I think it says something that despite the US invasion of Afghanistan, all the destruction and death of that, by reports most Afghanis still hate Russians more.

The US is "the assholes who don't understand us." Russia is "those fuckers"

Don't forget that one of the first actions after the failed lightening strike was to conscript pretty much every man they could out of the Donbass region (where the mistreatment was supposedly occurring) and send them to the front lines to largely get killed.

If Ukraine had been mistreating them at anything near that level, the region would have been depopulated long ago. Russia managed to kill more in the area in a year or so than Ukraine would have managed with its supposed "mistreatment" in centuries.

Restoring relations with Russia was Petro Poroshenko's platform, the incumbent that Zelensky beat.
That said, as a powerful neighbor, militarily and economically, good relations with Russia is a good thing, remember?
The invasion was triggered by Zelensky getting too close to the west.
If he was so for Russia, why would Russia need to invade?

Yes, a blurry version of it that we can't see the details of, such as his blown up version that doesn't necessarily contain the stuff he said.
Besides, I already acknowledge the Nazi link, while pointing out that the Totenkopf has an extensive non-nazi history in the area
If that's all you have to go on, it's not much.
It'd be like insisting the Nazis were nice people because they used the Swastika as a symbol, because it was traditionally a symbol of divinity and spirituality in Indian religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.

You know that comparing him to Saddam isn't doing you any favors, right? Saddam is widely held as evil in the West, right along with Hitler, Stalin, and such.

The Klan were already in positions of power. My understanding is that while heavily right-wing and nationalist, Ukraine felt they could be contained and channeled. It's a different strategy, but it seemed to be working.

Well, if you're going to admit to being gullible, I'm not going to argue with you about that.
Again, why would I care about the Tsars? They're gone. Who are you going to pull out next, the Mongols under Ghengis Khan? This is what I mean about "whataboutism" - You keep pulling up other examples of bad things, as though that excuses Russia's actions.
Was England (and most of Europe) evil during colonialism? Yes. On the other hand, given that the 40 year period you mention ended in 1920, IE "over a century ago", that means that everybody responsible for that tragedy is already long dead.
That said, if India still had a policy of hostility against England for it, I'd completely understand, I might even bring it up as an example.
But England isn't the topic here - Ukraine and Russia are, because Russia is actively invading the Ukraine.
Heck, after Maripul, if it was really about Azov, Russia could have declared it "mission accomplished" and gone home. Instead, Putin's terms of surrender are basically "Ukraine becomes Russian again." It's blatantly obvious what his goals are, and it isn't "denazification." That's just one of a long line of excuses used to obfuscate the goal, and only the gullible (which you admitted being) believe it.

I went ahead and looked, but could not find any credible evidence of anybody associated with Azov threatening to assassinate Zelensky, who ran more on normalizing and expanding relations with the west, while relations with Russia was more a thing for his political opponent.

IE Zelensky was the more "anti-Russia" candidate available. Even then, of course, he didn't run on having any hostilities with Russia. That's a bit like a Mexican or Canadian politician running on being hostile with the USA.

I already addressed the Nazi symbology:

For example, take the picture, which your video isn't actually a video of the patch, but a talk radio guy talking about the patch.
The Totenkopf actually predates the Nazis almost as much as the swastika does.
I mean, remember the skull and crossbones of Pirate fame?
Hussars were running around with it in the 1700s.
It's cool.
Obviously, they aren't very Nazi-like if Zelensky feels safe hanging around with them as bodyguards.

As for Wagnar: The difference here is that The Wagner group was named that by Prigozhin because he admired Hitler, but obviously couldn't name his mercenary group the "Hitler Group" so kind of like how 88 is special to neo-nazis, he went with Wagner.
It's the difference between naming your sports team the "German Shepards" because you like the breed and because Hitler owned a bunch.
And the wagner group didn't get folded into the military until AFTER the little revolt by its leader. Who everybody figures Putin had killed.

In either case, like I said, Ukraine had the group under control and was busily, if quietly and gradually, de-naziing them. Russia didn't need to invade.

Ah, here we go, Genocide denial.
And you can't even keep your arguments focused. I listed it as a reason why Ukrainians might hate Russians. It isn't a reason for me to hate Russians, but I recognize that it might be a bit more personal to them. Why the heck would the Ukrainians care about a famine in a different country half a century earlier? It was their own people that starved because of the Russians.

1M Irish is a bit less than the 3.5-5M Ukrainions estimated to have starved to death during the Holodomor famine. 1932-1933 is a lot more recent than the Irish potato famine of 1845-1852.
While still exporting food is a problem, at least there was actually crop failures for the potato famine, while Holodomor was deliberate government action.
Basically, you're engaging in Whataboutism.

Yeah, let's give "removing Nazis" as the reason to invade a country that just elected a Jewish president, while having the Wagner group(named after Hitler's favorite composer) play a leading role in the operation.
The Azov Brigade/Regiment, based in Mariupol, was indeed a far-right group, nationalist, that seemed to like Nazi symbology. To be fair, liking Nazi symbols isn't unusual, the Nazis themselves stole most of them because they looked cool.
Seemed to substitute hating Russians for hating jews. To be fair, Russians actually pulled a lot of shit with Ukraine and the region (See Holodomor, and more)
Anyways, Ukraine was presented with a dilemma with their politics being problematic but being a dedicated fighting force in a time when Ukraine needed just that. Reading between the lines they came up with a very interesting and useful solution for it.
They integrated the Brigade, and promoted it to being a Regiment.
By being made officially part of the government, Azov obviously got a lot more support - resources, manpower, and such. But by being part of the government, they had to accept government rules for things like recruitment. Even the wiki notes this: observers noted a government strategy of integrating far-right militias into the regular military while attempting to limit ideological influence.
And Ukraine promptly expanded it from a few hundred to a couple thousand. Which with the new rules on joining, meant that a lot of non-hardline right wingers joined up, diluting the hard-right nature of the Brigade way down in the new Regiment.
As in, Ukraine through a "absorb and dilute" strategy had taken care of the problem already when Russia invaded.
And the Azov proceeded to sell themselves incredibly dearly in fighting against the Russians, leading to memes similar to the Spartan 300. There aren't many of the hardliners left, they died fighting against their favored enemy. Fairly gloriously, I'd argue.
Meanwhile, The Wagner group ended up revolting against Russia and Putin. Oops.

Funny thing about this, I remember seeing lots of paintings of landscapes including windmills back in the day.

1. 'Effectively controlled' means they were able to vaccinate enough people to establish herd immunity. The vaccine is effective enough to prevent death, but only around 50% at stopping the disease totally. Between that and vaccine deniers, they never got enough people vaccinated to shut down continued transmission.
2. VAERS, which is the source used for the deaths and adverse reaction claims, is an unrestricted reporting source. If you got a headache a day after the vaccination, you can report it as an adverse event. Even if it had zero to do with the vaccine. Same with deaths. As a very new vaccine, lots of extra reporting. They use various analysis tools on the reports to figure out if there is an actual problem.

It kind of does work, but mRNA worked better.
From my reading, the COVID virus line are not easy for our immune system to learn, so the mRNA targeted approach ends up working better because we can tell the immune system 'here: target THIS'. With traditional vaccines, the cells targeted by the virus are not easy for the immune system to travel to and communicate back.

I can't help but think about picking some of the trippier comics, where you would be convinced that the writers and illustrators were on the good drugs.
Things like Superman having the power to create miniature duplicates, breath hallucigens, that sort of thing.

Personally, I'd expand a bit. Two games I've played recently are No Man's Sky, an open world SciFi survival craft game, and "Still Wakes the Deep", which is more a horror themed action visual novel.
Still Wakes the Deep is completely voiced, but utterly, absolutely, on the rails - there's always only one way forward. Thus, replayability factor is lacking.
No Man's Sky isn't voiced at all, but would likely make a lot of people cringe because of a large but still limited number of dialogues. Plus, well, probably whatever mechanic they use for the translation device, because you don't start knowing the alien languages. NMS has the "hundreds" of characters.
So I could see AI being used to not only create "hundreds" of different voices for all the characters, but to write different dialogue for them, even if it is variances on common themes.
Go from basically 100 characters with maybe different appearances to unlimited characters with like 100 archetypes.

You must not have traveled much in the last decade or so then.
Chargers are becoming more and more frequent. Though often they're not advertised outside of the charging apps, so they aren't super obvious unless you know what to look for.
That said, I didn't mention charging at night here.

70% charge@15 minutes ~ 210 miles = ~3 hours of driving @ 70mph. You could theoretically keep it up 24x7.
A nice long slow charge at night would help the battery, of course, and make it easier.

Did you miss that it was a family of 4? The wife was in the passenger seat. As they all died, we don't know if they were switching off or not.

Breaks to get out and walk around a bit are still good for health benefits.

And that's a very dangerous way to drive. We lost an incoming member and his family 50 miles outside of town because he presumably fell asleep at the wheel, crossed the median, and hit a semi front-end. All 4 in the car died.

Taking proper breaks isn't that hard and increases the chances you'll actually make it.

If I'd tried to submit a travel plan with your proposal as junior enlisted, I'd have been told to redo it.

A 15 minute break every 2 hours won't increase driving time by 50%. Worst case it'd change 8 days into 9, and that's only assuming that the breaks cut into driving time.
Meanwhile, driving without breaks and proper rest increases the chances that you will never make it, like the family that was coming to join my unit.
50 miles outside of town, crossed the median and hit the front end of a semi. All 4 in the car perished.
No drugs in the driver's system, all we could presume was that he fell asleep at the wheel.

Except that the IT department in charge of evidence never doctored that photo. The IT department in charge of the websites did.