> It would risk giving away information on the capabilities of US national security assets.
But the actual satellites can be seen with the naked eye, and their orbits are known. The resolution is a linear function of their height, so it can be easily inferred, or at least bounded, by that of a "hubble" at a much lower height. If they are really worried about this scalar piece of data, they can easily blur the images before transferring them to ukraine. Not that it makes a lot of difference to see a column of tanks at 30cm or at 15cm pixels.
"The resolution is a linear function of their height..."
Incorrect. Even in the consumer camera space, resolution is a function of distance, native sensor resolution, lens magnification, lens quality, shutter speed (because the target is moving), stability of the tripod, etc. Same thing is true of orbital imagery: your effective resolution is a function of your optics, your sensor, the ability of your attitude control system to hold a steady pointing vector, etc.
Also, "capability" != "resolution". What frequency bands is that satellite imaging in? Visible, SWIR, LWIR, ultraviolet? What is the effective magnification of its optics? Is it an optical system at all, or is it an RF bird? Is it all of the above? Does it just take top down snapshots, or can it track moving targets? If the latter how fast can it track? Fast enough to keep up with a tank, or fast enough to keep up with a fighter plane? How many frames per pass can it take? How fast can it slew to get multiple objects in the same pass? Etc.
But the actual satellites can be seen with the naked eye, and their orbits are known. The resolution is a linear function of their height, so it can be easily inferred, or at least bounded, by that of a "hubble" at a much lower height. If they are really worried about this scalar piece of data, they can easily blur the images before transferring them to ukraine. Not that it makes a lot of difference to see a column of tanks at 30cm or at 15cm pixels.