Talk:Ukraine

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search

Regions and Cities Names - Alternative Spellings[edit]

I noticed that one anonymous user made a spelling change to a city name, orphaned Doneck, then someone else put it back, duplicating the city in the list. I fear the next thing to happen is that another person will write a second article about the same place and decide it isn't in the list at all, so add a third spelling alternative. I do not want to be a revisionist historian, going around and changing all the new names back into the old ones (or vice versa), making a complete idiot of myself and offending the culturally (in)sensitive, so some suggestions are needed about what the cities and regions should (and could) be called before things go too far.

I have already identified the following alternative spellings for several of the Ukrainian cities and regions, such as:

  • Kiev can also be spelt either informally as Kyiv or more formally as Kyyiv
  • Doneck is apparently the soviet era name for the city named Donetsk or Donets'k, while the surrounding region is probably called Donets'ka (Oblast).
  • Odessa or Odesa, depending on who you believe. (Personally I think 2 ses is more traditional while 1 s is more recent.)
  • Sevastopol, has also been known historically as Sebastopol from before the Crimean war...

Also most of the regions are named after their main cities. Can we please reach a consensus on the regional and city names? Even the CIA and other authorities appear confused on this subject and at odds with the Google popularity contest. I feel I need to make some arbitrary decisions and would prefer not to do so. I would welcome some input from others. -- (WT-en) Huttite 19:51, 21 Jan 2005 (EST)

KYIV is the correct spelling http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/ukraine.pdf Check the UN, the U.S Government, Wikipedia and actually check the transliteration of the language itself. 'Kiev' is a Russiafication, and people posting that it should stay as Kiev are pre-Russia and anti-Ukraine.

  • Donetsk is preferred since 1961 (no English-P). Doneck is used for region.
  • Odessa is preferred (no English-P). They call the city Одєсса themself.
  • Sevastopol' is preferred (no English-P). Note accent after L.
-- (WT-en) JanSlupski 20:14, 30 Jan 2005 (EST)
Ukranians use Одєса while Russians use Одєсса. (One 's' instead of two) I don't know about the transliteration, but inside Ukraine they're trying to make the Ukranians transliterations count. I think it's clearer for a tourist to stick with the way it's written in Ukranian guides, but this means changing the majority of this site--(WT-en) Twopeak

surprises[edit]

"The cheaper the hotel, the larger the chance of some quite unfortunate surprises"

Anyone care to elaborate? 193.120.175.92 19:28, 9 Nov 2005 (EST)

Orange Revolution[edit]

Should a more detailed explanation of the Orange Revolution be provided? I was fascinated by the events - I still have International Herald Tribune newspapers detailing the revolution - and I think it would benefit the traveller to somewhat more fully understand the events of the revolution. I've prepared an explanation that can be viewed in my (WT-en) sandbox. Thoughts on that or the wording I've prepared? -- (WT-en) Sapphire 10:57, 8 November 2006 (EST)

BIG Mistake - monkeys[edit]

>One of the worst problems is that there have been frequent monkey attacts, and the Ukrainian government are having trouble controlling these rabid beasts.

THATS NOT TRUE, totally! Ukraine nature haven't monkeys, only in zoo!!!

Then remove it. -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 18:56, 23 November 2006 (EST)

This contribution is half correct, half shallow disinformation (unintentional, I hope)[edit]

As I've lived in Ukraine for many years, I've been surprised by many things by what I've just read about this Quasi-Ukraine.

It seemed that the author(s) visited a country other than Ukraine. I think their Russia’s experience and obvious lack of education badly affected their impressions. And their texts…

Very quickly, just a few insufficiencies to begin with:

Let alone that author’s Very Big Mistake with Ukrainian monkeys (the author seems to drink more vodka/gorilka than aboriginal Ukrainians). By the way, I’ve never heard that black skinned people (some of which have been my friends for years) were called ‘monkeys’ in Ukraine. As to terrorists and attackers, this is clearly a big mistake (and obvious “import” from Russia by the author). Ukrainians have been tolerant and indulgent (probably too tolerant and indulgent).

Yes, Ukrainian girls and women are just prettier than those in most countries. I attribute so called “risk clothes” of Ukrainian women to their natural beauty and traditional Ukrainian taste, good breeding and delicate manners.

We do not rob foreigners. Criminality level is by far lower than that in the US. Ukrainians, even militia, is respectful towards foreigners, which are quite usual throughout Ukraine, especially after traveling to Ukraine became visa free.

University and secondary-school-level education level is still quite high and is NOT “lower every year”, and an ordinary Ukrainian school pupil, in general, knows much more than his/her Western counterpart..

We do not drink gorilka/vodka as much as it is claimed to be.

Neither do we use a lot of fat ingredients in cooking, even though our cuisine is rather delicious (foreigners' opinion). Most Ukrainians do not eat salo as their major food. (We prefer meat, fish with vegetables and potatoes, and diary products).

Our language is easier to learn than it's believed (even easier than Russian, estimation by a US linguist), as pronunciation and spelling are absolutely identical: pronounced is exactly what is written and vise versa (something that native and especially non-native English speakers are terribly envious of)!! Also, both Russian and Ukrainian are highly expressive, rich in meanings and nuances, and in general "created for poetry."

Ukrainians pronounce Одеса, not Одєса (Одєса, Одєсса do not exists). Одесса (with soft д) is the Russian spelling. So no credits earned!

—The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 195.137.196.5 (talkcontribs) 
Please, plunge forward and edit the page. --(WT-en) Evan 10:39, 27 November 2006 (EST)

Alexander Kupriyanchuk

Kyiv, Odesa, Lviv, Kharkiv, etc. vs Soviet-epoch spelling: Kiev, Odessa, Lvov, Kharkov, etc.[edit]

Kiev, Odessa, etc.: it’s better for these names to be replaced with Kyiv, Odesa and so on (having been already replaced on the official maps and in official documents).

After the US State Department legitimized Kyiv, the spelling derived from Ukrainian, in US official documents (so did earlier the European Commission, UN, not to mention dozens of governments in all continents), Kyiv started final ousting Kiev internationally.

The usage of Kiev will be gradually shrunk mainly to pro-Soviet (not pro-Russian) Donetsk & Sevastopol (as even some of Russia’s official documents in Eng start to read Kyiv). So the patriots and law-abiding citizens (obeying US laws if not Ukrainian ones) write Kyiv rather than Kiev.

P.S. Kyiv became a powerful and culturally rich city long before Moscow was even established. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 195.137.196.5 (talkcontribs)

We use the most common English name for all geographical areas, regardless of the newest official name. See Project:article naming conventions, Project:Why Wikivoyage doesn't use official names. --(WT-en) Evan 10:41, 27 November 2006 (EST)
When the Chinese government announced that their capital was spelled Beijing instead of Peking (which was the "common" spelling for years), everyone listened. When the Ukrainian government makes similar announcements, they should be respected. (WT-en) gamweb 17:50, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
Right, but that was an official name change, Kyiv has always been the Ukrainian pronunciation, but the English spelling of the same name has always been Kiev. Such things take much longer to filter through to common usage than a full name change, I think. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:12, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Eat photos[edit]

Anyone else suspicious that the photos in the Eat section are likely copyrighted commercial work? Also I think this article has too many photos in general... (WT-en) Texugo 23:04, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

My apologies if I've added too many pictures, I am unaware of the Wikivoyage guidelines. I just thought that for a travel guide, images would be more useful than trying to describe the travel destination in words. The article was definitely lacking images earlier. And by the way, the pictures I added are all free licence from the Wikimedia Commons. (WT-en) Bogdan що? 12:27, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Warning box?[edit]

It was recently suggested to me by medical professionals sent to Ukraine this past week that I and my roommate not travel to Ukraine until after flu season, because of the high number of cases of people contracting pandemic flu (swine flu). According to this doctor, his Ukrainian counterparts and not prepared enough to handle the high case load and TIME magazine writes that pharmacies are running out of medicine and has reported that the government has shut down many public buildings (including universities and movie theaters). Does this constitute a warning box? -- (WT-en) Sapphire(Talk) • 23:33, 15 November 2009 (EST)

Must Ukraine visas be applied for in your home country?[edit]

As an Australian citizen I need a visa to visit Ukraine. Can I only apply for it from Australia (as is the case with Russian visas) or can I get one while travelling in nearby countries?

The article makes it seem like I can get one at any embassy/consulate but doesn't really say so for sure while the website for the Ukraine embassy in Australia makes it seem like I have to apply in Australia without really saying so for sure. — (WT-en) Hippietrail 14:05, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

Trip to Ukraine[edit]

My husband and I are going to the Ukraine in May 2011. Any suggestions as to what we need to take? Electric convertor? We will be going to Kiev, Lviv, Rohatyn. Are there any sights we shouldn't miss?

Thanks,

Mary

Forgot to add name[edit]

Sorry. I forgot to sign my name to the last post.(WT-en) Mimm946 11:22, 26 July 2011 (EDT)mimm946

Russian or Ukrainian?[edit]

I seemed to have stepped into an edit war. As I have travelled to Central, Eastern, and Southern Ukraine, I wrote compelling advice to learn Russian alphabet, because all signs there are in Russian.

Someone came through and changed every occurrence of the word Russian to Ukrainian, even changing my spelling of CTOR (stop) to Ukrainian alphabet (which uses pi for 'P'). So... at any rate, I am just trying to help people here. So what's the deal? Am I totally wrong that signs are in Russian? Does it depend on the area? Admittedly, I was only in the cities.

You've travelled Ukraine and don't know of this issue? Lucky you. Anyway, I removed your additions to prevent the war, they partly duplicated Talk section, where this stuff belongs anyway (o, and Russians also use п for p). Jjtk (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Regions' description.[edit]

Why every discription of Ukrainian regions contains reference to Russia? "Eastern U. is havily Russified", "Crimea is favourite beach resort of Russians", "West wasn't Russian, so there's Cental European achitecture, language and cuisine". Seem like authors want to divide Ukraine on "Russian part" and "non-Russian part" that it's also uncorrect to Ukrainians. As for me, in region's discriptions must be presented main cultural and touristical centres, particular features of climate, places to have a rest, some specifity in cuisine, service and mentality; but historical facts must be fixed in "Understand" column in article about described area.Will D (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There are distinct cultural and linguistic differences across Ukraine. Speak Russian in Lvov or the Carpathians and you get shouted at; speak Ukrainian in Crimea or eastern Ukraine and people will not understand. We have to acknowledge that.
Also, whether you like it or not, Russia has had and continues to have a huge influence on Ukraine.
We're not here to push an agenda, just to acknowledge how things actually are, no matter how much anyone would like them to be otherwise. Travelpleb (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Your comment on languages is seriously exaggerated. Everyone will understand you in either language. There is, however, a large difference in the common language that people speak in different parts of the country. The language is a very simple borderline between Eastern and Western Ukraine, but this border gets more and more blurred with years, as, for example, Kiev becomes more and more Ukranian-speaking city. Therefore, I would say that the description of regions should be shifted towards explaining cultural background, which, of course, entails the aspects of Russification and Ukranian history within the Russian empire. On the other hand, I second Will D's opinion that statements like "Crimea is favourite beach resort of Russians" sound stupid and even obnoxious. --Alexander (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you are right if you speak either language well; but believe me, speak Ukrainain badly in Eastern Ukraine and you won't be understood! And yes, a Carpathian babooshka has shouted at me for speaking Russian (also badly). So, no, what I said is not seriously exaggerated - it has happened. Travelpleb (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

2014 protests[edit]

We should probably have some kind of travel warning here and in Kiev article, don't you think? Jjtkk (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Most definitely. I'll make a warning box for the Stay safe section. If things get more acute we can update it and move it to the top. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Judging by the reports I am seeing, it belongs at the top. I'm nowhere near there, though, and don't speak the language or know the country so I could easily be wrong. Here's the current Canadian gov't advice Pashley (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a top level warning is merited right now. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Status of Crimea[edit]

The status of Crimea is being discussed on that article's talk page. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea is now in Russia. So breadcrumb navigation, countries indexes and maps must be corrected. AntonioB 21:20, 24 March 2014 (CET)
Just be prepared to accept that any disclaimer boxes ("Wikivoyage does not endorse any side in the dispute") and warning boxes (a long list of nations advising their citizens to leave) are not going to go away. Maps normally mark disputed territory with a specific pattern, such as a cross-hatch. Kashmir Valley is an example of the manner in which disputed or occupied territory is handled. We disclose who controls the territory, we disclose the dispute or occupation without taking one side and we disclose any danger (such as conflict or a refugee situation) as it affects the traveller. No idea why you re-started this discussion here when it's already open on Talk:Crimea? K7L (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree entirely with AntonioB's post above. I completely disagree with cross-hatching. We should not use that at all, but only recognize de facto conditions, for the sake of the traveller. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

US-centrism[edit]

Although when we started more than 10 years ago we had a very US-centric stance due to the preponderance of US editors, that bias was resisted by the two founders and now we are part of the WMF it behoves us to try and be more balanced.

This edit removed the reference to the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs website which, along with the 37 other government websites I have looked at, does not warn against non-essential travel to the whole of Ukraine and substituted the uniquely paranoid perspective of the US State Department.

It also now looks decidedly dated by using the phrase "the entire Crimea region has become effectively occupied by Russian forces on the 2nd March 2014". The reality on the ground for travellers right now is that, unless they are the UN Secretary General, they can neither drive, sail, fly or travel by train from any part of the Ukraine to any part of the Crimea or vice versa (without travelling via territory that has been unequivocally part of Russia for more than 20 years) and our article should not give a different and untrue slant.

If we are going to give these sort of blood-curdling warnings for the whole of Ukraine, I'd much rather we use the specific template designed for this purpose which offer links to more than just the advice of the US Gouvernement. I'd have another stab at this following the advice given at Template:Warningbox#How_to_use but I don't really have the stomach to be accused of edit feuding... --118.93nzp (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You could always put your suggested substitute here on the talk page for discussion, if you're concerned about accusations of edit warring. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The US State department is a good source of travel advice. Not sure who removed advice from other governments but there was a wide spectrum and I'd be happy for them to be added back in.
Also US 'centrism' aside, there is still scope for armed conflict in this region. We can be amateur pundits and debate about exactly how likely but I believe the overall advice to be careful visiting Ukraine as a whole is valid until the situation becomes more clear. Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

There's scope for armed conflict throughout the globe including many US cities without formal travel warnings but I think the following is more realistic and measured:

Travel Warning WARNING: As a consequence of political instability and the ousting of the pro-Russian government in the Ukrainian capital during violent demonstrations, the entire Crimea region became effectively part of Russia in March 2014. Armed conflict is a possibility and travel to the Crimean region is not recommended. Many countries advise travellers to be vigilant in Ukraine generally. If you plan to go to Ukraine or Russia in the next few weeks you should research carefully your travel plans.
Government travel advisories: AustraliaCanadaNew ZealandUnited KingdomUnited States

--118.93nzp (talk) 08:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks fine. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Canada's warning is advising its citizens to leave Crimea at once, and avoid "non-essential travel" to portions of eastern Ukraine (Donetsk, Kharkiv and Luhansk Oblasts) closest to Russia. Should the warningbox reflect this? K7L (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes.
Typically Canada's advisories are less political and more focussed on real dangers and difficulties for its citizens. We have to walk a tightrope between being unduly alarmist and making clear that travellers should do their own research. --118.93nzp (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"Other destinations"[edit]

Should this section contain towns and cities? --118.93nzp (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


Crimea (again)[edit]

Since the status of Crimea as a part of Russia has been established in that article, how should we continue to present it under Ukraine?

We have it currently as a region and a few city listings as well. Should they all move to Russia? Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

They'd be excessive detail for the top-level Russia article, but should be removed from Ukraine if the Russian occupation means that the traveller cannot visit them as part of the Ukraine. The same is true for photographs or other Crimea-related content, with the exception of the history and the travel warnings. If you need to move the info somewhere instead of simply removing it, put it into the Crimea page. K7L (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
What do we do about this problematic phrasing in the warningbox at Ukraine? "Anywhere in Ukraine, and especially Crimea, is currently a risky destination." Since Crimea is no longer pat of Ukraine, this needs to be rephrased. Perhaps "Anywhere in Ukraine is currently a risky destination. This is even more true for Crimea." What do you all think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems that the reality is that everywhere in Ukraine is safe, including the Crimea region. There are still plenty of travel warnings which seem due to the large military build up on both sides and the continuing political stand-off between the countries involved.
I would say we could tone down the warnings somewhat. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead, but let's avoid any implication of Crimea being part of Ukraine now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Made a start. Southern Russia seems to be the right place to move things to. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Crimea is not recognized as part of Russia by the vast majority of the world and even Russian travel agencies recommend that Russian citizens notify the Ukrainian government prior to traveling to Crimea, in order to avoid problems with their passports in the Shengen area. It is at the very least a contested area and the article should reflect that.--Sanya3 (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The article does reflect that it is a contested area, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you substantiate your claim about Russian travel agencies? It would seem to be a mistake to inform the Ukrainian government that you are illegally (from their standpoint) entering Crimea from Russia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Russian-backed rebels[edit]

As it stands, the article claims that "on 17 July 2014, Russian-backed rebels shot down a civilian air liner over Ukraine". The fact of the matter is that there has not been a single recognised investigation into the incident - that is, no investigation has concluded that the plane was indeed shot down by rebels. An international investigation is ongoing, one which has been established by the United Nations and which is being carried out by a coalition of countries including the Netherlands, Australia, Ukraine, Russia, the UK and the US. Until such time as the conclusive findings of this investigation are publicised and recognised by an international body such as the UN, WikiVoyage should NOT speculate on the matter. I therefore propose that the offending excerpt be changed to "on 17 July 2014, shot down a civilian air liner was shot down over Ukraine". If necessary, further information may be added regarding the allegations of rebels shooting down the plane by a number of countries including the United States. Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No one other than Vladimir Putin and Channel 1 Moscow has any real doubt that Russia is backing and arming the rebels who shot down the plane, killing hundreds. We tend to call a spade a spade here. Don't expect a UN Security Council resolution to confirm this as Russia is one of five who hold a veto there. For that matter, don't expect UN confirmation of anything if Putin and Obama disagree. We just report the situation on the ground. K7L (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand your position. Are you saying that the page should contain speculation on how 300 people died and present this speculation as fact? Because that sounds just a tad irresponsible, wouldn't you think, especially considering there's an ONGOING investigation into the matter? What problem do you have with making the change so that it actually reflects the current situation? Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not speculation, [1] [2] but the UN resolution was watered down to avoid naming names in response to Russian pressure. [3] K7L (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Good for you, so you gave three pro-Western sources saying that Russian-backed rebels shot down the plane. I can easily give you three pro-Russian sources that say the opposite, but that would get us absolutely nowhere, so I won't bother. I will, however, comment on your sources. Source 2 (BBC) clearly states that "The veracity of the recordings cannot be confirmed." Need I say more? Source 1 - well, I can't say much regarding the authenticity of the interview, except to say that an interview with a single member of the Ukrainian rebel groups is hardly a reliable source for determining the facts. As for Source 3 - absolutely agree that Russia would never have voted in favour of a resolution condemning it or its alleged support of the rebels, but I disagree that the resolution was "watered down" in response to Russian pressure. In fact, if you examine the records of the relevant meeting of the Security Council, you'll find that the Russian representative only requested one change to the document before it was adopted by a unanimous vote - namely, changing the phrase "shooting down" to "downing". But to return to the original point. There is an ongoing investigation. It is mandated by the United Nations, it is supported by the member-states of the United Nations, a large contingent of countries, including Russia, is contributing to the investigation, and it is highly likely that the United Nations will accept any conclusions this highly coordinated effort draws. The investigation, however had not finished yet, and it would be highly illogical to speculate on the results until such time as they are released. Indeed, to address your earlier point that "No one other than Vladimir Putin and Channel 1 Moscow has any real doubt that Russia is backing and arming the rebels who shot down the plane, killing hundreds", how do you explain, then, the support of this investigation by all UN Security Council member states? If there really was no doubt, what, then, is the point of this investigation and why is it supported by everyone? I still, however, fail to understand your position. What's wrong with changing the sentence to reflect the actual, undisputed events? Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
If you want to edit a travel guide for the benefit of travellers, stick around and do that. Otherwise, grind your axe somewhere else. I won't be reading your long comments on this issue. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Gee, that sounds like an incredibly useful and intelligent position to take. Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Right, so you've refused to provide any reason for not changing the article to reflect the reality of the situation. If nobody wishes to dispute it further within two days, I will edit as above. Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The article does reflect the reality of the situation. The plane was shot down by Russian-backed rebels. It didn't fall out of the sky on its own. K7L (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Andrei.smolnikov, if you edit war by making more politically-motivated edits to this article, they will be reverted. I trust you won't make these kinds of edits repeatedly, but if you do, your account will be blocked if necessary. And again: If you're interested in editing a travel guide for the benefit of travellers, make some useful edits. For example, insert information about your favorite restaurants, hotels, places to see, etc. But you seem wholly uninterested in that, so go elsewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
You neither seem interested in maintaining the validity of this article, nor in having an article which doesn't present speculation as fact, which could actually cause travellers trouble if they bring it up as such when travelling to Ukraine, so I have a simple response to you: [4] Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The article is valid, and it is tiresome to defend our articles from politically motived edits such as your proposal. Policy Wikivoyage:Be_fair#Political_disputes is all you need to know about our position.
Please note that we also have strongly defended the Crimea article from similar edits from those who hold opposite views to yours. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Entering by bike[edit]

Can we please change this "You cannot cross the border at Krościenko (Poland) by foot or by bicycle. You must be in a vehicle. Coming from Poland by bicycle in August 2011 a cyclist only has to wait about 5 minutes to flag down a driver who was willing (and had space) to take him, a bicycle, and a full cycle touring kit. The actually crossing then took about an hour or so. There was no charge by the driver or the immigration officials. Update July 2017: crossing with a bicycle was not a problem at all, there is even a signposted cycling route (R63) between Poland and Ukraine. You might also be able to skip the car queue and go straight to the checkpoint." to something less self-contradictory? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

How should we handle the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics?[edit]

I've started a discussion about how should we handle the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics at Talk:Eastern Ukraine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)