Is invading a country to maintain a gas monopoly not bullying? It seems far-fetched that this is their entire reason, though.

You are wrong. I am not defending Russia's actions. I am explaining Russia's actions. Big difference.

Putin is a greedy son of a bitch. This is not a defense. It is an explanation.

Then you could perhaps be more precise in your choice of actors here:

In particular -- Russia most certainly does not "need" to dominate its neighbors. It's just what the current regime feels it needs to do to maintain its chances of survival.

Big difference, as you say.

You're deeply misreading the English language. When I say "I need my phone" I am obviously not claiming that my phone is necessary for basic survival. There are different levels of need, and there exists a level where Russia (believes it) needs Crimea.

Disagree fundamentally with the idea that countries hold "beliefs" about anything.

Political figures and other individuals with their hands at the levers of power, on the other hand, do.

You're nitpicking the words. It's common to refer to the government of a country by the name of the country when talking about government actions.

Yeah, but they're doing it a lot, and in a way that's just -- weird. And seems designed to evoke empathy.

Specifically when they keep saying "Russia needs [to do various awful things]" when referring to the desires of the current regime.

In the case of the United States, it's not appropriate to equate the country with the current regime, since the party in power (Democrat / Republican) changes every few years, and although you may disagree, I do not view the two parties as equivalent or as forming one party.

In the case of Russia, it is completely appropriate to refer to the regime by country name, since Putin has been in power forever.

Anyway, this is a useless tangent. It should by now be clear to you and anyone else reading what I mean, even if it was not initially clear.