While the first part of your statement is a sensible aphorism, I don't think the second part is at all clear. You can look at him as a stupid bull being led around by various con men and Russian spies, but I don't think the evidence itself supports that interpretation over the one where he knew what he was doing. There's plenty of evidence that points to the conclusion that he a) didn't think he was going to win, and thus was mainly trying to secure the most value to himself from a loss, b) was surrounded by people who were in contact with Russian intelligence and/or knew what info Russia was feeding Wikileaks, and c) still has some financial or other (Kompromat) incentives to play nice with Russia. So that makes it more likely than not that he was talking to Russian intelligence, either directly or through surrogates, that he was making some sort of personally-beneficial deal with them for when he lost, with perhaps additional compensation if he won (I mean, look at the deals he tried to push as President-elect if you think he wouldn't do this), and that he is currently working some deal that requires him to defend Russia and Putin, even if he's throwing out a little smoke about returning Crimea. Given what we know, it wouldn't be at all surprising to learn that Russia does have Kompromat on him, that they did offer him a huge piece of Rosneft if he would lift sanctions, and that he was also working directly with them about the email leaks and his pro-Russia rhetoric during the campaign. Those three things, plus the efforts to cover them up, would be the biggest scandal in US history.
The "he's just dumb" version of this says that the dossier, despite having some true information, is simply using that info to try to push lies intended to take down Trump, that Trump's pro-Russia stance is just him liking the idea of strong leaders, using Putin as an example of that, and then being backed into a corner by people questioning that example, and that his string of advisers with Russia contacts is simply a coincidence. All three of those points seem unlikely. Steele has no reason to push lies against Trump, and originally compiled the dossier as opposition research, for which even uncorroborated truth turned out to be useless. Trump's pro-Russia stance comes with this broad de-stabilization of the aspects of US foreign policy that contain Putin or hurt Russia, none of which he would have gotten from the places he got literally all of his other policies (isn't it odd that this is the one place he was out of step with conservative media?), except the fossil fuel angle. Finally, there's no way to prove the advisers aren't coincidence without some direct statements by Trump that he's hiring people with Moscow connections, but there's certainly enough of them that we have to take the possibility of enemy action seriously.