It certainly is, yes. I'm basing this in part on the claims in the GQ article. My point was that I view any kind of conspiracy allegation with a huge grain of s

It certainly is, yes. I'm basing this in part on the claims in the GQ article. My point was that I view any kind of conspiracy allegation with a huge grain of salt, so when I think there actually likely is one, I feel outspoken about it. If the claims in the GQ article are true, then I think Russian intelligence officers are likely responsible for at least some of the attacks in some of the locations. For example, in Russia. If the claims are false, I'd still lean towards an attack but with an indeterminate perpetrator. The probability of a deliberate attack seems pretty high, to me, even if the exact nature and culprits are still mysterious. How welcome are they? Possibly very welcome, possibly not welcome; who knows. There could be a lot of branching possibilities, here, including perhaps the ability to place remotely-controlled devices in or near embassies so they don't need to be physically nearby to conduct an attack. Or they could've received approval from some governments (though that seems quite unlikely, except maybe for Cuba). Or there could be multiple groups involved. Or it could be done at such a long distance that they felt comfortable violating countries' sovereignty with plausible deniability (though that seems fairly improbable and brazen even for them, even if I think it's plausible). There are also some allegations of attacks around the DC area. I'm sure at least some of the reports may be psychogenic, and the DC ones seem the most likely to fall into that category. But if those actually turn out to be real, then that'd be good evidence of how brazen the attackers are.