stuff falls into the category of "Western weakness"--which is why some people don't like it when it's said right up front--"Invade Ukraine, we won't/can't help." You don't call your own bluff; you don't parade your weakness; you don't invite a bully to hit you by saying, "You know, if you hit me I'd just run home crying." It makes bullies happy.
All this "weakness" stuff sounds like Hitler, to be honest, but it's both different and the same: the "sameness" is that it goes back to the same nationalist source, mixed with a messianic vision of being superior. The difference is that Hitler hit upon race and culture; Russia just hits "culture". 3rd Rome, 3rd Internationale, it's ultimately Russia that's going to be the salvation of whomever because, gee, they're better. It's also consistent with paranoia because it motivates others irrational hatred of Russia, in their eyes.
Ini this case, though, it's not just that Russia is better--it's perfectly suited to be a bridge between East and West, with the strong points of each and the weak points of neither. So it's the natural dominant power for both coasts of that continent.
It's not simple imperialism. But since a lot of folk here like to call anything "anti-Semitic" or "not progressive enough" fascist or imperialist, it's a nice short-hand to use the word "imperialism," because to call the USSR "imperialistic" is a truthful oxymoron and it also undercuts those some would like to support wholeheartedly because they oppose the "imperialist" West.
= new reply since forum marked as read
