The whole premise pf the article is that Russia _hacked_ the US election. But from what I can tell, most people are saying that they "influenced" the election by buying a couple hundred grand of advertising and did some good targeting and that turned the whole election.

That's hardly "hacking". It's like some people have an ambivalent relationship with Russia --they like some of the Soviet anti-capitalist "capital"/cachet, but hate that they are now trying to influence the world in their own little way --something they did more vigorously when they were soviet.

It reminds me of Gore complaining about Nader syphoning "his" votes away. You have to earn votes. They don't "belong" to you. You earn them, just as Clinton earned his (rather than Perot "syphoning" from GHWB".