Russian/Kremlin partisan Nina Kouprianova, who lampshades her predilection to pro-Putin propaganda in her Twitter bio, recently expressed doubts that "anyone was still buying" her shtick.

"I don't know," she told RealTrueNews, "post-election it's become increasingly clear that Russia is using an information war and, you know, a lot of people from Alex Jones to Cernovich have taken it on themselves to amplify those messages. That makes what I'm doing a lot more obvious."

Kouprianova decried what she called 'ham-handed partisanship.' "These uneducated actors don't have a veneer of sophistication--they're just out-right conspiracy mongers--so when I get lumped in with them as the parrot the Kremlin's unlikely talking-points, it really makes it obvious that we're all kind of blatantly full of shit."

Kouprianova referred to her 'tongue-in-cheek' (making the air-quotes herself) accusations of pro-ISIS sentiments on the part of Western powers:

And her dogged implications that Putin, despite mounds of obvious evidence, is not trying to influence western election hacking:

"When I make these claims," she said, "you know I have a Ph.D. I have some scholarly translations to fall back on. I have--or had--some actual deniability--but between Putin's hackers getting caught forgetting to wipe their URL shorteners and ruthlessly abusing their Wikileaks channel, it's hard enough without all these amateurs getting into the game."

By 'amateurs,' Kouprianova referred to other pro-Trump, but not solidly ideologically pro-Putin Twitter and conspiracy-circuit personalities now elevated in stature due to targeted White House leaks and press passes. "When I have to share mind-space with Illuminati theorists and guys who believe their 'magick sperm' can enslave women," she complained, "it hurts the message--it hurts credibility--even if most Trump-voters are still inclined to believe these things."

Indeed, the space between intellectual Kremlin apologism and raw conspiracy-theory has become far narrower in the age of Trump. Left-wing publications such as The Intercept used to be able to operate behind a front of deniability when Obama was in the White House.

"Then, said Kouprianova, "You had the really crazy people saying that the Army was going to take over Texas. When that was the far-right talking-point, you could stake out a defense of Putin's interference or Assad's war-crimes and stand on a long-established and generally well-regarded body of intellectual leftism. Now? Now it's just crazy-talk and we're all lumped in together."

When asked if she was being paid for her efforts, she sighed.

"No--no. I wish. You know how everyone says Soros is paying for this or that protest? Well, I've tried. These people don't pay for anything. I mean, I'm working harder than Putin's St. Petersburg Troll Farm--and I'm better credentialed--but will a Soviet-Era Oligarch cut me a check? Noooo. No--I'm just another blogger with authority issues trying to make her way with my admiration for someone who abuses his people badly but makes all my intellectual enemies really mad."

She sagged in her chair. "Maybe I should start plugging Boko Haram, you know? They're badly smeared by the Western Press. Conventional schooling probably is bad for girls and you know that Islam's treatment of women does have a rich and vibrant history dating back thousands of years?" She paused, becoming more animated. "Do you think there's a niche for that? I could get followers!"