We banned that account a long time ago, but having taken a quick look I see no reason why you would call that a state propaganda account, other than (1) it expressed strong views that you strongly disagree with, and (2) that always makes a post more likely to seem fake, disingenuous, etc.
From my point of view, there's no evidence for this. Doesn't mean it wasn't true, of course, but in the absence of evidence I would go with the simpler explanation, which we know for a fact happens all the time: there are a lot of people who feel strongly about the topic and share the opinions this account was stating (just as there are on the opposing side).
I also don't think your theory is consistent with all the other posts that account made about everything from Photoshop to Javascript floats to package managers to whether rms is autistic, OpenBSD, and so on. Of course one can argue that this just proves how clever the state propagandists are, and how good at covering their tracks, but this line of reasoning ends up getting pretty absurd.
The fact is that HN has, and has had for years, very many commenters articulating these same opinions, sometimes within the site guidleines and sometimes not, and just the same is true of commenters articulating opposing positions. I don't see any difference between the comments people single out as examples of putative astroturfing and the others. Moreover there's nothing in the private data we have that would change this picture significantly. On the contrary, all the evidence points in the other direction: real users with strong feelings and therefore strong opinions.
This kind of thing is exactly why we have that guideline that asks users not to post accusations of astroturfing, foreign agenting and so on, but rather to contact us privately. We're not saying these things don't exist—but the odds that you (I don't mean you personally, of course, but everyone in this situation) are reading-in something that isn't there are orders of magnitude higher.
[editing - bear with me...]
