Marketing 101

The escalating anti-Russian rhetoric in the U.S. presidential campaign comes in the midst of a major push by military contractors to position Moscow as a potent enemy that must be countered with a drastic increase in military spending by NATO countries.

  The Intercept

"What we have is a foreign policy which is essentially a marketing strategy for selling weapons.”  [Jill Stein]

  RT

Aerospace Industries Association, a lobby group for Lockheed Martin, Textron, Raytheon, and other defense contractors, argued in February that the Pentagon is not spending enough to counter “Russian aggression on NATO’s doorstep.”

  The Intercept

This comes on the heels of Ukraine's break-away bid, fostered and supported by the US in a flagrant betrayal of our post-WWII assurances to Russia that we wouldn't try to extend NATO any closer to their borders.

The National Defense Industrial Association, a lobby group for the industry, has called on Congress to make it easier for U.S. contractors to sell arms abroad to allies in response to the threat from Russia.

Fabricated by US media, military and politicians though that threat may be.

The Soviet Union’s military once stood at over 4 million soldiers, but today Russia has less than 1 million. NATO’s combined military budget vastly outranks Russia’s — with the U.S. alone outspending Russia on its military by $609 billion to less than $85 billion.

[...]

“Russian saber-rattling has additional benefits for weapons makers because it has become a standard part of the argument for higher Pentagon spending — even though the Pentagon already has more than enough money to address any actual threat to the United States,” [said William Hartung, director of the Arms & Security Project at the Center for International Policy.]

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.