Ukrainian Military Cigar-Shaped UAP: The 2023 Bayraktar UFO Case Explained

Image Disclaimer

**AI-Generated Illustrations:**images used in our articles are AI-generated illustrations created for visual and educational purposes. They are intended to represent or recreate the people, locations, events, objects, or scenes discussed in the article and should not be considered authentic photographs, original evidence, or official documentation of the case. Where original photographs or copyrighted material exist, we may use AI-generated illustrations instead to avoid unauthorized use of copyrighted images. These illustrations are created based on publicly available descriptions, historical records, reports, and other information related to the case.

The Case at a Glance

On February 15, 2023, a Ukrainian military Bayraktar TB2 unmanned aerial vehicle recorded an unusual object with its infrared/thermal imaging system.

The object appeared as a small, dark, vertically oriented or cigar-shaped form moving rapidly across the scene. According to the later Ukrainian analysis, the object appeared to travel in a straight trajectory, showed no obvious visible propulsion system, and did not appear to accelerate or maneuver during the recorded sequence.

The Ukrainian research organization SRCAA “Zond” later examined the footage together with documents from Ukrainian military units. Its analysis concluded that the object could not be satisfactorily identified using the hypotheses available in its identification system and assigned it a D1 classification, meaning an unidentified phenomenon with a moderate level of unusualness and information content.

The case was subsequently discussed in the Spring 2026 special issue of the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School's Combating Threats Exchange (CTX). There, researchers Artem Bilyk and Kyrylo Nikolaiev described it as a single ultra-fast, near-vertical cigar-shaped UAP recorded by a Bayraktar UAV in central Ukraine. They listed an estimated size of 0.3–0.5 meters, velocity of approximately 250 m/s, and altitude of approximately 200–300 meters.

The important distinction is that UAP means unidentified aerial phenomenon. It does not mean alien spacecraft.

When Did the Observation Happen?

The recording is dated to February 15, 2023.

The Zond analysis gives a likely recording time of 15:20:56 UTC+2, based on telemetry and GNSS information contained in the video material.

The researchers state that the footage lasted approximately 1 minute and 43 seconds. Their analysis examined numerous frames throughout the sequence, from the opening seconds to approximately 1 minute and 26 seconds.

The underlying military appendix reproduced by Zond also gives February 15, 2023, as the date and approximately 15:20:56 UTC+2 as the probable recording time.

Where Did It Happen?

The observation was associated with central Ukraine, in Cherkasy Oblast.

However, there is an important detail that should not be overlooked.

The main Zond analysis identifies the filming location using the coordinates:

48°51′46″N, 29°44′03″E

and associates them with the area around Velyka Sevastyanivka.

But the reproduced Ukrainian General Staff appendix gives a different set of coordinates:

48°51′17″N, 29°56′03″E

and associates those coordinates with the area around Shukaivoda. The appendix then describes a route between Shukaivoda and Hraniv.

These two coordinate sets are not identical and are separated by roughly 15 kilometres.

That discrepancy is significant. A responsible account should therefore describe the location as central Ukraine/Cherkasy Oblast rather than claiming that one exact village has been conclusively established.

What Was the Camera Platform?

The recording came from a Ukrainian military Bayraktar TB2 reconnaissance/strike UAV.

The Zond report says the original material was obtained from a Ukrainian military source together with military analysis documents. The researchers state that the video was an original black-and-white recording from the Ukrainian Armed Forces and that independent examinations were used in assessing its authenticity.

This makes the case considerably different from a typical UFO story based only on a person's testimony.

The observation involved a military airborne sensor system operating during wartime.

However, the public evidence does not provide the complete original sensor dataset, raw telemetry package, complete targeting-pod metadata or all supporting military sensor information. Consequently, some of the published numerical conclusions cannot be independently reproduced from the publicly available material alone.

What Does the Video Actually Show?

According to the Zond analysis, the object appears as a single, clearly outlined dark or black object against the surrounding landscape.

It is vertically oriented, with an apparent inclination toward its direction of travel.

The researchers describe its motion as:

• rapid
• relatively uniform
• without obvious acceleration
• along a straight trajectory
• without an observable turn during the recorded sequence

The later CTX paper similarly describes the object as cigar-shaped and near-vertical, following a straight trajectory. The CTX account also states that no sound was recorded.

One important technical clarification is necessary: because the recording was made in the infrared/thermal spectrum, calling the object “black” does not necessarily mean that it was literally black in visible light. It describes its appearance in the available imagery.

The Zond report also states that the object's brightness could not be reliably determined because the observation was made only in the thermal range.

How Long Was the Object Visible?

The Zond analysis examined a sequence lasting approximately 1 minute and 43 seconds and presented screenshots throughout the recording.

Frames were examined at numerous points, including approximately:

**00:15, 02:14, 04:08, 07:00, 09:15, 13:19, 17:07, 20:05, 25:13, 28:05, 31:07, 34:07, 38:01, 42:05, 47:02, 50:15, 52:15, 55:17, 1:06:01, 1:08:07, 1:11:04, 1:14:09, 1:20:02 and 1:26:12.

The object therefore was not merely a single-frame photographic artifact in the published analysis.

How Fast Was It Supposed to Be Moving?

This is the most extraordinary part of the case — and also the part that requires the greatest caution.

The Ukrainian military analysis reproduced by Zond calculated that the unidentified object traveled approximately 26.5 kilometres in 1 minute and 46 seconds, producing an estimated velocity of approximately:

900 km/h

That corresponds to approximately:

250 m/s

The same figure was subsequently reported in the 2026 CTX paper.

For comparison, 900 km/h is roughly 560 mph.

At an altitude of 200–300 metres, that is an extremely high speed for an object reportedly measuring less than one metre.

However, there is a major methodological issue.

The public appendix describes the calculated route as the route of an “unknown UAV”, while the recording itself was made from a Bayraktar. The publicly available document does not expose every intermediate calculation needed for an independent observer to reconstruct exactly how the object's distance and velocity were separated from the motion of the observing aircraft.

Therefore, 900 km/h should be reported as the Ukrainian analysts' calculated estimate, not as an independently verified measurement.

That distinction is extremely important for a scientifically responsible article.

How Big Was the Object?

The Ukrainian military appendix estimates the unidentified object at approximately:

50 × 30 centimetres.

The later CTX publication simplifies this into an estimated size of approximately 0.3–0.5 metres.

The Zond analysis calculated an angular diameter of approximately 0.3 degrees using the camera's stated field of view and the object's apparent size in the image.

The researchers then estimated the object's altitude at approximately 200–300 metres.

These are calculated estimates, not measurements obtained by physically recovering the object.

What Did the Military Originally Think It Was?

This is one of the most interesting details in the entire case.

The original Ukrainian military document reproduced by Zond did not initially describe the object as an alien spacecraft.

Instead, its title describes the material as an analysis of a video showing the probable use of an unknown-type UAV.

The document states that Ukrainian General Staff specialists analyzed the footage and considered the possibility that the object was an unidentified drone.

The military analysts reportedly estimated its dimensions at approximately 50 × 30 cm and examined whether it could be a coaxial-rotor UAV.

That is an important distinction from the way the case is sometimes presented online.

The original military assessment was essentially:

“We may be looking at an unknown UAV.”

The later UAP analysis asked a broader question:

“Does this object fit any known category of aircraft, drone, missile or natural phenomenon?”

The Unknown-Drone Hypothesis

The first conventional explanation considered was an unusual or previously unknown drone.

This was logical because the observation occurred over a country involved in an intense drone war, where both Ukrainian and Russian forces were continuously developing, modifying and deploying unmanned systems.

The Zond analysis examined several small UAV designs and concluded that the known coaxial-type drones it compared against did not have the combination of size and speed attributed to the object.

For example, the report discusses the Ascent Aerosystems Spirit, the Chinese Rainbow CH-817 loitering munition and the Rafael Spike FireFly.

The published analysis notes that these known systems were substantially slower than the calculated 900 km/h figure.

But this does not prove that the object was an exotic aircraft.

It only shows that the researchers did not find a satisfactory match among the particular known systems they examined.

Could It Have Been a Missile?

The researchers also considered a missile explanation.

Their argument against the missile hypothesis was based primarily on the apparent shape, lack of a visible flame or exhaust trail and the object's reported vertical orientation.

They argued that the object did not resemble a conventional missile and that its apparent movement did not fit what they expected from a rocket-powered projectile.

However, this is an analytical argument rather than definitive proof.

A thermal recording can be affected by distance, atmospheric conditions, sensor resolution, viewing angle, image processing and the relative movement of the camera platform.

The absence of a visible exhaust plume in a particular thermal image also does not automatically eliminate every possible propulsion system.

Could It Have Been a Conventional Aircraft?

A conventional aircraft is difficult to reconcile with the reported dimensions.

The calculated object size was only around 0.3–0.5 metres, while the reported velocity was approximately 250 m/s.

The researchers therefore considered the combination of size, apparent shape, trajectory and speed unusual for known aircraft.

But again, the estimated size depends on assumptions about distance and angular size. If the distance estimate is wrong, the calculated physical dimensions and velocity can also change.

This is one of the reasons the case should remain classified as unidentified, rather than being presented as proof of impossible technology.

Could It Have Been a Balloon?

A balloon is another conventional possibility, particularly because balloons and other decoys were being extensively used in the Ukrainian war.

Ukrainian forces were dealing with Russian balloons equipped with radar reflectors around the same period. On February 15, 2023, Ukrainian authorities reported detecting Russian balloons over the Kyiv region, and Ukrainian officials explained that some were balloons carrying reflectors intended to complicate air-defense operations.

However, the reported speed of the object in this particular case — approximately 900 km/h — is fundamentally inconsistent with an ordinary windborne balloon.

So a normal balloon does not easily explain the reported trajectory if the 900 km/h calculation is correct.

The real question is therefore whether the speed estimate is accurate.

Could It Have Been an Optical or Sensor Artifact?

This possibility deserves more attention than it sometimes receives in UFO discussions.

The Zond report itself acknowledges that some apparent changes in the object's silhouette could potentially be caused by:

• changes in illumination
• changing viewing angle
• relative movement between the Bayraktar and the observed object
• pixelation
• characteristics of the recording process

The report nevertheless argues that some differences between the object's appearances were substantial enough for the researchers to consider the possibility of an unusual change in shape.

A thermal camera does not produce a conventional photograph.

Small distant objects can be affected by:

• sensor resolution
• contrast enhancement
• atmospheric distortion
• compression
• tracking algorithms
• digital zoom
• motion blur
• changing thermal backgrounds

Therefore, the video establishes that something was recorded by the sensor, but determining exactly what physical object produced that image is a separate problem.

Could It Have Been an Advanced Russian Drone?

This is one of the most plausible military explanations.

The observation occurred during the Russia–Ukraine war, when both sides were using large numbers of drones, decoys, reconnaissance platforms and experimental systems.

The later CTX article specifically emphasizes that unidentified objects in Ukrainian airspace can eventually turn out to be:

• enemy drones
• reconnaissance systems
• attack systems
• balloons
• decoys
• weapons effects
• other artificial objects

The researchers stress that unidentified does not automatically mean anomalous technology.

An advanced or classified drone would therefore be a much more conservative hypothesis than extraterrestrial technology.

The problem is that no publicly available evidence has identified this particular object as a Russian system.

Could It Have Been a Secret Ukrainian or Foreign System?

Another possibility is an experimental or classified aircraft or drone.

Ukraine received and developed numerous advanced unmanned systems during the war, while foreign military technology was also entering the Ukrainian defense ecosystem.

A classified system could theoretically explain why researchers could not match the object to publicly known aircraft.

But there is currently no public evidence identifying the object as an experimental Ukrainian, Russian, American, European or other foreign aircraft.

This remains speculation.

What Did the Zond Researchers Ultimately Conclude?

Zond used its UESP 3.5 automated identification system to compare the observation against available hypotheses.

The result was D1.

According to the classification described in the report, D1 means that the phenomenon remained unidentified while having a moderate level of unusualness and information content.

The result was the same under both the minimum and maximum parameter plans used by the researchers.

Importantly, Zond also acknowledged that its identification software did not yet account for some newer effects associated with warfare, including special drones, missiles and explosions.

That limitation matters because the observation occurred in a highly unusual military environment.

What Made the Object “Anomalous”?

The Zond analysis identified several anomaly factors:

Small physical size

The estimated dimensions were only around 50 × 30 cm.

Very high estimated speed

The calculated velocity was approximately 250 m/s, or 900 km/h.

Unusual shape

The object appeared elongated and vertically oriented.

Straight trajectory

It appeared to move in a relatively straight line.

Low altitude

The estimated altitude was only around 200–300 metres.

No obvious propulsion

The researchers reported that no visible propulsion mechanism could be identified.

No observed maneuver

The object did not make an obvious turn during the recorded sequence.

Taken together, these characteristics were what led the researchers to classify the observation as anomalous.

What Did the 2026 Naval Postgraduate School Publication Add?

The case became much more widely accessible after the Spring 2026 CTX special issue from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School.

The article by Dr. Artem Bilyk and Dr. Kyrylo Nikolaiev discusses Ukrainian military observations of aerospace objects during the war.

The authors explain that Ukraine's military environment provides an unusually dense network of sensors and observers, while also creating an extremely difficult identification environment because of drones, missiles, decoys, balloons, electronic warfare and camouflage.

Their paper describes the February 2023 Bayraktar observation as a single ultra-fast, cigar-shaped vertical UAP.

The CTX paper lists the case as:

Date: 15 February 2023 Shape: Cigar-shaped, vertical Estimated size: 0.3–0.5 m Number: 1 Estimated velocity: 250 m/s Estimated altitude: 200–300 m Platform: Bayraktar UAV Region: Central Ukraine

Why Is This Case Interesting?

The most interesting feature isn't simply that the object was called a UFO.

It is the combination of a military sensor recording, calculated trajectory, estimated physical dimensions and subsequent technical analysis.

The case therefore provides a useful example of the difference between:

“We saw something strange.”

and

“A sensor recorded something that analysts could not confidently identify.”

The second category is much more valuable scientifically, but it still does not automatically tell us what the object actually was.

What Do Other People Think?

There is no large body of independent expert commentary specifically addressing this individual February 2023 object.

Most discussion has appeared after the publication of the Zond analysis and the 2026 CTX paper.

The documented positions can broadly be divided into several camps.

The Unknown-Drone Interpretation

This is arguably the most conservative interpretation.

The original Ukrainian military document itself treated the object as a probable unknown UAV rather than immediately describing it as something extraterrestrial.

Considering the military environment, a previously unknown drone, experimental aircraft or adversary system is a reasonable possibility.

The Sensor-Interpretation Argument

Another possibility is that the object was conventional but its apparent size and velocity were affected by the geometry of the observation.

This is particularly important because the Bayraktar itself was moving.

If the distance to the object is not independently established, angular motion can produce misleading estimates of physical velocity and size.

The publicly available material does not provide enough raw sensor information for an outside researcher to completely reproduce the military calculation.

The Missile or Weapon Explanation

A missile or other projectile could potentially produce a fast thermal target.

The Zond researchers considered missiles but rejected the hypothesis based on the apparent shape, orientation and absence of a visible exhaust signature.

That makes the missile explanation less attractive within their model, but it does not completely eliminate it.

The Classified-Technology Theory

Some UFO enthusiasts have suggested that objects like this could represent secret military technology.

This is possible in principle, especially during wartime.

However, there is currently no publicly released evidence connecting this particular observation to a classified Russian, Ukrainian or Western aerospace program.

The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis

This is the most dramatic interpretation, but it has the weakest evidentiary support.

Nothing in the publicly available evidence demonstrates that the object was extraterrestrial.

There is no recovered material, biological evidence, communication, independently verified exotic propulsion system or confirmed non-human technology associated with this case.

The scientifically responsible conclusion is therefore:

Unidentified does not equal extraterrestrial.

An Important Problem With the 900 km/h Figure

This deserves its own section because many online articles repeat the number without explaining where it came from.

The original Ukrainian analysis says that the unknown object covered approximately 26.5 km in 1 minute and 46 seconds, giving approximately 900 km/h.

But the public document does not expose every piece of information needed to independently reconstruct the target's three-dimensional position throughout the entire observation.

The appendix also describes the route as the route of an unknown UAV, while the recording was made from a Bayraktar.

That creates an ambiguity about exactly which object's movement the telemetry-derived route represents.

Therefore, the best wording for a website article is:

Ukrainian analysts estimated the object's speed at approximately 900 km/h (250 m/s).

It is much better than:

The object was proven to travel at 900 km/h.

The first statement accurately reports the evidence.

The second goes beyond what the public record can establish.

Another Important Problem: The Location

The published Zond material contains two different location descriptions.

The main analysis identifies the recording location near Velyka Sevastyanivka, while the reproduced military appendix gives coordinates near Shukaivoda and describes a route toward Hraniv.

Because the source itself contains this discrepancy, articles repeating one exact location as unquestionably established should be treated cautiously.

The safest description is:

Central Ukraine, Cherkasy Oblast.

Was the Video Proven Authentic?

According to Zond, yes, the researchers regarded the video as authentic.

The organization says it received the material in original form from a Ukrainian military source along with analysis documents and that independent examinations were performed.

The report therefore considers the recording authentic.

But there is an important distinction between:

“The video is authentic.”

and:

“The object in the authentic video is extraterrestrial.”

Authentic footage can still contain an ordinary object that has been misidentified.

Was There Radar Confirmation?

The publicly available material for this particular February 2023 case does not provide a complete independent radar dataset confirming the object's position and speed.

This is another point where online summaries can become misleading.

The broader 2026 CTX article discusses multiple Ukrainian military sensor systems, including radar, thermal imaging and other aerospace-monitoring equipment. But that should not be interpreted as proof that this particular cigar-shaped object was independently tracked by radar.

For this specific case, the strongest publicly described evidence is the Bayraktar thermal/infrared video and associated analysis.

Was There Any Sound?

The CTX publication states that the object produced no sound.

However, this should not be confused with an acoustic measurement.

The primary evidence is an airborne thermal-imaging recording. The public material does not provide a separate acoustic sensor recording.

Therefore, “no sound was detected/reported” is safer wording than “the object was completely silent.”

Could the Object Have Been Moving Vertically?

The word “vertical” can be misleading.

The CTX paper describes the object as cigar-shaped vertical or near-vertical, while the Zond analysis says it was vertically oriented with an inclination toward the direction of movement.

This refers primarily to the object's orientation, not necessarily a confirmed straight-up vertical climb.

The object reportedly followed a straight path, but the available evidence does not justify saying that it definitely accelerated vertically upward like a rocket.

Why Was the Object So Difficult to Identify?

The Ukrainian researchers were working in one of the world's most complicated aerial environments.

The CTX paper explains that Ukrainian airspace during the war contains large numbers of:

• military aircraft
• reconnaissance drones
• attack drones
• balloons
• missiles
• decoys
• electronic-warfare effects
• thermal traps
• false targets
• experimental systems

The researchers specifically note that some objects initially classified as unidentified are eventually recognized as ordinary or military technology.

This makes the case both more interesting and more difficult.

A strange object over a peaceful rural area might have a relatively small list of possibilities.

A strange object over wartime Ukraine could potentially be almost anything.

Why the Case Is Still Unresolved

There are several reasons the case remains open.

The original object was not recovered.

No physical fragment has been publicly connected to the observation.

No independent second camera is publicly available for the same event.

No complete public radar track has been released for this particular object.

The complete raw sensor and telemetry dataset has not been made publicly available.

The precise location contains an inconsistency between two parts of the published material.

And the remarkable speed and size estimates depend upon calculations that outside researchers cannot completely reproduce from the public information.

These limitations do not mean the recording is fake.

They simply mean that the strongest conclusion supported by the public evidence remains:

A genuine military sensor recording captured an unidentified object whose reported characteristics were unusual. Its exact nature has not been established.

The Broader Ukrainian UAP Investigation

The cigar-shaped object was not an isolated case in the 2026 CTX paper.

The Ukrainian researchers presented several other military observations from 2023–2024.

These included:

• a group of spherical objects recorded in formation
• a large stationary disc/cigar-shaped object
• multiple spherical objects moving in formation
• objects visible in thermal imaging but not in conventional imagery

The researchers used these cases to argue that military UAP investigation can have practical value because an unidentified object could represent anything from an enemy drone to an unusual natural phenomenon or an unfamiliar technology.

The February 2023 cigar-shaped object is therefore part of a much larger Ukrainian military effort to catalogue unidentified aerial observations.

The Most Reasonable Explanation

Based on the evidence currently available, there is no single proven explanation.

The possibilities can be ranked roughly like this:

Unknown or classified drone: plausible.

Conventional object whose apparent speed/size was distorted by observation geometry: plausible and deserving of further testing.

Missile or other weapon: possible, although the researchers found several characteristics inconsistent with their missile hypothesis.

Balloon or atmospheric object: difficult to reconcile with the reported speed, unless the speed estimate is substantially wrong.

Sensor/processing artifact: possible and cannot be completely eliminated without the complete raw dataset.

Extraterrestrial spacecraft: not supported by the available evidence.

The most responsible conclusion is therefore not that Ukraine filmed an alien spacecraft.

It is that Ukraine recorded an object that its analysts could not confidently identify, and the available evidence leaves several conventional possibilities open.

What Makes This Case Different From an Ordinary UFO Story?

There are three particularly important factors.

The observation came from a military UAV.

This was not simply a person looking at a light in the sky.

The footage was accompanied by technical analysis.

The Ukrainian researchers examined telemetry, coordinates, angular dimensions, estimated altitude, trajectory and possible aircraft types.

The case was later published in a U.S. Naval Postgraduate School special issue.

The 2026 CTX publication gives the incident a much stronger documentary trail than most internet UFO stories.

At the same time, publication in a military-academic journal does not mean that the U.S. government has confirmed the object as an exotic craft.

Final Verdict

The February 15, 2023 Ukrainian Bayraktar observation is a genuine and unusually well-documented UAP case, but it is not proof of extraterrestrial technology.

The publicly available evidence supports the following facts:

A Ukrainian military Bayraktar UAV recorded an unusual object using infrared/thermal imaging.

The recording is dated to February 15, 2023.

The object appeared small, elongated and vertically oriented.

The researchers described its movement as rapid and approximately straight.

Ukrainian analysts estimated its dimensions at roughly 50 × 30 cm, later summarized as approximately 0.3–0.5 m.

The estimated altitude was approximately 200–300 metres.

The estimated speed was approximately 250 m/s, or 900 km/h.

The original Ukrainian military document considered the possibility that it was an unknown UAV.

A later UAP analysis concluded that the object could not be confidently identified using the available hypotheses.

The researchers classified it as D1 within their identification system.

The case was later published in the Spring 2026 CTX special issue of the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School.

But the complete raw sensor data, independent radar confirmation, physical evidence and an independently reproducible three-dimensional trajectory are not publicly available.

Therefore, the mystery remains open.

The most defensible conclusion is not “alien spacecraft.” It is “unidentified object recorded by a Ukrainian military sensor, with unusually high reported speed and small estimated dimensions.”

That distinction is what makes the case interesting without turning the evidence into something it does not actually prove.

Real Sources, Images and Further Reading

Original Ukrainian Analysis — SRCAA “Zond”

This is the most important source for the case. It contains the detailed Ukrainian analysis, screenshots from the video, coordinates, estimated dimensions, speed calculations, the reproduced military appendix and the researchers' discussion of possible explanations.

SRCAA “Zond” — Original Ukrainian Analysis of the February 2023 Bayraktar Video

U.S. Naval Postgraduate School — CTX Special Issue

This is the most important English-language academic/military source. The Ukrainian case appears in the article by Artem Bilyk and Kyrylo Nikolaiev beginning on page 32, with the Bayraktar cigar-shaped object shown as Figure 9(b).

U.S. Naval Postgraduate School — UAP Special CTX Issue

CTX Research Archive

This page provides information about the special issue and the Ukrainian military UAP article.

CTX Special Issue — Ukrainian Military UAP Research

SRCAA “Zond” Official Website

Useful for additional Ukrainian UAP research, methodology and related case analyses.

SRCAA “Zond” Official Website

Wikimedia Commons — Velyka Sevastyanivka

If you need a real photograph of the general location rather than the UAP itself, Wikimedia Commons has photographs of Velyka Sevastyanivka. Check the individual file's license before using it commercially.

Wikimedia Commons — Velyka Sevastyanivka photographs

Contemporary Ukrainian Reporting About the February 2023 Balloon Activity

These reports are not evidence for the cigar-shaped Bayraktar object itself, but they provide useful historical context about the aerial environment in Ukraine on the same date. Ukrainian officials were reporting Russian balloons carrying radar reflectors over Ukrainian airspace.

Ukrainska Pravda — Russian Balloons Over Kyiv Region, February 15, 2023

Hromadske — What Was Known About the Russian Balloons Over Ukraine