What's the difference between The Truth and unreconstructed Russia propaganda?

Baldwin and Heartsong decry Western strategy in Eastern Europe from a generic anti-globalization perspective. The basic argument is that a cadre of corrupt strategists, headed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, and hopelessly locked in a Cold War mindset and/or planning to asset strip everything for mega-corporations like Exxon. By combining Nazi-influenced Straussian Neo-Conservative Ideology with Israeli psychological warfare tactics, Zbig and the Clinton-Bush-Obama conspiracy plot to override national sovereignty with false flag color revolutions in utter violation of international law.

Poor plucky Russia just can't help but get sucked into invading, um, sorry, *peacekeeping operations in defense of local dissidents* in Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine. But thanks to the strong and ethical leadership of President Vladimir Putin, Russia has avoided the worst of these traps, and is setting up a financial alternative to the evil Washington establishment.

So yeah, the level of _~woke~_ that this whole thing is on is pretty high. I'm not saying that the CIA doesn't do some hinky shit, or that neoliberalism is a terrible ideology, but this book is rife with conspiracy theories: MH-17 was probably shot down by a Ukrainian Su-25. The Tienanmen Square protests were part of a CIA-backed coup attempt, and no one died. The Bosnian Genocide was entirely fictional. Apparently these are things that are also important to believe, along with the main thesis of Western aggression and checkmate.

While this book looks like scholarly work, citing professors and experts, it draws deeply from the alternative universe of GlobalResearch.ca amnd RussiaToday.com. And as matter of personal "wtf", Baldwin cites Wikipedia several times. I tell my undergrads to cite one layer deeper, and I expect the same from books I've spent actual money on.