Anything? Ok, let’s look at a couple of examples. 1. Stealing and publishing DNC correspondence. A team of security experts, doing a magnificently fast work na

Anything? Ok, let’s look at a couple of examples. 1. Stealing and publishing DNC correspondence. A team of security experts, doing a magnificently fast work named exactly two culprits: a) Russian military intelligence, b) Russian political intelligence. Both these entities are directly under Putin’s control. Still it was “Russian interference in elections”, not “Putin’s interference in elections”. The latter is both correct and politically correct, and in no way reductive. Why not use it? 2. Placing Facebook ads during the election campaign. The official indictment named Prigozhin’s media company (forgot its name) as a culprit. Prigozhin is the closest buddy of Putin. So blaming Putin was not reductive in this case. Still, “Russian meddling” was used, not “Putin’s”. Any idea why?