In business we do not want a lack of rivals, for a lack of rivals introduces competition and anti-trust action. In business we want incompetent rivals. Facebook is glad that Twitter exists, let me repeat Facebook wants Twitter to exist, but any rival that looks like it has competent management such as Instagram or Whats App they buy out before they get too big.

Destabilizing forces where you "lower the oxygen" in the room is very much an acceptable business tactic if you have large lungs and your competitor does not. Some business want regulation where they find it cheap and easy to comply with regulation due to scale but their competitors would not. It is called a "moat" / "economic moat" to borrow Warren Buffet's term.

[...] Pivots back to the matter at hand after that metaphor [...]

The same applies to politics and geo-politics. Russia wants very little from the US in a direct fashion. What Russia wants from the US is not a strong trustworthy US with strong alliances with Europe and Asia and a non working government in the US so the people in the US do not have trust in the possibility of working government.

Russia wants this for several reasons, one of which is a US without working alliances does not have leverage. Another reason is that it helps national politics in Russia for the US and other democracies are less a model for the Russia people the "more messy they look."

Increasing distrust with US people and US government furthers Russia's goals. Increasing distrust with Europe people and the US government furthers Russia's goals.

[...]

There are multiple ways to play the game, and trust me the current leader of Russia with his 16 years of being a foreign intelligence officer prior to his entry in politics (he got all the way to Lt. Colonel aka 2 ranks short of General), he knows the relative variabile strengths and weaknesses of the different ways / styles of playing the geo-politic game.