“[H]e was much more subtle back then.” No, he wasn’t. Jemberga and Ragozin were co-authoring pieces about Ukrainian “race war plans” in 2019. Ragozin was later arguing, before the full-scale invasion, that Russia’s military pressure was “a response, not a provocation” and that Ukraine’s Western alignment was driving escalation. That is why @rebaltica’s attempt to distance itself from him now rings hollow. These narratives did not suddenly appear in 2022. They were already helping shape an information environment in which Ukraine was portrayed as extremist, provocative and partly responsible for Russian aggression — precisely the kind of framing that weakened the political case for supporting and arming Ukraine. You are too eager to offer everyone a clean exit: they were fooled, he became worse, bygones be bygones. But Re:Baltica did not merely fail to notice him. It chose to work with him and gave institutional credibility to narratives that, before the invasion, worked against the case for treating Ukraine as the victim of Russian aggression and for strengthening it militarily.