The United States has ceased providing Ukraine with intelligence data critical for targeting coordinates, forcing Ukrainian armed forces to pivot toward alternative sources to guide their precision strikes, including those delivered by the HIMARS multiple-launch rocket systems.
Russia announced that it had destroyed two US-made HIMARS MRLs
Photo credit: Wikipedia
This shift, confirmed by a Ukrainian military expert, marks a significant adjustment in how Kyiv conducts its military operations amid an evolving relationship with its Western allies. Sergei Beskrestnov, a Ukrainian specialist in radio technology and a noted military commentator, detailed the change in a recent interview on the Kyiv-24 YouTube channel, shedding light on the operational challenges and adaptations now confronting Ukraine’s military.
The decision by Washington to withhold targeting coordinates and other intelligence has reverberated across Ukraine’s defense apparatus, which had grown accustomed to relying on American-supplied data to maximize the effectiveness of advanced weaponry like the HIMARS systems.
Beskrestnov acknowledged that the absence of this support has proven “painful” for Ukrainian forces, underscoring the extent to which U.S. intelligence had been integrated into their tactical planning. Yet, he emphasized that Ukraine retains the capability to operate these systems independently, drawing on a combination of domestically sourced intelligence and contributions from other international partners.
The roots of this policy shift by the United States remain opaque, though it appears tied to broader strategic considerations. Analysts suggest that Washington’s decision could stem from a desire to recalibrate its involvement in the conflict, potentially to avoid escalation or to redirect resources elsewhere.
The move has not been publicly detailed by U.S. officials, leaving room for speculation about whether it reflects a reassessment of intelligence-sharing protocols or a response to specific developments on the ground. What is clear, however, is that the cessation of this data stream has compelled Ukraine to lean more heavily on its own resources and those of its non-American allies, testing the resilience of its military infrastructure.
Historically, the United States has been a cornerstone of Ukraine’s intelligence ecosystem, providing not only targeting coordinates but also high-resolution satellite imagery through private firms like Maxar Technologies, an American aerospace company known for its extensive work with the U.S. government.
Beskrestnov noted that access to Maxar’s imagery has also been curtailed, further complicating Ukraine’s ability to maintain the same level of situational awareness it once enjoyed. This loss of real-time, high-fidelity visuals has forced a reevaluation of how Ukrainian forces gather and process battlefield intelligence, pushing them toward less centralized and more fragmented sources.
In the absence of U.S. support, Ukraine has turned to its own assets and those of European partners to fill the gap. Beskrestnov highlighted the role of Ukrainian reconnaissance drones—unmanned aerial vehicles [UAVs]—which have become a vital tool for collecting targeting data. These drones, operated by Ukraine’s armed forces, offer a degree of autonomy in intelligence gathering, though their range and resolution are limited compared to the satellite-based systems previously provided by the United States.
The expert also pointed to Ukraine’s efforts to leverage information from allies like the United Kingdom and Germany, both of which maintain their own reconnaissance satellites capable of delivering valuable imagery.
A key question in this evolving dynamic is the extent to which Ukraine possesses its own satellite capabilities. Unlike major powers such as the United States, Russia, or China, Ukraine does not operate a robust constellation of military-grade reconnaissance satellites. Its space program, while notable in the post-Soviet era for contributions to rocket design and satellite launches, has not produced a network of advanced imaging satellites tailored for real-time battlefield use.
Beskrestnov’s reference to “our satellites” appears to reflect a broader interpretation, possibly encompassing commercial or dual-use satellites launched in collaboration with other nations rather than a dedicated Ukrainian military fleet. Experts familiar with the region’s space capabilities note that Ukraine has historically relied on partnerships for satellite access rather than maintaining an independent system.
One such partnership involves Finland, which operates a small but sophisticated group of satellites through companies like ICEYE. Beskrestnov confirmed that Ukraine continues to receive imagery from this Finnish constellation, though he was quick to clarify its limitations.
Unlike the seamless, real-time feeds once accessible through U.S. channels—described by Beskrestnov as akin to what the Pentagon enjoys—the Finnish data arrives with delays and lacks the immediacy needed for dynamic targeting. Nevertheless, this arrangement underscores Ukraine’s ability to tap into a network of European allies willing to share resources, even if those contributions fall short of the comprehensive support previously offered by Washington.
The transition to these alternative sources has not been seamless. Beskrestnov admitted that the loss of U.S. intelligence has introduced inefficiencies into Ukraine’s operations, particularly for systems like HIMARS, which thrive on precise, up-to-the-minute coordinates to strike high-value targets effectively.
The HIMARS, a U.S.-provided platform known for its mobility and accuracy, was designed to integrate with advanced intelligence networks, making the absence of such data a notable handicap. Ukrainian forces have had to adapt by cross-referencing drone footage, ground-based reconnaissance, and delayed satellite imagery—a process that demands greater coordination and risks reducing the tempo of their operations.
Beyond the technical challenges, this shift carries implications for Ukraine’s broader military strategy. The reliance on European partners introduces new variables, including the consistency and compatibility of the data provided. The United Kingdom, for instance, operates satellites under its Skynet program, which is primarily designed for secure communications but adaptable for reconnaissance.
Germany’s SAR-Lupe satellites, meanwhile, specialize in synthetic aperture radar, offering all-weather imaging that could complement Ukraine’s needs. Yet, harmonizing these inputs with Ukraine’s existing systems requires time and expertise, both of which are stretched thin in the midst of ongoing conflict.
The move away from U.S. intelligence also raises questions about the durability of Ukraine’s Western alliances. While the United States remains a key supplier of military hardware—HIMARS among them—the decision to withhold data could signal a more cautious approach to direct involvement.
This recalibration might reflect diplomatic pressures, domestic political considerations, or a strategic pivot toward other global priorities. For Ukraine, the challenge lies in maintaining operational momentum without alienating its most powerful backer, all while cultivating deeper ties with European nations capable of stepping into the breach.
For now, Ukrainian forces appear determined to adapt. Beskrestnov’s comments suggest a pragmatic outlook: the loss of U.S. support is a setback, but not an insurmountable one. The use of drones, in particular, highlights Ukraine’s growing self-reliance, a trend that has defined much of its military evolution in recent years.
These UAVs, often domestically produced or modified, have proven versatile in reconnaissance and strike roles, offering a stopgap as Ukraine seeks more permanent solutions. Whether this approach can fully compensate for the absence of American intelligence remains an open question, one that will likely shape the trajectory of Kyiv’s campaign in the months ahead.
The broader context of this shift extends beyond the battlefield. Satellite imagery and targeting data are not merely tactical tools; they represent a currency of power in modern warfare, shared or withheld based on geopolitical currents.
Ukraine’s experience illustrates the fragility of such dependencies, as well as the ingenuity required to navigate their disruption. As Beskrestnov put it, the goal is to “find an alternative”—a mantra that encapsulates both the immediate scramble for new intelligence sources and the longer-term quest for greater autonomy.
European partners, for their part, seem willing to play a larger role, though their contributions vary in scope and sophistication. Finland’s ICEYE satellites, with their focus on radar imaging, offer a niche capability that complements the optical systems of other nations.
The United Kingdom and Germany, with their established space programs, bring additional depth, though neither matches the scale of the U.S. network. This patchwork of support reflects the uneven nature of Europe’s collective defense architecture, a reality Ukraine must now contend with as it reorients its intelligence pipeline.
In the end, the cessation of U.S. intelligence sharing has thrust Ukraine into a period of transition, one that tests its adaptability and the strength of its partnerships. The HIMARS systems, once a symbol of seamless U.S.-Ukrainian collaboration, now stand as a proving ground for Kyiv’s ability to operate independently.
Beskrestnov’s assessment—that Ukraine will persevere despite the challenges—captures a resilience born of necessity, even as it hints at the uncertainties that lie ahead. For a nation reliant on external support yet striving for self-sufficiency, this moment may prove a defining one, reshaping not only its military tactics but also its place within the intricate web of global alliances.
***
Follow us everywhere and at any time. BulgarianMilitary.com has responsive design and you can open the page from any computer, mobile devices or web browsers. For more up-to-date news, follow our Google News, YouTube, Reddit, LinkedIn, and Twitter pages. Our standards: Manifesto & ethical principles.