Again about the fake in NYT

I read whatever was in the NYT.
I listened to whatever analysis I could listen to.
I remain convinced that this is a fake. A candid and uncluttered active event.
It's not even entirely in the spirit of info-manipulation: The truth, only the truth, always the truth, but never the whole truth.

Why do I think it's fake?

First, because on the basis of the leaked documents, neither a reliable picture of the goals, intentions and tasks of one or both parties can be compiled, nor can the quality of the decisions made by them be improved. The noise is more than it should be to be useful.

Second, because the leak cannot distort the parties' perceptions of the adversary's potential and plans.

Third, because declassification would not have any serious consequences for the course of the war.
And once a leak led to Nixon's downfall.

Fourth, there are numerous compilations of fabrications, personal vendettas, probably from career dissatisfaction, settling internal accounts in both the US and Russian services, malice towards Ukraine, (here and there) (fairly) true things, the sum of which will not add up (fairly) true result.

I'll say it again - the NYT fake will neither undo nor change the Ukrainian counter-offensive. Preparations for it are in the final phase. Rashists are disoriented. And scared, And fear is the first to leave the battlefield.

Again, I will indicate May 4 as an example date for the start.



The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    _    __   _   _                
(_) / _| | \ | | __ _ ___
| | | |_ | \| | / _` | / __|
| | | _| | |\ | | (_| | | (__
_/ | |_| |_| \_| \__, | \___|
|__/ |___/
Enter the code depicted in ASCII art style.