[racional]

Are you the kind of person who doesn't understand the difference between "tries to influence" and the obviously much stronger "pretty strongly influenced" claim the above commenter was making?

Or who thinks: "Okay, so we've been hearing a lot about the FSB and attempted election meddling. So if someone on the internet makes a spurious claim about an amazingly successful operation the KGB supposedly pulled off back in the 80s -- heck, why not just believe that also? Even though apparently nothing has been ever been written about it; and in fact what they're saying runs counter to direct observation of events at the time."

You certainly sound like that kind of person.

[Rinzler89]

It's not "supposedly", there:s plenty of evidence of Russian troll farms online pretending to be Americans trying to influence elections and denigrate Ukraine online.

And regarding gas and nuclear, Plenty of EU high level politicians from Germany and Austria were close to the Kremlin and after their mandates were over took well paid positions in Russian oil and gas companies being proof.

What part of this logic makes you think that Russia couldn't have anything to do with pushing the anti nuclear agenda on Europe in order to maintain EU dependent on their gas that you need to be spoonfed precise proof? It's not like the FSB publishes their dark ops online or that western counter intelligente Tracking FSB ops publish their immediate findings. But various journalist do make educated guesses on this without the "we did it" explicit proof.

So please be so kind as to use Google and your brain before demanding "source pls or it never happened" for every little thing.

[racional]

[Troll farms, recent German scandals etc]

I'd continue further with you here, but you seem to be very, very confused about some very basic things. We were talking about (empty) claims of KGB influence back in the 1980s. Not modern troll farms or German scandals in the past decade. The latter have absolutely no bearing of any kind on the former.

But various journalist do make educated guesses on this without the "we did it" explicit proof.

At least in principle (when they are not being grossly irresponsible) they attempt to draw inferences from boring things like, you know, actual substantiated facts (from multiple sources), or at least interviews with people claiming direct knowledge of such. Not -- as we have with the assertions you are strenuously defending -- wild-hair speculation about "could have" happened, in the complete absence of any hard facts or direct evidence of any kind.