| a) You cannot get high-resolution imagery from geostationary satellites. It comes from low earth orbit spacecraft. These, by the very nature of their orbit, cannot remain fixed over one place; they move relative to the ground below and once past it, will not be back until they've completed an orbit. This, then, means that someone will have to prioritize what areas to investigate and at what times; satellite orbits can be changed, but that is _extremely_ costly, as you need to expend fuel - and there's no simple way to refuel; spend it all, and you need to launch another satellite. So - maybe the US found that something other than Russian-backed militias destabilizing Ukraine warranted their attention. Say, IS or al-Qaeda - and focussed their attention elsewhere. b) It is not news that you are being watched. It may, however, be news when a satellite is watching; perhaps the US piggybacks surveillance gear on commercial satellites, for instance - they couldn't reveal satellite imagery without anybody and his dog being able to figure out which satellite took the photo. Or - the quality of the photos may be much better than anticipated. Or, for that matter - maybe the US doesn't want to stick this to Russia as hard as they could; perhaps they do not want to find out what the world community would do once it is proven beyond any doubt that Russia gambled that they could destabilize Ukraine at no cost to themselves, only to find that the rebels and their -ahem- advisors of undisclosed origin promptly escalated the conflict by committing mass murder by incompetence, ignorance or both. As for your last point, I don't quite catch it. Is the lack of obviously faked 'evidence' evidence that someone is having something to hide? |
Not exactly to hide, but bring a mess around the truth. This case has something common with political things and so it's a dirty games area.