Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘USSR’

NO! He IS Peter!

Posted in Faith, Movie Review, Movies, Philosophy, Quotes, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 14, 2025| 4 Comments »

“The Shoes of the Fisherman” (1968) — movie review
Today’s review is for the drama / religious-political-thriller film: “The Shoes of the Fisherman” (1968), starring Anthony Quinn as Kiril Lakota (a Ukrainian archbishop unexpectedly elected Pope), Laurence Olivier as Piotr Ilyich Kamenev (a Soviet Premier and Kiril’s former interrogator), Oskar Werner as Father David Telemond (a controversial theologian), David Janssen as George Faber (an American journalist) and Barbara Jefford as Dr. Ruth Faber (his British wife).
Background:  This is my third review of this film on this blog.  The previous two were the single paragraph review type I favored in most of my first decade of blogging.  I have watched this film a half dozen times in the last two decades (DVD and streaming).  This, along with “The Song of Bernadette,” are two of a handful of “faith” touchstones I come back to when I feel spiritually low.  They “restore” me…  Not my “FAITH”;  my spirit.  This movie explores themes of faith, politics, personal conviction, the yearning for personal liberty to understand the world, institutional demands, and the burden of leadership in daily life as well as during a global crisis.  I am a fan of Quinn’s other work, too.  I am not a “fan” of Olivier.  He has a “presence” in his roles, but I struggle to think “that” role makes him for me.  If any, his role in this film is the closest.
Plot:  Set during the mid-1960s Cold War, the film opens with Bishop Kiril Lakota, a Ukrainian archbishop, being released from decades of imprisonment in a Siberian labor camp.  He’s unexpectedly made a Cardinal and then elevated to the papacy after the death of the sitting Pope — and becomes Pope Kiril I.  While adjusting to his new role, he’s faced first with trying to be a “simple” priest and counselor to individuals and then, after becoming Pope, with a mounting global crisis:  a famine threatens to push China and the world into nuclear conflict.
Kiril finds himself grappling with the immense burden and responsibilities of his new role while facing personal doubts and the complex demands of his conscience.  He attempts to mediate the international crisis, drawing upon his past experiences and unique perspective.  In one of two side threads, he must contend with Father David Telemond, a brilliant but controversial theologian whose writings are under scrutiny by the Holy Office.  Kiril identifies with Telemond’s intellectual struggles, but is bound by his duty (and his personal faith) to uphold Church doctrine which he believes in and has lived by.  We see Kiril must reconcile the personal faith of his friend (Telemond), with Church doctrine, Vatican and international diplomacy, and personal conviction in dealing with the suffering / dying and with a married couple having problems with their marriage.  In the climax, Kiril rejects traditional papal extravagance and instead makes a dramatic offer of economic aid to China, risking Vatican wealth and political backlash to broker peace.  The film culminates in Kiril’s bold and unconventional actions to address both the geopolitical crisis and the internal theological challenges, ultimately seeking to redefine the papacy’s role in a modern world.
So, is this movie any good?  How about the acting?  Filming / effects?  And, did I like it?  The short answers:  Yes;  very good – with Quinn outstanding;  good, but dated (Duh!!);  and, yes, I love this film.
Acting:  Anthony Quinn’s performance is multi-dimensioned — from quiet introspection to fiery conviction and he says as much with his facial expressions as he does with his actual lines.  Quinn delivers gravitas in every scene without posturing – portraying Kiril with profound humility, wisdom, and an underlying sense of weariness from his past internment, yet we see hints of his character’s strong moral compass and revolutionary spirit all through the body of the film.
Olivier too has “gravitas” and is believable as the formidable Soviet Premier, portraying political shrewdness and the complex personal history shared with Kiril (whom he tortured as a prisoner).  I am not absolutely certain, but I believe this was my first exposure to Olivier when I was young and I consider this role as his defining role for me.  Anyway, Olivier, though in a smaller role than Quinn, brings icy resolve as the Soviet Premier, and their quiet standoffs carry the weight of nations and of their personal history.
Similarly, Werner was an unknown actor to me.  His portrayal of Father David Telemond is solid.  He brings an intellectual fire matched against an at-the-surface vulnerability to the role of the theologian-scientist wrestling with his faith and intellect while suffering under the burden of poor health.  The Telemond character adds a personal depth for me.  He is wrestling with modern faith and science in ways that felt a surprisingly fresh discovery when I first viewed this film decades ago – and they remain that way to me.
Filming / FX:  This is a film of conversations — papal corridors, back-alley Doctor’s visits and diplomatic chambers, not action sequences.  In most of my reviews, I’d describe this as:  “Blah, blah, blah…”  In this case, scale is used as the trade-off for action.  The immense crowd at St. Peter’s Square, the frozen void of Siberia and the forced labor in the open-pit mine.  There are none of the special effects we’d find in most modern films.
Other Thoughts:  What makes this film powerful is how it contrasts the symbolic role of the Pope holding institutional wealth against a “modern” world of abject poverty and pervasive starvation.  Films rarely address theological depth or political nuance perfectly, but “The Shoes of the Fisherman” largely succeeds in engaging with complex ideas.  The film’s central “crisis” isn’t just about avoiding war;  it’s about the profound struggle of a leader trying to find his own faith-based path and implement radical solutions in an institution clinging to old paradigms.  The film skillfully blurs the line between spiritual and temporal leadership, leaving us to consider the true meaning of selfless individual service and the costs of institutional change.  What are we willing to sacrifice in exchange for service to others.
Problems:  IF this film has any problems, they are the intermingling of four stories – the man, the institution, the friend and the counselor – into one.  They end up being a Jenga tower under construction which ultimately results in a stable structure only when fully completed.  I didn’t have a problem with any of the threads, but I recognize individually they sometimes slowed the pace of the overall film.
Final Recommendation:  Highly recommended for viewers interested in applying the Roman Catholic faith to geopolitics, moral leadership, and character-driven drama.  It’s a thoughtful, and at times a bit slow-burn film that asks:  Can one man’s integrity (and faith) sway the arc of history?  Is this a “must-see” film?  For me it has been (several times).  Quinn’s performance alone makes it worth watching, and the film’s exploration of its complex subjects pushes it beyond a simple fictional historical account.  As stated, I’m already a fan of Quinn.  Now, I’ll add Olivier and Werner to the list of actors I want to view more films with.
Title Note:  When Pope Lakota tells the other Vatican Cardinals of his plans, they object strongly and claim he is impulsively threatening the financial basis for the future of the Church.  Lakota says, if they are convinced he is wrong, he will abdicate.  In one of the powerful moments of the film one of the Cardinals who has previously doubted him, turns to the others and affirms – almost proclaiming – the title of this post.
.
Click here (14 July) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Putin Has Already Lost To Ukraine

Posted in General Comments, History, Philosophy, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 24, 2025| Leave a Comment »

It is well past time for the Russian people to wake up and smell the coffee…  Three weeks after invading Ukraine (in 2022), Putin had already lost the war.  The West projected the “mighty” Russian military would quickly and decisively overwhelm the far weaker (and fewer in number) Ukrainian forces.  Today, over three years later, Ukraine is still in control of Kyiv and the vast majority of the Ukraine.
A quick history lesson:  in December of 1979, the USSR invaded Afghanistan.  Within days the Soviets had control of five key cities out of about 20 major population centers (cities).  Although the USSR was able to seize the country, kill the President and install their own Afghan President, they were never able to fully subdue the populace and their army was eventually (February 1989) driven out of Afghanistan.  During the 9+ years of occupation, the USSR forces had 14,453 deaths and approximately 35,000 casualties.
Current day:  As of my recent internet search, since the 2022 “special operation” began, the Russian military has lost (by Western estimates) one million (1,000,000) casualties including one quarter of a million (250,000) dead.  Take a moment for that to sink in…  In roughly one third of the time, Russia has 20 times the casualties and over 15 times as many deaths in its forces as it did in occupying Afghanistan.
Afghanistan and Ukraine are both approximately the size of the State of Texas.  If Russia is able to fully conquer Ukraine, they will need a vast amount of manpower and military resources to maintain their peace.  Ukraine has demonstrated a willingness to fight and there is no reason to believe they will stop resisting even if Russia were to somehow gain control of the entire country.
It is recognized in military experience that it takes a six to one advantage of offensive to defensive forces to have a “high” expectation of offensive victory with three to one being the “bare minimum” to hope to achieve success.  This is not to say it “can’t” happen for an equal or smaller offensive force to defeat a larger defensive force, but it is not generally true.
Current estimates are that Russia has 1.1 million men under arms and approximately 600,000 of that 1.1 million are near Ukraine or currently engaged in the war.  Ukraine has about 800,000 troops in service.  Obviously, not all of the 800K can be committed to the fight with Russia as there are other borders to defend.  But, my point stands…  It is EXTREMELY unlikely Russia will EVER defeat and subdue Ukraine as long as the Ukrainians are willing to resist.
Historically, Russia’s two greatest military assets have been “General Distance” and “General Winter”.  Unfortunately, neither of these can help Russia when it is the Russians who are doing the attacking instead of the defending.  Now, if Russia is willing to use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in the conflict, then all bets are off.  I would concede Russia could inflict horrendous damage on Ukraine – both populace and land – but at what cost when the prevailing winds will blow any residual effects from West to East and directly back over Russia?
No…  The sooner Putin declares victory and withdrawals from Ukraine and the Crimea, the better off Russia will be.  What started out as an exercise of power has devolved into an exercise in saving face – and Putin will lose that, too.  History and numbers are against him…
.
Click here (24 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Prescient (Or Not?)

Posted in Economics, History, Philosophy, Politics, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 15, 2022| Leave a Comment »

Russia is still contending with the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Russia can meddle in Ukraine at the margins, but threats to fully invade and occupy a country of more than 44 million people aren’t credible.  That big a move would cost too many Russian lives and too many rubles for a chronically weak – and weakening – Russian economy.  In recent months, Belarus provided the latest example of the post-Soviet demand for fundamental change and the need to shoot people to keep protests under control.  In the most recent presidential election in Moldova, a Harvard-educated economist toppled a pro-Kremlin incumbent.  Last year, Turkey’s backing for Azerbaijan dealt a humiliating defeat to Russian ally Armenia in a region that Russia once dominated.  Beijing is increasingly competing for influence with Moscow among the former Soviet Central Asian states.
    —     Ian Bremmer
From his opinion piece:  “The Risk Report:  What game is Putin playing?“
Appearing in:  Time Magazine;  dtd:  21/28 June 2021
[It seems the “threat” of invasion was a little more “credible” than Mr. Bremmer believed (the editorial was from 2021).  IF the West continues to support Ukraine and IF Putin doesn’t resort to tactical nukes, it appears Mr. Bremmer will ultimately be proven correct that Russia bit off it bit more than it could chew (let alone conquer).    —    kmab]
.
Click here (15 May) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Refreshing My Look Ahead (Back)

Posted in 2022 Book Review, Book Review, History, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 2, 2022| Leave a Comment »

[Another LONG post…  You’ve been warned!  (LoL)    —    kmab]
The Third World War:  August 1985  (1978©)   —   book review
This review is for the fictional portrayal (as a “future history”) of a “realistic” invasion of NATO allied European countries by the Warsaw Pact in August of 1985.  The book was “written” primarily (et al) by (Ret.) British General John W. Hackett in consultation with a number of experts gathered to discuss how such an invasion might occur, what might lead up to it and what might be the end-of-war results.  The “advisors” were listed as:  John Barraclough (Air Chief Marshal), Kenneth Hunt (Brigadier), Ian McGeoch (Vice-Admiral), Norman Macrae (a deputy editor at “The Economist“), John Strawson (Major-General), and, Bernard Burrows (British Diplomatic Service).
The book was a best-seller in England back in 1978.  It was published in the U.S. in early 1979 as a hardback and then released as a paperback in 1980.  I initially read the paperback version.  I believe it was shortly after I was released from the Active Reserves, but my memory isn’t that precise anymore.  In any case, this review is of a re-reading of the book after my reading of “2034: A Novel of the Next World War” earlier this year.  (review here:  A Novel War).  The author of that book, (ret) Admiral James Stavridis, cited this book as a primary inspiration for his work.  This prompted my re-interest in the original…
During my (almost) two years in the Reserves I was assigned to a unit which tested and evaluated the readiness of National Guard units from California, Arizona and New Mexico.  The officers would establish “war-game” scenarios for the Guard officers and I (as an NCO) would embed with the line units to evaluate actual field performance.  We were artillery evaluators, so I watched Guard batteries fire cannons / howitzers, but I gained an understanding of scenario development and large scale tactical war-gaming.  This led to a post-service interest in military style board games which carried on for most of the ’80s.  I lost interest when gaming shifted to computers and became “mostly” shoot-em-up’s instead of (IMHO) about strategy.
Basically, the plot of this book is the leaders of the USSR feel their position as a superpower is being threatened by political and economic factors which are worsening (for them).  They feel there has been a significant / progressive decrease in NATO’s readiness over the last decade and this may be their last / best opportunity to remove a potential military threat (NATO) and further subjugate the buffer countries of Eastern Europe who are members of the Warsaw Pact.  The plan is a crushing invasion of Western Europe (West Germany and the low-lands) which leaves the USSR in command up to the border of France.  The invasion fails because in the years between the book’s publishing (1978) and the date of the “future-history” event (August 1985), Europe (specifically Great Britain) comes to its senses and reverses the general military decline of the late ’60s to ’70s.  The NATO forces are able to slow the advance of invasion (without the use of tactical nuclear weapons) and allows reinforcements to arrive from the U.S. just in the nick of time.
In a striking foreboding of the current (2022) invasion of Ukraine by Russia, the invasion portrayed fails because of (in no particular order of importance):
1)  an inability to dominate the air despite superior numerical assets;
2)  a failure of logistics (fuel and ammunition) by the Warsaw Pact, (it is believed the invasion will take less than two weeks AND there will not be enough time for the U.S. to resupply NATO forces);
3)  resistance by the native forces (in this case, the West German army / reserves) is surprisingly effective;  and,
4)  the centralized command and control characteristic of authoritarian political systems, does not promote the flexibility / initiative of junior officers (and NCOs) to seize military opportunities when they arise, so opportunities for significant breakouts are lost.
When the war quickly (the “war” lasts weeks) devolves into a war of attrition, failure is viewed as inevitable and hard-liners in the Politburo decide to consolidate their gains for future armistice negotiations by the use of a limited (against only one city) nuclear strike.  The result, however, is not fear and negotiation, but instead, fury and retaliation via a similar limited nuclear strike by Great Britain and the U.S. against a Russian city;  (and like falling dominoes) the Warsaw Pact allies turn on the USSR to avoid nuclear annihilation;  the Soviet military / security services stage a coup, over-throw the hardliners, and cease further combat;  the non-Russian border states (the “-stans”) declare independence from the USSR;  and, the rest of the world struggles with the effects of a new world order.  The “war” is barely a month old before it is over.  Because the book is written as a “recent” history of past events, it does not attempt to forecast / describe long term results of the war except to relate the world has to deal with unaccounted for Soviet nuclear weapons / warheads and large stocks of conventional weapons scattered around the global (mainly Africa).
Is this a “good” book?  Is it realistic as a predictor of future conflict (lethality, if not participants)?  Is it entertaining or interesting?  Do I recommend this book?  With the exception of the final question, the answer to all of these is (are):  yes to so-so…
The book is not a “good” novel.  There are no specified individual characters driving the action, so you cannot (as a reader) identify and grow with anyone.  In this sense, although fictional, the book is written with more of an academic or journalistic feel.  It is very much an military style “after-action” report.  If you are comfortable with this writing style, you will enjoy the writing / book.  If you are not, you will not.  I did.  Was the book able to realistically describe combat and the results (devastation) of war?  Yes!  Although, saying this, there was an obvious Western bias of vivid description of the destruction of the British city and virtually nothing about the similar (or much worse) destruction of the Russian city.  (Very much:  “Yeah, we took out one of theirs as payback…”)  Is the book entertaining or interesting?  This is the toughest question because every reader’s tastes varies so much… I was not “entertained”;  but, I did find the book interesting.  I particularly “enjoyed” the parts the authors get terribly wrong, because as a reader I (we) have 40+ years of hind-sight.  There is no China – Japan alliance;  the Shah is no longer in charge of Iran (or, rather, wasn’t in 1985);  South Africa did not fall to external forces;  and, East Germany did not resist consolidation with West Germany after the fall of the USSR.
Final recommendation:  strong recommendation.  I think most veterans (particularly my age group) will find this book relatable.  I think most civilian “military” readers / historians – and quite a few regular historians – will, too.  For political science readers, the “states” interests, goals, and stances will seem Machiavellian / Kissinger-ian (is that a real word?).  Yet, they ring true – even 40 years later.  It is entirely obvious why this book could seem as an inspiration for a future – updated version (a la “2034“), and I believe (I read) this book served as a similar inspiration for several of Tom Clancy’s works which followed.  At any rate, I do remember “enjoying” the initial read from “way-back-when”, and don’t feel the re-read was less so.  My reaction to “2034” was reinforced:  this version is much better than the more recent book.  If you have read “2034“, I recommend you read “WW3:1985” for the comparison value, if nothing else.
Final disclaimer:  I purchased this book at normal / sale price (for an old / used book) and no compensation has been provided to me by anyone for my opinions in this review.
.
Click here (2 May) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Putin Invades Ukraine To Recreate The Old Soviet Union

Posted in History, Philosophy, Quotes, tagged , , , , , , , on March 3, 2022| Leave a Comment »

Schoolboy days are no happier than the days of afterlife, but we look back upon them regretfully because we have forgotten our punishments at school and how we grieved when our marbles were lost and our kites destroyed – because we have forgotten all the sorrows and privations of the canonied ethic and remember only its orchard robberies, its wooden-sword pageants, and its fishing holidays.
    —     Mark Twain
.
Click here (3 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Difficult To Relax

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Philosophy, Politics, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 24, 2020| Leave a Comment »

“Dr. Strangelove Or:  How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb”   —   movie review
Today’s review is for the 1964 “comedy “Dr. Strangelove” starring Peter Sellers, George C. Scott, Sterling Hayden and Slim Pickens.  This film is directed by Stanley Kubrick and is considered a classic as both a movie and as a comedic movie.  I think it is a “classic”, but I don’t find it particularly funny.  I guess there are a few amusing moments in the movie, but, I found them “almost smile” moments, not “Ha-ha” laugh out loud moments.
This movie was one of two movies to deal with worldwide nuclear war which came out within a twelve month period.  The other was “Failsafe” (which I reviewed here).  In this movie, an American Air Force general (named Jack D. Ripper [LoL!  I get it!] played by Hayden) goes crazy and orders the strategic bombers under his command to attack the U.S.S.R.  All but one of the planes is successfully re-called (or shot down), but with its radio damaged the single jet manages to initiate the end of the world.  This result is because the Soviets have determined they cannot compete with the United States and therefore (instead) developed a “weapon” which will blowup and spread poisonous nuclear fallout around the world destroying all life on the planet.  The fallout cloud is meant to be toxic for a minimum of 93 years.
One of the distinctive things in the movie is that Peter Sellers plays three different characters in the film:  the President of the United States, a British Air Force officer assigned to the U.S. air base, and a “crazy” German (ex-Nazi) scientist who advises the Americans in the War Room.  Sellers was originally contracted to play four roles in this film, but he managed to get out of one of them (the bomber pilot) and the role was given to Slim Pickens.  It’s not uncommon for an actor to have multiple roles in a single film, but normally they are passed off as twins or generational relatives or clones.  As far as I know, until Eddie Murphy came along, this was a fairly unique niche which Sellers played in a number of films in his career.
So, if this is a comedy which isn’t funny (to me), is it any good?  Is it entertaining?  Is it worth worth watching?  Yes.  Yes.  And, yes!
As mentioned above, this movie is considered a true “Classic” and has been voted onto the National Film Registry in the Library of Congress.  It makes satirical comments about nuclear weapons, the Pentagon / National Defense, the President, Texan manliness, and the communist plot to neuter the American public via water fluoridation.  (Yes, we even had conspiracy theories in the movies way back then.)
The movie is pretty entertaining with particularly noteworthy performances by Sellers (in all three roles) and by George C. Scott as General Buck Turgidson.  It is easy to see how Scott went from this role to his Best Actor role as General Patton in 1970.
Final recommendation:  Highly!  Both “Dr. Strangelove” and “Failsafe” are anti-war movies.  The former is the mostly unfunny bookend to the tense drama of the latter.  But, both are very good to excellent movies which (I believe) not enough people are aware of, let alone have seen.  In this day and age, where we are just getting past our own “Nightmare In The Oval Office” (aka: #IncometentTrump) and we are almost 30 years from the collapse of the USSR, we (IMHO) have forgotten what horrors could happen if there is a “hot” war with either North Korea or with Iran.  A war may not result in the mutual destruction depicted in this movie, but the results would be frightening to imagine.
Art, just like history, can caution us about the path(s) to not follow if we are wise enough to remember it and to listen to their lessons.
.
Click here (24 November) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started