To see Russia on the cheap and easy, take the St. Peter Line ferry from Helsinki

    Getting a Russian visa is one of those things that makes most Americans just not go. A single-entry visa costs $123 and involves the cost and hassle of getting an official letter of invitation. A multiple-entry visa costs $303 and lasts for three years. Both require a lot of patience or the use of a visa processing agency.
    One exception to Russia’s strict visa rules is for visitors who arrive by ship, who get 72 hours visa-free. So those not wanting to spend a lot of money and effort on a visa can just buy a cruise! Except that’s not a very economical option, either. And cruise lines hold their passengers hostage to only taking official ship tours – nothing is worse. I like to see places on my own, not surrounded with a bus load of other people.
    We decided to try the one cheap option to visit St. Petersburg, which is to take a ferry operated by St. Peter Line. Our round-trip from Helsinki to St. Petersburg on the “Princess Anastasia” cost a total of 380 euros for the four of us and included a very small four-person cabin each way. Travel time was about 18 hours each way, but we spent quite a while in port in St. Petersburg on each end, turning that into about 24 hours, as the ferry holds you on board to make sure no one violates the 72-hour rule. The Russian visa-free rules require the purchase of an official “tour,” an obligation we satisfied by purchasing a 25-euro bus ride from the ship to and from the center of town.

    I’m not sure what image a “ferry” conjures in the typical traveler’s mind, but at one time the thought wasn’t too appealing. The fact is, however, that there are some pretty nice ferries out there. Think of the “Princess Anastasia” as a bottom-of-the-line cruise ship, with decent restaurants, bars, a show or two, and even kids' entertainment. Our stateroom was incredibly small, but since it was for such a short trip we survived. One travel tip: Pack everyone’s toiletries and a change of clothes in a separate bag so there will be no need to access each suitcase; there isn’t room to open them all up at once. There are, by the way, larger and more luxurious staterooms, but we were traveling on a budget.
    It's always easy to bust a budget. The ferry has some budget dining options as well as a couple of nice restaurants. We ended up eating at the nicer places, thus running up our tab, although I should note that dinner at one of the "nicer" restaurants with a couple of glasses of wine cost $85; so the food wasn't unreasonably priced. I think a beer or drink cost about $4.50, which is less than on the typical cruise ship.
    We had absolutely no problem navigating St. Petersburg on our own. We rented a very nice and large two-bedroom apartment through Booking.com for about $450 for three nights. A data sim card for my mifi hotspot cost four dollars for five gigabytes (I kid you not!). Food and drink were reasonable and Uber rides cost about $1.50 each. Everyone loves America and our president.
    For our return journey we de-boarded the ferry at Tallin instead of Helsinki; this cost an extra 10 euros each and allowed us to sleep until 11 a.m. Tallin is worth a visit, too, but I’ll leave to another day or another blogger.
    The best way to book is on the St. Peter Line site. The company does sell “cruises,” which I don’t recommend. Instead, book a ferry trip with a return three days after arrival. You are allowed exactly 72 hours in Russia without a visa, so don’t be late on your return.

The bars were like those on a cruise ship

Almost a kid's club!

Under Obama America has been a force for evil, while Putin's Russia has been force for good

    Despondent, deranged Democrats angry over the rejection of Hillary Clinton by America’s proletariat are blaming Russia for their party’s defeat at the polls. Without a shred of evidence they claim that Russia hacked various campaign servers and released truthful but damaging information about Clinton and her campaign.
    We repeatedly are reminded that Russia is our enemy. Clinton promised to start a war with Russia if elected and most Democrats, along with kooky John McCain, found that idea just peachy.
    We’re told that we should simply believe our government if it says Russia hacked Hillary Clinton’s illegal email server. This is the same government that was convinced our ambassador to Libya was murdered by a spontaneous uprising of citizens upset over a Youtube video; these people are clueless at best. As long as Clinton and Obama are anywhere near the levers of power, nothing coming out of Washington is to be believed.
    All of this Russian bear-baiting is dangerous; enough sabre-rattling can cause a war. Those who are living in the past believe Russia is our enemy. It isn’t. Russia and the United States have common interests and no reason for conflict.
    Those who think Russia our enemy should ask themselves exactly “why” Russia is our enemy. For roughly 60 years Russia was our enemy because it wasn’t so much a country as it was an ideological movement, with the mission of spreading Communism to every corner of the globe. It was the fight against Communism, and the fight against Communism alone, which made Russia our enemy.
    America won the Cold War; Russia and Communism lost. Today Russia is a nationalistic country, and that’s a good thing. Nationalistic countries act in a logical, predictable, and usually reasonable manner. Russia today seeks to advance its interests, not to export its vision.
    Over the past eight years Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have exported revolution and terror to the Middle East. They attacked our ally in the war on terror, Libya, and left that country a hornet’s nest of terrorists. They supported the overthrow of our ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, who was replaced by the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood. Obama howled with rage when the Egyptian military threw the  terrorists out and held a new election in which the people chose secular leader Abdel Fattah el-Sisi as president; thank goodness the terrorists were thwarted.
    And then there is Syria, which is under the leadership of Bashar al-Assad, a modern, secular leader. Five years ago the CIA and Saudi Arabia funded violent street protests by Islamic Extremists against Assad that Obama and various neocon warmongers carefully fanned into a civil war, which they continued to fund. The result has been hundreds of thousands dead and an immigration crisis that is tearing Europe apart.
    My gut feeling is that Russia was not responsible for providing the accurate material that Wikileaks released which showed the Hillary Clinton and her supporters were liars and crooks. But if they did, they deserve our thanks.
    It’s time for a scorecard: Obama and the Democrats interfered with the Israeli elections. Obama traveled to Great Britain to campaign against Brexit, and threatened to treat Britain like dirt if they voted to "leave." Obama orchestrated the coup in the Ukraine which led to that country’s civil war. Obama supported terrorists throughout the Middle East, including al Qaeda, with disastrous results. If it is wrong to interfere in the affairs of other countries, why did Obama do it so much?
    In 1983 Ronald Reagan famously called the Soviet Union an Evil Empire; it was at the time. Yet today it is the United States, under the leadership of Barack Obama and various neocon warmongers, which has become the Evil Empire.
    The Democrats seem puzzled why they are unable to whip Americans into a frenzy of Russia-hatred. The reason is simple: Under Obama the United States has become a force for evil in the world, while under Vladamir Putin Russia has become a force for good. Russia is not our enemy; Obama and the Democrats are.

History's greatest statistical graphic shows fate of Hillary Clinton's no-fly zone in Syria

    Some years ago I read that Frenchman Charles Minard's graphic of Napolean's march to and retreat from Moscow was the greatest statistical graphic of all time. Seeking to impress others with my high-browness, I purchased a copy, framed it, and hung it on my den wall; an English version is provided above.
    The graphic is impressive and I actually look at it quite frequently; what impresses me the most is the way it illustrates the magnitude of Napolean's failure. I consider myself more knowledgeable than most when it comes to history and knew of Napolean's ill-fated Russian campaign, but to see the disaster in graphic form is pretty amazing to me. You can click on the graphic above to enlarge it.
    Napoleon's problem was that he had no supply line; the Russians simply retreated and scorched the earth along the way. The French, amazed that the Russians would destroy their own country, starved and froze on the way in, and then starved and froze on the way out, with the Russians chasing at their heels the whole way. The graphic above shows that Napoleon began his campaign just east of Poland, with 422,000 men and returned with 10,000, one of the greatest military fiascos of all time (some put the death toll higher, but 422,000 is the number on Minard's graphic).
    The reason I bring this up is because Hillary Clinton has made it clear that she wants to start a war with Russia by declaring a no-fly zone over parts of Syria. For reasons that are a mystery to me the Obama administration has supported Al Qaeda and other terrorists seeking to overthrow the elected, secular government of Syria, which happens to be an ally of Russia.  In fact, the United States and Saudi Arabia ginned up this civil war; the Saudis wanted to install a Sunni Wahhabi state while the U.S. wanted to rid itself of an uncooperative leader. The problem with all of this is that Russia supports its ally, as well it should, and is willing to fight on Syria's behalf.
    The result is that we have a bunch of whining and complaining about terrorists who die in Aleppo with their families, who they have chosen to use as human shields. The global-elitist warmongers demand that we go to war. Of course, I can't help but note that if these terrorists would simply lay down their weapons and be good citizens the war in Syria would end. Nobody is forcing them to be Islamic terrorists; they can be good people any time they choose.
    Should we decide to get involved in any type of conflict with Russia in the Middle East, I would proffer another map. This map shows Russia and Syria in red. Iran, which has become an ally of Syria to counter Sunni militancy, is colored in green. I've also colored Iraq in green, because Iraq supports Syria; after all, how do you think all of Iran's support has been getting there? And I've also colored Azerbaijan green since it tends to support Syria.

Click to enlarge

    In the event of an actual proxy or real war with Russia that the United States decides to wage in Syria, I'm not going to worry about how Russia supplies equipment and troops; there are several routes available. What's important to note is that the distance from Russia to Damascus is roughly the same as the distance from Miami to Raleigh, N.C. or Columbus, Ohio to Boston. In terms of geography and supply lines, in any conflict with the United States Syria might as well be a part of Russia. Any attempt to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria is almost like an invasion of Russia, and thus doomed to failure.

Click to Enlarge

    There is a final exhibit I'd like to share, and it's only an Internet "meme." It's the photo of the Russian minister of defense alongside four European ministers of defense. I think most of us understand that the Russians have a better understanding of the necessity of ruthlessness in war; it enabled them to defeat Napoleon by destroying their own cities and it will enable them to defeat the west in any defensive war. These people are not to be trifled with.
    If the United States decides to impose a "no-fly" zone in Syria -- which by its nature entails the shooting down of Russian planes -- Russia will justifiably respond by destroying any U.S. ship or plane involved in this act of aggression. Russia cannot help but win in this conflict. The only option left to the United States at that point will be retreat or the threat of nuclear war and Mutual Assured Destruction, with its appropriate acronym of MAD.
    Do we really want to start a nuclear war in order to help Islamic terrorists in Syria? Wouldn't it be easier and better if Obama and our out-of-control State Department simply stopped supporting terrorists and started supporting responsible, secular leaders like Bashar al-Assad?
    I refer you once again, dear reader, to the graph at the top of this blog post. Study it well and don't allow history to repeat itself with Hillary Clinton being allowed to play the role of Napoleon.

If the citizens of Kosovo had right of self-determination, then so should citizens of New Russia

Ukraine is made up of two nations trapped within a single national border.

    When it comes to foreign policy the United States doesn't really have any principles. Whatever our leaders want at any given moment is treated as an eternal, moral truth.
    When the nation of Serbia cracked down on the Kosovo Liberation Army -- which our own state department had branded a terrorist organization -- Bill Clinton ordered the Serbians to give away Kosovo, the very cradle of Serbian civilization.
    When Serbia refused, NATO bombed that country into the stone age. War Criminal Wesley Clark targeted journalists for bombings, just as the terrorist organization ISIS targets journalists today.
    Serbia eventually surrendered. The result of the NATO bombing is that Albanians were allowed to steal Kosovo from Serbia and ethnically cleanse that province of its Serbian minority. NATO goons supported this on the principle of  the right of self-determination. Under this doctrine, when a majority of the population wants to break away and form its own country, it should be allowed to.
    Where was NATO when we Southerners wanted to exercise our right to constitutional self-government?  Okay, it hadn't been formed, but why is it that the same type of Yankees who opposed the right of Southern self-determination supported it for Kosovo?
    Now the United States had done another 180-degree turn and is suddenly opposed to the right of self-determination for the people of eastern Ukraine. This has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with harming Russia.
    Much of eastern Ukraine is populated almost entirely by Russians who have no desire to remain a part of a nation of non-Russians. The decision was made with Kosovo that they shouldn't have to.
    For the past decade, Russia has been the one force for peace in the world. Russia opposed the overthrow, sodomization, and murder of Muammar Gaddafi which has placed terrorists in charge of that country. Russia has supported Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in his effort to defeat the very terrorists who are now -- like Wesley Clark -- murdering journalists, not to mention Christians by the thousands. And Russia has supported the right of the Ukrainian people to make their own choices and not live under the yoke of slavery.

    Any doubts I might have had about the Russian Freedom Fighters were put to rest when I saw the flag of New Russia. This time, let's win.