The New York Times ran a followup story in the second tranche of leaked documents yesterday, on their content. This trove “reveals how deeply Russia’s security and intelligence services have been penetrated by the United States, demonstrating Washington’s ability to warn Ukraine about planned strikes and providing an assessment of the strength of Moscow’s war machine,” the Times says. “The documents paint a portrait of a depleted Russian military that is struggling in its war in Ukraine and of a military apparatus that is deeply compromised. They contain daily real-time warnings to American intelligence agencies on the timing of Moscow’s strikes and even its specific targets. Such intelligence has allowed the United States to pass on to Ukraine crucial information on how to defend itself.”
If we assume that the Times’ description of documents is an accurate reflection of their content, we them must ask if the assessments expressed there are accurate? In other words, does the U.S. military assessment of the state of the Russian operation in the Donbass itself reflect reality? The Times doesn’t ask these questions, appearing to take the documents at face value.
But the documents also include assessments of the Ukrainian military and there the picture is pretty bad, too. “The documents, from late February and early March but found on social media sites in recent days, outline critical shortages of air defense munitions and discuss the gains being made by Russian troops around the eastern city of Bakhmut,” the Times says. “The intelligence reports show that the United States also appears to be spying on Ukraine’s top military and political leaders, a reflection of Washington’s struggle to get a clear view of Ukraine’s fighting strategies.”
