By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukraine’s Security Service (SSU) conducted a covert operation on June 1st, damaging approximately 40 Russian aircraft at multiple airfields. This operation, planned for over a year and a half, involved the clandestine deployment of drones concealed within mobile crates. According to Axios and CBS News sources, the US was not informed beforehand. The attacks preceded Ukraine-Russia negotiations scheduled for June 2nd in Istanbul.
Read the original article here
Ukraine did not inform the US of the large-scale attack on Russian airfields in advance, and this decision, far from being a mistake, appears to have been a shrewd strategic move. The reasoning behind this silence centers largely on a profound lack of trust in the current and past administrations’ ability to keep sensitive information confidential.
The concern isn’t simply about potential leaks; it’s about the perceived likelihood of deliberate sabotage. The fear is that any information shared with the US could quickly find its way into the hands of Russia, either through intentional leaks or through the inherent vulnerabilities of a system perceived as compromised. This lack of faith stems from well-publicized past instances of alleged sensitive information sharing with adversarial nations. This historical context casts a long shadow over any potential intelligence collaboration.
This is not a new development; this distrust has been building for years. The perceived vulnerability of US intelligence systems—particularly under previous administrations—makes it a risky proposition to divulge sensitive military plans. Furthermore, the concern extends beyond mere accidental leaks; there’s a deeply ingrained fear of deliberate espionage. Many believe that sharing sensitive intelligence with the US would be akin to directly informing Russia.
The success of the attack further reinforces the decision’s validity. Had Ukraine informed the US, the risk of a leak—either accidental or intentional—was deemed too high. The silence was a calculated risk, and the outcome appears to confirm the wisdom of that choice. It emphasizes the value of maintaining operational security, especially in a conflict as high-stakes as this.
The lack of communication highlights a broader erosion of trust between Ukraine and the United States. This isn’t merely about a single incident; it reflects a deeper concern over the security of information. It underscores a widespread belief that certain individuals within US administrations are compromised or simply incapable of handling sensitive intelligence.
The prevailing sentiment suggests that many countries are now re-evaluating their relationship with the United States, prioritizing information security above all else. Many believe this isn’t an isolated incident; the US is increasingly being shut out of critical intelligence sharing, potentially hindering its ability to effectively contribute to global security efforts.
In the context of the current geopolitical climate, the decision not to inform the US is not only understandable but perhaps even necessary. It represents a pragmatic approach to protecting crucial military operations from potential compromise. The perceived risks of disclosure far outweigh the potential benefits of collaboration.
The situation underscores a growing trend of allies prioritizing self-reliance in intelligence gathering and strategic decision-making. The trust deficit, rooted in recent history, suggests a fundamental shift in international relations, with Ukraine prioritizing the preservation of its operational secrecy over the perceived risks of sharing intelligence with the US. The absence of prior notification reflects a calculated decision rooted in deep-seated concerns about security and the reliability of the information chain. The success of the operation reinforces the wisdom of this choice.
This event also highlights a potential shift in global alliances and the dynamics of international information sharing. The lack of trust in the US to safeguard sensitive intelligence is not just a Ukrainian concern; it suggests a growing trend among many nations reevaluating their relationships and communication strategies with the United States. This underscores the significance of trust as a crucial element in the effectiveness of international cooperation and intelligence sharing.