[ergothus]

I really feel there is too much emphasis on who won (in this context).

As car as I can tell, initially the efforts were just to increase division - manipulative ads were placed on BOTH sides of the spectrum, apparently just trying to get people to hate each other and (most importantly) distrust the system. Then when Trump went from 'unlikely' to 'competitive' (be that on his own or not) there was a reevaluation and the efforts went pro trump.

The key concept here is NOT "Trump wouldn't have won" (we can't know) and not even "Russia backed Trump because they saw him as destabilizing/weak/owned or even 'just' polarizing". The key concept is "Russia wanted to interfere with the process and reduce trust in the concept of democracy". Even if they did a terrible job of it with no measurable effect or shot themselves in the foot by electing a powerful and determined outsider that will strengthen both America and Democracy, that has no relevance to what they tried to do.

And yes, countries influence (and attempts to influence) other countries' elections all the time. It is kept in check by the need to be circumspect. If we fail to respond, or even invite it, that balance is lost.

I'm willing to accept Trump won fair and square however much I dislike that result, but I still want to prevent a repeat of other countries putting out false Black/Blue Lives Matter narratives with the intention of destabilizing us.