Did Ukraine or French intelligence find that the US was feeding confidential intelligence to Russian intelligence over the last 2-4 weeks?
Executive summary
There is no verifiable public evidence in the reporting provided that either Ukrainian or French intelligence has officially found the United States was “feeding” confidential intelligence to Russian intelligence over the past two to four weeks; the only direct allegation comes from a former French intelligence operative’s media comments and has been contested and amplified by social media and Kremlin-linked channels [1] [2] [3]. French and Ukrainian official statements and reputable reporting instead describe shifts in intelligence flows and mutual distrust following disruptions in U.S.–Ukraine cooperation in 2025, not a confirmed U.S. leak-to-Russia accusation [4] [5].
1. The allegation on the table: a former DGSE operative’s claim
Vincent Crouzet, described in the reporting as a former DGSE operative, publicly alleged on French television that Ukrainian intelligence deliberately fed distorted information into U.S. channels to see if it would reach Russian forces—a claim framed by him as proof that Washington had shared strategic information with Russia [1] [2]. That media claim is the primary source of the narrative circulating online that U.S. intelligence was compromised or passed to Russia in the recent weeks referenced by the question [1] [6].
2. Ukrainian agencies and local media push back on the story
Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR) and Ukrainian outlets have rejected the social-media-amplified version of the report, saying the story was distorted and amplified by Kremlin bot farms and that there are no grounds for the assertion that Kyiv deliberately provided misleading intelligence to the U.S. that later reached Russia [3]. The GUR’s statement reported by Ukrainian newsrooms directly rebuts the viral framing, though those denials address the specific allegation of a Kyiv-origin sting rather than proving or disproving every related claim [3].
3. Macron’s comments and wider context about shifting intelligence flows
Separate from the Crouzet allegation, French President Emmanuel Macron publicly said France was now providing “two‑thirds” of the intelligence support Ukraine receives from partners—comments widely reported and interpreted as evidence of a rebalancing of Western intelligence support and as an expression of wariness about U.S. reliability after a 2025 pause in U.S. sharing [4] [5]. Reporting around Macron’s remarks notes the March 2025 U.S. suspension of some intelligence sharing and the subsequent political controversies, but Reuters and other outlets frame that history as background for changing partnerships, not as proof the U.S. passed secrets to Russia in the last weeks [4] [5].
4. What the available sources do not show: no corroborated evidence of U.S.–to–Russia transfers
None of the provided items contain independently corroborated evidence—classified documents, official French or Ukrainian intelligence findings, or investigative reporting—that the United States intentionally or knowingly passed confidential intelligence to Russian intelligence in the last 2–4 weeks; the dominant materials are a commentary claim (Crouzet), a Ukrainian denial (GUR), and reporting on Macron’s declaration about France increasing support [1] [3] [4]. Where reporting notes leak fears or shifts in sharing practices, it ties them to political and operational distrust dating to 2025 rather than to a confirmed, recent intelligence transfer to Moscow [5] [7].
5. Competing narratives, motives and what to watch next
The narratives now circulating reflect competing motives: a former intelligence commentator framing a dramatic leak story on television that is easily amplified on social platforms [1], Kyiv’s intelligence apparatus attempting to quash Kremlin-driven disinformation [3], and European leaders repositioning their roles as intelligence providers amid political strain with Washington [4] [5]. Given those incentives, the right evidentiary threshold would be formal statements from French or Ukrainian services, or independent investigative reporting showing chain-of-custody or communications proving U.S.–to–Russia transfer; the current sources do not provide that [1] [3] [4].