This is analysis of article from prospective of trust in five-eyes partners, and not the article itself.
The article from RT reports that U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard issued a directive on July 20, 2025, ordering U.S. intelligence agencies to withhold information about Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations from Five Eyes partners (U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand), classifying it as "NOFORN" (no foreign dissemination).
This move, as reported by CBS News, has sparked concerns about trust among intelligence allies. Below is an analysis of what this **implies regarding a lack of trust in intelligence partners, critically examining the establishment narrative and considering multiple perspectives:
Implications of Lack of Trust in Intelligence Partners Undermining the Five Eyes Alliance: The Five Eyes alliance (U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand) is built on a foundation of mutual trust and open intelligence sharing to counter global threats.**
Gabbard’s directive to restrict information sharing on Russia-Ukraine talks suggests a deliberate decision to exclude these close allies from sensitive discussions. This could signal a lack of confidence in their ability to handle or align with U.S. interests on this issue, potentially straining a historically robust partnership.
Critics, as noted in the CBS News report, argue this could erode trust, discourage reciprocal sharing, and weaken the alliance’s ability to form a unified intelligence picture. Former intelligence officials like Steven Cash and Sam Vinograd emphasized that excluding allies risks creating a "chilling effect" on cooperation, as partners might retaliate by withholding their own intelligence.
Diverging National Interests:The directive may reflect a belief within the U.S. administration that Five Eyes partners have diverging interests or priorities regarding Russia-Ukraine negotiations.
For example, Ezra Cohen, a former intelligence official, noted that withholding information is not uncommon when interests diverge, citing "U.K. eyes-only" or "Australian eyes-only" practices. This suggests the U.S. might perceive its allies as having conflicting agendas, possibly due to their own diplomatic or economic ties with Russia or Ukraine.
However, this move could imply a lack of trust in allies’ alignment with U.S. policy goals, particularly if the U.S. suspects leaks, differing strategic aims, or pressure from allies to pursue policies not in line with U.S. objectives.
Concerns Over Leaks or Misuse:
The decision to mark intelligence as NOFORN could stem from concerns about potential leaks or misuse of sensitive information by Five Eyes partners. If the U.S. administration believes that sharing details of Russia-Ukraine talks could compromise negotiations or be used in ways contrary to U.S. interests (e.g., influencing European policies or public opinion), this would indicate a lack of trust in allies’ ability to safeguard or appropriately handle the information.
This concern is heightened by the volatile nature of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, where premature leaks could disrupt delicate peace talks or escalate tensions.
Political and Ideological Factors:
Gabbard’s directive aligns with her past skepticism of U.S. foreign policy and NATO’s role, as she has previously accused NATO of ignoring Russia’s “legitimate security concerns.” This suggests the decision might reflect a broader ideological shift within the U.S. administration, potentially prioritizing unilateral action or direct negotiations with Russia over multilateral coordination with allies.
Critics, including former aides and Democratic figures like Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, have accused Gabbard of being influenced by Russian narratives, citing her alleged consumption of RT content. These claims, while unproven, fuel speculation that the directive could be driven by a worldview that distrusts traditional allies in favor of alternative diplomatic approaches, further eroding confidence in the Five Eyes framework.
Short-Term Tactical Move vs. Long-Term Damage:Supporters of the directive, like Ezra Cohen, argue it’s a routine practice and not indicative of a broader trust deficit, dismissing criticism as “faux outrage” driven by opposition to the Trump administration’s policies. This suggests the move could be a tactical decision to maintain control over sensitive negotiations rather than a blanket distrust of allies.
However, even if intended as a short-term measure, the directive risks long-term consequences. Allies may perceive it as a signal that the U.S. is less committed to the alliance, potentially leading them to seek alternative intelligence-sharing structures or reduce cooperation on other issues, as warned by Sam Vinograd.
Context of Broader U.S. Policy Shifts:The directive comes in the context of other reported actions, such as a temporary pause in intelligence sharing with Ukraine in March 2025, which was later resumed. This suggests a pattern of selective intelligence sharing under Gabbard’s leadership, possibly reflecting a U.S. policy shift toward prioritizing direct control over sensitive diplomatic processes.
The exclusion of Gabbard from other high-level discussions, such as Iran-Israel talks, further indicates internal dynamics within the U.S. administration that may prioritize certain advisors or agendas, potentially at the expense of traditional alliances.
Critical Examination of the NarrativeRT as a Source: The primary source, RT, is identified by U.S. intelligence as a Kremlin propaganda outlet, which raises questions about its reliability in reporting on U.S. intelligence matters. While it cites CBS News, the framing may exaggerate or skew the narrative to align with Russian interests, such as portraying the U.S. as isolated from its allies. Cross-referencing with CBS News confirms the core claim but provides a more nuanced view, emphasizing allied concerns and the routine nature of some restrictions.
Unverified Claims and Bias: Allegations of Gabbard’s ties to Russian propaganda, while widely discussed, rely heavily on anonymous sources and lack definitive evidence. These claims could be politically motivated to discredit her or the administration’s policies. Conversely, dismissing the directive as routine may downplay legitimate concerns about trust erosion within the Five Eyes alliance.
Incomplete Context: The sources do not fully clarify the rationale behind Gabbard’s directive, such as specific security concerns or strategic goals. Without this, it’s challenging to assess whether the move reflects genuine distrust or a pragmatic decision tied to negotiation sensitivities.
Conclusion:
Gabbard’s directive to bar intelligence sharing on Russia-Ukraine talks with Five Eyes partners implies a potential lack of trust in these allies, whether due to diverging interests, concerns over leaks, or a shift toward unilateral U.S. policy. While some argue this is a standard practice, the move risks undermining the Five Eyes alliance by signaling reduced cooperation, which could lead to reciprocal withholding of intelligence and weakened collective security. The narrative is complicated by RT’s questionable credibility and unverified claims about Gabbard’s motivations, necessitating skepticism toward both the establishment and alternative narratives. The true extent of distrust depends on the U.S. administration’s broader strategy, which remains unclear from available information.
The "concern" might be described as "back-seat cooking." The other British nations are hangers-on. Our diplomatic actions are NOT intelligence product. Our own intelligence product is often not distributed to our own concerned parties, so why should we provide them with a peephole into our apartment?
You can tell when someone is hyperventilating, they are gearing up for a faux fainting spell.
I am sympathetic to what you are reaching for, but if we do not share intel, how would MI6 have it? (I'm not arguing to do so. I'm just not seeing how your scenario is possible.) And, by what means would be know that any of it ended up "abroad" when they could simply show it to an Israeli agent in London? Information is elusive. Discovery of truth is not something that can be copyrighted.
I briefly thought that "And, by what means would be know that any of it ended up "abroad" when they could simply show it to an Israeli agent in London" part through when making the statement.
Astronomers infer an invisible cosmic object's existence by observing its gravitational effects on nearby visible objects.
Like astronomers detecting invisible objects by their effects, an intelligence leak can be identified by unusual political reactions, such as sudden defensiveness, policy shifts, or coordinated efforts to mitigate or exploit the leaked information.
A very seductive analogy, but completely worthless. In astronomy, you have measurements of physical quantities, and a fairly rigorous theory from which to draw conclusions. In the realm of fuzzy information, all you have is guesswork, which is always contaminated by bias and incomplete information. For one thing, you don't ever know whether the reacting party had obtained the information from a completely different source. And then you have the problem of "mirror-imaging", thinking the other party has the same set of priorities and imperatives that you do, and infer from that. That has been a classic and long-standing impairment in our understanding of Soviet Union / Russia. In many ways, they don't think like us and we draw the wrong conclusions by imagining they do.
"In astronomy, you have measurements of physical quantities, and a fairly rigorous theory from which to draw conclusions." Now that's funny there fren!
You mean like the "Dark Matter" theory pushed as fact that is turning out to be 100% myth?
Astronomy is as corrupted by big money interest as much as any other field of so call science.
First, you use the theory of gravity and planetary motions as an analogy to your argument. Then when I point out that the theory depends on an exactitude that cannot be expected from human affairs, you pull out a scientific hypothesis (speculation) that really has no theory, and trash astronomy as a whole. I hope you don't settle family disagreements this way.
Remember during campaign season when we all got out with our Trump flags, and Trump trains blowing our horns and standing on street corners?
I am so bursting with happy moments because of all this winning, that I feel like organizing a Trump Train just to celebrate all the successes. I fell like shouting to the moon HURRAH!! Don't you just want to scream it out?
In their current form I wouldn't consider the U.K, Canada, Australia and New Zealand as allies of the U.S. They are aligned with the previous administration, and administrations before it, but certainly not the current administration - the Trump administration. This is what DNI Tulsi Gabbard is confronting head-on. No more pretending. This is actually VERY BIG news. It shows at the highest levels the current administration under President Trumps leadership is done pretending with the enemy embedded within traditional and historical allies.
NATO has been the aggressor. Russia is not the Soviet Union. The globalist neo-cons forced Russia to invade Ukraine. They fomented a color revolution and installed Zelinsky. They promised that Ukraine would not be a part of NATO then tried to go back on that promise. They placed bio-weapons labs on Russia’s border. They allowed actual Nazis to instigate trouble with any Ukraine citizen who opposed war. They killed off half the male population of Ukraine and hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded Russians who wanted a buffer from NATO’s expansionist policies. We should no longer fund NATO nor share any intel with them.
4 of the 5 eyes are all british crown controlled nations. We quit the king so why are we even part of that? Each of those country independently from many based citizens are complete shit. Since trump we are rhe only natuon escaping that inbred faux british deepstate sewer.
This move, as reported by CBS News, is the new CNN of fake news. I do not trust anything CBS reports. Check that CBS has been fake news all the way back to the War Criminal President Bush. CBS fired Dan Rather, who had been with the network for a long time, due to his reporting of fake news.
Not sure if it's related but here they discuss that during negotiations they had some territories that would be defined but other territories would be frozen at the line of combat.
Well, yeah. It's us against them.
The US should completely withdraw from Five Eyes, and them mock them by calling them "four eyes".
I spit out my coffee thru my nose 🤣
Best handshake comment I've ever seen here. You sir, or madam, win the internet for the day!
Keklarrious
No leaks.
This is analysis of article from prospective of trust in five-eyes partners, and not the article itself.
The article from RT reports that U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard issued a directive on July 20, 2025, ordering U.S. intelligence agencies to withhold information about Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations from Five Eyes partners (U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand), classifying it as "NOFORN" (no foreign dissemination).
This move, as reported by CBS News, has sparked concerns about trust among intelligence allies. Below is an analysis of what this **implies regarding a lack of trust in intelligence partners, critically examining the establishment narrative and considering multiple perspectives:
Implications of Lack of Trust in Intelligence Partners Undermining the Five Eyes Alliance: The Five Eyes alliance (U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand) is built on a foundation of mutual trust and open intelligence sharing to counter global threats.**
Gabbard’s directive to restrict information sharing on Russia-Ukraine talks suggests a deliberate decision to exclude these close allies from sensitive discussions. This could signal a lack of confidence in their ability to handle or align with U.S. interests on this issue, potentially straining a historically robust partnership.
Critics, as noted in the CBS News report, argue this could erode trust, discourage reciprocal sharing, and weaken the alliance’s ability to form a unified intelligence picture. Former intelligence officials like Steven Cash and Sam Vinograd emphasized that excluding allies risks creating a "chilling effect" on cooperation, as partners might retaliate by withholding their own intelligence.
Diverging National Interests:The directive may reflect a belief within the U.S. administration that Five Eyes partners have diverging interests or priorities regarding Russia-Ukraine negotiations.
For example, Ezra Cohen, a former intelligence official, noted that withholding information is not uncommon when interests diverge, citing "U.K. eyes-only" or "Australian eyes-only" practices. This suggests the U.S. might perceive its allies as having conflicting agendas, possibly due to their own diplomatic or economic ties with Russia or Ukraine.
However, this move could imply a lack of trust in allies’ alignment with U.S. policy goals, particularly if the U.S. suspects leaks, differing strategic aims, or pressure from allies to pursue policies not in line with U.S. objectives.
Concerns Over Leaks or Misuse:
The decision to mark intelligence as NOFORN could stem from concerns about potential leaks or misuse of sensitive information by Five Eyes partners. If the U.S. administration believes that sharing details of Russia-Ukraine talks could compromise negotiations or be used in ways contrary to U.S. interests (e.g., influencing European policies or public opinion), this would indicate a lack of trust in allies’ ability to safeguard or appropriately handle the information.
This concern is heightened by the volatile nature of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, where premature leaks could disrupt delicate peace talks or escalate tensions.
Political and Ideological Factors: Gabbard’s directive aligns with her past skepticism of U.S. foreign policy and NATO’s role, as she has previously accused NATO of ignoring Russia’s “legitimate security concerns.” This suggests the decision might reflect a broader ideological shift within the U.S. administration, potentially prioritizing unilateral action or direct negotiations with Russia over multilateral coordination with allies.
Critics, including former aides and Democratic figures like Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, have accused Gabbard of being influenced by Russian narratives, citing her alleged consumption of RT content. These claims, while unproven, fuel speculation that the directive could be driven by a worldview that distrusts traditional allies in favor of alternative diplomatic approaches, further eroding confidence in the Five Eyes framework.
Short-Term Tactical Move vs. Long-Term Damage:Supporters of the directive, like Ezra Cohen, argue it’s a routine practice and not indicative of a broader trust deficit, dismissing criticism as “faux outrage” driven by opposition to the Trump administration’s policies. This suggests the move could be a tactical decision to maintain control over sensitive negotiations rather than a blanket distrust of allies. However, even if intended as a short-term measure, the directive risks long-term consequences. Allies may perceive it as a signal that the U.S. is less committed to the alliance, potentially leading them to seek alternative intelligence-sharing structures or reduce cooperation on other issues, as warned by Sam Vinograd.
Context of Broader U.S. Policy Shifts:The directive comes in the context of other reported actions, such as a temporary pause in intelligence sharing with Ukraine in March 2025, which was later resumed. This suggests a pattern of selective intelligence sharing under Gabbard’s leadership, possibly reflecting a U.S. policy shift toward prioritizing direct control over sensitive diplomatic processes.
The exclusion of Gabbard from other high-level discussions, such as Iran-Israel talks, further indicates internal dynamics within the U.S. administration that may prioritize certain advisors or agendas, potentially at the expense of traditional alliances.
Critical Examination of the NarrativeRT as a Source: The primary source, RT, is identified by U.S. intelligence as a Kremlin propaganda outlet, which raises questions about its reliability in reporting on U.S. intelligence matters. While it cites CBS News, the framing may exaggerate or skew the narrative to align with Russian interests, such as portraying the U.S. as isolated from its allies. Cross-referencing with CBS News confirms the core claim but provides a more nuanced view, emphasizing allied concerns and the routine nature of some restrictions.
Unverified Claims and Bias: Allegations of Gabbard’s ties to Russian propaganda, while widely discussed, rely heavily on anonymous sources and lack definitive evidence. These claims could be politically motivated to discredit her or the administration’s policies. Conversely, dismissing the directive as routine may downplay legitimate concerns about trust erosion within the Five Eyes alliance.
Incomplete Context: The sources do not fully clarify the rationale behind Gabbard’s directive, such as specific security concerns or strategic goals. Without this, it’s challenging to assess whether the move reflects genuine distrust or a pragmatic decision tied to negotiation sensitivities.
Conclusion:
Gabbard’s directive to bar intelligence sharing on Russia-Ukraine talks with Five Eyes partners implies a potential lack of trust in these allies, whether due to diverging interests, concerns over leaks, or a shift toward unilateral U.S. policy. While some argue this is a standard practice, the move risks undermining the Five Eyes alliance by signaling reduced cooperation, which could lead to reciprocal withholding of intelligence and weakened collective security. The narrative is complicated by RT’s questionable credibility and unverified claims about Gabbard’s motivations, necessitating skepticism toward both the establishment and alternative narratives. The true extent of distrust depends on the U.S. administration’s broader strategy, which remains unclear from available information.
The "concern" might be described as "back-seat cooking." The other British nations are hangers-on. Our diplomatic actions are NOT intelligence product. Our own intelligence product is often not distributed to our own concerned parties, so why should we provide them with a peephole into our apartment?
You can tell when someone is hyperventilating, they are gearing up for a faux fainting spell.
I was just thinking that by NOT sharing intel, if that intel ends up abroad, we will know there is an inside Mi-6 or Massad spy.
I am sympathetic to what you are reaching for, but if we do not share intel, how would MI6 have it? (I'm not arguing to do so. I'm just not seeing how your scenario is possible.) And, by what means would be know that any of it ended up "abroad" when they could simply show it to an Israeli agent in London? Information is elusive. Discovery of truth is not something that can be copyrighted.
I briefly thought that "And, by what means would be know that any of it ended up "abroad" when they could simply show it to an Israeli agent in London" part through when making the statement.
Astronomers infer an invisible cosmic object's existence by observing its gravitational effects on nearby visible objects.
Like astronomers detecting invisible objects by their effects, an intelligence leak can be identified by unusual political reactions, such as sudden defensiveness, policy shifts, or coordinated efforts to mitigate or exploit the leaked information.
A very seductive analogy, but completely worthless. In astronomy, you have measurements of physical quantities, and a fairly rigorous theory from which to draw conclusions. In the realm of fuzzy information, all you have is guesswork, which is always contaminated by bias and incomplete information. For one thing, you don't ever know whether the reacting party had obtained the information from a completely different source. And then you have the problem of "mirror-imaging", thinking the other party has the same set of priorities and imperatives that you do, and infer from that. That has been a classic and long-standing impairment in our understanding of Soviet Union / Russia. In many ways, they don't think like us and we draw the wrong conclusions by imagining they do.
"In astronomy, you have measurements of physical quantities, and a fairly rigorous theory from which to draw conclusions." Now that's funny there fren!
You mean like the "Dark Matter" theory pushed as fact that is turning out to be 100% myth?
Astronomy is as corrupted by big money interest as much as any other field of so call science.
First, you use the theory of gravity and planetary motions as an analogy to your argument. Then when I point out that the theory depends on an exactitude that cannot be expected from human affairs, you pull out a scientific hypothesis (speculation) that really has no theory, and trash astronomy as a whole. I hope you don't settle family disagreements this way.
Agreed: never trust a commies
4 eyes are basically 🇬🇧 vs 🇺🇸. After watching Promethean Updates the 🇬🇧 empire is the one with bad juju, not the people but the imperial 🇬🇧 system.
Translation: We have MAJOR, MAJOR leaks, we know where they are (everywhere), we can't trust any agency, so I'm dealing with this myself.
Exactly! And the leaks are designed to undermine our negotiations for peace.
When we ran into that security descriptor, we would jokingly say that NOFORN meant "no fornication". It was apt.
MI6 / Mossad are joined at the hip.
TEAM AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!!!!!
Good decision.
Remember during campaign season when we all got out with our Trump flags, and Trump trains blowing our horns and standing on street corners?
I am so bursting with happy moments because of all this winning, that I feel like organizing a Trump Train just to celebrate all the successes. I fell like shouting to the moon HURRAH!! Don't you just want to scream it out?
In their current form I wouldn't consider the U.K, Canada, Australia and New Zealand as allies of the U.S. They are aligned with the previous administration, and administrations before it, but certainly not the current administration - the Trump administration. This is what DNI Tulsi Gabbard is confronting head-on. No more pretending. This is actually VERY BIG news. It shows at the highest levels the current administration under President Trumps leadership is done pretending with the enemy embedded within traditional and historical allies.
I agree, I wouldn’t call any of these “governments” allies of their own people. Treasonous compromised civil servant rats.
NATO has been the aggressor. Russia is not the Soviet Union. The globalist neo-cons forced Russia to invade Ukraine. They fomented a color revolution and installed Zelinsky. They promised that Ukraine would not be a part of NATO then tried to go back on that promise. They placed bio-weapons labs on Russia’s border. They allowed actual Nazis to instigate trouble with any Ukraine citizen who opposed war. They killed off half the male population of Ukraine and hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded Russians who wanted a buffer from NATO’s expansionist policies. We should no longer fund NATO nor share any intel with them.
That sum's it up perfectly and comes to the right conclusion.
4 of the 5 eyes are all british crown controlled nations. We quit the king so why are we even part of that? Each of those country independently from many based citizens are complete shit. Since trump we are rhe only natuon escaping that inbred faux british deepstate sewer.
Does this include the CIA?
5 👁 blind except 🇺🇸. Hope it includes 🇮🇱
Especially 🇮🇱
This move, as reported by CBS News, is the new CNN of fake news. I do not trust anything CBS reports. Check that CBS has been fake news all the way back to the War Criminal President Bush. CBS fired Dan Rather, who had been with the network for a long time, due to his reporting of fake news.
Trust but verify - Ronald Reagan.
Not sure if it's related but here they discuss that during negotiations they had some territories that would be defined but other territories would be frozen at the line of combat.
https://youtu.be/TSRwS5OBA1U?t=254
So it basically escalated activity in those areas.
It'd be really interesting to learn someday who is actually on the ground in Ukraine and driving things.