Good collection of factual and historical analysis. However, would have wanted to get the viewpoint of some Russian folk for a "what does it look like to them" article. Therefore, clickbait-y, even though it is well written.

The argument here seems to be: 1. Russia is weaker than we think (just like they were in the 1990's) 2. If pushed, Trump might do something dangerous like bomb Russia just to show he isn't colluding with Putin. 3. Since Russia has nukes, Trump escalating the situation is far more dangerous than whatever the Russian spy agencies are doing given statement #1 above. We learn about the 1990's in the article associated with the "devil's bargain" link which goes to a very long, undated article (or is it a book chapter?) that examines the Yeltsin years. I couldn't figure out where this article/chapter was originally published since the link goes to George Washington University (someone's reading assignment evidently) so that was troubling. This undated article/chapter is the primary source for the author's contention that Russia is weaker than we think....because they were weaker than we thought back in the 1990's. That isn't a valid argument. Other links were problematic, specifically I am not sure Masha Gessen would agree with this author that we should chill about Russia. Supporting the proposition, the link goes tweet about Masha Gessen tweet which links to an article by Masha Gessen which doesn't seem to agree with this author. Basically, this is an opinion piece that tries to make an argument but doesn't do a very good job of it. It is still thought-provoking and the author might be right that for our national safety, we should tamp down the rhetoric about Russia so we don't set off Trump. Or the author could be a Russian operative or Trump supporter who wants to reduce the pressure on Trump for an entirely different reason. Either way, the argument presented isn't logical or well-supported.

The whole premise of this article, as the name indicates, is how the Russians feel about this US "scandal". The author tries to compare the time the US helped Yeltsin to how Putin allegedly helped President Trump. It's hard to take an comparison like that seriously when there isn't a single drop of evidence that Russia meddled in our election. The author states "There's evidence that the Russians have tried to burrow their way into America's commercial and political establishment, but by most accounts the main route of entry has been financial." I would like to know how exactly they did. It you're going to make a claim like that I need it to be explained. Such a broad statement can mean anything.

Very well written and factual. Putin is today's least understood world leader but no-one doubts he is shrewd and pragmatic. His mission is to restore the greatness of pre Soviet Russia and so far has demonstrated to the Russian people that he is up to the task. He has at times used ruthless measures to keep and expand his power but that is exactly the type of leadership Russians respect and admire. He is feared by the Europeans as well as his southern neighbors for good reason. He saw the failings of the caricature of Yeltsin and America's intervention into Russian politics during that period and now he is showing us what that feels like. Although Russia is going through some tough economic times due to the collapse of the price of oil, its leadership in world affairs is expanding thanks largely to US's policy of isolation from world affairs. Overall an informative and well written piece.

The article is valuable in so far as it makes the US accountable for the current political climate between the two nations and brings to light the fact that Russia is following a precedent set by the United States of actively interfering with elections. However

Clickbait title for an article that doesn't deal with Russian's thoughts on Russiagate. It is an interesting article that delves into the U.S.'s international political agenda and point out the hypocrisy of the whole thing. But the intense rhetoric used and ad hominems make the argument weaker in my eyes. Also some speculation with no data to back up the conclusions being made. I chose to say it is an opinion piece because of the lack of data to back up the claims being made.

Taibii makes some great points, but it does seem a little biased at times as the article ends up being a bit one sided. Its opinion heavy, and the title is misleading for the author didn't provide any evidence on the Russian's perspective.

I chose 'Trust' for this article because I appreciate the perspective the author is trying to introduce. It's important to understand the historical context of the recent renewal of Cold War tensions and to remember that the citizens of neither America, Russia, nor the rest of the world should want to see a war between the two nuke bearing countries. The author points out that the more aggressively the media and Democrats accuse Trump of working with the Russians, the more likely Trump will do something excessive in order to "prove" his innocence. With that said, the piece has a few ad hominem attacks against Trump which were unnecessary and make it harder for me to share this perspective with my conservative/Republican friends. The headline is also misleading because the entire piece is still written from the American perspective and does very little to show how Russian citizens are perceiving this renewed Cold War rhetoric.

The piece, starting from the title, is speculative in every word. The political situation between the US and Russia is not only explained under the personal point of view of the author, but also it is implied that Trump's future moves agains Russia could be decided by how the democrats and the media act. Even though I side with most things said, the piece is not objective and doesn't provide a factual description of the situation.

The author, Matt Taibbi, has an eloquent writing style that strings together a rather untold timeline in a seemingly seamless way. The overall piece seems a bit simplifying in its explanation which makes it harder to believe the conclusion when Matt uses ad hominem attacks against Trump. Overall, my trust in this article was kept, but not sure it was worth the read. Clickbait headline too.

Points out the hypocrasy of the US

This is a refreshing piece that shows that the American perspective is not the only one. In an age of news articles continually asking how did this happen, how did we get here, those who live in the United States should be reminded of the sins that we have allowed our government to make in the past in meddling in other countries have consequences. Our current location in history is created by decisions made in the past.