And I have already seen some people advocating for Putin say that if you compare Putin with Hitler you've lost.

What this also implies is that the more one's actions resemble actions of Hitler the easier it would be to win over opponents in discussion because they will inevitably come up with this comparison

How about instead of linking to documents you do the analysis yourself.

But to spare you the burden: Remember when Bush came clean and said that all those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were a lie? And how that didn't go down well with the west, and how many western countries already called bullshit before the US even invaded? That kind of stuff is doctrine in Russia, not just in the military but also when it comes to securing regime power internally. It's how Putin won his first election, by blowing up apartment buildings and blaming it on Chechens. Another important thing is to tell so many lies and contradictory things that the very notion of truth gets demolished, that people throw up their hands and say "I'd rather be apolitical than try to figure out what's what".

Western military deception OTOH is more of the "blink right, turn left" kind, it's about anticipating the opponent's analysis of the situation and exploiting that, either by feint or because they have a blind spot. And even then you want to be careful because damaging trust is often worse than taking a hit you could've avoided with deception.