In reply to t,I am familiar with the adjective but I have no idea what "a covert" is.
I make no attempt at analysis.
That said I doubt whether the level of analytical skill is dependent on geographical location.
Furthermore while a modus operandi which can be observed copied and utilised by anyone,can invite comparisons,to "betray" a connection to any one individual,rather than "seems obvious",is altogether specious.
I find Pepe,s articles,while often contentious,generally thought provoking and well delivered.It,s disappointing to be presented with something that could be the work of any BBC stenographer.

"Let’s start with the possible chain of events that may have led to the Crocus terror attack. This is as explosive as it gets. Intel sources in Moscow discreetly confirm this is one of the FSB’s prime lines of investigation."

Explosive?Frank Gardner eat your heart out.

Unattributed tittle tattle is neither analysis nor as Keith suggests "points of information".
As a comparison I suggest you read John Helmer on the same subject.His information is based on attibuted quotes,links and publicly available statements.
As he himself states...
"Speculation, however, including analysis of the cui bono, who gains type, the sequence of statements from Washington, and the history of association between the US, British and Ukrainian secret services and Tajik mercenaries, creates a balance of probabilities, but not an explanation beyond reasonable doubt."

Nor should anyone present it as such.