Another absurd overreaction to one line in a long discussion which was the initial point; his large, decades long body of work makes it a nonsense to say he supports the really big Empire narratives.

Even in the quote above he describes U.S. imperialism accurately so presumably you disagree with his idea that Russia acts in its own interests rather than being a global altruistic state. Calling it "imperial" is debatable which they then go on to do.

Painting him as a "boutique dissident pointing the finger at those desperatly resisting it [imperialism]" is just laughably wrong and his work proves it.

We'll have to agree to differ but here's Pilger mentioning Scahill; he must have been fooled too...

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/9/22/q-and-a-the-modern-day-heroes-of-investigative-journalism/