Thanks, Sorin. Several interesting elements in this citation:

CrowdStrike was soon able to reconstruct the hacks and identify the hackers. One of the groups, known to the firm as Cozy Bear, had been rummaging around the DNC since the previous summer. The other, known as Fancy Bear, had broken in not long before Putin's appearance at the St. Petersburg forum. Surprisingly, given that security researchers had long suspected that both groups were directed by the Russian government, each of the attackers seemed unaware of what the other was doing.

Seems to me that a "suspected" association is elevated to truth contrary to observed behavior. Instead, the inconvenient behavior is labeled "surprising," a potentially random timing coincidence involving Putin is assigned unexplained gravitas... et voila, apparent junk science stands tall and aggrieved.

I'm worried. Unless these "intelligence agencies" who have been leaking anonymously to MSM can produce compelling evidence soon, they're undermining public trust in themselves. You cannot fool all the people all the time. The validation doesn't need to be much: as you note, the link from Cozy Bear to Putin is part of the claim and such a link either does or does not exist. Simple as that.