Counterpunch has the article Why ‘Russian Meddling’ is a Trojan Horse.

A great article bringing together many factors with links to supporting articles. It is hard to pick just one example to quote. Here are two disparate quotes to just give you a hint of what is in here.

In 2013 the Obama administration ‘brokered’ (Mr. Obama’s term) a coup in the former Soviet state of Ukraine that ousted the democratically elected President to install persons favorable to the interests of Western oligarchs. At the time Hillary Clinton had just vacated her post as Mr. Obama’s Secretary of State to prepare for her 2016 run for president, but her lieutenants, including Victoria Nuland, were active in coordinating the coup and deciding who the new ‘leadership’ of Ukraine would be.

And this one more directly addressing the title of the article.

More than a year later, no credible evidence has been put forward to establish that any votes were changed due to ‘external’ meddling.

With regard to Victoria Nuland and where she came from politically, here are some excerpts from the Wikipedia article. She served in both Democratic and Republican administrations – Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

During the Bill Clinton administration, Nuland was chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott before moving on to serve as deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs.

She served as the principal deputy foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and then as U.S. ambassador to NATO.

U.S. News & World Report has the article Trump’s Infrastructure Con.

America needs a big, bold infrastructure plan. Trump’s proposal is not one.

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders has a Facebook post about this article.

President Trump is right to talk about the need to rebuild our country’s infrastructure, but the proposal he introduced today is dead wrong.
.
.
.
The reality is that Trump’s plan to privatize our nation’s infrastructure is an old idea that has never worked and never will work.

I immediately thought about the disastrous plans that we foisted on Russia to privatize its economy after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Vladimir Putin is still working to rein in the damage that we caused.

The Nation has the article The Harvard Boys Do Russia.

Such questions need to be answered, but any serious inquiry must go beyond individual corruption and examine how U.S. policy, using tens of millions in taxpayer dollars, helped deform democracy and economic reform in Russia and helped create a fat-cat oligarchy run amok.

Institutional Investor has an article that touches on the some of the same topics – How Harvard lost Russia.

The articles in The Nation and Institutional Investor are long and involved. So far I have only had a chance to skim them to see that they confirm my understanding of how Harvard advisers steered Russia into disastrous economic policies.

Came across the following in the Pentagon Papers:

The Buddhists, while a cohesive and effective minority protest movement, lacked a program or the means to achieve power. The labor unions were entirely urban-based and appealed to only a small segment of the population. The clandestine political parties were small, urban, and usually elitist. The religious sects had a narrow appeal and were based on ethnic minorities. Only the Viet Cong had any real support and influence on a broad base in the countryside.

If our country claims to be for democracy in other countries, why is it that we pick as our enemy the only group that had “any real support and influence on a broad base in the countryside”? In the case of Vietnam at the time, the majority of the people were in the countryside, and not in the cities.

One would think that the excerpt above might be immune from being called propaganda since it seems to be against the very side who is stating this as a fact. To quote a newly coined phrase, “And yet we persisted.”