Why in the world did Porridgebrain's regime tell the NY Times about the U.S. role in dealing losses to Russia?

Seems to me almost everyone agrees that Russia invading Ukraine was criminal aggression.  Question is, what should the U.S. do?  And it seems reasonable for the biden regime to supply the defenders with weapons, and to levy economic sanctions on Russia.

But something happened last week that seems to show a really dangerous move by the incompetent biden regime:  According to the NY Slimes, "senior American officials have now revealed" that the U.S.
    *helped kill Russian generals by giving their location to the Ukrainians
    *helped the Ukes shoot down a plane carrying Russian soldiers, and
    *gave the Ukrainians the location of Russia's flagship missile cruiser, enabling them to sink it.

While one can make a case that these things are reasonable steps to counter Russian aggression, what is emphatically NOT reasonable is for "intel officials" to give this info to the Times, knowing the Times would immediately publish the story.

It's logical to assume that no "intel official" who wanted to keep their job with the biden regime would have done this unless the White House either ordered or approved it.  So the question is, why did the biden regime *want* the world to know about the U.S. role in these events?  

Clearly, the biden regime is bragging about its role in the Russian losses, thus rubbing the Russians' noses in the U.S. wins--obviously unnecessarily.  

If the regime wanted to provoke a hot war with Russia, this is exactly how you'd do it.  Question is, *why?*

The standard answer is to give more billions of tax dollars to weapons manufacturers, after which the Democrat party reaps huge donations from those companies.  But rational people would say risking war with Russia for a few tens of millions of dollars in political donations isn't worth it.

But there's one motive that's far more powerful:  It's well known that some people are willing to risk reputation, career and marriage to satisfy their lust for money, sex or other lusts.  We're all familiar with these motives.  But for most of us, a lust for power is unfamiliar.  

So where would you guess a lust for power ranks in that list? In other words, how much do you think those with a lust for power would risk to win total power?

War with Russia would give the Democrats the chance to seize complete domestic control, to cement their power permanently.  Democrats have already made it clear that they want total power — by any means necessary.  This was their goal in introducing a bill that would have put all elections under federal control.

Consider that war with Russia would make more Americans submit to the curtailing of free speech, since the regime would label any criticism as "disinformation."  They've already set up a DHS "board" to make this happen.

Democrat Franklin Roosevelt interned thousands of U.S. citizens of Japanese and German descent, persecuted some Italian-heritage Americans.  The American public went along without a critical word.

Civil rights' trampling would surely be worse under a major-war scenario today.  Even without war, Democrat thugs--politicians such as Rep. Maxine Waters--have called for violence against political opponents.  Even the Dem senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, literally threatened SCOTUS justices who dared to vote against the Democrat party's agenda.

One Democrat operative, Scott Foval, was caught on hidden video in 2016 talking about inciting violence at Trump rallies and unabashedly said, "We're starting anarchy here."

Now the Dems are again calling for violence, with the leaked supreme court draft opinion suggesting that the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade opinion could be overturned.  Leftists have published the home addresses of SC judges thought to be conservative, and have called on their supporters to protests at those homes.

Nancy Pelosi called the left's occupation of Wisconsin's capitol building in 2011 an "impressive show of democracy in action."  

Getting the picture?

So war with Russia would allow the regime to seize total control.  The question is, are the Democrats crazy enough to risk nuclear war for power's sake?

A major war (along with food shortages) could certainly allow the Democrats to suspend all remaining civil rights.  And while this may appear a crazy theory, the people ruling you may well be crazy enough to do it.