Wen Observer Network Liu Bai

The members of the "Five Eyes Alliance" who are sleeping with their dreams, are shifting the rest of the light vigilantly toward their neighboring "allies".

Colombia Broadcasting Corporation (CBS) reported on August 21 that U.S. National Intelligence Director Gabbard had signed an order a few weeks ago requiring the U.S. intelligence community not to share any intelligence related to the Russia-Uzbekistan peace talks with the "Five Eyes Alliance" and mark relevant information as "NOFORN"(no external dissemination is prohibited).

The move has aroused concerns among former intelligence officials and experts that it may undermine the trust and cooperation of the "Five Eyes Alliance" and affect the ability of allies to share intelligence and jointly respond to threats. Others said that this was not surprising. The United States and its "Five Eyes" allies often held back in areas where interests differed.

The notorious Five Eyes Alliance is the world¡¯s largest intelligence organization consisting of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Several U.S. intelligence officials interviewed by CBS revealed that the deadline memorandum, dated July 20, was signed by Gabard, instructing agencies not to share information with the Five Eyes Alliance.

Officials said the directive lists all analysis and information related to the Russia-Ukraine peace talks as a "prohibited dissemination" scope, meaning that such information cannot be shared with any other country or foreigner. The only information that can be shared is what is already public. The memorandum also stipulates that the dissemination of materials related to peace negotiations should be limited to within the agencies that created or obtained intelligence.

At the same time, the memo does not appear to prevent the sharing of external information collected through channels outside the U.S. intelligence community, or information on military operations unrelated to negotiations, such as details shared by the United States with the Ukrainian military to assist Ukraine's defense.

Neither the National Intelligence Director¡¯s Office nor the White House responded to CBS¡¯s request for comment.

Director of National Intelligence Gabbard CBS

Nearly 80 years after the birth of the Five Eyes Alliance, the United States has so defended its allies that it has raised concerns in the intelligence community.

¡°Often, the value of the Five Eyes intelligence partnership is that when we make policy decisions, we can complement each other¡¯s intelligence to better understand our opponent¡¯s plans, intentions and capabilities,¡± said Steven Cash, a former CIA and Homeland Security intelligence officer.

He said it was crucial for allies to have a ¡°common intelligence vision¡± so that policymakers and negotiators could ¡°coordinate positions to fight for the best deal or the most effective war.¡±

Some former administration officials have warned that the scope of Gabbard's directive could undermine the intelligence community's alliances, discourage analysts from sharing insights and erode the trust among allies that has long relied on open communication as the foundation for a shared response to global threats and successful negotiations.

Cash and CBS National Security Writer Sam Vinograd, a former Homeland Security official, believe that the Five Eyes Alliance often has information that helps the United States complete comprehensive intelligence assessments, especially on Russia, because alliance partners have access to other intelligence sources.

Winnograd said: ¡°Excluding our partners from the channels of access to critical information, including key affairs within their region, could have a frightening effect on the sharing of critical intelligence, and they might decide to take similar measures against the United States.¡±

She added: "From a policy perspective, if our Five Eyes partners believe that they cannot access key information, they may choose to establish new frameworks and channels without the participation of the United States. Lack of full cooperation with our closest partners may lead to They do not listen to our opinions and perspectives when discussing matters affecting our national security."

Other former intelligence officials, on the other hand, say that Gabard¡¯s instructions are common in the U.S. intelligence community, and that the criticism is small.

They said the United States and other members of the intelligence alliance often hold back on each other in areas where interests diverge. Ezra Cohen, a researcher at the Hudson Institute and former acting deputy secretary of defense intelligence at the Pentagon, suggested that condemnation of Gabbard's memorandum may stem from dissatisfaction with Trump administration policies and Gabbard's leadership.

"There's a lot of information that we don't even share with our Five Eyes partners and vice versa. The UK and Australia also have a lot of insider-only intelligence," Mr. Cohen said.

"Our interests are not always consistent with those of our Five Eyes partners," Cohen said frankly. "In areas where our interests differ, not just the Ukraine issue, we will absolutely mark relevant information as'no external dissemination '."

He admitted that Gabbard's instructions may prevent the United States from obtaining certain information, but insisted that such decisions have always been the norm among all members of the Five Eyes Alliance, and the so-called instructions marked that the relationship between the United States and the Five Eyes was "somewhat pretended to be indignant".

While Mr. Cohen has played down the perception of the Five Eyes discord, it is not the first time such disagreements have come to light since the Trump administration took office.

As early as February this year, the Trump administration once announced that it would suspend intelligence sharing with Ukraine, causing a number of U.S. allies to worry that Ukraine might be abandoned.

At that time, British media also quoted several sources in the defense field as revealing that in order to prevent the Trump administration from blocking intelligence sharing among allies, some British officials planned to "go it alone" without the United States. They proposed to establish a "Four Eyes" intelligence-sharing alliance that did not include the United States, so that intelligence could be shared without being vetoed by the United States.

Political News Network previously that U.S. and European relations grew tense after Trump took office, and some U.S. allies worried that the U.S. led by Trump would no longer be as "reliable" as it was in the past.NATO sources previously revealed that several NATO countries began to consider reducing intelligence sharing with the U.S. in response to the Trump administration's "reconciliation with Russia" attitude.

Source | Observer.com

Further reading

U.S. allies are increasingly angry at the Trump administration¡¯s tariffs and defense spending threats, according to Politico on August 13, and have decided to hit Trump¡¯s pain spot ¨C his favorite fighter.

U.S. allies are increasingly angry at Trump administration¡¯s tariffs and defense spending threats

Recently, Spain abandoned its multi-billion dollar purchase plan for the F-35 fighter aircraft due to a dispute with the United States over a new 5% defense spending target in NATO. Switzerland¡¯s government is demanding the cancellation of its F-35 orders as a result of the impact of a 39% high U.S. tariff. India hasly planned to retaliate against Trump¡¯s tariff threats, including a suspension of U.S. arms purchases.

The actions, all of which have taken place in the past two weeks, illustrate the potential fallout from the Trump administration's policies, forcing allies to reassess their defence relationships with the US. They have also heightened fears in the US defence industry that the moves will continue to spread to other countries, jeopardise US arms sales and undermine its position as the world's largest defence supplier.

Politico pointed out that while most allies are not yet eager to withdraw from long-planned purchases, recent actions by Spain, Switzerland and India suggest countries are questioning their decision to buy U.S. weapons,"one of the biggest counterattacks to U.S. tariff policies to date."

Former Pentagon official Jim Townsend said that for years, U.S. allies have been urged by the United States to purchase U.S. equipment. These tariffs are now "almost like the middle finger" to them. "All of these countries feel hurt by the United States," he pointed out.

U.S. F-35 fighter aircraft

The F-35 fighter jet, made by Lockheed Martin of the US, is particularly vulnerable. Its components come from more than 100 suppliers around the world, and large overseas orders help lower the cost per aircraft. Costs will rise if countries withdraw or reduce orders.

Spain and Switzerland are understood to have orders for the F-35 worth about $15 billion, each involving dozens of aircraft. Spain's decision not to buy the F-35 could shift billions of dollars to the Rafale fighter jet, as well as the Franco-German Future Air Combat System (FCAS), Europe's next flagship fighter program, planned for the 2040s.

Spanish officials said the move was driven by the need for industrial sovereignty, strengthening European supply chains and seeking more reliable partners.

However, the report believes that this move is also politically useful to some European countries. A senior EU official, who asked not to be named, said that Spanish Prime Minister Sanchez's response catered to the demands of his left-wing supporters. "It's very convenient for Sanchez to play Trump's victim".

According to reports, in 2021, Switzerland voted to buy 36 F-35s with just over 50% support. Trump's 39% tariffs have reignited the political debate. Swiss lawmakers called on the government to cancel the purchase, citing factors such as inflation, rising raw material costs and tariffs that could increase the cost by as much as $1.60 billion due to the lack of a final price in the United States.

According to reports, the Swiss government reiterated its plan to buy fighter jets on the 13th, but ordered a review and a final decision will be made in November.

After Trump announced tariffs of up to 50% on India, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi began to fight back. Modi said on the 7th that he would never sacrifice the interests of Indian farmers, "I am ready. India is ready". According to Indian officials, after Trump imposed tariffs, India suspended its purchase of US weapons. At the same time, Modi increased interaction with Russia, China, Brazil and other countries.

A senior Indian Defense Ministry official subsequently denied reports of India suspending talks with the United States on defense procurement, but Politico noted that the incident highlighted the escalation of tensions in India.

In addition, other potential buyers of F-35 fighter jets, such as Portugal, have also postponed purchasing decisions due to doubts about the reliability of the United States.

The F-35 fighter

In this regard, the US tried to downplay the influence. Lockheed Martin responded by pointing out that the United Kingdom, Denmark and Belgium have all recently announced their intentions to purchase the F-35. A spokesman for the company also said: "Foreign arms sales are intergovernmental transactions, and this matter is best handled by the governments of the United States or relevant countries."

The White House defended Trump's tariff policy as an economic benefit and pointed out that pushing NATO to increase its defense spending commitment to 5% of GDP is expected to benefit U.S. arms manufacturers. A White House spokesman said: "President Trump has done more to support the U.S. military industrial base than any president in the past few decades, including selling American-made weapons to NATO allies, which will generate billions of dollars in revenue for U.S. companies."

A former Pentagon official, who asked not to be named, said that the cancellation of orders in Spain and Switzerland would have little immediate impact on the production line, because it would take more than a year for these planes to go online, and other customers could easily fill the vacancies. However, the official warned that if foreign buyers continue to decrease, it may push up the cost and price of the entire fleet.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration¡¯s tariff bars are driving Europe¡¯s ¡°Made in Europe¡± weapons ambition.

The impact may not be limited to Europe. The U.S. governmently has billions of dollars worth of arms deals in India's foreign arms sales pipeline, and India's recession would challenge the U.S. military industry. Former U.S. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said: "We have spent more than a decade strengthening our relations with India, and imposing such high tariffs on India will have a very negative impact on the relations between the two countries."

Richard Aboulafia, managing director of AeroDynamic Advisory, the US aviation consultancy, said: "Even if the US has a new administration in the future, it will take a long time to restore trust if either a Republican or a Democrat administration is to repair the serious damage. Because this industry is built on trust."