There must always be a place for necessary whistleblowing from inside governments. This newspaper will always stand, responsibly, for that principle. Yet leaks are also serious matters, which challenge a state. In a particularly serious case, or at a particularly serious time, such as during a war, a leak can help an enemy, dismay allies, weaken morale and, at least potentially, change the military balance and put lives at risk. The leak of highly classified U.S. intelligence documents covering plans to aid Ukraine’s war against Russia is unquestionably grave, both in its content and context. In Ukraine, NATO is in the midst of by far its most serious conflict for a generation. … This case has particular features that distinguish it from celebrated leaks in earlier times. There is no suggestion — yet — that the leaks are the work of foreign spies. Nor do they appear to be the work of a whistleblower seeking to expose a scandal, as happened in the Pentagon Papers case during the Vietnam war, or in Edward Snowden’s exposures of US surveillance programs. There is no hard evidence that the leaker believed, as happened during WikiLeaks, that the material should be put into the public domain on freedom of information or other grounds.

Instead, the evidence points in a recognizably more contemporary and disturbing direction. The leaks were made on the social network Discord by a young male official in the Massachusetts air national guard. In the histories of espionage, and also of recent mass shootings, there have been examples of relatively anonymous young men triggering major incidents in part to boost their self-esteem. Jack Teixeira, who was arrested and charged in Boston this week, is 21, and is interested in guns, games and racist memes. …

Two large public policy questions immediately arise. One is how someone low down the intelligence food chain like Teixeira could get his hands on such material. Part of the answer is the unmanageable volume of material held by the U.S. government. For decades, there have been allegations that intelligence agencies were too bloated, slow and complex to be clear, including to themselves, about what must be secret and who should be able to access it. …

The other issue is the extent of the damage. The most important aspect from a European perspective are the doubts documented over Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against Russian air power. That information should never have been seen in public in this way. It could suggest that Ukraine’s low stocks of arms mean its expected spring offensive will be difficult to carry through, leaving Kyiv highly vulnerable to Russian counterattacks. This may mean a less decisive offensive and, instead, a protracted lower intensity conflict. If that is the result, then these leaks have altered the course of history too.

— The Guardian