I think you are correct in noting Putin's 'bitternes' at the way that the Cold War ended. I would note that that is a predictable reaction by any patriotic Russian who had strong feelings of patriotism and nationalistic pride and especially of one involved with the power structure that lost that war.  Regardless any other judgment of Putin, I believe we can expect those characteristics to apply to him.
 The title of The Guardian article is surely accurate to a degree, Putin does place most of the blame on the U.S. for terrorism in the Middle East and for encouraging and overtly supporting the regime change in Ukraine. He is not, IMO, and as I have expressed many times, totally wrong in those allegations.  

In a terse opening statement before taking questions for nearly three hours, Putin said: “The exceptionalism of the United States, the way they implement their leadership, is it really a benefit? And their worldwide intervention brings peace and stability, progress and peak of democracy? Maybe we should relax and enjoy this splendour? No! [Putin]

I would ask that same question and then give the same answer, NO! So, how is Putin almost always characterized in the Western press? Here is another opinion found today at Consortium News.

Treating Putin Like a Lunatic: Official Washington treats whatever comes out of Russian President Putin’s mouth as the ravings of a lunatic, even when what he says is obviously true or otherwise makes sense, as the New York Times has demonstrated again, writes Robert Parry.

    http://consortiumnews.com/2014/10/25/treating-putin-like-a-lunatic/

Some criticisms of the U.S. and other Western press claim that they are heavily involved in transmitting propaganda. Greenwald is an obvious example but is he right? Here is an article by him which gives more examples to make his case.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/17/democracy-really-means-u-s...

Interesting, to me at least, is the rehash of the Venezuelan failed coup. That was a contentious issue here for a short while  I just now see that The Guardian agreed with me in multiple articles written at the time it was taking place and shortly after. At the time I was not able to find much support for my position in the U.S. MSM. Some examples from the Guardian I wish I had known of then:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/29/venezuela.duncancampbell

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/18/venezuela-protests-...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/18/honduras...

My point here is demonstrating the way events are portrayed in our press and the evidence that those portrayals are often distorted in favor of supporting interventions and how they go about doing it. The second link to Vinyard of the Saker in my comment above is an obvious example.Another example comes from multiple articles about the movie, "kill the Messenger". Parry has multiple articles at his site but here is another from Andrew O'Hehir.
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/25/from_gary_webb_to_james_risen_the_strugg...