Russia had hacked into the computers of the Democratic National Committee, and was releasing the contents of its cyber-theft, in an attempt to influence the election, Obama explained. He was careful to present the behavior of the Trump campaign itself in the best light and to say that it deserved every benefit of the doubt.

But the president wanted the American people to sit up and take notice of the attack. He wanted them to understand why the drip-drip-drip of WikiLeaks was happening. He wanted to call out the media for breathlessly reporting on WikiLeaks as if it were the product of great investigative reporting, rather than theft by a hostile foreign country. He wanted to put Russia on very public notice.

None of this happened, of course. It’s a piece of alternate history, dreamed up by a top adviser to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and described briefly in an excellent New Yorker article this week. The article tells the story of Russia’s campaign against the United States —under the all-star triple byline of Evan Osnos, David Remnick and Joshua Yaffa — and I recommend you set aside the time to read it.

Lamenting the Obama administration’s low-key passive response to Russia’s attack obviously depends on 20/20 hindsight. Obama had reason to play it safe: As a Democratic president, he was rightly worried about politicizing national security and using his power to hurt the Republican nominee. But it seems likely that the administration would have nonetheless chosen a different route if it had realized that Donald Trump was a serious threat to win the election.

There is also one lesson that remains very relevant today: The country is still not taking Russia’s actions nearly seriously enough. As Tom Friedman has written, Nov. 8, 2016, deserves to join Sept. 11, 2001, and Dec. 7, 1941, as infamous dates of attacks on America.