YEREVAN, Armenia -- NATO's deployment of a missile defense system in Romania this month brought the requisite Russian snarls and vows of countervailing action, such as reintroducing a movable, rail-based missile system that Moscow abolished in 2008.
The Romanian system is the latest piece in a strategic chess match between Russia and the West that is based on polar-opposite views of who is the threat to the region.
Russia, which has been invaded by the Mongols, Napoleon and Hitler, freaks out when it sees a force on its doorstep that it believes could be the vanguard of a new invasion.
The West, meanwhile, wants a strong military presence on Russia's borders to insure there is no repeat of the Soviet subjugation of Eastern Europe that lasted from the end of World War II to the USSR's collapse in 1991.
So which perspective is right: Russia's view that it needs a military-free buffer zone on its borders to protect it against a new invasion, or the West's view that it needs troops on Russia's borders to prevent Moscow from subjugating its neighbors again?
My view is that the West's perspective is correct.
Anyone with common sense can't take seriously the notion that NATO is planning to invade Russia.
It would be suicidal -- because Russia would be unlikely to hold back when it defended itself, and this would include using nuclear weapons.
Suicidal or not, some Russian leaders have been saying publicly in recent days that they believe the West is planning an invasion soon.
I've watched the rising Russian paranoia with increasing disbelief in recent months.
It has included a surge in Russian ship and plane incursions into NATO territory and even into the sea and air space of Japan, a Western ally.
In similar fashion, Russian planes have been buzzing NATO ships in the Black Sea, coming so close that a miscalculation on either side could spark a conflict.
Russia has also poured more military equipment into Armenia to threaten Turkey. This was a response to Turkey downing a Russian plane involved in the Kremlin's air war against the forces trying to topple Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. The downing occurred after Russian planes repeatedly ignored Ankara's warnings not to intrude into Turkish airspace.
The justification for Russia's two bases in Armenia -- one army, one air force -- used to be that its smaller neighbor needed help to protect itself against any outside threat.
With the beefing up of the bases' equipment in recent months, the two facilities now constitute a forward operating base against Turkey and the rest of NATO.
Meanwhile, Russia has been rattling sabers at Finland and Sweden over those countries' discussions about joining NATO -- even though the discussions are a direct result of Russian aggression in the region, including the takeover of Crimea and dispatch of troops and equipment to the eastern Ukrainian separatists.
Traditionally neutral Finland and Sweden, which have borders with Russia, have been wondering if they will be subjected to Russian aggression if they don't have NATO's protection.
Russia has even threatened tiny Montenegro about its plans to join the European Union and NATO.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has famously said that the end of the Soviet Union was the biggest geopolitical calamity of the 20th Century.
Many in the West are convinced that he is determined to reconstruct the Soviet empire, starting with the Baltic states and Poland, which have been very vocal about their determination never to fall under the Russian yoke again.
Putin has denied he has such plans, but much of the world is not convinced.
That includes countries in Russia's Near Abroad that have felt the Kremlin's boot on their necks in recent years: Ukraine, which lost Crimea to Russia and is fighting a war against the Russian-backed separatists; Georgia, which lost a war to Russia in 2008; and Moldova, where the presence of Russian troops discourages government forces from trying to crush pro-Russian separatists in the Transnistria region.
Although Russia has howled about the deployment of the NATO missile defense battery in Romania, my take is that that development, in and of itself, is not enough to make the Kremlin as apoplectic as it has been toward the West in recent years.
What is upsetting Russia is that the West has been countering every threat that Moscow has made against the Eastern European nations that were once its property and that it wants to subjugate again.
Every time the West makes a move that denies the Kremlin another checkmate of Eastern Europe, Russia's frustration grows.
But it doesn't give up. It plans its next move -- and the tension continues to build.
Armine Sahakyan is a human rights activist based in Armenia. A columnist with the Kyiv Post and a blogger with The Huffington Post, she writes on human rights and democracy in Russia and the former Soviet Union. Follow her on Twitter at: www.twitter.com/ArmineSahakyann