Share

In the spring and summer of 1952, a U.S. Army Transportation Corps team embarked on a daring expedition across Greenland’s vast ice cap. Documented in the rarely seen 1953 Army film ICECAP, this Cold War-era mission was more than a feat of endurance—it was a strategic scouting trip to identify potential base locations closer to the Soviet Union. This post revisits the forgotten footage and uncovers the geopolitical stakes behind one of America’s iciest military operations.

Subscribe now

In case you missed yesterday’s The Explainer, you can watch it below:

Share

Subscribe now

In case you missed yesterday’s The Explainer, you can watch it below:

Please share this time capsule so the world never forgets just what Stalin and the Soviet Union tried to deny ever happened.

Share

Share

(If you appreciate Political.Tips: help contribute to my writing through PayPal or by subscribing now - Please like, share, and comment on this post; your feedback matters.)

Subscribe now

Refuting Russia's Claims: Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea

By Sarah Ashton-Cirillo

In this latest media blitz by White House envoy Steve Witkoff, the world is being asked to swallow once more the bitter pill of Vlad Putin's geopolitical landscape of lies as the Kremlin is peddling an attempt to rewrite borders and history, asserting claims over the Ukrainian territories of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea. Yet facts, international law, and global consensus refute these assertions unequivocally.

Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the world has recognized its sovereignty within clearly defined borders—including these five disputed regions. Ukraine's territorial integrity is cemented in international recognition and, potentially even more importantly, explicit Russian commitments. Among these are the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which saw Russia pledge to respect Ukraine's 1991 sovereign borders in exchange for the dismantling of its sizeable nuclear arsenal, and a "Friendship Treaty" between Russia and Ukraine, dating to 1997, that saw Russia acknowledge Ukraine as an equal sovereign state, reinforcing the legal inviolability of its territory.

Share

These assurances, along with the respect for international norms and the rule of law, were shattered in 2014 when Russia swept in and occupied Crimea and then staged an illegal referendum conducted under military duress. The global community overwhelmingly rejected this so-called vote, which was dismissed as illegitimate due to it being held at gunpoint rather than under free, democratic conditions.

Following the Moscow regime's brutal blueprint, Russia instigated conflict in the Ukrainian oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk, fueling separatist entities that lacked international legitimacy. February 2022 saw this aggression escalate dramatically when the Kremlin initiated a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, seizing parts of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and expanding its reach in Donetsk and Luhansk in a genocidal frenzy accomplished through methods such as rape, torture, and the use of chemical weapons. Sham referendums were quickly orchestrated in the areas under Russian military occupation, their outcomes predetermined and designed solely to mask territorial aggression.

Claims of annexation originating from Moscow after the February invasion were universally condemned in the months following these initial and laughable pronouncements. The United Nations nearly unanimously denounced Russia's actions as violations of international law, calling for immediate reversal. The European Union and NATO followed suit, with the "latter labeling" the votes as "sham referenda," and many individual nations joined this chorus, imposing sanctions and affirming Ukraine's territorial rights. Furthermore, based on the principle of no decisions without considering that only Ukrainians can have the final say over their nation's future, the country's constitution is enshrined with the directive that any territorial changes require nationwide approval, not fraudulent regional votes orchestrated by an occupying force.

Putin's narrative, in which he claims to protect Russian-speaking natives of these regions, amplifies his imperialistic ambitions. The Russian dictator often laments the collapse of the Soviet Union and, in comments, has offered a revealing and entrenched deep-seated revisionist intent, exemplified by aggressive rhetoric towards Moldova's Transnistria, threats directed at the NATO member Baltic nations, and ongoing actions in Georgia.

Subscribe now

Despite the messaging from the Trump Administration that has propagated Putin's falsehoods, the international community sees clear. Russia's claims on Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea were founded through the illegal use of force and built up as a pyramid of falsehoods. The world knows the facts are these: Legally, historically, and morally, the five regions mentioned by Witkoff are regions unequivocally Ukrainian.

Although the world refuses to validate Putin's aggressive expansionism, recognizing that the battle for these territories is not merely Ukraine's fight but one for the very soul of the free world is key. This is a stand for the principles of sovereignty and self-determination. Ukraine's peace and salvaging of the global order rests on this foundation, and it must not only be accompanied by words but also concrete and decisive actions of all nations and people willing to understand that trusting Putin is to cast darkness upon humanity.

Leave a comment

For those who missed this, here is the our last post:

Below is a brief explainer of the Agreements for readers of Political.tips:

The Minsk Agreements were born out of the conflict that began in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea and pro-Russian separatists in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions (collectively known as the Donbas) declared independence from Ukraine. Fighting broke out between the separatists and Ukrainian forces, leading to thousands of deaths and a humanitarian crisis.

International efforts to broker a ceasefire led to the first Minsk Agreement in September 2014, but this was only a temporary measure. By early 2015, the situation had worsened, leading to a second agreement that tried to establish a more lasting peace.

Minsk I: The First Attempt (September 2014)

The first Minsk Agreement, signed on September 5, 2014, was a 12-point ceasefire deal negotiated by Ukraine, Russia, the separatist leaders, and the OSCE under the diplomatic framework known as the Normandy Format (involving Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany).

The main points included:

1. An immediate ceasefire in eastern Ukraine.

2. Withdrawal of heavy weapons from the front lines.

3. OSCE monitoring of the ceasefire.

4. Amnesty for captured fighters.

5. Decentralization of power in Ukraine, granting some autonomy to Donetsk and Luhansk.

6. Release of prisoners.

7. A commitment to early local elections.

8. Improved humanitarian aid access.

However, the ceasefire was shaky from the start. Fighting continued, especially around key cities like Debaltseve and Donetsk airport, and neither side fully adhered to the agreement. By early 2015, it was clear Minsk I had failed.

Share

Minsk II: A More Detailed Agreement (February 2015)

With violence escalating and Ukraine suffering heavy losses, a second round of negotiations was held in February 2015. This time, leaders from Ukraine, Russia, Germany, and France met directly in Minsk, Belarus, and drafted a much more detailed peace plan.

The Minsk II Agreement, signed on February 12, 2015, built on the first agreement but included new measures:

1. A new ceasefire starting February 15, 2015.

2. Withdrawal of heavy weapons within 14 days.

3. OSCE monitoring of the ceasefire and withdrawal process.

4. Legal reforms in Ukraine, including constitutional changes that would grant Donetsk and Luhansk “special status.”

5. Release of prisoners and an exchange of captives.

6. Restoration of Ukrainian control over its border with Russia (to be completed after local elections in the separatist areas).

7. Withdrawal of all foreign military units from Ukrainian territory.

8. Disarmament of illegal armed groups in the Donbas.

9. Elections in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, according to Ukrainian law.

This agreement was also endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, giving it an international legal basis.

Subscribe now

Why the Minsk Agreements Failed

Despite the detailed provisions of Minsk II, it was never fully implemented. Several factors contributed to its failure:

1. Ceasefire Violations – Almost immediately after the agreement was signed, fighting continued, especially around Debaltseve, a strategic railway hub. Ukrainian forces eventually had to withdraw after intense fighting. Ceasefire breaches became common.

2. Disagreements on Implementation – Ukraine wanted full control over its borders before granting autonomy to Donetsk and Luhansk, while Russia and the separatists demanded autonomy first. This deadlock prevented progress.

3. Russia’s Role – Although Russia was not officially recognized as a combatant in the conflict, it was widely accused of supporting separatist forces with weapons, soldiers, and intelligence. Ukraine and Western nations argued that Russia was not genuinely interested in peace.

4. Lack of Trust – Both Ukraine and the separatists (backed by Russia) doubted the other side’s willingness to comply. Ukraine saw the agreements as a way for Russia to maintain influence over its territory, while Russia claimed Ukraine was stalling reforms.

5. Political Changes in Ukraine – The Ukrainian government under Petro Poroshenko (who signed Minsk II) was replaced by Volodymyr Zelenskyy in 2019. Zelenskyy initially tried to revive the peace process but faced strong opposition from Ukrainian nationalists who saw Minsk II as a concession to Russia.

6. International Factors – The European Union and the United States imposed sanctions on Russia, hoping to pressure it into compliance. However, these measures did not change Russia’s strategic objectives.

By 2020–2021, the Minsk process was essentially dead, even though diplomats continued referencing it in peace discussions.

The Minsk Agreements and the 2022 Russian Invasion

The failure of the Minsk Agreements set the stage for a larger conflict. In late 2021, Russia began amassing troops near Ukraine’s border, citing Ukraine’s failure to implement Minsk II as one of its grievances. On February 21, 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin recognized the independence of Donetsk and Luhansk, effectively nullifying the agreements. Three days later, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Putin later claimed that Minsk was never meant to work, arguing that it was only a stalling tactic to buy time for Russia. Meanwhile, Ukrainian officials, including former President Poroshenko, admitted that Minsk was largely a way to prevent further military defeats while Ukraine strengthened its army.

Conclusion: A Broken Peace Process

The Minsk Agreements were ambitious attempts to stop the war in eastern Ukraine, but they were doomed by mistrust, political deadlock, and Russia’s continued interference. Instead of bringing lasting peace, they became a diplomatic battleground that delayed, rather than prevented, further escalation. The agreements bought time but failed to resolve the core political and territorial disputes between Ukraine and Russia, ultimately leading to the full-scale war in 2022.

Share

Please share, like, and comment on our content. This allows us to grow our audience and bring our exclusive news and timely explainers to all of your friends and family. Thank you!

Leave a comment