This is an exercise in syllogistic logic, a method of deductive reasoning where one compares two or more propositions to reach a conclusion. My 1st proposition, A, is this:

Russia hacked the US and and also the French elections.

This has been almost universally proclaimed to be true by the media.

My 2nd proposition, B, which is also based on news reports, says:

The hacks of John Podesta's email account and the DNC were generic and incredibly simple.

The 3rd proposition, C, comes from a report yesterday filed by the Associated Press.

In an interview in his office Thursday with The Associated Press, Guillaume Poupard [head of France's cyber security agency ANSSI] said the Macron campaign hack “was so generic and simple that it could have been practically anyone.”

In other words, proposition C says:

The hack of the French election was so simple and generic it could have been done by anyone.

If propositions A, B and C are all true, that is, Russia hacked the American and French elections, and that those hacks were so generic and simple that anyone could have performed them, than the only logical conclusion one can draw from these statements is that:

Russia is Anyone and Anyone hacked the US and French Elections.

Of course, it could be that Russia was not behind either the hack of the American and/or the French elections. However, we all know that cannot be true. Why? Because The New York Times, The Washington Post and lots and lots of other American corporately owned media outlets (too numerous to mention) are the definitive sources of all truth on this planet, and they all say that Russia was responsible.

So now we know that Russia = Anyone.

I feel better already.