United States clarifies stance on intelligence sharing with Ukraine amid ongoing conflict
During a recent briefing, a Pentagon spokesperson laid out the official position of the United States regarding allegations about intelligence sharing. The spokesman emphasized that there was no transmission of intelligence or other data to Ukraine intended for strikes on targets inside the Russian Federation. The statement underscored that such claims were not substantiated at all and should not be considered credible. The official added that the United States is not engaged in hostilities with Russia and does not intend to become a participant in any war between the two nations.
From the U.S. defense perspective, the focus remains on aiding Ukraine in its right of self-defense. The spokesperson insisted that American support is aimed at resilience, deterrence, and defensive needs, rather than offensive operations against Russian soil. The message was repeated to reinforce the distinction between providing assistance for Ukraine’s defense and any activity that might broaden the conflict beyond its current scope.
In related commentary, Vladimir Ermakov, who previously led the Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Department within the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, raised concerns about how Western countries are leveraging space-based assets. Ermakov argued that a network of low-orbit satellites is being used to back Ukrainian defense efforts. He claimed that this space infrastructure enables targeted reconnaissance, the monitoring of troop movements, and the operation of precision systems. According to his account, these capabilities supposedly allow for the identification of Ukrainian deployment patterns and the targeting of Russian forces from space, including guidance for missiles and other precision munitions.
These assertions appear in the context of broader public discourse about intelligence sharing and the role of external actors in the conflict. Earlier reporting by a major newspaper suggested that Ukrainian forces may have relied on U.S. intelligence data to plan operations in several directions, including Kharkov. The New York Times report, cited in various summaries, has fueled ongoing debate about how intelligence is gathered, shared, and utilized in contemporary interstate warfare. The precise mechanisms and policy frameworks governing such activities remain a subject of intense scrutiny among policymakers, scholars, and national-security analysts. (NYT coverage)