Based on the provided search results, the archived New York Times article (available at https://archive.ph/jTAcu) details the secretive and extensive intelligence-sharing relationship between the United States and Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War, particularly from 2022 onwards. Here is a summary of its key points:

🔍 Key Summary Points:

1. Covert Intelligence Sharing: The U.S. provided real-time, precise targeting intelligence to Ukrainian forces, often without disclosing the sources or methods behind it. This included satellite imagery, signals intelligence, and other data crucial for striking Russian targets. Ukrainian officials were given chains of coordinates categorized by priority (e.g., “Priority 1,” “Priority 2”), with assurances of accuracy from U.S. officials like General Donahue, who emphasized, “Don’t worry about how we found out. Just trust that when you shoot, it will hit it” .
2. Operational Secrecy and Deniability: The U.S. maintained plausible deniability in its involvement. For instance, one U.S. official noted that by phrasing interactions carefully—such as not explicitly “passing targets” but instead sharing intelligence—officials could legitimately deny direct targeting assistance .
3. Internal Ukrainian Rivalries: The intelligence-sharing process sometimes exacerbated tensions within Ukraine’s military command. For example, U.S. intelligence was occasionally shared directly with General Syrsky, bypassing his superior, General Zaluzhny, which loyalists viewed as undermining the chain of command .
4. Early Challenges and Adaptation: Initially, the intelligence-sharing was ad hoc, with General Donahue and aides using phones to relay information on Russian troop movements. Over time, this evolved into a more structured system, including secure cloud-based platforms for data exchange .
5. Incidents of Strategic Misalignment: The sinking of the Russian warship Moskva in April 2022 highlighted friction in the partnership. While Ukrainians viewed it as a triumph, U.S. officials reacted with “anger, surprise, and panic” because they had not intended to enable strikes on high-profile symbols of Russian power like the Black Sea Fleet flagship .
6. Sanitized Language and Bureaucratization: The article notes the U.S. tendency to use sanitized, bureaucratic language for military operations (e.g., “targets” instead of “moving targets”) and weapon systems (e.g., ATACMS, HIMARS), which may obscure the realities of war .
7. Geopolitical Motivations: The piece suggests that the U.S. involvement was driven by strategic goals to weaken Russia’s military and economy without committing boots on the ground, effectively using Ukraine as a proxy. This aligns with broader realpolitik perspectives, where the U.S. aimed to grind down Russia while minimizing direct confrontation .
8. Criticism of U.S. Strategy: The U.S. approach was criticized as reactive and overly cautious, with delays in providing critical weapons (e.g., ATACMS and cluster shells) costing Ukrainian lives and opportunities. This lack of coherent strategy was seen as handwringing that constrained Ukraine’s defensive efforts .
9. Human Costs and Occupied Territories: The article touches on the grim realities for Ukrainians in occupied territories, where pro-Ukrainian sentiments could lead to brutal repression by Russian forces, as seen in incidents in Bucha, Izyum, and Mariupol .
10. Ongoing Conflict and Peace Dynamics: Recent developments (as of the search results’ context in 2025) indicate discussions of ceasefires and peace deals, often influenced by U.S. political changes. For instance, the Trump administration proposed a 30-day ceasefire focusing on energy infrastructure and Black Sea shipping, though ground fighting continued .

💎 Overall Significance:

The article reveals the depth and complexity of the U.S.-Ukraine intelligence partnership, highlighting both its effectiveness in countering Russian advances and the underlying tensions, risks, and geopolitical calculations involved. It also critiques the U.S. for a sometimes inconsistent and overly cautious approach, which may have prolonged the conflict and increased human suffering .

For further details, you can access the full article here.