You do know the RAND corporation has said this document’s a complete fake, right?
(Well, they would say that, even if it wasn’t).
But when one shadowy source claims to have evidence that compelling, it’s usually prudent to wait for some confirmation before treating it like a released Kraken.
There’s a lot of fake stuff on all sides of this conflict - some of it actually quite well done and some of it, well, not so much.
I particularly like the Rossyia 1 explosive video of the Queen, throwing stuff down to orphans. It’s a brilliant piece of creative and emotive editing, slightly undermined by the thought that our queen was already a fully grown adult wearing Edwardian dresses, at the tender age of two.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1570620697143287810
I’ve acknowledged the leak is unconfirmed.
I do await further investigation.
It does align with the actions of the neocons over the past several years/decades. *That is NOT a slur. George W Bush Foundation is a major grantor to RAND. Something I was personally wrong about, as I campaigned openly for W’s 2nd term. My bad.))
What is shadowy about the source? It is a known publication and the author signed his name. Both the publication & the author are Swedish, recently touted as a nation “standing up to Putin” and the next member of NATO, prior to the recent election, which could change all that.
Seems apropos and also quite open and transparent. It will be up to the forensic intelligence operatives to _quickly_ reveal if it is faked. This is not a trivial area of investigation and unless they have been able to preemptively scrub/sub whatever they claim is *truth*, the possibility remains that someone will have archived prior releases.
None of your observations are reason to ignore the release.
William Casey, former CIA Director (deceased) once said (paraphrsed) “Our disinformation work will be complete when everything the American public believes is false.” (And yes, I am aware that the CIA and the intelligence community denies this was said....but then, they would.)
Sometimes, you need to drop the gut checks because they are subjective. Sometimes, even the most passionate of us are wrong. Me, too, of course.
But the weight of the anecdotal observations do mount impressively, do they not?