Friends, when ever in America have we seen this sort of demonization? Russian friends, are you seeing similar media in Russia about the US?
This seems utterly sick to me. When children get into rants and rages about others, we talk them down.
Is there no one to interfere with this sort of insane crafting of photos and purulent misinformation?
Even UK and European newspapers are commenting on it.
Have we as a nation ever vilified others in this manner––and what does this mean for our country?
Some of our strongest allies and leaders have far worse records than Russia or Putin.
Why are our current policy makers taking this course?
Why are they so invested in Ukraine, a country in which we have never been involved at all.
Please resend this email to your friends, colleagues and family members.
Ask them what they make of this.
This is not in keeping with who we are as a nation, or as a sophisticated population.
This is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they created our democracy.
Somehow, we must create a groundswell of good American citizens who reject these behaviors.
Otherwise the consequences for us, our children and our grandchildren -- and the whole nation will be dire.
Nothing good can come from this continuous vicious diatribe which can only lead to war.
Do we need another war?
Can we start the discussion with friends and colleagues?
Are people already so loaded with this type of vitriolic rant that they aren't open to other points of view?
Can we create town hall meetings to discuss these issues?
Can we speak at our churches and synagogues?
The article below comes from the UK. They among others in the world are questioning our mentality.
Your thoughts please, Sharon
The demonisation of Russia risks paving the way for war
By Seumas Milne, The Guardian, March 4, 2015
Politicians and the media are using Vladimir Putin and Ukraine to justify military expansionism. It’s dangerous folly.
A quarter of a century after the end of the Cold War, the “Russian threat” is unmistakably back. Vladimir Putin, Britain’s defence secretary Michael Fallon declares, is as great a danger to Europe as “Islamic State”. There may be no ideological confrontation, and Russia may be a shadow of its Soviet predecessor, but the anti-Russian drumbeat has now reached fever pitch.
And much more than in Soviet times, the campaign is personal. It’s all about Putin. The Russian president is an expansionist dictator who has launched a “shameless aggression”. He is the epitome of “political depravity”, “carving up” his neighbours as he crushes dissent at home, and routinely is compared to Hitler. Putin has now become a cartoon villain and Russia the target of almost uniformly belligerent propaganda across the western media. Anyone who questions the dominant narrative on Ukraine – from last year’s overthrow of the elected president and the role of Ukrainian far right to war crimes carried out by Kiev’s forces – is dismissed as a Kremlin dupe.
That has been ratcheted up still further with the murder of the opposition politician Boris Nemtsov. The Russian president has, of course, been blamed for the killing, though that makes little sense. Nemtsov was a marginal figure whose role in the “catastroika” of the 1990s scarcely endeared him to ordinary Russians. Responsibility for an outrage that exposed the lack of security in the heart of Moscow and was certain to damage the president hardly seems likely to lie with Putin or his supporters.
But it’s certainly grist to the mill of those pushing military confrontation with Russia. Hundreds of US troops are arriving in Ukraine this week to bolster the Kiev regime’s war with Russian-backed rebels in the east. Not to be outdone, Britain is sending 75 military advisers of its own. As 20th-century history shows, the dispatch of military advisers is often how disastrous escalations start. They are also a direct violation of last month’s Minsk agreement, negotiated with France and Germany, that has at least achieved a temporary ceasefire and some pull-back of heavy weapons. Article 10 requires the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Ukraine.
But NATO’s hawks have got the bit between their teeth. Thousands of NATO troops have been sent to the Baltic states – the Atlantic alliance’s new frontline – untroubled by theirindulgence of neo-Nazi parades and denial of minority ethnic rights. A string of American political leaders and generals are calling for the US to arm Kiev, from the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Martin Dempsey, to the new defence secretary, Ashton Carter. For the western military complex, the Ukraine conflict has the added attraction of creating new reasons to increase arms spending, as the US army’s General Raymond Odierno made clear when he complained this week about British defence cuts in the face of the “Russian threat”.
Putin’s authoritarian conservatism may offer little for Russia’s future, but this anti-Russian incitement is dangerous folly. There certainly has been military expansionism. But it has overwhelmingly come from NATO, not Moscow. For 20 years, despite the commitments at the end of the Cold War, NATO has marched relentlessly eastwards, taking in first former east European Warsaw Pact states, then republics of the former Soviet Union itself. As the academic Richard Sakwa puts it in his book Frontline Ukraine, NATO now “exists to manage the risks created by its existence”.