If Facebook was trying to sabotage the Democrat-pushed Trump-Russia collusion narrative this week, it did a great job.

The site announced the ban of 32 “inauthentic” Facebook pages and accounts with connections (though not concrete ones) to previously-banned accounts linked to Russia’s internet research agency.

Here’s the thing, though — all the examples of inauthentic pages highlighted by Facebook were leftist, anti-Trump ones. The social media company even pointed out that the inauthentic, Russian-like accounts had boosted the #AbolishICE hashtag in its early days, potentially tainting the brand-new progressive social media campaign with Russian influence.

It’s nothing new, of course. Last year, the social network released examples of 2016 election content published by Russian agents on the platform, which included both pro-Trump and anti-Trump content.

But Facebook didn’t make a point of highlighting the leftist pages, allowing the mainstream media to continue its bogus narrative that Russian agents exclusively assisted Trump during the election, when in fact they sought to manipulate both sides.

Russian social media agents in 2016 did in America what the Kremlin has been doing in Russia for some time: fund both sides, and make sure they know about it. The goal is not so much to take over opposing political movements as to create the perception that they are not truly genuine, not truly legitimate, and therefore can’t be trusted. If you pay attention to how left-wingers talk about the democratic legitimacy of the Trump and Brexit movements, it should sound very familiar, although Facebook’s new focus on inauthentic left-wing pages could blunt some of that rhetoric.

Here’s how Russian-born journalists Peter Pomerantsev described it in 2014, in an op-ed on Vladislav Surkov, the Kremlin insider who pioneered the tactic:

The brilliance of this new type of authoritarianism is that instead of simply oppressing opposition, as had been the case with 20th-century strains, it climbs inside all ideologies and movements, exploiting and rendering them absurd. One moment Surkov would fund civic forums and human-rights NGOs, the next he would quietly support nationalist movements that accuse the NGOs of being tools of the West. With a flourish he sponsored lavish arts festivals for the most provocative modern artists in Moscow, then supported Orthodox fundamentalists, dressed all in black and carrying crosses, who in turn attacked the modern-art exhibitions. The Kremlin’s idea is to own all forms of political discourse, to not let any independent movements develop outside of its walls.

We can see a version of this tactic being applied to U.S. democracy. Although Russia isn’t close to “co-opting” any movement in the U.S. (they spent $100,000 in election ads in 2016, barely enough to influence a state assembly race), their small investments have nonetheless had massive knock-on effects on western politics. National politicians and mainstream media publications talk ceaselessly about Russian influence. Grassroots activists accuse their opponents of being Russian agents, instead of debating their arguments in good faith. Social media companies scramble to ban “Russian bots,” often widely overstepping the mark to censor real people instead (trivia: Facebook is now being accused of accidentally suspending real left-wing activists in their crackdown on “inauthentic accounts.”)

If Russia’s goal is to sow confusion and discord in American politics, those are pretty good results for a $100,000 Facebook ad investment.

The reality of Russian interference is different from the conspiracy theory pushed by the Democrats and the mainstream media, who see a vast Manchurian Candidate plot by the Kremlin to install Donald Trump in office. No evidence has ever surfaced to support this theory, yet it is perhaps the single most talked-about issue among Democrats and mainstream pundits. As with the furor over Russian propaganda on social media (which has virtually zero direct influence on voter attitudes), it plays directly into the hands of Vladimir Putin, who gets to be portrayed in the international media as an all-powerful mastermind. Putin’s domestic support is based in no small part on his carefully cultivated image of a strongman who will protect Russia from its western enemies.

The opportunistic and dishonest Democrat-led panic over Russia is exactly what the Kremlin wants and needs. Panic — not direct influence on voters — may well have been its goal all along. Now that Facebook has begun to put the spotlight on inauthentic anti-Trump and far-left content, perhaps the Democrats will finally call it quits.

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. You can follow him on Twitter, Gab.ai and add him on Facebook. Email tips and suggestions to allumbokhari@protonmail.com.