> I mean that is obviously overly dramatic posturing nonsense.
No it is not, not in the least. I wouldn't be so dismissive of someone when you clearly don't know the subject area (geopolitics).
There are geopolitical reasons for what Putin is doing in Ukraine. I recommend listing to "Peter Zeihan" on the subject, for starters. He's covered the war very well.
The underlying goal is to push the Russian "frontier" up to defensible geographical choke points before Russia's demographic decline makes it impossible to do so. This doesn't stop at Ukraine. The push would take all of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, Moldova, a north eastern chunk of Romania, and an eastern chunk of Poland up to the Vistula. Finland would also have to continue to be neutral, or would have to be taken as well. This is why the Russians have reacted badly to the suggestion that Finland is joining NATO. The gas restriction to Germany was a Russian attempt to push the country out of the NATO alliance, which would have made any NATO response difficult once Russia started on NATO states in the Baltic.
Putin has also made it clear that what he can't achieve with conventional military force, he is willing to attempt with tactical nuclear weapons. Taken together, the clear and stated desire to annex NATO nations (see Putin's recent speech on the Baltics historically belonging to Russia, and Ukraine "not being a real country"), the willingness to use nuclear weapons, and the fact that he is very clearly acting with the above aims in mind, should have you concerned.
The fact that the Russian army has been beaten back in Ukraine should not lull us into a false sense of security. They have plenty more manpower reserves they can draw on, and the Russians have a history of starting wars in somewhat of a shambles, before reforming and producing an army that is more of a stream roller.