The book does have its flaws. The simplistic vilification of Russia — without evidence or better context — reinforces the view of some thoughtful Russians that Americans have become irrationally hostile toward the country and even the culture. The sourcing is also sloppy in places. The authors are respected journalists, and one can trust their use of anonymous sources or not, but in the span of four pages describing the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in 2013, for example, they quote four different ones.
Russian Roulette is an engaging, smart but ultimately unsatisfying read ... It’s a challenge familiar to all writers of contemporary history and current affairs: How to construct a narrative that won’t be quickly dated and overtaken by events? How to weave a story, when you don’t know how it ends?
That you guys, after your reporting, came to the conclusion that the story of Trump in Russia is a somewhat mysterious one, and that in due course, with a full investigation, as presumably is going on now, more evidence will come to the surface. Because there are too many coincidences and loose ends and strange things that you discovered and that have been discovered by other reporters.
Russian Roulette also sheds more light on Steele’s sources—whose identities he has fiercely guarded ... In other words, as they put it, some of the incendiary allegations against the President of the United States contained in the Steele dossier may have begun literally as 'pillow talk.'”