Well, naturally. But destabilizing the west is a means to an end. What is the end that he seeks?
Well, reading his mind is, as past experiences have shown, a bit like gazing at the sludge at the bottom of my coffee jug to get a reliable forecast of whether I'm going to win a lottery tomorrow.
Nevertheless one is left only with making educated guesses.
Mine would be that the ivory tower he has ensconced himself in, supported by surrounding himself there with devoted lackies of the "yessir, yessir, three bags full sir" variety, has not only resulted in his removal from any sense of reality, but has, in his reasoning, actually served to confirm his view of the outside world.
Creating a skewered logic by which he, in the long term, can actually drive NATO out of the Baltics, cause the EU to become disunited as never before, and subsequently be an entity of influence over the whole area, Europe and US included, to be respectfully reckoned with in the sense of controlling influence over all of it
Additionally, and solely in my own personal speculation, I'd posit that he's also pursuing his ambition of Russian history seeing him as the greatest ruler Russia has enjoyed since Peter the Great, in that he's making Russia great again. Read that as his end game closely linked to the legacy he wants to be remembered for.
Of course the "greatness" he pursues could be achieved more intelligently by reforming the basket case that his country, save for its by now enhanced military capacity, has become. That would however require pissing off the oligarchs and, certainly for an extended period of time, his own people, since modernizing the economy, the industry and all the other fields so direly in need of reform cannot be financed from the state coffers, however improved those have become since the Crimean adventure.
So, in his delusional assessments, he'd rather prevent the example of a Ukraine on his border demonstrating what a democratic state (no matter the democratic deficits still existing there) can achieve by way of economic prowess, by choosing to squash it and, most likely, forcing it to install a government as supportive of hisself as Belorus or, lately, Kasachstan.
That's my take and, in support of another thread in here that is titled "Mea culpa, I was wrong", I could be wrong just as much. But I don't really think so.