When you see a headline like this, How Putin Co-Opted the Republican Party, it tells you that the entire story is political narrative only. Just move past it and ignore the entire story. You will miss nothing of importance. The idea that Trump, and by narrative inclusion, the Republican Party, is somehow in collusion with Putin & Russia has been proven false. A tribune of 17 Democrat lawyers tried for two years and could not find a way to link Trump to Putin & Russia. Even when their leader, Robert Mueller sat before Congress he could not even convince anyone why this investigation even started. But, the left wing media and politicians love this narrative and they cannot let it go. Now, just to highlight the political nature of this article, let’s look a little deeper. This is the first few paragraphs of the article.  The bolded items are political narratives which should be ignored and the underlined items are actually true statements. ---------------------------- In the mythologies of the modern conservative movement, no figure stands taller than Ronald Reagan. But his shadow is shrinking faster than a lot of Republicans realize. Reagan was the voice that placed Barry Goldwater’s name forward for the presidential nomination in 1964. He inaugurated what was then known as the Conservative Political Action Conference—which is now known as CPAC and starts today—with a landmark speech in 1974 that employed the “city on a hill” rhetoric that would pepper so many of his remarks over the next 15 years. Once he was in the White House, Reagan was perhaps the most effective American Cold Warrior, helping guide almost a half century of antipathy between democratic Washington and communist Moscow to an end. Reagan’s agenda benefited from a sincere friendship with his Soviet counterpart, Mikhail Gorbachev, whom he ordered in Berlin to “tear down this wall”—even over objections from the U.S. State Department and National Security Council. For close to 40 years, Republicans across the spectrum have found a way to somehow invite comparisons to The Gipper, including his Cold War victory over a geopolitical rival he branded "The Evil Empire". Reagan, it has to be said, was pretty spot-on when it came to his assessment of the then-Soviet Union and prescient about its next stage. Its heir, modern Russia, never fully shed its inclinations toward autocracy or foreign meddling.  It’s why even in the cooled rivalry between the two capitals there has never been a full thaw. Last week’s Munich Security Conference began hours after news broke of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny’s death. The German Chancellor devoted his entire speech at the “Peace Through Dialogue” confab to the threats from Moscow. Here in the United States, Navalny’s death drew Reaganesque condemnation in stark moral terms from all corners of the political arena. Donald Trump, the former President and current Republican frontrunner for renomination, has stubbornly refused to condemn Russia or President Vladimir Putin for their role in Navalny’s death in a remote arctic prison. In turn, he blamed Navalny for returning to Russia after an earlier attempt on his life—he would have been better served “staying away and talking from outside of the country”—and then baselessly likened his own legal woes to those of Navalny, who as Putin’s chief critic never stood a shot at a fair trial in Russia. Those comments came just days after Trump’s admonition that Russia should feel free to attack any NATO member that isn’t paying its fair share, further casting doubt on his—and, in turn, U.S.—commitment to the defense alliance that requires any attack on a member be met with a response from all. “I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want,” Trump said. For years, the party treated Trump’s Putin adoration as something to be ignored or grudgingly tolerated. That’s no longer a tenable position. With Russian forces capturing Avdiivka while a desperate Ukraine waits for U.S. aid blocked by the House GOP Caucus, Trump’s apologist posture toward Russia and the Republican Party’s position are essentially indistinguishable; it’s a dynamic that has enormous consequences across the globe. -------------------------- We have not commented on the entire article, but you will get the point. Again, the bolded items are political narratives which should be ignored and the underlined items are actually true statements. But, they both present a set of positions at odds with themselves within the article. Criticisms and accolades compete with each other, with truth & reality ignored or tossed to the side. For example:

• Trump “stubbornly refused to condemn Russia or President Vladimir Putin for their role in Navalny’s death.
• ”Trump “blamed Navalny for returning to Russia… Navalny’s death drew Reaganesque condemnation in stark moral terms from all corners of the political arena.”
  • Yet, he “never stood a shot at a fair trial in Russia”. An outright contradiction of their previous ‘admonitions’.
  • Trump knew this when he told him not to return.
  • Condemning Putin again for what he already forecast is really unnecessary.
  • So, Trump was correct.
• Trump “baselessly likened his own legal woes to those of Navalny”
• "Trump’s Putin adoration”
  • ‘Adoration’ is clearly a narrative descriptor for a reason, even if untrue. Intended to highlight a non-existent tyrannical (another political narrative) affection.
  • Yet, Reagan’s relationship with the leader of the Communist Soviet Union, the Evil Empire, was a “sincere friendship” (with the leader of the Evil Empire, please), included the famous “tear down this wall” order.
  • Trump, when he was President, had similar tough talk with Putin, which is why Putin did nothing in Ukraine until Biden became President.
• "Ukraine waits for U.S. aid blocked by the House GOP Caucus"
  • Trump & GOP’s 'position are essentially indistinguishable’.
    •  Yes, they are indistinguishable, just not the position that is espoused in this article.
  • The House Republican caucus position on Ukraine funding has nothing to with support for Putin & Russia. It is simply about the mass amounts of money already supplied and where did it go. There is not record of where it went. Plus Biden wants to protect the Ukrainian border, but not the US southern border. This makes no sense on its face. It is a ridiculous and false position to take, but, one they will insert to support the overall false political narratives (soft on Russia and tyrants) against Trump and the GOP. There is, to use a frequent media narrative here, ‘no evidence’ to support such a claim. What they claim as evidence is over-hyped misunderstanding they regularly have about what Trump says. A problem they never have when covering Joe Biden. And Biden, with his rambling, nonsensical speech, gives them plenty of ammunition, which they won’t use. Why? Attacking Biden does not support the preferred political narratives. This is simply political narrative display.
• "Trump’s admonition that Russia should feel free to attack any NATO member that isn’t paying its fair share."
  • This is a strong statement for sure. The message however is totally opposite of the media translation. Trump is telling NATO that this situation is serious. That’s all. As a negotiator, of which he is a good one, he is overstating a possible catastrophic result if NATO does not take proper defense actions. Incidentally, the same tactic used by the media and the political left when describing a theoretical climate change catastrophe.

And, last, but certainly not least given Mr. Elliott starts off the article with these points, is his attack on Ronald Reagan:

• “the mythologies of the modern conservative movement”
• Reagan’s “shadow is shrinking”
• He “placed Barry Goldwater’s name forward for the presidential nomination in 1964.
  • Reagan, it has to be said, was pretty spot-on when it came to his assessment of the then-Soviet Union and prescient about its next stage. Its heir, modern Russia, never fully shed its inclinations toward autocracy or foreign meddling. It’s why even in the cooled rivalry between the two capitals there has never been a full thaw. An absolutely true statement and shocking coming from a left wing magazine, as part of a subtle hit piece on Reagan and his conservative “myth”.
  • Throws in the "Goldwater" data point to reinforce a staunchly conservative Reagan mentor, to, not so subtlely, insert the political narrative about Goldwater not supporting the Civil Rights Act of 1964, into this discussion of Reagan and Trump.
  • States this positive reference to Reagan: “Navalny’s death drew Reaganesque condemnation in stark moral terms from all corners of the political arena.”
  • The left-wing media, of which TIME Magazine is a founding member, hated Ronald Reagan and his tough approach to the Soviet Union. So, to wedge in quasi-positive statements about Reagan is a lame attempt at trying to make this political narrative piece have an air of journalism. It fails!
  • Fact is, whenever Trump takes a tough approach to an adversary, they attack him and state their fear that he will start a world war. And when he takes a negotiated position, they say why is he talking to dictators. It is all political narrative.

No need to review this article in its entirety. The point is made. Just look at an article like this, especially when the title is so obvious, and move one. Ignore it completely. It has no news or journalistic value. It is at best an opinion piece. At best, one which reveals a terribly uninformed premise whose purpose is to support other left wing political narratives. More From TIME Magazine: