Many factors combined to produce this totally unexpected state of affairs, but alleged Russian interference was not one of them. If a foreign power had intervened in the presidential election, it did not intervene to install Donald Trump -- this tale just makes no sense.

The Mueller report stated that the Russian government “perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to ­secure that outcome” -- “while Trump’s campaign also expected to reap the rewards of Moscow’s efforts…”

Anyone familiar with centuries-old Russian statecraft would know that although the Russians sometimes lack a sense of tactical feasibility, they are always pursuing a coherent long-term strategy. Their foreign policy is not shaped by incidents. The core element of Russian policies since Peter the Great has been rai·son d'é·tat -- national interest.

It is easy to see what Russian’s national interest was vis-à-vis the 2016 presidential elections and who would better serve it.

It would be absurd and impolitic for Putin to support Trump. The Clintons were in Putin’s pocket; they sold him 20% of American uranium production. In the process, according to the FBI, Russian officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering and “routed” $150 million to the Clinton Foundation in an attempt to influence the deal. During the same period, Bill Clinton was making obscene fees for speaking engagements in Moscow. The Clintons and Putin had been partners in business or crime, whichever one prefers, during her tenure as Secretary of State. Relations with Hillary Clinton did not need to be built; they already existed.

Furthermore, Hillary subordinated many of her policies to Russian interests. Hillary was a strong opponent of hydrocarbons; she planned to shut down coal mines and curb oil and gas production in this country. Those policies would result in the sharp rise of oil and gas prices, which would greatly benefit Russia.

Hillary was also an architect of the “Reset Button Policy” which gave Putin a free ride as regards his international adventures.

Unlike Donald Trump, who entered the political world recently, Hillary has been in political life for decades and as a Secretary of State traveled all over the world with insecure communication equipment. There is no doubt that FSB (the former KGB) has compiled a sizeable file of (compromat) incriminating information on Hillary -- the private server, the Clinton Foundation, the Benghazi tragedy, etc. If anyone was vulnerable to persuasion from Kremlin, it was certainly not Trump.

Although Trump’s pronouncements of good relations with Russia were welcome, it was nothing new; every American president expressed a desire to have good relations with the country that stretches throughout Europe and Asia for nine time zones and plays a pivotal role in the balance of power in Europe and Asia.

Pronouncements aside, Trump policies were the direct opposite of Clinton’s. Unlike Clinton, Trump was a strong proponent of energy independence and planned to greatly increase coal, oil and gas production. He was also going to substantially increase American military power to maintain its world dominant position.

In this context, why would Putin dump his reliable and dependent partner for Trump, whose chances to be elected were close to zero?

The Washington Post summarized the prevailing mood at the time: “The election is in 15 days, and the electoral map just keeps looking grimmer and grimmer for Donald Trump.”

Getting involved in the American elections on the side of a political apprentice whose policies were in conflict with the Russian interests would lack strategic purposefulness.

And finally, there is the Russian anti-Trump dossier. How did this dossier help Trump to get elected? Or, perhaps the Russian dossier wasn’t even Russian. The report conveniently overlooked this inconsistency.

After two years of investigation and millions of dollars, the report flouts logic and common sense. Although it is plausible, or indeed likely, that some Russian actors were trying to hack into computers or posted some ads on Facebook, nevertheless, the accusation of the Russian government-sponsored operation to intervene into the election in support of Donald Trump looks problematic.

Alexander G. Markovsky is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research, a conservative think tank that examines national security, energy, risk-analysis and other public policy issues. He is the author of "Anatomy of a Bolshevik" and "Liberal Bolshevism: America Did Not Defeat Communism, She Adopted It.” He is the owner and CEO of Litwin Management Services, LLC. He can be reached at info@litwinms.com