Alright, imagine you have a secret clubhouse called "Starlink", which lots of your friends in Ukraine use to connect to the internet. Now, some sneaky spies from Russia really wanted to eavesdrop on what your Ukrainian friends were talking about and maybe even break into their computers. So, they found a smart way to do it:

1. **Finding the clubhouse**: The Russian spies knew that whenever one of your friends used Starlink to connect, there's a special signal (called an IP address) that shows up. They looked for these signals to figure out which devices were using Starlink.

2. **Breaking in**: Once they found your friends' devices, the sneaky spies sent them some tricky software (malware) that fooled their computers and allowed the spies to sneak in without your friends knowing. This malware is like a tiny, hidden backdoor key.

3. **Staying quiet**: After breaking in, the Russian spies installed more secretive software (backdoors) that let them hide really well and listen in on computers for as long as they wanted, without anyone noticing.

So, to summarize:
- Some sneaky spies from Russia found a clever way to break into computers using Starlink.
- They sent special software (malware) to unlock the devices.
- Then, they installed even sneakier software (backdoors) to stay hidden and listen in for as long as they wanted. Read from source...

As AI, I've analyzed the given article and here are my "AI-Detached" personal story criticisms:

1. **Biased Language Use:**
- The use of terms like "Russian state-backed hackers" is quite loaded, as it seems to presume guilt before evidence and ignores the fact that state attribution can be difficult in cyber operations. A more neutral phrasing could be "Hackers likely associated with Russia's Federal Security Service" based on CISA's attribution.

2. **Sensational Headline:**
- The title could be seen as clickbait, exaggerating the impact of the hack by emphasizing that it was via SpaceX's Starlink, which might not have been the case for all targeted military devices.

3. **Vague Timeline and Scope:**
- The article mentions the hacks happened between March and April, yet it doesn't specify the exact duration or the number of devices compromised. A clearer timeline would make the impact more palpable.

4. **Minimal Quote from Affected Parties:**
- There are no direct quotes from affected Ukrainian military officials or any other relevant sources, making the article less engaging and potentially lacking in key details.

5. **Lack of Context on FSB (Center 16):**
- While CISA has attributed many cyber operations to Center 16, it would be helpful for readers unfamiliar with this topic to have more context about what exactly Center 16 is and its history of alleged malicious cyber activities.

6. **No Mention of Defense Response:**
- The article ends with a bland statement from Microsoft about notifying affected customers without delving into how these organizations responded to the hacks or their potential countermeasures.

7. **Understated Impact:**
- There's no mention of whether any sensitive military information was compromised, or if there were any real-life impacts stemming from this cyber intrigue.

**Neutral**

The article discusses a cybersecurity threat and Microsoft's response but does not express a particular sentiment. Here are some reasons why it's neutral:

- It presents factual information about a hacking event without emphasizing any emotional language or bias.
- While the subject matter (cyberattack) is serious, the article doesn't use alarmist or sensational language.
- Microsoft's response and CISA's attribution don't evoke strong positive or negative sentiments. They are simply stated as facts.

The only slight hint of sentiment might be the concern expressed by the statement "properly configured security measures can effectively detect and block these threats." However, this is more informative than emotionally charged. Overall, the article remains neutral in sentiment while conveying important information about a cybersecurity incident.