What happened

According to Politico, during a March 11 meeting in Miami the Kremlin’s special representative Kirill Dmitriev offered American negotiators — Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner — a quid pro quo: Moscow would reportedly stop passing intelligence to Iran (including coordinates of U.S. military sites in the Middle East) in exchange for Washington ceasing to provide intelligence about Russia to Ukraine. The United States rejected the proposal, informed interlocutors said.

Why the U.S. said “no”

The U.S. decision rests on three practical grounds. First, an exchange without clear guarantees of compliance is a risky deal with an unreliable partner; trust in Moscow on such matters is close to zero. Second, for Washington, maintaining support for Ukraine is not only a moral gesture but also an element of deterring further aggression. Third, a concession in this area would undermine transatlantic unity, creating a precedent in which Europe’s interests and the security of allies would be sidelined.

“This proposal is outrageous”

— a European diplomat who spoke with Politico

Consequences for Ukraine

Essentially, the U.S. decision is a positive signal for Kyiv: intelligence support will not be negotiated as a commodity in bilateral bargaining. This means Ukraine can rely on the fact that some support will remain outside geopolitical trade-offs over interests in other theaters (for example, the Middle East).

Context: Russia, Iran and regional security

Against the backdrop of rising tensions between the U.S. and Israel with Iran, Moscow has expanded cooperation with Tehran — from intelligence sharing to transferring technologies for strike systems, The Wall Street Journal reported. Such rapprochement increases risks for U.S. forces in the region and at the same time makes Moscow’s offers strategically significant but unreliable.

“Two-thirds of military intelligence for Ukraine is currently provided by France”

— Emmanuel Macron, according to sources cited by Politico

European diplomats are worried that initiatives like this from the Kremlin could fracture the West’s approach to Russia. That is why the U.S. refusal is not only a tactical move but also a signal of willingness to defend the system of multilateral guarantees of support for Ukraine.

What’s next

Clearly, Moscow will continue to look for ways to influence allies’ positions. For Ukraine, it is important not only to receive intelligence today but also to cement the mechanisms of its delivery — in the form of long-term contracts, coordination with partners, and diversification of information sources. As Kyrylo Budanov noted in 2025, the risk of paid intelligence contracts being terminated is critical; but the end of free assistance would have a different, less dramatic effect.

Now the ball is in the partners’ court: declarations of support must be turned into fixed mechanisms that cannot be quickly traded away or rolled back under external pressure.