In this case, it's bit of suspicion about his motivations. And if he presents claims of new factual information in other communications, I would require more rigorous verification of their truth than I would if he was, say, in France taking advantage of some extradition loophole.

> In fact he is not. Although he has applied.

That appears to be correct. So I don't know if he has yet taken an oath of allegiance to the Russian Federation, though he has certainly announced his intention to.

> It's unknown. Do you have access to any special information on this subject?

Of course not; it's a rhetorical question that follows from his previous statements about his belief that the oath he took to the United States required him to do what he did, despite the personal cost.

> Can you truly not think of any reasons Russia might tolerate his presence even if he were not to seriously and honestly swear to do whatever they say?

Of course I can; there is a continuum of possibilities between "He is free to say whatever he wants but he only says bad things about Russia's adversaries for obvious practical reasons, in return for which his presence is tolerated" to "He is and has been for many years a paid FSB agent or asset and a true believer in the geopolitical agenda of the Russian Federation and everything he writes is crafted specifically by him and a FSB propaganda team to serve their goals of the moment". My personal opinion is that he lies somewhere much closer to the first than the second, but in the end we don't know. Thus, grain of salt.