Reminds me of Karl Bushby, who's walking from Chile to England. He made it to at least Kazakhstan so far.
> The swim covering 179 miles (288 km) was achieved in 31 days as part of his global expedition on foot.
With the help of Azerbaijan's coast guard and some swimmers. Wow!
Mastodon: https://masto.bike/@nabili Strava: https://www.strava.com/athletes/113690657
You can always trust russia to be a pain in the neck, to put it mildly.
Also recall, Ukraine suspended elections until after the war. While that’s following Ukrainian law, that still sounds pretty undemocratic to me. Ukraine possesses Lviv which was Polish since the 1400s. Crimea was Russian from the 1700s as a result of a war with the Ottomans — a war started by the Turkish because they were made that Russia was interfering with Polish internal affairs. Russia has a much stronger claim on Crimea than Ukraine, historically speaking.
Lviv was stolen from Poland by a Soviet-Nazi agreement during World War II. If the Russians should leave eastern Ukraine, then certainly the Ukrainians should give Lviv back to Poland right?
My point is that the Ukraine conflict isn’t as black and white as people make it out to be. This entire conflict is based on overlapping and often contradictory versions of history. Claiming it’s a battle against fascism is glossing over the realities.
It became a Russian colonial possession around that time. But that did not in any way establish an innate "Russian-ness" to the peninusla that overrides modern international law. Specifically multiple treaties affirming Ukraine's sovereignty over the Crimea that Russia itself signed (and which the Crimean electorate also ratified in 1991 via an internationally recognized referendum). And which Russia again affirmed via another major treaty in 1994.
Russia has a much stronger claim on Crimea than Ukraine, historically speaking.
You can believe you want about historical "claims" and whatever they are supposed to even mean. The vastly bigger point (and the only point that really matters in this context) is that in the 21st century, we don't go around starting wars that will inevitably murder hundreds of thousands of people so at one side can get a shot at "correcting" past border resolutions (that it never formally disputed in the first place).
There is a name for this tendency - "territorial revanchism". You might want to look at what happened the last time a major power in Europe started to pretend to believe that it had a historical imperative to avenge and reverse prior "humiliations":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revanchism
The Ukraine side has fascists of their own
As does your country, I'm sure. That doesn't mean that other countries get to start invading and bombing your hometown willy-nilly. And if they did, I somehow doubt you'd be getting on HN to tell us that "It isn't as black and white as people make it out to be. After all, we've got fascists of our own in this country. So the invaders have a point too, you know."
This entire conflict is based on overlapping and often contradictory versions of history.
The history really isn't that complicated, and the whole idea that the conflict is in any way based on "history" is part of the fabric of myths used by the aggressor to justify its invasion and to mollify and deflect opposition to it.
The war is about the ideology and interests of the small clique that runs Russia's current regime. Not about Ukraine or its history.