Actually (in regard to spin) I think it's rather different, these days. Back they, they could rely on a media that was tightly controlled (and a population wit

Actually (in regard to spin) I think it's rather different, these days. Back they, they could rely on a media that was tightly controlled (and a population with a generational memory of experiencing terror at scale); while our media, while less "controlled", were much more difficult to talk back to or even bullshit-check. These days -- where it's seemingly impossible for an educated person to be hoodwinked by canards such as the Russian government's official line on MH-17 -- it seems they pretty much as to rely on the public willingness and preference for being regularly and openly deceived. Which counterintuitively has proved to be amazingly fruitful, and indeed, apparently one of the major cornerstones of their ideology (See the recent discussion on "post-truth" politics, per the recent Economist article). At least that's how it seems. Then again, I'm not from there, and would welcome correction (or qualification) from anyone who is, on this point. I am not a fan of Hillary or Trump, and frankly, I don't think either of them is up to dealing with the Russia that Putin is creating. Me neither, but objectively there's evidence that Hillary (while not exactly possessed of a great deal of imagination as to how to handle the problem) at least seems to (1) basically get that there's a major problem (and perhaps a major storm) brewing, and (2) be genuinely, viscerally disliked in Putin's camp (such that it seems they'd be most disappointed with an electoral victory on her side).