Here is a characteristic example of the kind of "argument" being spewed out by the America-hating, dictatorship loving Russophile apologists for the Kremlin:

First stop – London, site of the world's first nuclear terrorist attack, where one Alexander Litvinenko, a former KGB agent turned whacked-out conspiracy theorist, was poisoned with radioactive polonium. From his deathbed, Litvinenko pointed the finger at Russian President Vladimir Putin and the FSB, the Russian intelligence service. Putin would have to be crazy to order or countenance such an attack, that Russia had nothing to gain from it and everything to lose. Kindly disregard the total lack of evidence implicating the Russian state, and please do your best to ignore the shady character of the victim and his billionaire Russian oligarch patron, whose criminal career was well-documented by the late Paul Klebnikov. (After his fascinating expose, The Godfather of the Kremlin, was published, Klebnikov was knocked off by unknown assailants.)

So let's see now:

1. The "President" of Russia, a former KGB spymaster, had "nothing to gain" by killing a KGB defector who provided Russian state secrets to the West and accused his government of bombing apartment buildings in Moscow to justify the war in Chechnya. He's desperate to preserve his reputation in the West, which is why he's selling nuclear technology to Iran, massive quantities of assault weapons to Venezuela, and giving financial support to the terrorist regimes of Hamas and Hezbollah, all the while maintaining a vast nuclear strikeforce, universal conscription, and obliterating opposition political parties and independent television (the author calls this is "independent foreign policy").

2. The "President" of Russia has exactly the same KGB credentials as Litvinenko. But while the latter is "whacked out" the former is sane, and we must enter the "bizarro" world to think the "President" could be guilty of anything, while it's obvious that the latter is guilty of everything. We should oppose the latter, protect the former. Search hard, dear reader, though the entire bucket of slop that constitutes this "analysis" and try to find a single critical word about the KGB spy who rules Russia. Hard, isn't it?

3. The use of extremely high technology nuclear material from a Russian reactor is not evidence of Kremlin involvement in the Litvinenko killing, nor is the Kremlin's stonewalling of the investigation, nor is the testimony of Mikhail Trepashkin, nor does the fact that there is a "total lack of evidence" indicate the action of professional intelligence services as opposedto unprofessional amateurs. The author believes that, if the KGB had done the deed, there would be a trail of evidence leading to their door like breadcrumbs.

4. Berezovsky probably killed Klebnikov because the latter said nasty things about the former in a book. But the fact that Berezosky played a key role in selecting the "President of Russia" means nothing negative about that "President" and it is also irrelevant that there is a "total lack of evidence" implicating him in the killing of Litvinenko, his close associate. It's obvious that Berezovsky killed Litvinenko, and the fact that he had everything to lose by doing so (his close associate, his protected position in Britian) means nothing. It's more likely that Berezovsky is the killer than the "President." Assuming Berezovsky did kill Litvinenko, it means nothing that he, Public Enemy #1 in Russia, can get his hands on Russian nuclear materials, that the Kremlin says nothing about such materials going missing, or that it stonewalls the subsequent investigation even though it is "innocent." Kindly disregard all of that.

The author concludes: "As I have warned for the past year or so, Russophobia is the latest and most dangerous trend in Washington, and it is now a bipartisan fashion, as Senators Biden and Graham demonstrated on Fox News (where else?) the other day." Can you imagining someone saying, as Nazi Germany rose to power: "As I have warned for the past year or so, Naziphobia is the latest and most dangerous trend in London, and its now a bipartisan fashion." Wait a minute! Someone DID say EXACTLY that, didn't he?! Yes he did! And his name was Neville Chamberlain.

As La Russophobe has warned for the past year or so, Russophelia is the latest and most dangerous trend in Russia, and it is now the lunatic fashion, as this author demonstrates on "The Ether Zone." A neo-Soviet dictatorship is rising in Russia, and more than 1,000 posts on this blog document it. If we allow raving psychopaths like this one to mislead us into dropping our guard yet again, then we have only ourselves to blame.

For more examples of russophile insanity along these lines, see the post on Social Affairs Unit (hat tip Robert Amsterdam).