As I have pointed out, the jokers who dominate today’s “Russia debate” such as Molly McKew have much less Russia expertise even than La Russophobe, the old bete noire of the Russia bloggers.
Molly McKew, who identifies as an “information warfare expert,” has said that, back in the day, Soviet intelligence designed a “ninety/ten” approach in order to “embed” its agents in political communities: ninety per cent of what they produced mirrored what they saw, so that they could blend in before starting to sow discord. This idea makes so much sense that it doesn’t seem to matter that McKew offers no source for it or, indeed, any credentials for her own expertise. She is the C.E.O. of a company called Fianna Strategies, which seems to be a tiny Washington-based lobbying operation that has worked for the opposition parties in Georgia and Moldova. McKew’s “information warfare expertise” appears entirely self-styled, yet so great is our need for a rational interpretation of incomprehensible events that recently she has published extensively in Politico and appeared on Slate’s Trumpcast. Russians, meanwhile, have laughed parts of their anatomy off over her coverage of the Gerasimov Doctrine, which is a thing that, well, doesn’t exist.
But so far as I know, La Russophobe – “Kim Zigfeld”, or whoever she was – never did get a teaching gig at Georgetown University. Even though she, unlike McKew, actually had some minimal knowledge of Russian.
Global imperialist insurgency, okay.
Then again, considering that the US will in all likelihood be highly hostile to Russia for at least the next couple of decades, perhaps the progressive triumph of ideologues in American Russia Studies isn’t such a bad thing (for Russia).