Now I use the same scenario regarding Ukraine, the Crimea and Russia, adding to that the the "legitimate" government of Ukraine was recently overthrown by insurgents who resorted to the violent overthrow of the government and the outing of it's elected leader. Obviously, the democratic process wasn't to their (or the US) liking.
My question is; given the same scenario involving the US and a hostile country on it borders (well, 90 miles isn't that far) is Russia's response to the current situation in Ukraine any different? Finding a well-rounded explanation to this question is not so easy in a country where the mass media is nothing more than strings of commercials laced with a splattering of actual news which also tends to be more about creating drama for the sake of entertainment rather than reporting the actual news; Cronkite style.
Getting actual news narrows the playing filed to 1 or 2 outlets (now maybe 3) PBS/NPR, BBC, and Al Jazeera America.
Debating how the U.S. should respond to Moscow’s military moves in Crimea
The person presenting the Russian perspective in the PBS interview ; Stephen Cohen, wrote a piece for the Nation Distorting Russia that sets out to show how western media systematically churns out highly charged rhetoric that is remotely connected to reality.
The degradation of mainstream American press coverage of Russia, a country still vital to US national security, has been under way for many years. If the recent tsunami of shamefully unprofessional and politically inflammatory articles in leading newspapers and magazines—particularly about the Sochi Olympics, Ukraine and, unfailingly, President Vladimir Putin—is an indication, this media malpractice is now pervasive and the new norm. read more; Distorting Russia