As a lover of Russia - and a student of Russian history, frequent visitor, and a Russian speaker - I want to say that I find merit in both sides of this debate. Stephen Cohen of The Nation makes a case for the Russia-bashing predilection of Clinton and others. On the other hand, Masha Gessen of the New York Times is to be carefully heeded. However wicked Clinton is, the fact remains that Russia has become a "mafia state."
Putin has brought the mafia and the oligarchy under his control. Those who resisted - like Khodorkovsky - have been jailed or just killed. No one disputes that Politkovskaya, Nemstov, and Litvinenko were all murdered. Some think Berezovsky was, too. These matters do not make neo-liberal Russophobia any less odious. [For example, a good case can be made for the annexation of the Crimea; a little less good one for the donbas, which had been the industrial heartland of Russia (think Erie, Pa through Gary, IN), since Russia started having industries. The borders of modern Ukraine were drawn by Stalin, as Commissar of Nationalities under Lenin, precisely to include lots of ethnic Russians and thereby to complicate nationalist separatism.]
So I suspect those who get all righteous about it, like Clinton. I will not forget that as Secretary of State, she assured the Security Council that Qaddafi was not the target of the intervention it authorized. This secured the abstention of China and Russia (2011). Then he was killed and Mrs. Clinton said on TV "We came, we saw, he died. Ha Ha!" She actually laughed. This was a big mistake. Within days, Putin - who may have felt conned - had ordered a review of military and nuclear policy. The eventual result was the move in the Crimea and donbas (2014).
This doesn't mean that Putin is not an asshole, but that fact doesn't argue that his worst enemy (Clinton et al) isn't one too! I happen to think both of them are. Whomever you may dislike, their enemy is not necessarily your friend.
One more historical detail: the Russians may not have invented political deception, but "dezinformatsia" is a Russian word, and they refined it to a high art in the Soviet period. Even though McCarthy was a much greater threat to our democracy than Communism ever was, the fact remains that the Soviets were masters at the game. They were masters at recruiting stooges in the West, and their cultivation of a warm relationship with Donald Trump is a textbook example: FSB (KGB) fingerprints all over it. Just read Luke Harding's book. He is a little too much given to Russia-bashing for my taste [he seems to accept that Russia has no legitimate claim to the Crimea] but his "Collusion" still serves well as a compendium of actual facts - as known or alleged by very reliable sources.
To be sure, the evidence is mostly circumstantial, but as Thoreau observed: "Sometimes circumstantial evidence is convincing - as when you find a trout in the milk!"
