On Tuesday, news reports emerged wherein Russian hackers are accused anew of meddling in U.S. elections. This time, the chief targets of the Kremlin’s machinations are Republican organizations.

As The New York Times reports, “Microsoft Corporation said that it detected and seized websites that were created in recent weeks by hackers linked to the Russian unit formerly known as the G.R.U. The sites appeared meant to trick people into thinking they were clicking through links managed by the Hudson Institute and the International Republican Institute, but were secretly redirected to web pages created by the hackers to steal passwords and other credentials. Microsoft also found websites imitating the United States Senate, but not specific Senate offices or political campaigns.”

Of course, no one should be flabbergasted by Russia’s perpetual meddling. The Times correctly points out that “the shift to attacking conservative think tanks underscores the Russian intelligence agency’s goals: to disrupt any institutions challenging Moscow and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.” Case in point: The Wall Street Journal reports, “The Russian hacking group has launched a number of attempted digital intrusions in recent months, Microsoft said. Missouri Democrat Sen. Claire McCaskill last month disclosed that her office had been a target of a phishing scam.” In other words, both Democrats and Republicans are prey.

However, not everyone wants you to think so. Whereas the Times headline was clearly unambiguous — "New Russian Hacking Targeted Republican Groups, Microsoft Says" — The Washington Post was far more insinuating: “Microsoft says it has found a Russian operation targeting U.S. political institutions.” “Republican Groups,” “U.S. political institutions” — same unequivocal meaning, right?

According to Hudson Institute spokesman David Tell, “We are not surprised by this. There can’t be an even peripherally involved office in politics in Washington that does not routinely get emails ending in .ru with weird attachments in them.” And according to International Republican Institute President Daniel Twining, “It is clearly designed to sow confusion, conflict and fear among those who criticize Mr. Putin’s authoritarian regime.” For his part, Microsoft President Brad Smith stated, “These attacks are seeking to disrupt and divide. There is an asymmetric risk here for democratic societies. The kind of attacks we see from authoritarian regimes are seeking to fracture and splinter groups in our society.”

All of these points should lead to the same conclusion: Whatever “collusion” narrative the Left keeps chasing, the fact of the matter is that Russia is willing and able to interfere wherever, whenever, and with whomever it deems necessary. Our bickering over unsubstantiated “collusion” has the Russians grabbing the popcorn in amusement as they watch their master plan come to fruition.

As the Washington Examiner’s Tom Rogan writes, a counterpunch is warranted: “While the U.S. government has condemned those attacks as a grievous assault on democracy, it has not imposed adequate consequences for them. These latest attacks mean U.S. deterrent credibility is not-so-slowly perishing. In turn, Russia has added reason to believe it can conduct aggressive operations in other areas. Putin must be educated to his error.”