I've yet to encounter a scenario in the last year where filling in that blank with "Russia" wasn't considered an objective fact by most.
Hold up, there's a HUGE difference between these two:
A: "Most people consider it an objective fact that Russia is a current geopolitical enemy to the US, it does some wacky shit, therefore if a foreign government is committing shenanigans there's a chance it's Russia."
B: "Most people consider it an objective fact that Russia has been somehow giving educational grants to US institutions with the explicit goal of installing a fifth-column of educators who will demoralize young US men with misandry."
Believing A does not imply B.
The parent-poster isn't being vague because the answer is obvious-and-accepted... they're being vague because they want to push the "foreign enemies in our colleges" meme without giving the audience any handles for critical-thinking.
Perhaps because your exceedingly-vague conspiracy theory is full of holes? For example:
1. Which foreign governments are you accusing? Do you even know, or are you just assuming somebody must be doing the thing?
2. Exactly what mechanism of foreign "grants" is being used to force the hiring of certain staff or educators, and where are they being hired?
3. What makes those individuals "demoralizing" actors, and why do you believe they have a significant effect on "young men"?
4. On what grounds can it be anything but noise, a tiny droplet in the heaving cultural ocean that is "current gender roles and expectations"?
_____
Truly nefarious foes would probably have much better results (for less money) just pumping out catchy songs with demoralizing subtext and hoping one gets popular. Heck, maybe they even spread a dogma of powerlessness by funding US Christian Radio stations, constantly telling people they are nothing without Jesus.