U.S. Intelligence Sharing with Ukraine Suspension and Restoration
By: Erin Okrainec
Introduction
On March 3rd, 2025, the United States temporarily paused all intelligence sharing with Ukraine. This decision marked a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy and has immediate consequences for both Ukraine’s battlefield capabilities and broader NATO intelligence coordination. CIA Director John Ratcliffe confirmed the decision, which appeared to be a strategic effort by the Trump administration to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the time to agree on a 30-day ceasefire with Russia.
On March 11th, 2025, the U.S. reversed its decision, lifting the suspension on military aid and intelligence sharing. This came after Ukraine signalled openness to a 30-day ceasefire with Russia, pending Russian agreement, during talks in Saudi Arabia. While the ceasefire could be extended by mutual agreement, its implementation remains contingent on Russian participation. The U.S. has communicated that Russian reciprocity is essential for achieving peace, but this event demonstrates the extent to which intelligence support can be used as leverage. It further raises questions about the long-term reliability of U.S. assistance and whether similar pauses could occur in the future.
Key Developments
The temporary interruption of U.S. intelligence sharing had a greater immediate impact on Ukraine’s operational effectiveness than the recent reduction in U.S. weapons transfers. Contrary to some assumptions, less than a third of Ukraine’s imported military equipment comes from the U.S., with roughly 40 percent now being produced domestically. While losing access to weapons flows is a challenge, losing intelligence was far more damaging. Intelligence sharing has been central to Ukraine’s ability to counter Russian numerical and logistical advantages.
Other NATO countries possess intelligence capabilities but have traditionally relied on U.S. intelligence leadership within the alliance. The suspension may disrupt Ukraine’s long-term ability to target Russian logistics and troop movements effectively.
The U.S. decision has raised concerns among key security partners, including Five Eyes nations (Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand) and Middle Eastern allies (Israel, Saudi Arabia), regarding both intelligence leaks and potential Russian infiltration of sensitive data. Some are reportedly reassessing intelligence-sharing agreements with the U.S.
Implications
For Ukraine: The pause of U.S. intelligence sharing and satellite imagery significantly diminished Ukraine’s ability to conduct precision strikes and track Russian movements. Ukrainian forces rely heavily on real-time targeting data for drone operations, which were severely impacted by the intelligence pause. If U.S. intelligence were withdrawn again, Ukraine would struggle to maintain operational mobility, giving Russian forces an opportunity to capitalize on their numerical superiority.
For NATO and Allies: The pause of U.S. intelligence sharing reinforced concerns about the reliability of U.S. security commitments. U.S. SIGINT and satellite intelligence have played a dominant role in NATO operations, and their absence left Ukraine exposed. Other NATO countries have intelligence capabilities but were not positioned to fill the gap left by the U.S. The Five Eyes partners are now reevaluating their intelligence-sharing arrangements, wary of the possibility that the U.S. could make similar moves in the future.
For Russia: The pause of U.S. intelligence sharing provided a strategic advantage to Russia, allowing its forces to operate with less risk of being targeted by Ukrainian precision strikes. Another such a pause could permit Russia to exploit the intelligence gap to increase pressure on Ukrainian defences. A further possibility is that the U.S. might eventually extend intelligence-sharing agreements to Russia, either as a negotiating tool or as part of a broader realignment.
Conclusion
The suspension and subsequent restoration of U.S. intelligence support to Ukraine has demonstrated the fragility of Ukraine’s reliance on U.S. intelligence in the future. While intelligence sharing has resumed, this incident demonstrated that the U.S. is willing to cut off Ukraine from critical intelligence flows in pursuit of American foreign policy objectives.
NATO allies, particularly Five Eyes members, must now work to close intelligence-sharing gaps in anticipation of future U.S. policy shifts. Ukraine must also strengthen its domestic intelligence capabilities and deepen European intelligence partnerships to reduce dependence on U.S. intelligence flows. At the same time, concerns remain about other strategic vulnerabilities. For example, there has been ongoing speculation that Elon Musk might limit Ukraine’s access to Starlink, which has been instrumental for Ukrainian military communications. Ultimately, this event has reinforced a key lesson that Ukraine and its allies must prepare for unpredictability in U.S. foreign policy.