Politicians, pundits and activists who\u2019ve routinely denounced President Trump as a tool of Vladimir Putin can now mull over a major indicator of their cumulative impacts. The U.S.-led missile attack on Syria before dawn Saturday is the latest benchmark for gauging the effects of continually baiting Trump as a puppet of Russia\u2019s president.<\/p>\n
Heavyweights of U.S. media \u2013 whether outlets such as CNN and MSNBC or key newspapers<\/a> like the New York Times<\/em> and the Washington Post<\/em> \u2013 spent most of the last week clamoring<\/a> for Trump to order air strikes on Syria. Powerful news organizations have led the way in goading Trump to prove that he\u2019s not a Putin lackey after all.<\/p>\n One of the clearest ways that Trump can offer such proof is to recklessly show he\u2019s willing to risk a catastrophic military confrontation with Russia.<\/p>\n In recent months, the profusion of "war hawks, spies and liars<\/a>" on national television has been part of a media atmosphere that barely acknowledges what\u2019s at stake with games of chicken between the world\u2019s two nuclear superpowers. Meanwhile, the dominant US news media imbue their reporting with a nationalistic sense of impunity.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n On Saturday morning, the top headline on the New York Times<\/em> website was "US Attacks Syria in Retaliatory Strike," while the subhead declared that "Western resolve" was at work. The story led off by reporting that Trump "sought to punish President Bashar al-Assad for a suspected chemical attack near Damascus last weekend that killed more than 40 people."<\/p>\n Try putting the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Imagine that Russia, with a similar rationale, fired missiles at US ally Saudi Arabia because the Kremlin "sought to punish King Salman for his country\u2019s war crimes in Yemen" \u2013 with such reportage appearing under a headline that described the Russian attack as a "retaliatory strike."<\/p>\n The latest US air attack on Russia\u2019s close ally Syria was as much politically aimed at Moscow as at Damascus. And afterwards, the televised adrenalin-pumped glee was as much an expression of pleasure about striking a blow at Putin as at Assad. After all, ever since Trump took office, the US media and political elites have been exerting enormous pressures on him to polarize with Russia.<\/p>\n But let\u2019s be clear: The pressures have not only been generated by corporate media and the political establishment. Across the United States, a wide range of people including self-described liberals and progressives \u2013 as individuals and organizations \u2013 have enthusiastically participated in the baiting, cajoling and denouncing of Trump as a Putin tool. That participation has stoked bellicose rhetoric by congressional Democrats, fueling the overall pressure on Trump to escalate tensions with Russia.<\/p>\n What\u2019s really at issue here is not the merits of the Russian government in 2018, any more than the issue was the merits of the Soviet government in 1967 \u2013 when President Lyndon Johnson hosted an extensive summit meeting<\/a> in Glassboro, New Jersey, with Soviet Premier Alexi Kosygin, reducing the chances of nuclear war in the process.<\/p>\n If you keep heading toward a destination, you\u2019re likely to get there. In 2018, by any realistic measure, the escalating conflicts between the United States and Russia \u2013 now ominously reaching new heights in Syria \u2013 are moving us closer to World War III. It\u2019s time to fully recognize the real dangers and turn around.<\/p>\n