Anyone who shares views on publicly financed Russian media that even remotely align with part of Trump’s platform could theoretically find themselves caught in this massive dragnet.
They are trying to intimidate Americans like ME who are anti-imperialist in any way, shape, or form by painting us as some sort of fifth column. It's an old trick, and it's worked in the past. It's not going to work this time.
Partly that's because information technology is so vibrant and innovative that they can't control it. Partly that's because too many of us have seen this movie before and recognize it for what it is.
Partly it's because the Empire is rapidly declining and loss of control of expression is always a part of imperial collapse, as your own history will testify.
Besides, my only direct connection to any Russian is my subscription to your Substack, and they know that I know that the nearest Federal court is a dozen miles away from my house and I know how to file things like motions for First Amendment injunctions.
It's awful that they are doing this, but do you think they will shut Scott Ritter up? Lol. He's a Marine on a mission. Good luck with that.
Great post. Just one tip: We call it "unconstitutional" instead of anti-constitutional, probably because it has one less syllable and is easier to type.
"Partly that's because information technology is so vibrant and innovative that they can't control it."
True enough, but the (partial) solution to that problem is the same as defeating air defences by flooding the air with cheap targets. I regard most of alt-news as in that category - either they are intentional distractions, focusing on the minutia rather than the big picture, or simply opportunists seeking to make a buck off a rising trend.
This site is an oasis in that otherwise barren wasteland.
Yep, I have certainly picked through a few dumpsters in my day, and found cool shit like working computers. I am more settled now, but I still have the scavenger's adaptability if needed.
I was a regular viewer of RT right up to the point Canada cancelled their programming. On the whole I found their reporting reasonably accurate and unbiased. One thing I noticed was that while RT was considered Russian propaganda in the West, in Russia they weren't all that well regarded, as they apparently had some connection to the erstwhile pro-western "5th Column" which has largely evaporated since the SMO - at least that's my impression.
I definitely miss Rachel Blevins and Naomi Karavani. Those girls are hot!
>This means that the crackdown’s motives are purely political and therefore amount to the USG waging lawfare against those of its citizens who share dissident views with publicly financed Russian media.
And it's not just opinions that concur with supposedly pro-Russian talking points. It's anyone promoting a position outside of the "approved" range. Russia Russia Russia is just the easiest to conflate those differing views, because the official narrative has been all-Russia, all the time for going on nine years in the US.
I wouldn't be overly concerned on a personal level if all you are is a reader. It's the producers they're after. There's too many to go after all of us, and we're not high profile enough anyway. Maybe later, once their reeducation camps are fully operational, but I doubt we'll reach that point before the whole card house comes tumbling down, at which point their own survival will take priority over suppressing a few dissidents with no real power. I could be wrong of course. They could go full Khmer Rouge on us. They don't seem to have a problem with that in Gaza, but it might be a bit trickier in America or the EU.
I hear you. Travelling back and forth itself is a bit dicey now. Back in 2019, just before all hell broke loose, we were planning a trip to Russia which at the time was straightforward. Vancouver to Reykjavík with a couple of days stopover to see Iceland, then on to Ste Pete. Can't do that anymore. Can't go via Finland either, at least not by train - that's been suspended. Right now the only way from Canada seems to be via Tehran or Istanbul. Is there a better way that you know of that doesn't involve transiting US territory?
That's what I was thinking. I bought my wife a nice kufiya in case we have to travel through Iran, which I want to see anyway, so we might take that route even though it's longer. Have you ever taken the ferry from Trabzon? If so, what's that like?
Hell, Trump was more reckless than Obama with regards to Russia.
That didn't appease his critics. Trump could have pressed The Button and Team D cultists and the MSM would have bitched that HRC would have pushed it sooner and better. Trump cultists would insist that this was all some eleven-dimensional chess, even as we all went up in a mushroom cloud.
The problem is that Russia has let itself be pushed around. What the Russian leadership see as reasonableness, the sociopaths who rule the West see as contemptible weakness which only encourages them to double down.
True enough, but doubling down hasn't worked out too well for them at this point. It's drained their armoury, which they'll have trouble rebuilding, eliminated a significant part of their mercenary forces, many of whom are just rebranded NATO, including high ranking officers and specialists who'll be hard to replace. On the whole I'd say adopting a defensive posture has worked out well for Russia. You need a 3 to 1 advantage in men and equipment to overcome a well entrenched enemy, and at this point it's running about 5 to 1 in favour of Russia. If they go on the offensive their losses will increase dramatically, at least they would have at first. Now maybe not so much, but that's the effect of first wearing the enemy down by attrition, which they seem happy to oblige with their pointless assaults with no clear objectives, including the recent fiasco in Kursk.
I agree that 8 years was a long time to wait, but it was a big decision to make and neither of us know the full picture with regard to the resources available, or the position of the cabinet members and military leaders advising VVP on the issue.
My understanding is that the decision to act came as a result of Ukraine amassing troops for an assault on the Donbas, which was previously frozen along the line of contact. The original move towards Kiev was clearly a feint meant to show willingness to respond, but without sufficient forces to actually take the capital. That was probably a mistake, as the assumption behind the move was that Kiev would be forced to negotiate, which turned out to be wrong.
Everything since then has followed the path one would expect from a peer level conflict, bearing in mind that the UAF while a smaller force, was still substantial, had some very fanatical elements in strongholds such as the Azovstal mill, plus they would be fighting on their own territory, which gave them at least a temporary advantage. Given Russia's doctrine of minimizing their own plus civilian casualties, I don't see how the fight could have evolved any differently.
A number of observers, including the Russian public, have questioned why this war is taking so long. Typically they expect to see what they've seen in movies, or have read in history books about WWII, which is to say a major advance in force to capture territory.
That doesn't work in Ukraine for several reasons. You've been there yourself, so you know it's mostly open terrain with farm fields and only a few major roads. Those fields are a trap except when the ground is frozen. Heavy trucks and armour get bogged down, so you have to use the main roads, which makes it easy to target you with artillery or from the air.
Also, because it's open ground, you'll be seen the moment you start to move, so large assemblies of vehicles are a problem. You have to space out and travel at high speed to avoid getting hit, and then you'll still have losses because of drones. Not just observation drones, but suicide drones capable of disabling a tank or truck. Smaller drones that can target individual soldiers are a real nightmare, and Ukraine has lots of those. So does Russia. I've seen footage of several UAF soldiers attempting to flee a drone attack by running into their bunker. The drone just followed them in and killed them all. There's little you can do to protect against them, except to carry a shotgun and make the first shot count, because you won't get a second chance.
Finally, Ukraine started with the second largest army in Europe after Russia, and were trained by NATO for many years, even prior to the Maidan coup. This is a battle between peers basically, and Russia's doctrine of minimizing both troop and civilian casualties puts them at a disadvantage. To sum it up, small concentrations of forces capturing villages which gives you cover from drones and artillery, is about the only way to advance without serious losses.
Last point. The original idea was to capture the Russian areas of Ukraine and negotiate a settlement from a position of strength, but that hasn't worked owing to NATO's continuous prodding (and bribing I'm sure) of the Ukraine political and military leadership. At this point I'm sure they know it's a lost cause, so my guess is they're trying to create the conditions where Russia has to take the entire Ukraine to end the war, which puts them in the tenuous position of an occupying force in a hostile environment. Russia's response to that, again I'm guessing, would be to continue operating as they have, and wait for the UAF to collapse and their leaders to flee, after which hopefully the sensible people of Ukraine (which I believe are still a majority) will negotiate a settlement in good faith, and Ukraine will become what it should have been from day 1 - a Russian ally. Not neutral. An ally. That's my hope at least. We'll see how it plays out, but a major assault is not likely to happen owing to the above reasons.
I don't think you'll see that. Kursk has drawn UAF forces from the south where they were most needed to stop a Russian advance, which is happening as we speak. A major strategic error, as the expected draw down of Russian forces in the south to support Kursk never happened. Russia had enough forces locally to deal with Kursk which is pretty much encircled and cut off at this point and UAF losses are serious. There's no big rush to retake the territory now, which is of no strategic importance anyway, and where most of the population has been evacuated.
"Never interfere with the enemy when he is making a mistake"
Following that rubric, which is often attributed to Napoleon, the question posed is, why did Russia fail to attack the UAF when they were assembling their forces near Sumy? Why was that allowed to proceed? Was that actually an intelligence failure as some have suggested, or was it a trap? The speed with with they evacuated everyone suggests to me a trap. "Appear weak where you are strong, strong where you are weak." This is basic Sun Tzu, and Russia has used the technique to good effect.
What I sought to convey in my analysis is that the USG fears Trump's foreign policy, however imperfect it might seem to many American dissidents, which is why they're the ones trying to conflate dissident with Trump through this crackdown.
The NYT's report comes right after ridiculous USG claims that Russia is meddling in the elections in Trump's support via its spy agencies and publicly financed media, so going after those who contribute to the latter is meant to frighten his supporters.
Notice that they haven't (at least not yet) made a serious attempt to claim that leading pro-Palestinian figures unconnected to Russian publicly financed media are supposedly foreign agents or whatever by raiding their homes, only critics of the Ukrainian Conflict.
You're criticism of me for "doing more harm than good" is misplaced: I'm a dissident myself and wouldn't ever try to "discredit" anyone else in my category even if they have very different views than I do on certain issues.
Again, this piece conveyed the point that it's the USG that's conflating Trump and American foreign policy dissidents, and it's doing this through its selective and arbitrary crackdown against publicly financed Russian media's American associates.
I'm all for constructive critiques and the sharing of contrarian views, but I'd appreciate it if next time you don't accuse me of "doing more harm than good" and "discrediting" fellow dissidents just because you misinterpreted what I wrote.
You or whoever else can convey an opinion without making it personal. I of all people would never try to "practically guarantee that your dissent will be shut down". I get that certain issues elicit emotional reactions, but please, don't do it again.
3. And "canceled" by most Alt-Media for debunking their "5D chess master plan" conspiracy theories.
I also permanently live in Russia and won't dare return to the US out of credible fear of political persecution per the first two points above.
So accusing me of trying to harm dissidents is really ridiculous. You probably had no idea who I am, but now that you do, I hope that you won't do it again.
Anyone who accuses me of that just discredits themselves. I'm a bonafide dissident who gave my life to the cause by leaving 12 years ago and not returning once since.
Being falsely implicated in 2020's remix of Russiagate and then branded an anti-Semite by the State Department are serious matters.
But they prove the power of my work and the influence it has on reshaping global perceptions. I'd never try to "discredit" or "shut down" fellow dissidents, ever.
I have a slightly different take on the question. I see Trump as a stalking horse for the left to discredit the right. Trump himself is the living definition of a narcissistic opportunist. I doubt he thought he could win in 2016. He was just trying to build his brand, and once in office had no idea how to navigate DC politics. He thought his hardball RE developer techniques were applicable there, but they aren't because profit takes second place to ideology in DC. He read the tea leaves correctly on Israel and quickly fell in line, but even that didn't help him because it was obviously insincere, like every thing else he does. The guy is all hat no cattle, as they say in Texas.
My personal opinion (FWIW) is that voting makes no difference in the USA, and hasn't for many years. Doesn't matter who's in the white house, you just get more of the same. My wife and I were discussing this earlier today, and the question of who I would vote for came up. I'm Canadian so I don't get a vote, although given how corrupt the system is, I could probably get away with it.
I guess I'd probably just do a write-in. Putin is a bit too obvious, so maybe Alexander Lukashenko? I bet no one writes him in...lol. Other than that, Harris. Not because I share her (lack of) views, obviously - just that I think the system will crash sooner with her at the helm, and frankly I'm becoming impatient. That plus I'm tired of Trump's bluster and empty rhetoric, and wish he would just go away.
TDS is boring lady, I think Trump is a giant tool of Zionist genociders, and thus I likely won't vote for him, but his domestic policy is a pretty understandable reaction to the endless demonization of white rural men for problems actually caused by the oligarchy.
You better wise up and learn to work with right wing populists, because pretty soon we will need a popular front as real tyranny may be coming down the pike very soon. And yes I walk my talk, I will work with literal communists as long as they are the kind with a material class analysis and not prog pod people.
That is the point of course. Never mind Russia, anyone who deviates from the official narrative on anything at this point is an ultra-right white supremacist Trump supporter in their books.
They are trying to intimidate Americans like ME who are anti-imperialist in any way, shape, or form by painting us as some sort of fifth column. It's an old trick, and it's worked in the past. It's not going to work this time.
Partly that's because information technology is so vibrant and innovative that they can't control it. Partly that's because too many of us have seen this movie before and recognize it for what it is.
Partly it's because the Empire is rapidly declining and loss of control of expression is always a part of imperial collapse, as your own history will testify.
Besides, my only direct connection to any Russian is my subscription to your Substack, and they know that I know that the nearest Federal court is a dozen miles away from my house and I know how to file things like motions for First Amendment injunctions.
It's awful that they are doing this, but do you think they will shut Scott Ritter up? Lol. He's a Marine on a mission. Good luck with that.
Great post. Just one tip: We call it "unconstitutional" instead of anti-constitutional, probably because it has one less syllable and is easier to type.
"Partly that's because information technology is so vibrant and innovative that they can't control it."
True enough, but the (partial) solution to that problem is the same as defeating air defences by flooding the air with cheap targets. I regard most of alt-news as in that category - either they are intentional distractions, focusing on the minutia rather than the big picture, or simply opportunists seeking to make a buck off a rising trend.
This site is an oasis in that otherwise barren wasteland.
this is too sick now. we are not even the USSR, we are a caricature of the USSR.
Post modern simulacra, all of the style and none of the substance. Not that I am a fan of commies, but at least they had some actual gravitas.
The totalitarian mask is coming off. What does anyone propose to do about it?
I moved to the woods, and can live off fish and game if I have to, and you?
I am a cat, what do you think?
Ravens are survivors, I will say that.
Yep, I have certainly picked through a few dumpsters in my day, and found cool shit like working computers. I am more settled now, but I still have the scavenger's adaptability if needed.
Thanks for your writings.
I was wondering if there is any evidence to support the widely held view that the opinion polls are rigged in favor of the Democratic Party.
I was a regular viewer of RT right up to the point Canada cancelled their programming. On the whole I found their reporting reasonably accurate and unbiased. One thing I noticed was that while RT was considered Russian propaganda in the West, in Russia they weren't all that well regarded, as they apparently had some connection to the erstwhile pro-western "5th Column" which has largely evaporated since the SMO - at least that's my impression.
I definitely miss Rachel Blevins and Naomi Karavani. Those girls are hot!
>This means that the crackdown’s motives are purely political and therefore amount to the USG waging lawfare against those of its citizens who share dissident views with publicly financed Russian media.
And it's not just opinions that concur with supposedly pro-Russian talking points. It's anyone promoting a position outside of the "approved" range. Russia Russia Russia is just the easiest to conflate those differing views, because the official narrative has been all-Russia, all the time for going on nine years in the US.
I wouldn't be overly concerned on a personal level if all you are is a reader. It's the producers they're after. There's too many to go after all of us, and we're not high profile enough anyway. Maybe later, once their reeducation camps are fully operational, but I doubt we'll reach that point before the whole card house comes tumbling down, at which point their own survival will take priority over suppressing a few dissidents with no real power. I could be wrong of course. They could go full Khmer Rouge on us. They don't seem to have a problem with that in Gaza, but it might be a bit trickier in America or the EU.
I hear you. Travelling back and forth itself is a bit dicey now. Back in 2019, just before all hell broke loose, we were planning a trip to Russia which at the time was straightforward. Vancouver to Reykjavík with a couple of days stopover to see Iceland, then on to Ste Pete. Can't do that anymore. Can't go via Finland either, at least not by train - that's been suspended. Right now the only way from Canada seems to be via Tehran or Istanbul. Is there a better way that you know of that doesn't involve transiting US territory?
That's what I was thinking. I bought my wife a nice kufiya in case we have to travel through Iran, which I want to see anyway, so we might take that route even though it's longer. Have you ever taken the ferry from Trabzon? If so, what's that like?
Hell, Trump was more reckless than Obama with regards to Russia.
That didn't appease his critics. Trump could have pressed The Button and Team D cultists and the MSM would have bitched that HRC would have pushed it sooner and better. Trump cultists would insist that this was all some eleven-dimensional chess, even as we all went up in a mushroom cloud.
The problem is that Russia has let itself be pushed around. What the Russian leadership see as reasonableness, the sociopaths who rule the West see as contemptible weakness which only encourages them to double down.
True enough, but doubling down hasn't worked out too well for them at this point. It's drained their armoury, which they'll have trouble rebuilding, eliminated a significant part of their mercenary forces, many of whom are just rebranded NATO, including high ranking officers and specialists who'll be hard to replace. On the whole I'd say adopting a defensive posture has worked out well for Russia. You need a 3 to 1 advantage in men and equipment to overcome a well entrenched enemy, and at this point it's running about 5 to 1 in favour of Russia. If they go on the offensive their losses will increase dramatically, at least they would have at first. Now maybe not so much, but that's the effect of first wearing the enemy down by attrition, which they seem happy to oblige with their pointless assaults with no clear objectives, including the recent fiasco in Kursk.
Even taking that as given, had Russia taken the war seriously from the outset, the point would be moot.
I agree that 8 years was a long time to wait, but it was a big decision to make and neither of us know the full picture with regard to the resources available, or the position of the cabinet members and military leaders advising VVP on the issue.
My understanding is that the decision to act came as a result of Ukraine amassing troops for an assault on the Donbas, which was previously frozen along the line of contact. The original move towards Kiev was clearly a feint meant to show willingness to respond, but without sufficient forces to actually take the capital. That was probably a mistake, as the assumption behind the move was that Kiev would be forced to negotiate, which turned out to be wrong.
Everything since then has followed the path one would expect from a peer level conflict, bearing in mind that the UAF while a smaller force, was still substantial, had some very fanatical elements in strongholds such as the Azovstal mill, plus they would be fighting on their own territory, which gave them at least a temporary advantage. Given Russia's doctrine of minimizing their own plus civilian casualties, I don't see how the fight could have evolved any differently.
A number of observers, including the Russian public, have questioned why this war is taking so long. Typically they expect to see what they've seen in movies, or have read in history books about WWII, which is to say a major advance in force to capture territory.
That doesn't work in Ukraine for several reasons. You've been there yourself, so you know it's mostly open terrain with farm fields and only a few major roads. Those fields are a trap except when the ground is frozen. Heavy trucks and armour get bogged down, so you have to use the main roads, which makes it easy to target you with artillery or from the air.
Also, because it's open ground, you'll be seen the moment you start to move, so large assemblies of vehicles are a problem. You have to space out and travel at high speed to avoid getting hit, and then you'll still have losses because of drones. Not just observation drones, but suicide drones capable of disabling a tank or truck. Smaller drones that can target individual soldiers are a real nightmare, and Ukraine has lots of those. So does Russia. I've seen footage of several UAF soldiers attempting to flee a drone attack by running into their bunker. The drone just followed them in and killed them all. There's little you can do to protect against them, except to carry a shotgun and make the first shot count, because you won't get a second chance.
Finally, Ukraine started with the second largest army in Europe after Russia, and were trained by NATO for many years, even prior to the Maidan coup. This is a battle between peers basically, and Russia's doctrine of minimizing both troop and civilian casualties puts them at a disadvantage. To sum it up, small concentrations of forces capturing villages which gives you cover from drones and artillery, is about the only way to advance without serious losses.
Last point. The original idea was to capture the Russian areas of Ukraine and negotiate a settlement from a position of strength, but that hasn't worked owing to NATO's continuous prodding (and bribing I'm sure) of the Ukraine political and military leadership. At this point I'm sure they know it's a lost cause, so my guess is they're trying to create the conditions where Russia has to take the entire Ukraine to end the war, which puts them in the tenuous position of an occupying force in a hostile environment. Russia's response to that, again I'm guessing, would be to continue operating as they have, and wait for the UAF to collapse and their leaders to flee, after which hopefully the sensible people of Ukraine (which I believe are still a majority) will negotiate a settlement in good faith, and Ukraine will become what it should have been from day 1 - a Russian ally. Not neutral. An ally. That's my hope at least. We'll see how it plays out, but a major assault is not likely to happen owing to the above reasons.
I don't think you'll see that. Kursk has drawn UAF forces from the south where they were most needed to stop a Russian advance, which is happening as we speak. A major strategic error, as the expected draw down of Russian forces in the south to support Kursk never happened. Russia had enough forces locally to deal with Kursk which is pretty much encircled and cut off at this point and UAF losses are serious. There's no big rush to retake the territory now, which is of no strategic importance anyway, and where most of the population has been evacuated.
"Never interfere with the enemy when he is making a mistake"
Following that rubric, which is often attributed to Napoleon, the question posed is, why did Russia fail to attack the UAF when they were assembling their forces near Sumy? Why was that allowed to proceed? Was that actually an intelligence failure as some have suggested, or was it a trap? The speed with with they evacuated everyone suggests to me a trap. "Appear weak where you are strong, strong where you are weak." This is basic Sun Tzu, and Russia has used the technique to good effect.
What I sought to convey in my analysis is that the USG fears Trump's foreign policy, however imperfect it might seem to many American dissidents, which is why they're the ones trying to conflate dissident with Trump through this crackdown.
The NYT's report comes right after ridiculous USG claims that Russia is meddling in the elections in Trump's support via its spy agencies and publicly financed media, so going after those who contribute to the latter is meant to frighten his supporters.
Notice that they haven't (at least not yet) made a serious attempt to claim that leading pro-Palestinian figures unconnected to Russian publicly financed media are supposedly foreign agents or whatever by raiding their homes, only critics of the Ukrainian Conflict.
You're criticism of me for "doing more harm than good" is misplaced: I'm a dissident myself and wouldn't ever try to "discredit" anyone else in my category even if they have very different views than I do on certain issues.
Again, this piece conveyed the point that it's the USG that's conflating Trump and American foreign policy dissidents, and it's doing this through its selective and arbitrary crackdown against publicly financed Russian media's American associates.
I'm all for constructive critiques and the sharing of contrarian views, but I'd appreciate it if next time you don't accuse me of "doing more harm than good" and "discrediting" fellow dissidents just because you misinterpreted what I wrote.
You or whoever else can convey an opinion without making it personal. I of all people would never try to "practically guarantee that your dissent will be shut down". I get that certain issues elicit emotional reactions, but please, don't do it again.
Let's be real here, I've been:
1. Falsely implicated in a "spy meddling" scandal in summer 2020:
https://x.com/AKorybko/status/1819755560977522904
2. Smeared as an anti-Semite by the State Department:
https://x.com/AKorybko/status/1726133288509538416
3. And "canceled" by most Alt-Media for debunking their "5D chess master plan" conspiracy theories.
I also permanently live in Russia and won't dare return to the US out of credible fear of political persecution per the first two points above.
So accusing me of trying to harm dissidents is really ridiculous. You probably had no idea who I am, but now that you do, I hope that you won't do it again.
Anyone who accuses me of that just discredits themselves. I'm a bonafide dissident who gave my life to the cause by leaving 12 years ago and not returning once since.
Being falsely implicated in 2020's remix of Russiagate and then branded an anti-Semite by the State Department are serious matters.
But they prove the power of my work and the influence it has on reshaping global perceptions. I'd never try to "discredit" or "shut down" fellow dissidents, ever.
I have a slightly different take on the question. I see Trump as a stalking horse for the left to discredit the right. Trump himself is the living definition of a narcissistic opportunist. I doubt he thought he could win in 2016. He was just trying to build his brand, and once in office had no idea how to navigate DC politics. He thought his hardball RE developer techniques were applicable there, but they aren't because profit takes second place to ideology in DC. He read the tea leaves correctly on Israel and quickly fell in line, but even that didn't help him because it was obviously insincere, like every thing else he does. The guy is all hat no cattle, as they say in Texas.
My personal opinion (FWIW) is that voting makes no difference in the USA, and hasn't for many years. Doesn't matter who's in the white house, you just get more of the same. My wife and I were discussing this earlier today, and the question of who I would vote for came up. I'm Canadian so I don't get a vote, although given how corrupt the system is, I could probably get away with it.
I guess I'd probably just do a write-in. Putin is a bit too obvious, so maybe Alexander Lukashenko? I bet no one writes him in...lol. Other than that, Harris. Not because I share her (lack of) views, obviously - just that I think the system will crash sooner with her at the helm, and frankly I'm becoming impatient. That plus I'm tired of Trump's bluster and empty rhetoric, and wish he would just go away.
TDS is boring lady, I think Trump is a giant tool of Zionist genociders, and thus I likely won't vote for him, but his domestic policy is a pretty understandable reaction to the endless demonization of white rural men for problems actually caused by the oligarchy.
You better wise up and learn to work with right wing populists, because pretty soon we will need a popular front as real tyranny may be coming down the pike very soon. And yes I walk my talk, I will work with literal communists as long as they are the kind with a material class analysis and not prog pod people.
That is the point of course. Never mind Russia, anyone who deviates from the official narrative on anything at this point is an ultra-right white supremacist Trump supporter in their books.