I didn't downvote them, however I'm guessing the downvotes are because their statement is either false or close to it.

The US is the world's largest economy, loaded with ~$165 trillion in household assets, having persistent supply chain problems, running at 50 year highs on inflation, and it's still wildly exposed to cyber attacks despite decades of warning shots across its bow. It's exposed to almost a comically idiotic degree.

Russia can cause a lot of disruption and havoc with the US economy if it wants to. The US has three potent recourses at that point: try to unplug Russia as it pertains to the global Internet (not very effective other than to further isolation); drive chaos and civil war on its borders and attempt to flood terrorism into Russia (eg from Kazakhstan etc.), which is a dangerous proxy kinetic action toward Russia (they can swing back); pull Russia from SWIFT (they're slightly prepared for that, however it would still hurt a lot regardless) and try to more seriously isolate them globally economically (it'll drive Russia further into China's arms, which may be a mistake at this juncture; it might be better if Russia is able to independently fend off China's inevitable attempts to turn Russia into its subservient over time).

None of those are great options, although dramatically increasing global economic isolation is probably the best option.

Russia is a weak nation economically and structurally. As an entity, Russia shouldn't exist and can only be held together through a never-ending reign of authoritarian / totalitarian iron fist dictator types; it requires a constant application of severe force upon the population (eg stripping them of all media, protest and speech rights) to hold it all together, otherwise Russia would explode into numerous separate countries very rapidly. Why does that matter? It matters because we're going to keep getting an endless line of Putins, it's the only type that can operate Russia as it's presently constructed. Putin knows exactly what it takes to hold Russia together, it's the naive West that has been surprised by what he has done / what he became (golly gee, the people of Russia want freeeeedom too, they're just like us, dur dur dur - aka the early 1990s naive worldview; Russia can only be one of two things: some slight variation of what it is presently, which requires a Putin, or it has to explode into pieces).

When you're a weak nation with some potent systems you can attack a very rich superpower with, it's a huge problem for the rich superpower. It's the classic line about how if you owe someone ~$1,000, you have a problem; and if you owe someone $1 billion, they have a problem (ignoring for a moment whether it's very accurate, you get the point). If you're facing off with North Korea, trading cities in a nuclear exchange with them is a massive losing contest for the US, trading NYC for Pyongyang is not an even exchange; trading Los Angeles for Hamhung is not an even exchange; North Korea has an epic scale advantage in such a terrible exchange. Russia has a similar advantage in how it can persistently stab the US with economically damaging cyber attacks; the US will struggle greatly to find an even exchange in hitting back, because Russia is economically feeble and it's difficult to upset the Putin cart with targeted social chaos attacks (like trying to disrupt various infrastructure or supply chains for Russia to cause political problems for Putin; they'll just oppress or murder the domestic population as needed to maintain control).