I really don't think the majority or even a sizable minority think of Russians as "evil",
@Guadana .
I really hope not, anyway. Putin and the government? Different story, but that's always been the case in Russia. There's never been in recent memory a democracy for any length of time there. And our own has some warts - case in point, a sizable minority here think Russia's to be celebrated for trying to steamroll a democracy. Not trying to start a discussion on that either, so let's not do it, but my point is - I don't think it's true that there's an "Evil Russian" narrative here. Not anymore, it's not the 1980s...
Most if not all of the Russian folks I've had the pleasure to work with and be friends with have been fabulous people. Both in NY/NJ and here in NC.
I read American, European and Russian various information sources and I perfectly see the difference in the breadth of opinions. People have certain information from sources to build their representation. And this is expected - the countries have been enemies for a long time, and they will remain so. Some countries of the Middle East do not represent a model of virtue, humanity and invest money in certain organizations(which then countries have to fight), which does not prevent them from investing money in them. No one will ask either your opinion or mine if the state needs to make friends somewhere and quarrel somewhere. Whether we are for or against.
With regard to the personal representation - again, both informational and cultural sources are available to me. Im watching movies, tv series, playing games. Dehumanization is present, the building of a negative\dehumanisative image is present, it has not gone anywhere. The shapes have changed a bit. For someone who is brought up in certain values and/or communicates personally, this no longer works. It affects someone - I can quite feel it even through personal communication.
Building a bad image around Michkov began a year before the draft. I have read these sources, I am familiar with these descriptions, "facts", people's words, and even direct interviews around specific takeaways refuting these takeaways have not received such wide information dissemination. Not even close. Similarly with the story around Provorov. I have read reviews and descriptions about him directly, about all people in general. When there were already reports about teams that decided to follow the same path - again, there was no such a wide wave of condemnation from information sources. Even the immediate refusal of the league itself was not forced at all. You should understand Im not trying to defend Provorov, even if I understand context better and what he doesnt like.
With regard to Michkov himself and his image of the villain, this is what makes the "story". There will be no history in western social folklore, where Michkov will eventually be on the bright side, and the American / Canadian on the evil side. We will also have it in social folklore differently - Michkov "will be pushed out", not given a prize where he deserved more, and every sneeze of the North American "golden boy"( as one American-centric guy about Michkov put it on one of the branches) will be praised. That is already working. Even without Michkov in NHL.
But in the end, players will treat each other with interest and respect, both will be worthy and interesting hockey players, both will wait for the meeting with warmth, interest and excitement - they are much more important to each other than what the media tells and fans invent there. Michkov already personally spoke warmly and with interest about Bedard in an interview. But people are simpler, people want a plot, drama, and the presence of such bright figures allows this drama to be built, to be more significant and vivid, because for people it is a kind of closer humanized broadcast of the confrontation between countries on the human field. You can argue endlessly in the comments, be nervous, worry about your golden boy(no matter who you are and who is your golden boy), while in the end no one will get hurt - it's fun and safe. And the brighter such a confrontation is, the better hockey is. Because what? There is no such bright confrontation in football and basketball(or baseball), coupled with other spheres of our life. That's why I'm happy for hockey, I easily accept the "villain image", because it's an artistic fiction around a sporting event where ordinary but very talented people drive the puck back and forth. There is no good character without an interesting villainous character. And very often the villain character is a villain only in the eyes of the protagonist, sometimes villain causing much more sympathy. For our part, we will also build our own narrative, don't worry.
And im really happy personally, because I like Michkov and Jack, I like that Devils will be in the center of this story. It will create more attention to my team, it will make tastier our games. And Bedard will be somewhere near too, because we will track the point race of this players. And after 15 years people will argue about who was better player of the generation. Its fun and its about my team.
For now the narrative for the Devils is "The devils must gain experience, play together, and then they will begin to win and achieve the highest result. Maybe find a goalie". Its still good, but its not that fun its not fundamential for the whole league, for the whole sport. Good rivalry make it much better. Rangers Devils is more local rivalry for now, its not about the whole league and even beyond. The confrontation between Jack and Matthew can become just such a rivalry.