Special Edition: Russia Is Eating Itself: The Slow Collapse of Putin's War State

Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 with the apparent expectation that it would be quick, decisive, and largely invisible to the Russian public. 

More than four years later, it has been none of those things. 

Donald Trump, is not far outside of this club.

What has emerged instead is a portrait of a regime slowly consuming itself: generals killed by car bombs in Moscow suburbs, a president hiding in bunkers along the Black Sea coast while state media runs pre-recorded footage to maintain the illusion of normalcy, and a security apparatus so fractured its chiefs are openly blaming each other in Kremlin meetings. The numbers below tell part of the story. The rest is told by the silence of Russian elites who have quietly stopped saying "we" when they talk about the war, and started saying "his."

 

MILITARY CASUALTIES

CSIS estimates Russian forces suffered nearly 1.2 million battlefield casualties, including killed, wounded, and missing, between February 2022 and December 2025, with roughly 415,000 in 2025 alone, at an average of nearly 35,000 per month. To put that in historical context, Russia has suffered roughly five times as many fatalities in Ukraine as in all Russian and Soviet wars combined between the end of World War II and the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022. Center for Strategic and International StudiesCenter for Strategic and International Studies

Russia's rate of advance since January 2024 has averaged between 15 and 70 meters per day in its most prominent offensives, slower than almost any major offensive campaign in any war in the last century. Center for Strategic and International Studies

---

GENERALS KILLED

The deaths of 15 Russian generals have been officially confirmed. In December 2024, Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, head of the Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Protection Troops, was killed by a bomb in Moscow. In April 2025, Lieutenant General Yaroslav Moskalik, a senior officer in the General Staff's Main Operational Directorate, was killed by a car bomb in a Moscow suburb. In December 2025, Lieutenant General Fanil Sarvarov, head of the Operational Training Directorate of the Russian General Staff, was killed in Moscow by another car bomb. In July 2025, a strike on the headquarters of the 155th Naval Infantry Brigade killed at least six officers, including the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy. Zona Media

---

PUTIN IN BUNKERS / HEIGHTENED SECURITY

The Kremlin has dramatically increased personal security around Putin, installing surveillance systems in the homes of close staffers, prompted by a wave of assassinations of top Russian military figures and fears of a coup. Cooks, bodyguards and photographers who work with the president are banned from traveling on public transport. Visitors to the Kremlin must be screened twice, and those working close to Putin can only use phones without internet access. CNN

Putin and his family have stopped visiting their residences in the Moscow region and in northwestern Valdai. He is now spending extended periods in bunkers, including in the Krasnodar area in southern Russia, while state media uses pre-recorded footage to project normality. i24NEWS

He has not visited a military facility in 2026 so far, despite regular trips in 2025. CNN

Intelligence reports indicate Putin fears not so much Ukrainian attacks as a conspiracy by Russian political elites. Sergei Shoigu, the former Defense Minister and current Security Council Secretary, is specifically associated with the risk of a coup attempt. UNN

At the Kremlin's May 9 Victory Day parade this year, no members of the State Duma were invited to Red Square, reportedly to reduce the number of people in close proximity to Putin. The Federal Protective Service has been given broad powers over information policy, personally approving any media appearances involving the president. Surveillance tools once used for criminal investigations have been redirected to monitor government officials. Militarnyi

---

INTERNAL SECURITY AGENCY CONFLICT

After the assassination of Sarvarov in December 2025, tensions between security agencies exploded during a meeting where Chief of the General Staff Gerasimov sharply criticized the FSB for failing to detect assassination plots. FSB Director Bortnikov responded by criticizing the Defense Ministry for lacking its own protection unit. Head of the National Guard Zolotov refused to allocate his agency's resources to protect Defense Ministry officers. Militarnyi

A former Kremlin insider noted that "a very big battle for power is going on" and that "the FSB and the administration are very much in conflict." HotAir

---

THE ECONOMIST: PUTIN LOSING HIS GRIP

An anonymous former senior Russian government official writing in The Economist described how senior officials, regional governors and businessmen have stopped using the first-person plural when talking about state actions. As recently as last spring, everything was "we" and "ours." Now they describe what is happening as "his" story, not "ours." His decisions are described as "strange." Even stranger, the author notes, is the fact that he decides anything at all. Substack

The author frames it as a political "zugzwang," the chess term for a position where every available move worsens your situation. He identifies four converging factors: the rising cost of a war designed to be invisible to most Russians; a new demand for rules among elites cut off from London courts and offshore vehicles; roughly 5 trillion rubles in private assets confiscated over three years, the largest redistribution of property since the 1990s privatizations; and a geopolitical climate that is eroding the specific asymmetries Russia historically exploited. Hvylya

The future, he writes, is no longer discussed as something Putin will decide, but as something that will unfold independently of him, and possibly already without him. Substack

---

ECONOMIC DETERIORATION

Russia's GDP contracted 1.8% in the first two months of 2026. Putin acknowledged the issue in a government meeting on economic affairs in mid-April. HotAir

Russia's economy shrank 0.3% between January and March 2026, the first contraction since early 2023. The public deficit ballooned to $60 billion in the same period, exceeding the full-year target. Inflation remains stuck near 6% under an interest rate of 14.5%. Euronews

Oil and gas revenues in 2025 came in at 8.7 trillion rubles, well below the planned 10.9 trillion. To compensate, the government has raised VAT from 20% to 22% starting January 2026, and utility bills are projected to jump another 13% in 2026, the highest increase since the war began. The Moscow Times

When ordinary Russians were asked in BBC interviews what they hoped for in 2026, a striking number answered with a single word: peace. Several said they no longer plan their lives months or years ahead. One summed up the mood: "Five years? If I look ahead 10 days, it's good." EUvsDisinfo

An anonymous former senior Russian official, writing recently in The Economist, reached for a chess metaphor to describe where Putin now stands: zugzwang, the position where every available move only worsens your situation. The war was supposed to preserve his power. Instead it has become the engine of its erosion. What comes next, no one inside Russia appears to know, including the people closest to him. That uncertainty, more than any battlefield statistic, may be the most significant development of the entire conflict.

I wish us all well...

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of  Claude AI 

---

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington. 

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

When Moral Authority Dissolves

Look at Trump's recent Iran post! THIS, was presidential?

Just really look at it:

"Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin' Strait, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP"

A sitting president threatening to destroy civilian infrastructure -- power plants, bridges -- in a sovereign nation, signing off with an Islamic devotional phrase as mockery or punchline, apparently unable to distinguish between the two. This is what moral collapse looks like when it goes fully public. Eighty words. No filter. No advisor willing or able to stop it. No institution with the standing to say: this is wrong.

How sad is it that to find moral leadership today -- in government, in the military, in corporate life -- one has to turn to religion? And how much sadder still when religion itself has been so thoroughly weaponized that even that refuge is compromised?

This administration did not invent the hollowing out of American institutions. But it has accelerated it past any previous threshold. What we are watching is kakistocracy -- rule by the least competent and least principled -- fused with plutocracy, the whole apparatus running on the fuel of toxic capitalism, where every decision, including war, is ultimately a business calculation dressed in apocalyptic costume. Throw in the technocrats who believe systems can be optimized without ethics, and you have the full picture: power without wisdom, force without conscience, religion without faith.

The Strait of Hormuz is about oil and shipping and global capital flows. The moral framing of this conflict -- whatever scraps of it exist -- is performance. The actual drivers are leverage and money and the interests of people who will not be anywhere near the explosions. "Praise be to Allah" is not diplomacy, not faith, not even coherent provocation. It is a man coming apart in public, with the launch codes nearby. That is the situation stated plainly.

And the institutions that should be able to say stop? Congress has abdicated. The cabinet is captured. The Joint Chiefs are navigating a minefield of loyalty tests. The press is managing access. So moral authority, when it surfaces at all, comes from the margins -- retired generals writing open letters, some clergy, some academics, the occasional senator willing to lose a primary over it. People drawing on frameworks that predate this administration and will, one hopes, outlast it.

The military's written code is largely secular -- the UCMJ, the officer's oath. But its moral culture runs deeper than its paperwork. When officers push back, they speak in language that sounds almost devotional: duty, honor, oath, service. It is not religion exactly, but it is the same impulse -- an appeal to something that transcends the moment and the man currently occupying the office.

That is what we are left searching for. Not a pastor, not a general, not a party. Something that holds when everything built to hold it has been deliberately dismantled.

The darker question underneath all of this: what does it say about secular democratic institutions that they have become so hollowed out that pre-Enlightenment frameworks are now doing more ethical heavy lifting than the entire apparatus of the American government?

"Praise be to Allah."

Trump thought that was funny. Or threatening. Or both. He cannot tell the difference anymore. Neither, it seems, can the people around him.

Watch out for what this petty little autocrat pulls next on Tuesday.

We can make America great again...just not with this mob boss style leadership.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie! 

If Trump Were Zelensky: From 2020 Russian Invasion of Ukraine Until Today

Timeline of Zelensky’s/Trump's Leadership From the 2022 Russian Invasion to the 2025 Oval Office Meeting

1. February 24, 2022 – Russia Invades Ukraine

• Zelensky's Response: Refused to flee Kyiv, rallied Ukrainians with defiant speeches, and secured international military aid.
• If Trump Were President of Ukraine: Likely would have tried to negotiate with Putin instead of resisting, possibly delaying military mobilization while claiming he could "make a deal."

2. March 2022 – Kyiv Under Siege

• Zelensky's Response: Walked the streets of Kyiv in defiance, rejected U.S. evacuation offers with "I need ammunition, not a ride."
• If Trump Were President: Would likely have fled to Western Ukraine or abroad while claiming the war would have never happened if he were in charge. Would have blamed NATO, the EU, or past Ukrainian leaders. He would have prioritized evacuation to ensure his personal safety, potentially accepting the "ride" offered.

3. April–May 2022 – War Crimes in Bucha, Defense of Mariupol

• Zelensky's Response: Exposed Russian atrocities, secured more weapons, and rallied Western nations.
• If Trump Were President: Likely would have downplayed war crimes, possibly saying "both sides have done bad things." Would have obsessed over who praised or criticized him, rather than military strategy.

4. September 2022 – Ukrainian Counteroffensive in Kharkiv

• Zelensky's Response: Oversaw one of the war’s most successful counterattacks, reclaiming occupied territory.
• If Trump Were President: Would have taken full credit for any success while attacking his own generals if anything went wrong.

5. December 2022 – Zelensky's Historic Speech to U.S. Congress

• Zelensky's Response: Addressed Congress in person, securing more military aid and strengthening U.S.-Ukraine ties.
• If Trump Were President: Would have demanded personal loyalty from Congress, attacked critics, and likely insulted allies who weren’t giving Ukraine “enough.”

6. 2023–2024 – Stalemate and Struggles for More U.S. Aid

• Zelensky's Response: Maintained global support, pressed Congress, and kept morale high despite heavy losses.
• If Trump Were President: Would have blamed NATO and Europe for not doing more, possibly considering deals with Russia to end the war on unfavorable terms.

7. February 2025 – Oval Office Meeting With Trump

• Zelensky's Reality: Berated and pressured while standing firm on Ukraine’s needs.
• If Trump Were in Zelensky’s Shoes: The meeting would have been a complete disaster:
• Trump would have taken everything personally, likely ranting about unfair treatment.
• He might have threatened to walk out, insulted Congress, or refused to take responsibility for Ukraine’s struggles.
• Instead of rallying support, he would have blamed allies and possibly hinted at withdrawing from the war altogether.

If the roles had been reversed—meaning Zelensky was in Trump's position as the U.S. president, and Trump was the leader of a nation at war facing Russian aggression—Zelensky would likely have handled the situation very differently.

Zelensky’s Likely Approach:

1. Respectful Diplomacy: Zelensky has consistently treated world leaders with diplomatic courtesy, even in difficult situations. Instead of berating Trump, he would have likely expressed firm support while encouraging a strong alliance.
2. Commitment to Aid: Given Zelensky’s track record, he would have reassured Trump that the U.S. remains committed to providing assistance, whether in military aid, humanitarian relief, or diplomatic efforts.
3. Clear Communication: Zelensky is direct but measured. He would have likely acknowledged Trump’s struggles while emphasizing the importance of international unity against Russian aggression.
4. Public Support: Rather than embarrassing Trump in front of the press, Zelensky would have reinforced a public show of unity, avoiding the kind of humiliation that Trump subjected him to in the real meeting.

In contrast, Trump’s actual behavior toward Zelensky was dismissive and condescending, showing little empathy for a wartime leader. Had the situation been reversed, Zelensky would have approached it with far more tact and leadership.

Final Takeaway

Zelensky has led with resilience, diplomacy, and unwavering focus on Ukraine’s survival. If Trump had been in his position, Ukraine might not have lasted this long, as his need for personal praise, deal-making tendencies, and lack of military strategy would have played into Putin’s hands.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

In the One Act Play, "Denude", Legacy and War Lay Bare the Struggle for Redemption

I came across a 2022 film, "Foxhole", it was pretty intriguing and entertaining. Where Over 36 hours in three different wars, a small group of soldiers grapples with mortality, futility, and an increasingly volatile combat situation. It reminded me of my play on a similar concept.

Perhaps I should have named my play that. But, perhaps not. Allow me to explain. Back in 1983 while at Western Washington University, I wrote a play about two soldiers in a foxhole (with supernatural overtones). It takes place between three very different wars: Vietnam, WWII, and the War of 1812, in that order.

Two soldiers, Trappist and Menses, are stuck in a foxhole during a war. Trappist tries to engage Menses in conversation, offering him some rations of fruitcake and peaches, but Menses is agitated and angry about having been sent there. The tension between them rises as they face the threat of enemy fire. Trappist tries to calm Menses, but the situation intensifies until Menses, in a fit of panic, ends up shooting and killing Trappist.

After Trappist's death, a surreal sequence occurs where Trappist appears as a ghost, revealing to Menses that they've been intertwined through multiple lives, with Menses repeatedly being the cause of Trappist's death in various previous wars. Trappist implies a cycle of reincarnation and their eternal connection.

Eventually, as Menses faces the brink of death himself, Trappist guides him into an ethereal realm, indicating they're both on the verge of departing. The play ends with Menses acknowledging his own death and Trappist urging him to follow into the afterlife, hinting at a reason to celebrate despite their demise.

How does that tie in with one's consideration of themself and their ancestors who served in those previous wars?

A person's understanding of their self-identity, as well as their view of their family lineage, can be deeply influenced by the legacy of ancestors who served in past wars like the War of 1812, WWII, and the Vietnam War. This connection to the past often impacts how they view duty, patriotism, resilience, and their place within their nation's history.

Here’s how these aspects might shape someone's perception of themselves in the context of these wars:

1. Sense of Duty and Patriotism

• If someone has ancestors who served in one or more of these wars, they may feel a heightened sense of duty or responsibility to carry on a family legacy of service and sacrifice. This can manifest as a strong patriotic sentiment, where they view their own life in the context of defending and upholding the values for which their ancestors fought.
• Knowing that a family member faced hardship and danger to protect sovereignty and national interests can deepen a person’s respect for their country and motivate them to contribute in their own way, whether through military service, civic engagement, or simply by embodying values like courage and dedication.

2. Personal Identity and Self-Worth

• The knowledge of an ancestor’s bravery, resilience, or sacrifices in wartime can enhance a person’s sense of self-worth. They may view these traits as part of their family identity, inspiring them to persevere through their challenges and to embody the resilience displayed by previous generations.
• For instance, a descendant of a WWII veteran might take pride in knowing their family contributed to defeating fascism and defending freedom on a global scale. Similarly, a descendant of a Vietnam War veteran might carry an understanding of the complexities of war, including the struggles soldiers face during and after service.

3. Connection to Broader Historical Themes

• People often feel a connection to history through their family stories, seeing their ancestors' participation as part of a larger narrative about freedom, justice, or ideological conflict. This sense of continuity with the past can lead to a deeper appreciation of the challenges their ancestors faced and how those challenges are relevant today.
• For example, understanding that an ancestor fought to defend American sovereignty in the War of 1812 might give someone a stronger appreciation for independence and self-determination. Learning about a WWII veteran ancestor might evoke a sense of responsibility to stand against injustice, while a Vietnam veteran ancestor might prompt a deeper understanding of the costs of war and the importance of questioning authority.

4. Reflection on Service and Sacrifice Across Generations

• For some, having family members who served in different wars with varied goals—protecting sovereignty, fighting ideologies, or containing threats—can highlight the changing nature of patriotism and service. It may lead them to reflect on what service means today, especially in a world with new and different types of challenges.
• They may also see each generation’s service as a testament to their family’s ongoing commitment to the values they hold dear, like bravery and sacrifice. This perspective often strengthens family bonds, fostering a sense of pride and a commitment to carry on those values, even if not through military service.

5. Ethical and Moral Reflection

• A person's view of their ancestors’ service can also involve ethical considerations, especially in wars like Vietnam, which raised questions about the morality of conflict and governmental decisions. Descendants of Vietnam veterans, in particular, may grapple with the moral complexity of that war, leading to nuanced views on service, authority, and foreign policy.
• This ethical reflection may result in a more complex form of patriotism, one that respects the sacrifices made by family members but also acknowledges the lessons learned from the consequences of these wars. Such reflections can prompt a desire for peace and responsible leadership, influencing the descendant's choices and beliefs.

In essence, an individual who is aware of their ancestors' service in these wars might see themselves as part of a continuum—a living link in a chain of history where ideals, sacrifices, and national struggles persist across generations. This connection can provide a foundation for their identity, values, and choices, blending personal pride with the lessons and legacies of their family's past.

The story in the play weaves together themes of fate, trauma, and the eternal bonds forged in conflict, all while exploring complex questions of identity and guilt. Here are some key interpretations and symbolic meanings in the context of the information provided:

1. Cycles of War and Trauma

• The recurring deaths of Trappist at the hands of Menses across multiple lifetimes suggest that the two are caught in a cycle of violence and tragedy. This echoes the generational repetition of war itself, where similar patterns of suffering and sacrifice recur across different conflicts and eras. Just as descendants of soldiers might see the same themes—sovereignty, ideology, and national duty—play out repeatedly, Menses and Trappist are symbols of those individuals trapped in an endless loop of conflict, with trauma continually passed down.
• Menses’s agitation reflects the disillusionment soldiers often feel in wartime, questioning the reasons behind their deployment. His panic mirrors the moral struggles many soldiers face when their sense of duty clashes with the reality of violence. Trappist’s calm and offering of food—fruitcake and peaches, items often shared as comforts in hard times—may represent an attempt to find humanity and shared purpose amid the chaos of war.

2. Reincarnation and Generational Karma

• The cycle of reincarnation between Trappist and Menses hints at karma, suggesting that Menses is doomed to confront and ultimately reconcile with his violent tendencies across lifetimes. This ties to the idea that wars, like personal conflicts, are cycles that humanity struggles to break free from.
• Their intertwined lives may serve as a metaphor for how each generation inherits the unresolved conflicts and traumas of the last. The idea that Menses is repeatedly responsible for Trappist’s death could represent how individuals, knowingly or unknowingly, perpetuate historical violence and trauma. Only by confronting and understanding this pattern can they hope to transcend it, symbolized by Menses’s journey into the afterlife guided by Trappist.

3. Acceptance of Mortality and Transformation

• As Menses faces his death with Trappist guiding him, there’s a shift from violence to acceptance. Trappist's ghostly presence serves as a reminder that death does not end their connection; rather, it offers a chance to confront their history and possibly find peace. This moment of acceptance transforms death from a feared enemy into a passage to a new understanding.
• The final scene, where Trappist urges Menses to "celebrate" despite their demise, could be interpreted as an embrace of life’s cycles, including the ending of those cycles. In acknowledging his own death, Menses may be symbolically breaking the pattern, suggesting that the only way to escape the violence of reincarnation is through acceptance and transcendence.

4. The Dual Nature of War as Both Binding and Destructive

• The foxhole setting forces the two characters into a close and claustrophobic bond, highlighting how war can create intense relationships under life-threatening circumstances. Trappist and Menses are bound by shared danger, but it also becomes their undoing. This dynamic reflects how soldiers in various wars develop lifelong connections with comrades, yet these relationships can be strained or tragically severed by violence.
• The ghostly revelation of their past lives serves as a metaphor for the shared traumas soldiers carry through life, as well as across generations. Each generation’s unresolved trauma perpetuates cycles of violence and suffering, a reminder that without healing, past conflicts may continue to haunt the present.

5. Celebrating Release and Finding Meaning in Tragedy

• The story’s ending implies that through death, Menses and Trappist might finally break their pattern. Their celebration may signify a release from the karmic ties of their past, freeing them from repeating this violent cycle in the future.
• This celebration can also be seen as a tribute to the perseverance and resilience of those who endured trauma in war. Despite the violence, the connection between the two characters represents a testament to shared humanity, a poignant reminder of the relationships and sacrifices made in the most challenging circumstances.

In sum, the story of Trappist and Menses speaks to the profound and often tragic connections forged in wartime. It reflects on how the legacies of past conflicts live on within individuals, affecting identity and behavior across generations. Their journey through death and reincarnation suggests that finding peace may require acknowledging and accepting past violence, ultimately leading to release and transformation.

But, what about that weird title: "Denude"?

The title Denude perfectly captures the play's core themes by suggesting a stripping away of layers, exposing raw truths, vulnerabilities, and the essence of each character beyond the facade of duty or anger. Here’s how it resonates with the play’s elements:

1. Stripping Down to Humanity: In the intense, close confines of the foxhole, the two soldiers are forced to confront not only the external war but also their own fears, beliefs, and mortality. Denude suggests this process of laying bare, as Trappist and Menses shed the societal and psychological armor they carry as soldiers. This reveals their raw humanity, flaws, and connections that transcend a single lifetime.

2. Revealing Cycles of Trauma and Violence: The title reflects the peeling back of time itself, exposing the repetitive cycles of conflict that these characters—and by extension, humanity—are trapped in. Through the surreal revelation of their reincarnation, Denude conveys how, stripped of superficial identities, they are left with only the core of their unresolved karmic bond.

3. Ancestral and Emotional Exposure: The play tackles heavy themes of inherited trauma and the weight of ancestral conflicts. Denude speaks to the exposure of these deep-seated wounds that each character carries, inviting audiences to consider the ways in which war and violence strip away innocence and leave behind scars that ripple through generations.

4. A Journey Toward Redemption and Truth: Finally, the act of “denuding” hints at a spiritual or existential uncovering—a stripping away of the cycles of violence until only truth remains. As Trappist leads Menses toward acceptance and, ultimately, peace, the title suggests a process of shedding illusions, perhaps even ego, to confront and understand their shared history.

Denude thus encapsulates themes of revelation, vulnerability, and the journey toward a profound understanding of self and others, central to the play’s exploration of reincarnation, war, and redemption.

So should I have titled it "Foxhole"? Maybe, maybe not. Is the play any good? Yeah, I think so. It's also, from a stage manager's and director's perspective, kind of a cool, and versatile play. And a bit spooky in the performance, making it interesting to act in.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

3 Amazing WWI Documentaries - JZ Murdock, Peter Jackson, Brian Henry Martin

My WWI documentary is a filmic poem and an antiwar film. I wrote a poem years ago and tried to get it published. I worked on it once in a while, got comment from a professional poet and he said to just keep working on it. And so I did. Until one day I stumbled into the idea of making a documentary, and then a WWI documentary, and then a documentary built around my fanciful poem, "Pvt. Ravel's Bolero" (trailer). To be clear, the title of this blog is in an order I would suggest to watch these three films and has nothing to do with any lack of knowing the great quality of the other two filmmakers!

I've written about the experience of making this film previously. I am working on a film companion book for this film, which is about half written. It took me six months of editing to finish the documentary with years of research under my belt in acquiring public domain media and information. Something I continued throughout the production of the film. I had for several years intended on turning the poem it is based on into a minimalist animation. But no animator would touch it without more money than I could come up with. The finished film itself I had hope of eventually reproducing it with much better resources. Seeing what Peter Jackson did with his film makes that prospect even more desirable. 

New Poster for ThrilzTV where it can be viewed

"Pvt. Ravel's Bolero" is a film that only came into existence because of having Long Covid acquired from COVID-19, for at least the second time. Having first acquired this miserable disease and first noticing its symptoms on February 9, 2020. I eventually wrote a book about it: "Suffering Long Covid".

What I'm writing about here today, is regarding what happened over this past week. I'm suggesting an order one might watch these films in. Even if you do not (yet) have access to view my film, it will still make it's point if you watch these other two. I'm sure there are many good WWI documentaries out there. But this blog here involves only three. Mine, Peter Jackson's and one from Double-Band Films about photographer/Lance Corporal George . I just finished watching that one.

About "The Man Who Shot the Great War" (2014), from Acorn TV:

"Premiering in North America December 19th. Among the thousands of men from Britain and Ireland who fought on the battlefields of the First World War was Lance Corporal George Hackney, who did something remarkable: he brought his camera with him to war. Described as a "photographic discovery of the century," the images he took captured the brutal realities of the front lines and fueled a moral quest that altered the course of his life." 

The other day I watched Peter Jackson's WWI documentary, "They Shall Not Grow Old" (2018). From Warner Brothers Pictures' Youtube channel:

"The acclaimed documentary is an extraordinary look at the soldiers and events of the Great War, using film footage captured at the time, now presented as the world has never seen. By utilizing state-of-the-art restoration, colorization and 3D technologies, and pulling from 600 hours of BBC archival interviews, Jackson puts forth an intensely gripping, immersive and authentic experience through the eyes and voices of the British soldiers who lived it."

Three films about WWI. The "Great War", the "War to End All Wars".

My film as I said, took me, alone with what small resources I have in filmmaking and editing, took me six months of editing as I was coming out of a rough winter with long covid. My son got me playing a video game on my desktop video editing workstation and I did that for months. Part of an hour the first time until I was playing all day long after a few weeks (months?) and then realized I was not only able to get out of my living room recliner chair I'd spent most of the winter in just watching TV, dozing off and on and not feeling well, but I was actively engaged in this Fall Out 4 game. I'd put 700 hours into it. 

It was time to actually do something. Unable still to be able to handle a production with actors (and a schedule), the idea came to me to make a film of some sort that I could handle doing all by myself, on my schedule, if and when I could, whenever. In considering what to do, I landed upon the project I eventually finished. Twice after months of editing I wanted to quit, give up as it is exacting work of digitally splice media together, AI colorization, multiple layers and tracks and sophisticated audio work in syncing music and sounds and creatively doing Folly work, making sounds that come from one source being made to sound like another. But finally, I finished it.

I sent it to a few festivals and immediately that week got an "Official Selection" from one. Shortly thereafter, the next week, it won an award for "Best Documentary". I entered more festivals. Then it won "Best Experimental Film" at another festival. I entered more and continued winning, not all festivals, but more than I had ever expected. Far more than my previous and narrative film, "Gumdrop", a short horror. Yes, from horror film (really more of a film noir), to the horrors of our perhaps our greatest horror in wars in human history.

As I indicated above, I detail this all elsewhere as I had to hire voice actors and a poet to translate my poem, a center point to the project, for the voice actors to read. At one point I hired a sound engineer to clean up what I could not in digitizing Ravel's "Bolero from an original Polydor double record set from 1930 I bought online from a seller in Paris.

I used some visual media in the film that were never seen before like this because they were not of pristine or perfect quality or focus, all of which played into the "poetic" nature of the film as not just documentary but fantasy and visual poetry. That is important, because it has a lot to do with why I'm writing today about this and the other two documentaries. 

In my film you can notice the French always face and move to the right, which the Germans, their opponents in Verdun, France in this film, always facing and moving toward the enemy, the French, to the left. From the perspective of the French in the film, when they are headed to the right of screen they are moving toward, entering the war. When to the left, they are moving away from, leaving the war. When the visuals are blurry, the poem visuals are referring poetically to the "fog of war" and such metaphorical elements and considerations. 

In moving from my film therefore to Peter Jackson's tour de force of his, "They Shall Not Grow Old", documentary, the effect is intense. With all that Jackson has available to him, the money, the team/teams, the quality of media he could acquire, the legal team for handling all that, and his special effects professionals, what he could produce is truly, as I've said elsewhere... awe inspiring. I'm not here to review his film.

However, Rotten Tomatoes said: 

"An impressive technical achievement with a walloping emotional impact, They Shall Not Grow Old pays brilliant cinematic tribute to the sacrifice of a generation. Read critic reviews"

I was stunned at the amazing quality Peter Jackson turned out in this film. I deeply and intricately know what it takes to do what he did in that film. I'm speechless, to be clear. Watching probably any WWI documentary prior to Jackson's could most likely give you the same effect as seeing my film and then his. But the difference in the quality of experience and visuals, not to mention the high quality level of his Folly work and audio dubbing, are truly inspiring. And that is all outside of the effect of the subject matter itself.

 

On "The Man Who Shot The Great War", Film Affinity said about it:

"Revealing for the first time what has been described as 'the photographic discovery of the century', this documentary uncovers the remarkable story of the Belfast soldier who took his camera to war in 1915 and how his experiences were to have a dramatic and unexpected outcome many years later."

It is a touching film about an amazing find so long after WWI.

Watching these three films in this order, for me anyway, was a very rewarding experience. My film is likely, for most people anyway, a bit of history and imagery you have never seen or known about.That is mixed up with a humanist, antiwar message through the people that runs throughout it and read by a female French actor as Ravel's Truck, whom he had named "Adelaide". 

Ravel's imaginary actions in the film brings the fear and evolution of a trench soldier into sharp focus. the end of the film with its long scrolling list of all wars on earth is a stark reminder of who we are and what our history has been. Evoking the question, why should this continue and how to stop it.

Going then into the Jackson film, the realization of his film is very impactful. It's almost like he went back in time and shot these war moments with a film crew. His ADR (Automated dialogue replacement, voice dubbing), his Foley work (sound effects), and his colorization and visual enhancements are impeccable. It's a moving film, in ways beyond my own film, while a perfect adjunct to it.

Then moving on to the George Hackney film and what it uncovers is touching and amazing in entirely different ways and I highly recommend it. 

These are short films, offering us a bird's eye view, even closer, and in ways no bird and few humans have envisioned. It is a set of films from a time long forgotten, which is repeating itself every decades since. We are changing our ways of war. They are becoming more exactly, civilians are not often "collateral damage" as they used to be. So often today, victims due greatly to specifically targeting them on purpose.

Such as Putin from Russia has so often done in his illegal war in Ukraine. And we are becoming more "green" in war with a realization that every weapon discharged is costing humanity in damage to our environment. And all too often, to civilians years or decades later in unexploded and lost munitions and toxic chemicals.

But the one thing that remains is, the cost to the human psyche, the friends and families of those soldiers and the damages to our world and ongoing blemishes to our history of humanity. 

Cheers! Sláinte!

I wish us all the very best!

Films:

"Pvt. Ravel's Bolero", available exclusively on ThrilzTV.com

"They Shall Not Grow Old" 

"The Man Who Shot the Great War"

Trump, Soleimani Assassination and Reality

There's a lot to unpack in Pres. Donald John Trump's Qasem Soleimani assassination incident. One being that George W. Bush for two terms and Barack Obama for two terms BOTH decided it was more dangerous to kill this cretin. As it was with Sadman Insane, wiping him out was a huge mistake in his case because of the power vacuum it left. 

Yes, fine, kill Soleimani, or Hussein. But do it thoughtfully. Play the Chess game, or the Go game, but play it, don't just cut off someone's head. Have a plan. Have another to take over, one who will do the job we need, perhaps more so, the one that country needs.

Yes, Soleimani needed to go, but how we did it was important, that was the issue. Having not involved the CIA and the DNI in this decision is patently ludicrous, not allowing for truly assessing the repercussions and therefore acting without full consideration which is never advisable.

What conservatives think Dems are unsettled about is mostly not what they are actually unsettled about. We don't even have to go into the timing of the Trump impeachment or re-election situation or how such a distraction such as this was wholly expected. Or the desire for a war leading up to a damaged election on the administration's side is greatly desired.

Really, there's much more here than is superficially obvious.

One does not make decisions like this without the DNI and the CIA involved, and others like the NSA. they were not in the room in or involved when this decision was made.

Almost more importantly is this:

Trump's Soleimani assassination has taken an Iran with a fractured leadership and a citizenry becoming more united against them and turned that right about to the other direction.

What's not to know about that, we've been hearing it for weeks and months now. Then this happened and it reversed...not to mention Iraqis who saw him as a hero because when they were attacked by ISIS he was the first to show up and fight for them. This is much messier than the administration is trying to let on or those in full support of this action are realizing.


This is also the Middle East we're dealing with here. It's screwed up and interesting and educational to note that when Bush Sr. attacked Iraq, he left Saddam in power. For a reason. He didn't want to, he had to. He had been head of the CIA, which was why I voted for him, though it would be nice to have a POTUS who knew something for a change. He knew what he was dealing with. 

I voted for Reagan the first time, the year I started college. I knew him as a kid on TV and from movies. Then I saw on-campus protests against the Iran/Contra issue at Western Washington University, day after day. Why were they so against the guy I had finally voted for. See, when I turned 18 I voted that year. But that was it. 

Through the military and the Jimmy Carter years. I didn't know him, he seemed OK, but everyone in the military I knew at my based hated him, mostly because he was cutting bases, and closing them down. So after the USAF I thought I should vote next time and I did. 

So, I voted for, Reagan. Stupid? Yes. But. I didn't vote him for re-election, I didn't like things he did, or his view on the world, or his dumping government responsbilities for citizens onto Churches and charities. So very Republican, so very disingenuous. The "no debt because we sloughed it off to others", mentality. Lazy, ignorant, mean spirited, greedy, power grabbing, underhanded, all that has lasted until today and grown worse, in this current travesty of the GOP.

I'm fooliish at times, not stupid. But I did vote for Bush Sr. thinkinng it good to actually have a POTUS who knew the inside of intelligence and actual "Intelligence". I was proud of voting for who I thought was the best person for office, regardless of their party. I was raised in a Union household, a Democratic family. Liberal I suppose, progressive. 

Until recently when the GOP has taken a deep shite and a deep dive off the deep end of Reality. Literally denying reality, time and time again.

Sonny boy Pres. Baby Bush wasn't, didn't and so ignored dad and took Hussein out, with the nightmare that led to. But then W planned to do that even before he became POTUS anyway.

Nothing over there is easy, clean, or obvious. If it seems like that, there's something unknown lurking.

And now we have the same issue with Trump we had with Baby Bush.

Ignorance and satiation of one's beliefs desires and feelings over reality and associated issues. And of course, obfuscation, distraction, and redirection.

By the way, I learned my lesson with Bush Sr. Leaving Saddam in place left me very unsatisfied and upset with him for a decade until his son took him out. And then I learned how complicated things really are over there. You do what needs to be, not what you want or just think should be done. Just watch the near end of Lawrence of Arabia and know that it's all still going on.

Right and wrong are shaded with many colors, especially in the Middle East. And even when you're right at times you will suffer the consequences. This present situation will come back to bite us.