IMHO if your only/main source of news is the western media, you get a very one sided, anti-Russian point of view. Things are really not that black and white, they almost never are in the global politics.
Let's just say that I find the Western sources on the matter much, much more trustworthy. It's very clear that Russia is running a propaganda campaign, which is apparently reasonably effective within Russia but less convincing when you have access to other sources of information.
The Russian propaganda campaign was even fairly effective at spreading the rumor on Western social media that the Ukrainian opposition movement consisted mostly of fascists, when in reality there was a fascist group that was associated with it but a relatively small percentage overall of the opposition to Yanukovych.
After Russia snuck unmarked Russian soldiers into Crimea, which comes dangerously close to counting as perfidy, it was pretty clear that Russia and Russian sources could not be trusted on this matter.
Now, are you trying to claim that Russia did not send troops onto Ukrainian soil to annex Crimea, and is not supporting the separatists in the east with at least arms and training? Or are you trying to claim that doing so is somehow justified, and if so, under what justification?
I do get the feeling that Putin is a bit smarter and a bit less insane, but I would be hesitant to bet on it. The apparent concentration of power in one individual makes Russia scary as hell at the same time as being very brittle.