I admit I honed in on a detail in your comment that is mostly unrelated to your actual argument - an argument I fullheartedly agree with would not typically want to distract or detract from. However, after spending probably an order of magnitude more time on work related to Russian cyber activity than time spent with friends or family lately, I sometimes have a kneejerk reaction to phrasing like this.

Regarding the assumptions you list:

1. Information regarding Russian activities in cyberspace is the most relevant category of "possible" anti-Russian propaganda related to the topic you bring up, and what I believe most people will imagine when reading the words "anti-Russian propaganda" in your comment, regardless of whether or not you had it in mind when writing them.

2. Do you have an example of reporting on this topic whose primary points have proven to be inaccurate, even if unintentionally? I would go as far to argue that the amount of realized and attempted damage caused by Russian cyber actors, and the audacity of some of the operations, would significantly reduce the need for entities pushing anti-Russian narratives to fabricate or twist facts.

3. There is a chance that, after arguing the semantics of the word propaganda, you could convince me that accurate reporting of facts regarding cyber attacks against our nation could be technically viewed as propaganda, based on some definition that doesn't include terms like "misleading" or a book on the topic that I have not read. However, I don't think that really matters here, because for the significant majority of people the term "propaganda" carries implications of incorrect or misleading information, and I believe the effects of these types of claim can do much more harm than a comment derailing a conversation, like mine.