Some thoughts after attending EV Day at the 2020 San Diego Auto Show

Overall, it was incredibly inspiring seeing so much support for electric vehicles, with long lines for EV test drives, local newspapers advertising ahead of time, and passionate believers in the movement ready to answer questions in the showroom. Tickets were $15, with $3-off coupons for vets and seniors. Local Nissan dealerships were even giving away free tickets for veterans, but you would have had to pick them up at the dealership well before the auto show even began, as they were all gone by opening day. 

 

Test Drives Galore! 😊

Glad to say that there were plenty of cars to drive, and “EV Day” today had no shortage of available units. No ticket purchase was required to test drive, as the sign ups were in front of the convention center. I test drove just about every vehicle available – the latest Chevy Bolt, Nissan Leaf, Jaguar I-Pace, Audi e-tron, and Toyota Prius Prime. I had no desire to try out the other PHEVs from BMW and Subaru, with shorter electric ranges than the 2011 Chevy Volt. Notably absent, unfortunately, were two prominent EV automakers: Tesla and Hyundai.

I’m Glad Tesla is Disrupting the Dealership Model 😊

While I have yet to buy a Model 3, I do know that Tesla is different from legacy automakers when it comes to selling their vehicles. While I was expecting to have to give my contact information to each automaker before taking their cars out for a spin, it still felt like a dirty, impersonal process. Each salesperson (except one) had no personal experience with EVs, and the lack of passion showed. They didn’t know the Level 2 or fast charging speeds, only repeating that it does “80% in 30 minutes.” Any question beyond EPA range was out of their field. I admit I have no professional sales experience myself, and I imagine doing endless rounds in a random car with random people is a soul-crushing task. I commend them for that.

However, it was unfortunate that they were only interested in giving their memorized sales pitch by spouting meaningless (to me) numbers about lbs-feet and horsepower and how to switch between sport, eco, and normal mode. They only seemed to be speaking “at” me and not “with” me about each car. Only one asked what car I was currently driving, and none asked about what I was looking for in my next car. One would think that this would be valuable information to someone trying to “connect” with a potential customer, and it would be useful to tailor their speech the individual by highlighting features that are important to them. Listening to a laundry list of memorized facts is unhelpful. My humble recommendation is to either allow the salespeople to have a personal experience with the car first (especially for a big event like this!), or to utilize some local volunteers who care about engaging hungry customers.

By the end of each test drive, I had internalized the boredom and despondency from the dealership reps and just wanted to leave. The process quickly became exhausting. I’m glad I stayed a little longer to try the Jaguar – their representative was the only one who encouraged me to floor it, drive a little extra, and didn’t talk “at” me about its features. I appreciated when they admitted their ignorance about a specific question, but it didn’t bother me because their enthusiasm was contagious. While the I-Pace will never be in my price range, it was the only car I enjoyed driving and didn’t feel drained afterwards. All the available models were decent cars, but the presence of an enthusiastic seller made the entire drive infinitely more enjoyable.

Today reminded me of the car-buying process my brother recently went through when purchasing a used Ford Focus Electric. While he had done his research ahead of time, the salesperson still bragged about being able to offer free oil changes. The financing portion was another circus, having to negotiate and re-negotiate the price with the salesperson acting as a mediator between him and the back office, running back-and-forward with counter-offers. The sticker price was suddenly thousands of dollars higher by the time it came time to sign anything, with all the un-removable, meaningless add-ons. (“I have to pay for the tinting that’s already there? Why am I required to subscribe to three years of vehicle location service in case the car gets stolen?”) It was all a show, and he had to walk away from two dealers before finding one that was willing to cut out most of the random costs.

Tesla seems to be spot-on with their no-nonsense, what-you-see-is-what-you-get, online-only sales model. It’s unfortunate that it is expected to be scammed at a dealership if you aren’t on your toes.

Tesla was Banned ☹

I was told that the reason for Tesla’s absence at the show was the fact that local car dealerships sponsored the event, and specifically banned any automaker that didn’t have a dealership in the region, effectively banning Tesla. I could understand Chevrolet, Jaguar, and Audi doing everything in their power to prevent the Model 3 or Model S/X from stealing their thunder. It’s disgusting, but this is just one more piece of evidence of how much Tesla is changing the industry, and leading the EV movement with a 21^st-century mindset.  

Hyundai Didn’t Accept Their Invitation ☹

 

Regarding Hyundai...I was greatly looking forward to test driving their Ioniq and Kona EVs, which are top of my list for non-Tesla EVs. Why is it then, they only provided a single Kona EV for display in the showroom, but kept the doors locked? Visitors could sit in any other EV on the floor, with exception of the Porsche Taycan (which was roped off, for some reason). A worker at the event explained that even while Hyundai was repeatedly asked to participate, they went out of their way to specifically ban any of their EVs from being test driven. Why? The worker didn’t know. To me, this is reminiscent of GM’s decision to build the EV1 in 1996, then do everything in their power to make sure customers never found out about it. Who Killed the Electric Car highlights how interested parties benefited from this strategy. It is almost as if Hyundai doesn’t believe in their EV products, and someone at the top of their food chain is waiting to kill their EV program by pointing to lackluster sales. 

Final Thoughts

The 2020 Bolt was infinitely better than I expected, and I had no complaints sitting in both the driver’s seat and the back. The e-tron was too bulky and difficult to navigate in a tight parking lot, but I’m sure it would be fine on a road trip after getting used to it. The Leaf Plus’ interior was noticeably lower quality than the Bolt’s lowest trim, and felt the blandest of any car. The Jaguar was extremely punchy and thrilling to drive – easily the most impressive vehicle of the bunch. And finally, the Prius Prime: I commend you for your ability to go 640 miles on a tank, but you are losing any green street cred you had ten years ago with your miniscule battery. Hyundai: be better. Tesla…you be you.

South America's Endless Border Dispute

This photo of the Atacama Desert is courtesy of National Geographic.

The border dispute between Bolivia and Chile originates to the earliest days of their independence from the Spanish Empire. War broke out between the two countries in the late 19^th century, but resentment continues. The International Court of Justice declared in October 2018 that Chile is not required to negotiate Bolivia’s access to the Pacific Ocean, as it is sovereign Chilean territory. This will undoubtedly cast a shadow on Bolivian President Evo Morales’ re-election campaign in 2019, who has used Chile as a scapegoat for much of the country’s domestic problems. Chile, on the other hand, has mimicked the accusatory rhetoric – and pointed to the 1904 peace treaty – to get the world on their side. While the War of the Pacific ended over 100 years ago, the border dispute is still a source of contention between both nations, and can be attributed to other geopolitical concerns today. The relationship between Bolivia and Chile will continue to be contentious until the internationally-recognized border is unequivocally accepted domestically in Bolivia. By appreciating the decision of the International Court of Justice, Bolivia and Chile could build a strong relationship by focusing on mutually-beneficial trade agreements through natural gas, river, and ocean access.

During Spanish colonization, specific boundaries were never established between their colonies in the region (Pero-Bolivia-Chile), thus laying the groundwork for a serious territorial dispute after their succession (Chasteen, 190). The War of the Pacific, otherwise known as the Guerra del Pacifico, lasted only four years (1879-1883), but the terms of the 1904 peace agreement solidified Chile’s position as the victor, granting it control of the mineral-rich Atacama Desert along the Pacific coast. While thousands were killed on both sides, the defeat was exceptionally devastating for Bolivia’s economy, as it marked the end of their sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. Naturally, Bolivia has been fighting to reclaim control of their lost territory ever since, even celebrating a Dia del Mar (“Day of the Sea”) every March 23^rd.

One Boston University student recently penned an opinion column explaining how it is actually Bolivia that is better served by the status quo. I disagree with his notion that by somehow ceding territory to the victor, Bolivia gained better access to the ocean. Who really came out on top, country A, who annexed mineral-rich coastal land the size of Greece, or country B, who gained a single railroad that passes through the country that just defeated them? Given that trucks are used more to transport goods, and passenger service on the track ended in 1996, is Bolivia’s access really “enhanced” by this rusting line of track? 

This undated map from BBC details the expansion of the Arica-La Paz railroad,

which was completed in 1913, but has been defunct since 2005.

  

Bolivian President Evo Morales and Chilean President Sebastián Piñera have both openly criticized their neighbors, and are unlikely to share ambassadors again, as has been the case since the 1970s. Days before the 1 October 2018 ruling, President Piñera gave his thoughts – in English – on the case at a Council of Foreign Relations press conference: “We have a treaty with Bolivia that was signed in 1904, twenty years after all the hostilities had ceased… That treaty was fully agreed and fully in place. We would hope that country would honor the treaty they signed.” He continued, “…If you start opening things that happened a hundred years ago, what would happen in Europe? In the United States?” He expressed his openness to dialogue, but without promises to “sacrifice our sovereignty.” His comment starts at 54 minutes.

President Morales is in the midst of his 2019 re-election campaign, which would be his fourth consecutive term as President of Bolivia, having held power since 2006. His attempt to remove term limits in a 2016 have concerned geopolitical analysts at StratFor. “For a growing number of voters in Bolivia,” one headline reads, “their president is overstaying his welcome.” They note that while he has been wildly popular in the past, the failure of the 2016 referendum resulted in anti-Morales protests across the country. He is facing the possibility of losing his popular support in 2019, which he was not supposed to be eligible for anyway, since their constitution only allows a maximum of two, five-year terms. Nonetheless, President Morales was able to convince their Constitutional Court to allow him to run for a fourth term.  The popular leader is facing growing resentment at home, and his failure to convince the International Court of Justice will only hamper his chance to hold on to power.

After the fall of the military dictatorship in 1990, Chile has established itself as a consolidated democracy, and is unlikely to see democratic breakdown as a result of the rhetoric and policies surrounding the border dispute.

The same cannot be said for Bolivia, whose president is seeking a highly-controversial 

fourth-term in office. He became the longest-serving President of Bolivia in 2015.

In an interview with CGTN, a Beijing-based television network, President Morales discussed his biggest concerns for his country’s future. As the first indigenous president of Bolivia, he noted his success with helping Bolivia’s extreme poverty, and stability of government. “With five new presidents in the five years before 2006… there was a new president annually. Never in my life had I thought about being President. I cannot believe I have been President all these years. It is not my desire, but the people’s. They use the terms ‘authoritarian’ or ‘dictator’, even though we are elected presidents with more than 50%-60% of our people’s votes.”

On the dispute with Chile, he noted that the Chileans needed to respect the treaty of 1866, before the War of the Pacific took place. “Bolivia was founded with access to the sea. I am very sorry about the events of 1879, through an invasion Chile took access from us. We stand alongside the truth and the force of justice. In different occasions Chile has offered sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean, but they have never fulfilled it. Chile, sadly, has a policy of delaying. They offer something, then they suspend, then they withdraw. That is why we went to The Hague.”

The International Court of Justice, in The Hague, Netherlands, is responsible for settling international legal disputes between members of the United Nations. Two of those countries, however, haven’t had official diplomatic relations in decades. This didn’t stop one country from filing a case against the other back in 2013.

The Silala River, which originates in Bolivia and flows to Chile, is the lesser-known component of the long-standing tension between the two South American nations. Andrés Gaudin, a regular contributor to the pro-American, 501(c)3 non-profit organization, the North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA) is “an Uruguayan journalist who went into exile in Argentine in 1972,” which gives him a unique perspective on Latin American affairs. His latest contribution was published in 2016 by the Albuquerque-based journal NotiSur – South American Political and Economic Affairs.

Then-Chilean President Michelle Bachelet submitted a claim to the International Court of Justice in 2016. With business interests at stake, Chile wished to define the river as an international water source, thus requiring it to be shared evenly. Bolivia claims that Chilean businesses owe over $1 billion USD in tariffs for that water use. This case has yet to be decided at the ICJ.

Fascinatingly, Gaudin used evidence from public speeches and one-on-one interviews with high-ranking government officials to better understand the mindset behind Chile’s 2016 ICJ filing. “On March 23, [Bolivian] President Morales had made the mistake of going public with his plan, even revealing key details of how Bolivian lawyers would argue their case in The Hague.” Chile’s response was predictable: their foreign affairs minister decided to file first by submitting evidence they have been collecting since 2014. This aspect makes it easier to understand Chile’s decision-making. When the populist leader began making public promises to rally his supporters, it served Chile’s interests to escalate the dispute, legally.  

Another important aspect of the article was how the situation was being portrayed internally. “Each government…accuses its counterpart of doing the same thing: using the dispute to fire up nationalist sentiment among the general public and draw attention away from domestic problems,” he wrote. Each country similarly uses taunting (or otherwise accusatory) language to get their people on their side of the issue, to the point that even football matches become an extension of the disagreement. While not mentioned in the article, Bolivian President Evo Morales has made the confrontation with Chile a key component of his 2019 re-election campaign, which could see him serve a fourth term. While the International Court of Justice did not rule in his favor in 2018, the outstanding case with the Silala River could motivate his base of supporters.

Considering Michelle Bachelet is no longer the President of Chile, her successor, Sebastián Piñera, has opened the door to continue negotiations with Bolivia – under certain conditions. Nonetheless, it appears that the short-term will not see any change in rhetoric from either country, at least until The Hague reaches a decision. While this article is over two years old, Andrés Gaudin’s analysis sheds light on the background between the ever-present strife between Chile and Bolivia. “With no clear end to the conflict in sight,” he writes, “their dispute over fresh water resources adds even more fuel to the fire.” Gaudin’s description of the intricacies of each side’s position over the Silala River is vital to understand the whole picture of the Bolivia-Chile dispute.

Border disputes are not uncommon, and are usually marked as dotted-lines on Google Maps. 

Of course, these visual representations of political boundaries depend on 

where in the world you search from.

The military and the media have played a vital role in the ongoing border dispute. They work hand-in-hand in many ways - large war games make for great photographs, after all, especially when they take place inside the disputed territory, near the port city of Antofagasta. The Santiago Times covered the effect that the military has with possibly exacerbating the situation. They noted President Morales’ disapproval on Twitter: “The military maneuvers [with the United States are] an imperialistic threat to regional peace.” Chile’s Foreign Minister Roberto Ampuero responded, “Evo Morales shouldn’t feel nervous about the exercises. What is should be worried about is the Bolivians’ reaction to his unfulfilled promise he made in The Hague: Antofagasta will be part of Bolivia and Bolivian flags will shine beautifully in our Pacific.” President Morales forecasted how the ICJ’s 12-3 ruling would impact his view: “Bolivia will never allow itself to be kept from the sea.” Reuters observed that “Chile currently allows Bolivia duty-free access to the port of Arica,” but “Bolivia aspires to have a corridor…under its own control.” How the ICJ decision will effect his domestic popularity remains to be seen, but it doesn’t look promising.

There is more to it than water, a fact not lost on the BBC. “The disputed land has proved extremely valuable to Chile. The nitrate plants have long closed but have been replaced by some of the world’s biggest copper mines… Bolivia is rich in natural gas but refuses to sell it to energy-poor Chile. If they Chileans could buy fuel from Bolivia, it would go a long way to easing their energy problems and would give Bolivia an important source of income.” The Spanish-language academic journal, Estudios Fronterizos (“Border Studies”), highlighted the impact that just initiating a case with the International Court of Justice had with bringing a “renewed visibility” to the region, as one would expect. Beyond this, Chile does have legitimate claims to militarize their northern border with Bolivia and Peru, a desolate region that not only has a border dispute, but also a drug problem. “Peru and Bolivia…contain 54% of the cocaine in the world.” While the prevalence of drugs in the region is not a secret, its presence provides an interesting security dynamic that can serve as a talking point for the current and future governments of Chile, as well as an opening for cooperation with Bolivia.

The mutual animosity over the border has bled over to the gas sector as well. One professor in India published an analysis on the role of gas in the region, ultimately resulting in the resignation of the Bolivian president in late 2003. It is worth noting that Bolivia has “the second-largest natural gas reserves [in Latin America] after Venezuela.” To better export their resource, a pipeline was proposed in 2002, but civil groups in the country disagreed on how the route should lead to the Pacific: through Chile’s Tocopilla port, or Peru’s port Ilo. “Violent suppression by the Bolivian armed forces left some 60 people dead,” Professor Gangopadhyay writes. Chile’s “historical status…has allowed it to hold on to a very rigid, non-negotiable stance towards this overlapping [gas/sea access] issue.” Chile needs natural gas. “100% of Chile’s gas imports…come from Argentine gas supplies,” which “came to a sudden halt in 2004, when Argentina decided to reduce gas exports to Chile in order to ease its own domestic gas shortages.” Considering the instability of its energy sources, Chile has a lot to gain – and lose – in Bolivia’s increasingly nationalistic attitude towards its gas reserves.

Borders are an incredibly fascinating, and while the majority today are pretty unexciting, all do tell a story. Defining their location on a map has led to brutal wars over the centuries, and the Bolivia-Chile border is no exception. While all-out war is unlikely today, the never-ending lawsuits and rhetoric probably won’t end any time soon, even with the International Court of Justice’s 2018 decision. The dispute is not an isolated topic, as it has manifested into gas policy, international trade, militarization, media coverage, aggressive rhetoric, and populist political campaigns. Progress will continue to be hindered until the current boundaries, as defined by the International Court of Justice, are accepted by Bolivia. There is simply too much at stake – Chile’s energy sources, Bolivia’s port access, and the drug trade – to continue focusing on the results of a 19^th century war.

  

Some borders disputes are perpetual, and others end up as frozen conflicts and create their own

semi-autonomous countries. This is from a December 2017 visit to Tiraspol, Transnistria, a country

that doesn’t officially exist, and whose borders are not officially recognized by the United Nations.

  

Sources:

Associated Press. “Bolivia takes sea access dispute with Chile to world court.” 19 March 2018. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4xdQ8A9GKk.

Chasteen, John Charles. “Born in Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America.” Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2016. Fourth Edition.

China Global Television Network (CGTN). “An interview with Bolivian President Evo Morales.” 20 May 2018. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av5GlDMnpqk.

Council on Foreign Relations. “A Conversation with Sebastian Pinera.” 27 September 2018. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZK-5Y4KtQw.

Damiano, David. “Worldview: Bolivia’s fight with Chile for access to the sea.” The Daily Free Press. 22 October 2018. Retrieved from https://dailyfreepress.com/blog/2018/10/22/worldview-bolivias-fight-with-chile-for-access-to-the-sea/.

Dashti, Ali. “Bolivia reacts to joint Chile-US exercises in northern Antofagasta.” The Santiago Times. 26 August 2018. Retrieved from https://santiagotimes.cl/2018/08/26/bolivia-condemns-joint-chile-us-exercises-in-northern-antofagasta/.

Freedom House Index. “Freedom in the World 2018.” Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/bolivia.

Freedom House Index. “Freedom in the World 2018.” Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/chile.

Gangopadhyay, Aparajita. “From Land Wars to Gas Wars: Chile–Bolivia Relations and Globalisation.” India Quarterly, vol. 70, no. 2, June 2014, pp. 139–152. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com.libproxy.sdsu.edu/doi/abs/10.1177/0974928414524651.

García Pinzón, Viviana. "Estado y frontera en el norte de Chile." Estudios Fronterizos, vol. 16, no. 31, 2015, p. 74+. OneFile. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.libproxy.sdsu.edu/apps/doc/A448905894/AONE?u=san96005&sid=AONE&xid=1e240822.

Gaudin, Andres. “Water dispute adds to Chile-Bolivia antagonisms.” NotiSur – South American Political and Economic Affairs. 5 August 2016. OneFile. Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.libproxy.sdsu.edu/apps/doc/A460762693/ITOF?u=san96005&sid=ITOF&xid=cb45c76a.

Human Interests. “Google Maps is Different in Other Countries.” 1 March 2018. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9ZMub2UrKU.

International Court of Justice. “The Court.” Retrieved from https://www.icj-cij.org/en/court.

Long, Gideon. “Bolivia-Chile land dispute has deep roots.” British Broadcasting Corporation. 24 April 2013. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-22287222.

Long, Gideon. “Bolivia-Chile railway marks 100 years at time of strife.” British Broadcasting Corporation. 13 May 2013. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-22507777.

Orttung, Robert and Walker, Christopher. “Putin’s Frozen Conflicts.” Foreign Policy. 13 February 2015. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/13/putins-frozen-conflicts/.

StratFor. “For a Growing Number of Voters in Bolivia, Their President is Overstaying His Welcome.” 20 September 2018. Retrieved from https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/growing-number-voters-bolivia-their-president-overstaying-his-welcome.

Van den Berg, Stephanie, and Laing, Aislinn. “World Court: Chile not forced to negotiate over Bolivia sea access.” Reuters. 1 October 2018. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bolivia-chile-worldcourt/world-court-chile-not-forced-to-negotiate-over-bolivia-sea-access-idUSKCN1MB2YR.

Vox. “Borders.” 5 December 2018. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/a/borders.

Zissis, Carin. “Bolivia’s Nationalization of Oil and Gas.” Council on Foreign Relations. 12 May 2006. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/bolivias-nationalization-oil-and-gas.

The Best and Worst of Traveling

The view from my hostel in Cusco to the local train station. I was on the edge of my seat, 

nervous that the tardy taxi would cause me to miss the departure. Miraculously,

I had 30 seconds to spare, and was the last passenger to sit down.

****

I was probably the only Westerner on that train. It’s not like I didn’t see it coming: the green boarding pass the tour company provided only bore non-translated Cyrillic script, excluding my English name that seemed to be squished between the random sequence of backwards Rs and Ks. I can’t say it didn’t make sense, given I was traveling domestically in what was once part of the Soviet Union. I knew when I purchased the ticket through an online travel agency the month prior that I was supposed to depart sometime that night and arrive sometime the next day.

Inside the station, none of the rapidly-changing timetables were in English, and my requests for help were met with equally-lost facial expressions. Looking above, the tall and intimidating nineteenth-century architecture seemed to stretch into the dark winter sky, and looking forward, the intersecting escalators and staircases under indiscernible info boards only added to my confusion. It was when I finally stood still in that bustling central terminal, with my heavy suitcase and camera in one hand and little green ticket in the other, that I truly felt lost. And the clock was ticking.  

****

My next train experience, one year later, was much more organized. Even after climbing aboard at the eleventh hour – thanks to a pre-arranged taxi that never arrived – I felt much more at ease. Unlike before, nearly everyone spoke English, including the PA announcer, whose translation I liked to think I didn’t need given the previous year I had spent in Cuba. The on-board services – drinks, snacks, and a clean unisex bathroom – was a world of difference from the Cold War-era caboose I was on before. There was much more to see out the window, anyway: the autumn sun glistened off the babbling brooks below, and the lush green trees seemed to paint the towering Andean mountain peaks that flanked our skinny rail track. We couldn’t see other people, villages or roads on the four-hour trip to Aguas Calientes; the only way to traverse the rugged, diverse terrain is by foot or train. I sat down in my cushioned seat, and did what I couldn’t do before: share and laugh with my fellow passengers, and enjoy the ride.

Sometimes, the ride is just as fun as the destination. Machu Picchu, Peru. 

****

My saving grace in that cold train station nearly two years ago came in dark-rimmed glasses and long blonde hair. I don’t remember her name, but I am certain she could see my relief when I heard her answer to the defeated question I had already asked too many times to too many people: “English?” She was about my age, enjoying a break from school, and was traveling to visit her family in a city not far from Kiev. She happily, calmly, walked me to my train, which had already begun taking passengers. We parted ways before I could truly express my appreciation for her kindness, which I could have used more of throughout my impending overnight (and sleepless) adventure.

Looking back, I am grateful I took that 16-hour train ride. It was one of those trips that make you appreciate all of your future experiences on public transportation, no matter how much you hear those around you complain. The four-person booth I was assigned to sleep in resembled more of a tight, walk-in closet than actual sleeping quarters. In fact, it wasn’t really adequate to even hold just the luggage of all four occupants. The stiff double-stacked beds, hardly wider than an ironing board, proved tough to stay in in the bouncing metal car. Not that anyone would want to sleep in them, anyway: my curled legs would have extended well beyond the length of it, if it wasn’t closed in on three sides by thin steel dividers. The heater, dialed on suffocatingly high, replaced the desire of a blanket for the brisk air that teased us through the small windows. The all-silver restroom down the hall, soaked in a mysterious layer of water that sparkled with the moonlight, lacked soap and toilet paper. If the collective hot B.O. from so many squished people didn’t already make me irritable, one of my three roommates certainly did.

He was very nice at first. He opened big bags of chips and snacks for all of us that would occasionally fall from the small center table and sprinkle my luggage underneath. Slightly overweight, gregarious and full of smiles, this middle-aged Ukrainian man for whatever reason decided to pursue a friendship with me, the lone American in the group. He offered me a tall, cold bottle of beer he brought aboard that I couldn’t refuse, and we communicated through a twelve-year-old boy that came in from the hallway to translate for us. Unfortunately, it didn’t take long for things to get weird. He handled me a scribbled e-mail address and kept insisting that I marry his fifteen-year-old daughter, living God-knows-where in Ukraine, and kept opening me more bottles. After two drinks, and a few friendly declines for more, he took my refusals as disrespectful. He quickly became red and agitated, undoubtedly intoxicated from his impressive stash. He made his disapproval known, and my trip worse, by opening yet another bottle, shaking it, and spraying me with the beer. The clothes I had worn that day exploring Kiev, the same ones I would be sleeping in that night and be wearing for half the next day, were now covered in sticky booze. I was furious, with the heat and the noise and the bumps and the lack of space, and opted for some alone time in the quiet hallway to breathe. The slightly cracked-open windows certainly helped. When I returned, he was snoring, finally asleep, and no longer rambling in Ukrainian.

Sometimes, it does take bad experiences to make us appreciate future situations. Airplanes are a joy for me now – I always know that there is a restroom in which I can sit down, a personal air conditioner I can direct on my face, and a cushioned seat I can lean back in. Check-in, security inspections, delays, and cancelled flights don’t bother me, since every international airport I’ve been to has had English translations and personal space, even if it is on a tile floor in the corner of a waiting room.

Sevastopol, Crimea. I'm happy to say I got to spend a long weekend on the peninsula

before it was annexed by Russia, but it came at a price. Being optimistic, the 

less-than-comfortable train ride to get there has made every trip I've taken 

since incredibly joyful.

One of the best parts of traveling is earning those precious passport stamps.

Overlooking the city of Cusco, Peru, from my hostel's balcony.

At the end of the day, it is the people you meet along the way that can truly make or break your experience. A smile and simple directions from a stranger, or even a warm conversation with a fellow traveler, can make all the difference. My train rides from Cusco to Aguas Calientes and back were entertaining and fulfilling, largely thanks to the kind people that sat around me. In the outward trip, I was surrounded by three young ladies – all friends traveling together from the States – who were engaging and entertaining through their stories of growing up in the Philippines and traveling to other places together. On the return trip, I was again flanked by three women, this time all in their 60s, traveling with a photo adventure group. We shared white wine, delicious food, and hearty laughs over the silly stories of the struggles we had trying conquer the same mountain – Machu Picchu – now memories that we will carry with us for the rest of our lives. 

While I tribute my experience in the overnighter Soviet train from Kiev to Crimea (weeks before the annexation) to enriching the travel adventures that followed, it was the kindness from those I met along the way – the girl at the station that took time to help a stranger in need and the boy on the train that shared my interest in video games – that remind me even the worst situations are opportunities for memories I can smile upon.