Many sighs. Most Russians don't think the West is trying for overthrowing Russia. But, they do think the West meddles too much in affairs that aren't theirs.
We do, most certainly, although I think that's more of a reflection of our amount of international influence than character in using it. And Russia in particular has little room to complain.
And many in Eastern Ukraine don't look at Russia as villain. Many of us want joining Russia, instead of being art of Kyiv. But most want this resolved in peace, not fighting.
I think that's a key component to the public opinion and outrage. It's one thing to pursue a political agenda toward separation. It is a very different thing to use warfare to achieve that. When I see pictures like these
and hear of passenger planes being shot down, I find it very difficult to believe that public will is being represented rather than brute force. I would also expect a neighboring world power to try to check the violence, not encourage it or run propaganda stunts like Nadiya Savchenko
I realize, in light of America's near-constant combat in other countries, that may sound hypocritical. However, there are fine differences. I won't claim we don't work to influence who runs foreign countries, but we don't try to absorb them (nor is this a new policy; we have been firmly opposed to territorial war gains since the Great War). American intolerance of casualties is also a bit notorious, but I think most foreigners miss the point of it. We are not unwilling to sacrifice for a just cause; however, ongoing and mounting casualties are a major indication that we are not leading a liberation but an invasion. The bloody experience in Iraq made it apparent to many that we were not there to lend guidance and support, we were an unwelcome occupation. The same in Vietnam.
It just makes me very angry when I see people from the West always saying that everything in Western press is truth, and everything Russian must be bad and lies. That's not true and insulting. It's not black and white, like that.
Oh my goodness, I don't think we do that at ALL, at least not the first part. Fox in particular is rather notorious for hyperbole that falls just short of complete fabrication. We do, however, understand that there is a basic review process, that our media isn't state run, and that contrary evidence can be made public. They aren't always right, they have definite bias, and we rarely see anywhere near the whole story, but I do find the basic facts reported by the Times, BBC, NY Times, Seattle Times, etc to be pretty reliable. And sometimes - as with the Savchenko incident, or basically anything put out by North Korea ever - the accounts are so contrary to rational judgment that they're discredited on their own account. The reliable stories from the Russian media that would interest the West are usually picked up by our own papers, verified, and repeated. Those just seem to mostly involve Putin running around bare chested trying to resurrect the USSR and dissident politicians being shot blocks from the Kremlin, which doesn't really thrill us much. For most of us there's also a language barrier (Russian isn't commonly taught here). But yes, I've heard of the awesome siberian church that was moved from an abandoned town and renovated and the intriguing wooden statue they pulled from a bog and saw some of the 70th anniversary of WWII events that took place in Moscow. We aren't entirely oblivious :)