Two prohibitions on the exchange of information
The United States has been providing military assistance to Ukraine that includes heavy artillery, drones, and anti-tank missiles. Officials publicly catalog these shipments and report the quantities of shells in practice. They are notably more guarded when describing another critical element: the intelligence about the Russian military. This framing comes from a major news outlet, which details how information on Russian troop locations and movements arrived in real time through satellite imagery and reports from highly classified U.S. sources, with collaboration from Ukrainian partners.
The explanation given stresses that the United States is not at war with Russia and that the aid aims to shield Ukraine from an illegal invasion. In practice, however, U.S. officials have limited control over how Ukrainian forces utilize military hardware and the intelligence provided.
To avoid triggering a Kremlin reaction or escalating tensions between Washington and Moscow, the U.S. administration has published an intelligence-sharing guide. The guide outlines an approach intended to reduce the risk of direct confrontation between the two nuclear powers. It describes a framework that restricts certain types of data shared with Ukraine. First, detailed information that could enable Ukraine to target Russian leaders and high-ranking officers is off-limits. The guidance notes specific individuals, including top military and defense officials, as examples of restricted targets. The authors emphasize that this category of information is not meant to be provided to Kyiv.
The second restriction bars any intelligence that could assist Ukraine in attacking Russian targets outside of Ukraine. This rule is meant to prevent U.S. participation in strikes taking place on Russian soil. These considerations have led to pauses on certain procurement plans, such as warplanes sourced from Poland, that could be used to strike inside Russian territory, according to sources familiar with the situation.
Nevertheless, the guidance makes clear that U.S. officials do not discourage Ukraine from conducting offensive actions on its own should it choose to do so.
On May 9, new statements indicated a reassessment of the United States’ role in the Ukraine conflict after a leak about intelligence-sharing activities. A White House spokesperson characterized the leak as unhelpful and said it did not reflect the administration’s intended approach. The spokesperson argued that the portrayal of the U.S. role was overstated and that Ukrainian contributions were undervalued, along with other mischaracterizations.
The role of US intelligence
Reports on May 5 described American intelligence as having supplied information that reportedly aided Ukraine in targeting a Russian naval vessel, the Moskva cruiser. Observers noted a Black Sea vessel’s presence and confirmed its identity through American sources, with U.S. input helping to verify the location. Whether Washington was aware of Kyiv’s plan to strike the ship remains unclear, but sources indicated that U.S. officials did not approve that specific decision. Claims suggest the Moskva sank after being hit by Ukrainian missiles, marking a significant setback for Russian maritime operations.
It is claimed that the United States has been sharing intelligence on Russian troop movements inside Ukraine for several months, including intercepted plans, and has provided naval data to help Kyiv assess threats from Russian ships in the Black Sea. A later report from multiple outlets quoted officials who defended the Pentagon’s stance, stating that Ukraine possesses its own capabilities to track and engage the vessels involved in the incident. The Russian Ministry of Defense contended that the Moskva fire caused an explosion in ordnance and subsequent damage while being towed in rough seas, resulting in the ship’s loss. About 396 crew members were evacuated, with casualties including one death and several sailors listed as missing during damage control efforts.