It was clear enough then that US and other NATO intel was providing fire control and asset management information to UA, just based on results.
Even with that help, UA demonstrated some pretty hoopy chops in the early days, but Russia had to know they were getting help.
Why "confirm" it now?
I suspect several factors came together, but among them:
Macron's electoral victory led directly to the provision of 155mm truck-mounted "Ceasar" cannon, and Macron becoming much more forthcoming about France's commitment to assisting Ukraine.
Russia's clumsy threats about nuclear retaliation to Britain were a clear attempt at intimidation.
Finland and Sweden publicly acknowledging and announcing a timeline for their intent to apply for NATO membership.
Recent visits by high-level US officials to Kyiv.
This looks to me like a coordinated ratcheting operation, increasing pressure on the Sov... sorry, "Russia", to prevent them from escalating. The U.S. publicly acknowledging this assistance provokes all kinds of questions, including what assistance are we providing that we're NOT acknowledging.
It's a very delicate balance, pushing at the Russians' paranoia, getting them to imagine things, confirming past help but not hinting about current efforts, pulling the "retaliation" rug out of their propaganda arsenal.
I think there are very experienced, very careful strategists working on this.
speculatively,
Bright