U.S. Pauses Intel Sharing with Ukraine & Europe’s Military Awakening: From Rhetoric to Action.

U.S. Pauses Intelligence Sharing with Ukraine: Immediate Military Implications.

• In our previous assessment of the direct military implications of the U.S. pausing military aid to Ukraine, we highlighted a key question: Would the U.S. also halt intelligence sharing, and would private U.S. firms like Palantir, Anduril, and Starlink cease operations with Ukraine?

• Well, the first part of that question has now been answered.

• Just one day after our initial analysis, it has been confirmed that the U.S. has officially paused intelligence sharing with Ukraine.

• Initially, reports were mixed, with some sources suggesting that only specific intelligence types—particularly those allowing Ukraine to target Russian assets within Russia itself—would be withheld.

• This was presumed to be a move by Trump to signal goodwill to Russia and make further unilateral concessions to Putin (despite no apparent reciprocation from Moscow).

• However, subsequent reports clarified that this pause is comprehensive, meaning that all intelligence sharing has been suspended.

• (side note: for those still on Ukraine’s side but that blame mostly Zelensky’s intransigence on all this fiasco, then how does one explain this most recent restriction given that it 1) happened after Zelensky swallowed his pride and expressed willingness to sign a deal whenever and however U.S. wants and 2) happened after Trump himself acknowledged warmly Zelensky’s latest comments in his State of The Union address on Tuesday? The truth of the matter is that Trump has spectacularly miscalculated in thinking that pressuring Ukraine whilst offering unilateral concessions to Russia is the way forward..It seems like Friday’s Oval Office fiasco was just an excuse for the inevitable. This eventual day would have arrived sooner or later, and it just so happened to be sooner.)

• This development is more immediately and directly impactful than the suspension of military aid deliveries.

• In tandem with a pause on military supplies, this decision marks a new Trump doctrine (Bismarck cables patented) on the treatment of allies: the more you depend on us, the more willing I am to use this leverage to humiliate you and push you towards policy that harms your own national interests.

• Allies all across the world will unfortunately take note of all this.

Tactical Consequences of the U.S. Intelligence Pause.

• 1. Loss of Real-Time Targeting Data for High-Value Russian Assets.

• While Ukraine has independently identified and struck static targets—such as military-industrial facilities and supply chain nodes—real-time intelligence on mobile targets (e.g., high-value Russian generals, troop movements, and ballistic missile launchers like Iskander-M) was largely reliant on U.S. reconnaissance and surveillance.

• The loss of such intelligence weakens Ukraine’s ability to disrupt Russian offensive operations and allows Russian forces greater freedom to concentrate and maneuver without immediate risk of detection.

• 2. Impact on Russian Offensive Momentum and Border Security.

• Without U.S. intelligence, Russia can now mass forces closer to the Ukrainian border with less concern about immediate detection or preemptive strikes.

• This will also affect trench warfare and border clashes, as Ukrainian forces may no longer receive timely warnings about enemy troop concentrations, potentially leading to avoidable battlefield losses.

• 3. Potential Reduction in the Effectiveness of Western Long-Range Strikes.

• Ukraine’s use of Western long-range strike capabilities—such as Storm Shadow (UK), SCALP-EG (France), and potentially Taurus (Germany - Friedrich Merz continues with current muscular policy)—relied in part on U.S. intelligence for target acquisition.

• If the U.S. also withholds intelligence from European allies, the effectiveness of these weapons could diminish, compounding Ukraine’s operational challenges.

• As of right now, it is not clear whether such intel will be held from European allies as well.

• The Role of Private U.S. Companies: A Pending Question.

• Uncertainty remains regarding whether key U.S. private defense and tech firms—such as Anduril (AI-driven drone warfare), Palantir (data analytics and targeting), and Starlink (battlefield communications)—will continue their work with Ukraine.

• Starlink: There are indications that a European actor (Eutelsat) may step in with alternative satellite communications solutions, though details remain scarce.

• Anduril & Palantir: No clear decisions have been reported yet on whether their intelligence and AI-driven support for Ukrainian forces will be affected.

• Europe’s Response Will Be Critical While this intelligence freeze marks a severe escalation of U.S. disengagement, European countries appear to be stepping up their support.

Finally A Reaction To Trump’s Indifference.

• In the wake of Sunday’s London summit, European leaders are finally moving beyond rhetorical support for Ukraine.

• After years of issuing statements about “standing by Kyiv,” concrete actions are now taking shape.

• Ironically, it may be Donald Trump’s apparent indifference to European security that ultimately transforms the EU into a military superpower.

• (side note: already, European stocks are seeing a strong rally whereas U.S. ones suffer. And this is understandable: the market share of U.S. defense companies will reduce as 1) European giants like Leanardo, Thales, BAE Systems, MBDA and Rheinmetall will replace U.S. companies in production and rearmament drive for Europe, but also 2) Even outside Europe, countries will feel renewed urgency to diversify - relying on U.S. companies - where an erratic President can put a halt on things in the middle of the war - will drive urgency to diversify. EU and Turkish firms will become clear winners.)

• If current trends continue, the unintended consequence of Trump’s policies could be an independent European defense architecture, breaking its long-standing reliance on the U.S.

• Europe will now seek to deepen its military-industrial base and strengthen relations with existing partners (like Turkey) to help in this essential quest.

• An epic new mega alliance is also on the card: the UK, EU and Turkey joining forces to create a new military superpower.

• Indeed, such a military-industrial alliance would be a formidable entity.

• Essential ingredients for a superpower bloc are all there: a 600-million-strong population, enormous GDP, deep defense-industrial and manufacturing capability (Germany, Turkey, Poland, France), two nuclear states (UK, France), battle-hardened troops (Ukraine, Turkey), stealth aircraft (Turkey, and soon, UK and Italy via the Tempest program), strong Navy (France, UK, Turkey and the Baltics) and long-range precision-strike capabilities.

• (side note: Incorporating the GDP (in purchasing power parity/PPP) of Turkey and UK to the EU creates a new global hammer. The EU's total would be around $33.53 trillion ($25.5 trillion + $4.42 trillion (UK) + $3.61 trillion (Turkey). This would be higher than the U.S. $29 trillion and on par or second only to China ($34-36 trillion depending on sources).

• However, this remains a long-term possibility—there is still much work to be done.

• But early indicators suggest that Europe is taking unprecedented steps toward military self-sufficiency.

• Seizing Russian Assets: A Long-Delayed Move.

• One of the most significant discussions now underway is the potential seizure of €220 billion in Russian assets held in Euroclear.

• The initial plan was to keep these funds in reserve, using them as leverage (with a threat permanent seizure) against Moscow in case of a ceasefire violation.

• However, this approach is flawed.

• Instead of keeping these assets as a conditional tool, the better course of action would be to seize them immediately and direct the funds to Ukraine—something European leaders have hesitated to do for three years.

• There are plenty of additional levers to pull for future ceasefire violations.

• But the fact that this conversation is now happening reflects a fundamental shift: Europe is seriously considering unilateral financial support for Ukraine, without waiting for U.S. leadership.

• Contingency Planning.

• Amid U.S. Ambiguity With U.S. funding stalled and supplies delayed, European leaders are developing contingency plans to ensure Ukraine’s military capabilities remain intact.

• Key developments include:

• 1. Satellite Connectivity Shift: Starlink to Eutelsat?

• French Eutelsat is now being discussed as a potential alternative to Starlink for Ukraine’s battlefield communications.

• Given the strategic risks of relying on a private entity (Elon Musk’s SpaceX), shifting to a European-controlled network would provide greater security and operational stability.

• 2. UK’s Urgent Air Defense Support.

• The UK has stepped in with £1.6 billion to fund the purchase of 5,000 Thales air defense missiles.

• These are critical for protecting Ukrainian front-line troops from Russian drone and missile attacks.

• 3. Radical European Defense Financing Reform.

• European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has proposed a €150 billion defense procurement loan package.

• The plan would allow the European Investment Bank (EIB) to fund military projects, a historic policy shift for an institution that has traditionally avoided defense-related financing.

• The proposal requires the backing of EU finance ministers, but a majority approval seems likely.

• This is a rare case of the EU moving at speed, bypassing the usual bureaucratic inertia to enact a significant defense policy shift.

• Germany’s Unprecedented Defense Transformation.

• Perhaps the most dramatic change is occurring in Germany, a country long defined by its defense reluctance.

• 1. Friedrich Merz’s Fiscal U-Turn.

• Friedrich Merz, a leading German opposition figure, has reversed his stance on fiscal policy, proposing a €500 billion (or $529bn) investment package for infrastructure and military expansion.

• Two weeks ago, he opposed changes to Germany’s constitutional “debt brake,” which caps structural deficits at 0.35% of GDP.

• Now, he supports removing those limits for military spending.

• 2. Uncapping German Defense Spending.

• If implemented, Germany would be able to borrow freely for defense, ending decades of budgetary restrictions on military investments.

• This marks a historic departure from Germany’s post-Cold War defense policies.

• 3. The Taurus Missile Question.

• If Merz’s pro-defense stance continues, Germany may finally lift its restrictions on Taurus missile exports to Ukraine.

• Unlike Storm Shadow missiles, Taurus cruise missiles feature delayed-fuse technology, making them highly effective bunker busters.

• These weapons would provide Ukraine with a deep-strike capability more resistant to Russian electronic warfare and GPS jamming.

• For three years, Germany under Olaf Scholz resisted sending significant military aid.

• (side note: at the outset of the war, he also famously offered 5,000 helmets instead of lethal weaponry)

• Now, Berlin is on the verge of becoming a major defense player.

• Friedrich Merz has emerged as one of Trump’s harshest European critics, accusing him of neglecting transatlantic security.

• If Merz genuinely believes this, his actions suggest he is prepared to counterbalance Trump’s policies with a stronger German military posture.

• More broadly, the Trump administration’s approach to Ukraine—characterized by calls for a quick settlement, rather than a just and lasting resolution—has alarmed European leaders.

• If Trump pushes for a rushed “peace deal” favorable to Russia, Ukraine will need greater European backing to resist diplomatic pressure.

• The key question now is whether Europe will fully embrace the role of a military superpower.

• If 1) Germany lifts its defense spending limits and 2) if the EU successfully mobilizes its financial institutions for military production and 3) If the UK, EU, and Turkey deepen their military-industrial cooperation, then a new global power bloc could emerge—one independent of U.S. leadership and capable of contesting Russian and Chinese influence.

• For now, there are early but substantial moves.

• And just today, in a direct national address to his citizens, (where he once again raised the possibility of nuclear sharing and of sending troops to Ukraine) the French President Macron pronounced that ‘‘The future of Europe should not be decided in Washington and Moscow”.

• (side note: note that Washington is now getting closer to the same category as Moscow: a direct national security threat. And that just yesterday, Trump asserted that Greenland would be part of the U.S. ‘‘one way or another’’ (implying use of military force) didn’t help at all with these perceptions.)

• The next few weeks and months will determine whether Europe’s newfound urgency translates into real military power, or whether old patterns of hesitation and bureaucratic inertia resurface.

• But for now, Ukraine has reason to be hopeful.