Examples my friend, we need concrete examples. Otherwise this is like all other pro-Kreml astroturfing accounts which cry about Russia being misrepresented except they can never show any example exactly how they are being misrepresented.
Simply arguing semantics of pravda and istina and then calling the lecture false doesn’t mean anything.
And as it happens I read the Rob Lee article February 21st or 22nd in anticipation of the attack.
Question to you is - how does it provide anything of a conflicting point to the lecture? Zelensky tries to distance Ukraine from Russian political interference, so its OK to raze the country to the ground because…???
Or, as people used to languages with articles would be more likely to say, from a Finnish intelligence colonel.
(You know, Slavic languages' lack of the articles make really easy spot native speakers write English.)
He choses some (very cherry picking) facts and anecdotes from Russian history, cites them with factual mistakes, but he choses and interpretes them so they meet his theory. This is not scientific approach at all.
But what outraged me the most and made me sceptical about his theory - it is his interpretation of "two layers of truth" in Russian, namely "pravda" and "istina". Even Nabokov wrote about the difference of these words and claimed they are one of those Russian words that are lacking in other languages.
The difference is the following: - "pravda" is mere facts, something that is not false - "istina" is the whole picture
The best example of difference between these concepts is this lecture itself: mainly it consists of valid facts (i.e. it is "pravda"), but the whole analysis and conclusions he makes are flawed (i.e. it is NOT "istina").
And this intelligence colonel claims he had been studying Russia for 15 years? Hmm, then he either spent them in vain, or he was misinforming the audience. Or both.
He cites Kennan, the architect of the Cold war, and Kennan was way much better in understanding Russia. Maybe, because Kennan was practioner and not fascinated about making up groundless theories. I invite you to read Kennan's article in NYT (1997) and understand why Kennan considered NATO's expansion to Russian borders to be fateful error: https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.h...
And the consequences of this error are thoroughly explained in this FPRI article (2022): https://www.fpri.org/article/2022/01/moscows-compellence-str...
These two articles will be more insightful than (sorry) any made up theories from Finnish intelligence colonel.