Modern

When Andrea Werhun started writing her memoir, “Modern Whore,” nearly a decade ago, she was afraid to be honest about working as an escort and stripper. But she embraced going public to “use storytelling to advocate for the plight of sex workers.”

In the documentary version of “Modern Whore,” directed by Nicole Bazuin, Werhun has gone not one, but several steps further. Werhun, 36, is not only the main interview subject, she’s also the frequently topless star of all the vividly depicted reenactments of her experiences. The documentary also features bright colors, funky music and an often jaunty tone.

Werhun, who started escorting in college and still does sex work even while pursuing writing and acting, was a consultant on Sean Baker’s “Anora,” and he served as a producer here, offering feedback on their script and numerous cuts of the film. It premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2025 and is now available on video on demand.

Werhun and Bazuin recently discussed the film’s style and goals in a joint video interview edited for length and clarity.

How much were you consciously trying to make this different from other documentaries about sex workers?

Bazuin: I wanted this to feel like a storybook come to life — we literally jump inside Andrea’s book with Andrea as our storyteller and reenactor of her own experiences. People might expect a film about sex work to be be drab or dour, and we wanted to confront that right away with vivid colors and a stylized expressionistic mode that can support all the moods of her experiences. Stylized films sometimes can contain more truth than realistic forms.

Werhun: Cinema verité, which is typically how sex workers are portrayed in documentaries, inevitably comes off as voyeuristic.

Most documentaries about sex work don’t include R-rated reenactments starring the film’s subject. Why include that?

Bazuin: We wanted to disrupt expectations audiences might have and to make it a more human portrait.

Werhun: I love performing and I’d love to have an acting career and this was an excellent showcase of my abilities.

But also it would feel censored if there weren’t any tits, if there were no sex scenes in a film about sex. I’m not ashamed of the fact that I’ve used this body to make a living. Nicole and I crafted the scenes meticulously to convey a point that is artistic, funny and educational.

Bazuin: The movie runs the gamut tonally. It’s a “Trojan whore” for a feminist and sex worker manifesto for political and social change, so we also show the challenges and the assaults that Andrea experienced because we want laws that would make this work safer, including the decriminalization of sex work.

Andrea, why interview your boyfriend and mom on camera?

Werhun: The sex worker stereotype is that we’re isolated and vulnerable, with no support systems; that stereotype makes predators think we’re easy victims. I wanted to dispel the idea that we are incapable of having loving, meaningful relationships.

This is presented as a film memoir yet you then include other sex workers’ perspectives.

Werhun: Unfortunately, when it comes to sex work storytelling, there is a proliferation of cis white, educated women and those tend to be the stories that get platforms. But that experience is minute compared to the wide range of sex workers, so it was vital to expand the narrative to include other perspectives, whether it’s race, gender orientation or class. What we have in common is that we all deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.

You say you’re rewriting the usual story of sex workers as victims or villains but you were a victim, both of exploitative working conditions and sexual assault. Will sex workers always be victimized without legal protection?

Werhun: Most of our clients are not bad people, they’re paying for a service we’re willing to provide. But under any criminalized model, there is inherently exploitation and people don’t feel safe accessing justice. If we don’t have labor rights, we’re going to be victimized. Even strippers are not comfortable going to the police.

We’re fighting a society that wants to keep our work in the dark, to pretend that this isn’t happening, that it can be abolished by throwing people into prison. Criminalization is harmful and guarantees there are more victims.

Where does OnlyFans fit into the sex work equation?

Werhun: The beauty of escorting and stripping is that you can dip in and out. With OnlyFans you’re working 24/7, creating content, interacting with your fans and doing constant self-promotion. With sex work in person, no one has to know about it but OnlyFans will follow you for the rest of your life. I did it for a year and a half and it paid my rent but it’s not my preferred type of sex work. It’s great for people who live online.

How did audiences respond to the film at festivals?

Werhun: Obviously, creating this film was a trust fall. The film is a song and dance on behalf of all whores, trusting humanity to hold me and not hurt me. I was pleasantly surprised by how audiences warmly embraced it. Some people were working through their prejudices in real time and it’s amazing to watch them transform. We hope the film can inspire social change. If it pulls your heartstrings, then when issues of criminalization and legal change arise, people might say, “I remember that movie and I think whores deserve to have equal rights with everybody else.”

The continued clashes and drone strikes reported by Ukraine despite a United States brokered ceasefire reveal the deep structural difficulties facing diplomatic efforts to end the Russia Ukraine war. Although both Moscow and Kyiv formally agreed to a temporary ceasefire between May 9 and May 11, reports of ongoing battlefield engagements, drone operations, and civilian casualties demonstrate how fragile and limited such agreements have become in the context of prolonged modern warfare.

The ceasefire emerged as part of a broader diplomatic push led by United States President Donald Trump to reduce hostilities and create momentum toward wider peace negotiations. However, within days both Russia and Ukraine accused each other of violations, exposing the absence of trust, verification mechanisms, and shared strategic objectives between the two sides.

The developments illustrate a broader reality increasingly visible in contemporary conflicts. Ceasefires no longer necessarily represent steps toward peace. Instead, they often function as temporary tactical pauses within wars that continue politically, militarily, and psychologically even during formal periods of de escalation.

The Structural Fragility of Modern Ceasefires

The Ukraine conflict demonstrates why ceasefires in modern interstate wars are becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. Unlike traditional wars where front lines were relatively static and centralized military command structures exercised greater control, contemporary conflicts involve decentralized operations, drone warfare, rapid communication systems, and continuous battlefield surveillance.

In such environments, even limited military activity can quickly trigger accusations of violations and retaliation. The reported drone attacks, artillery clashes, and combat engagements along the front line reflect how difficult it is to fully halt military operations across an extensive and heavily militarized battlefield.

Furthermore, both Russia and Ukraine continue to pursue strategic objectives incompatible with lasting compromise. Russia seeks to consolidate territorial gains and maintain pressure on Ukrainian forces, while Ukraine aims to resist occupation and preserve sovereignty. Without broader political agreement regarding the war’s fundamental issues, temporary ceasefires remain highly vulnerable to collapse.

The result is a situation where ceasefires may reduce the intensity of conflict in some areas while violence continues in others, creating ambiguity regarding whether peace efforts are genuinely progressing.

Drone Warfare and the Transformation of the Battlefield

One of the most significant features of the current conflict is the central role of drones in sustaining military operations even during ceasefire periods. Ukraine’s military reported thousands of so called kamikaze drone deployments, while Russia simultaneously accused Ukraine of launching drone attacks into Russian territory.

Drone warfare fundamentally alters the nature of ceasefires because unmanned systems allow states to maintain pressure without large scale troop offensives. Drones can conduct reconnaissance, target infrastructure, disrupt logistics, and inflict psychological pressure while remaining below the threshold of full conventional escalation.

This creates a strategic grey zone where both sides can continue military activity while formally claiming commitment to ceasefire agreements. The low cost, flexibility, and deniability associated with drone operations make them especially attractive during periods of limited diplomatic engagement.

The widespread use of drones also reflects the broader transformation of modern warfare into a technologically driven conflict characterized by constant surveillance and persistent low intensity attacks. In this environment, the distinction between war and ceasefire becomes increasingly blurred.

The apparent breakdown of the ceasefire also highlights the growing limitations facing United States led diplomatic efforts. Although Washington remains deeply influential in shaping international negotiations surrounding the conflict, its ability to enforce compliance remains constrained.

Temporary ceasefires require more than political announcements. They depend on verification systems, mutual trust, enforcement mechanisms, and shared incentives for de escalation. None of these conditions currently exist at sufficient levels between Russia and Ukraine.

Moreover, both sides appear to view military pressure as essential to strengthening their negotiating positions. This creates a paradox where diplomacy and warfare occur simultaneously rather than sequentially. Ceasefires therefore become instruments for tactical adjustment rather than genuine pathways toward peace.

The involvement of the United States also introduces additional geopolitical dimensions. Russia continues to frame the conflict as part of a broader confrontation with Western influence, while Ukraine depends heavily on Western military and diplomatic support. These dynamics complicate efforts to establish neutral or mutually accepted mediation frameworks.

Humanitarian Consequences and Civilian Vulnerability

Despite diplomatic initiatives, civilians continue to bear the costs of ongoing violence. Reports of deaths and injuries across regions including Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Kharkiv, Donetsk, and Mykolaiv demonstrate how even limited ceasefire violations can produce severe humanitarian consequences.

Modern conflicts increasingly expose civilian populations to continuous insecurity because fighting extends beyond conventional front lines. Drone strikes, missile attacks, and artillery exchanges create environments where daily life remains unstable regardless of official diplomatic announcements.

This persistent insecurity also produces long term social and psychological effects. Populations living under repeated cycles of ceasefire and renewed violence may gradually lose confidence in diplomatic processes altogether. Such conditions weaken public trust in negotiations and reinforce perceptions that military outcomes remain more decisive than political agreements.

The humanitarian dimension therefore remains central to understanding the broader implications of the war. Beyond territorial disputes and geopolitical competition, the conflict continues to reshape civilian life, displacement patterns, and regional stability across Eastern Europe.

The Strategic Logic Behind Continued Fighting

The continuation of battlefield clashes despite the ceasefire reflects rational strategic calculations by both parties. Neither Russia nor Ukraine wishes to allow the other side opportunities to regroup, reinforce positions, or gain battlefield advantage during temporary pauses.

For Russia, maintaining pressure along advancing sectors preserves momentum and signals military resolve. For Ukraine, continued resistance demonstrates operational resilience and prevents normalization of Russian territorial control.

This strategic logic makes limited violations almost inevitable in prolonged wars where military outcomes remain uncertain. Ceasefires become fragile because both sides fear that restraint could weaken their broader position in future negotiations or battlefield developments.

The situation also reflects how wars of attrition generate incentives for constant pressure rather than stable pauses. Each side seeks to exhaust the opponent economically, militarily, and psychologically over time.

Analysis

The reported ceasefire violations in Ukraine demonstrate the growing difficulty of achieving meaningful de escalation in modern high intensity conflicts. Temporary agreements may reduce some forms of violence, but they rarely address the deeper strategic, political, and technological dynamics sustaining prolonged warfare.

The Ukraine conflict illustrates several important realities shaping contemporary international security. First, ceasefires without comprehensive political frameworks remain highly unstable. Second, drone warfare and decentralized military technologies blur the distinction between peace and conflict. Third, diplomatic efforts increasingly coexist with ongoing military operations rather than replacing them.

The events also reveal the limits of external mediation in wars where core strategic objectives remain fundamentally incompatible. As long as both Russia and Ukraine continue viewing military pressure as essential to their long term goals, ceasefires are likely to function more as tactical interruptions than genuine transitions toward peace.

Ultimately, the fragility of the current ceasefire reflects a broader transformation in warfare itself. Modern conflicts are no longer defined solely by formal declarations of war or peace, but by continuous cycles of negotiation, limited escalation, technological warfare, and strategic uncertainty.

With information from Reuters.

The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway once carrying roughly a fifth of the world’s oil and gas, remains effectively closed after the United States and Iran imposed competing blockades.

Naval blockades are one of the oldest weapons in warfare, requiring no ground troops or invasion, just the ability to cut off what an enemy needs to survive. These blockades have reshaped economies, societies and alliances across generations, sometimes with instant shockwaves, sometimes with effects only seen later.

From Israel’s ongoing siege of the Gaza Strip to blockades during World War I, here are some notable naval blockades in modern history:

Israel’s siege of Gaza (2007-present)

Israel’s complete land, sea and air blockade of the Gaza Strip is one of the longest sieges in modern history.

Launched in 2007, Israel has limited the entry of goods and essential supplies, causing a prolonged humanitarian and economic crisis for the Strip’s 2.3 million people, who cannot travel freely.

Before Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza began in October 2023, fishermen were restricted to 6-15 nautical miles (11-28km) from shore, well below the 20-nautical-mile (37km) zone guaranteed by the Oslo Accords.

After 2023, with Israel’s policy of starving the population, fishermen have taken extreme measures to feed their families, leading to many being killed by Israeli fire.

Since 2008, several Freedom Flotilla vessels have attempted to break the Israeli blockade. Since 2010, all flotillas attempting to break the Gaza blockade have been intercepted or attacked by Israel in international waters.

On April 30, Israel raided 22 out of the 58 vessels in the most recent Global Sumud Flotilla campaign in international waters more than 1,000km (620 miles) from Gaza.

Blockade of Biafra (1967-70)

During the Nigerian Civil War, which began in July 1967, the Nigerian federal government imposed a land, sea and air blockade on the secessionist Republic of Biafra shortly after it declared independence.

The blockade led to widespread starvation, widely seen as a deliberate wartime strategy, transforming a territorial conflict into a global humanitarian crisis. Death tolls vary, but it is estimated that one to two million people died, the vast majority from hunger and disease rather than direct conflict.

The nearly three-year-long blockade ended with the Biafran surrender in January 1970.

Beira Patrol blockade (1966-75):

The Beira Patrol was a nine-year-long blockade by the British navy to prevent oil from reaching Rhodesia, present-day Zimbabwe, through the Mozambican port of Beira, enforced under United Nations sanctions following Rhodesia’s unilateral declaration of independence.

The blockade largely failed its strategic goal. Rhodesia continued receiving oil via South Africa and other Mozambican ports, which the UN resolution did not authorise the British navy to intercept.

Additionally, the cost to the United Kingdom was substantial. The operation tied up 76 naval ships over nine years, with two frigates required on station at all times.

The blockade ended in July 1975, when Mozambique’s newly gained independence from Portugal allowed it to credibly commit to blocking oil transit to Rhodesia, rendering the naval patrol redundant.

Cuban Missile Crisis ‘quarantine’ (1962)

In October 1962, the US ordered a naval “quarantine” of Cuba after US U-2 spy planes discovered Soviet nuclear missile sites under construction on the island.

The US deliberately called it a “quarantine” rather than a blockade, which would have been legally an act of war, aiming to prevent the Soviets from bringing in more military supplies and to pressure them to remove the missiles already there.

The quarantine drew a line 500 nautical miles (920km) from Cuba’s coast, with US warships authorised to stop, search, and turn back any vessel carrying offensive weapons if necessary.

The crisis brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. The then-Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev called the blockade “outright piracy” and an act of aggression, and initially ordered ships to proceed. For several days, Soviet vessels steamed towards the quarantine line as the world watched.

The most dangerous phase of the standoff lasted 13 days. An agreement was reached in which the Soviets would dismantle their offensive weapons in Cuba in exchange for a US public declaration not to invade Cuba, and a secret agreement to remove US Jupiter missiles from Turkiye.

The naval quarantine was formally ended on November 20, 1962, after all offensive missiles and bombers had been withdrawn.

Blockade of Wonsan (1951-53)

During the Korean War, UN naval forces led by the US imposed a blockade of the North Korean port of Wonsan in February 1951, lasting nearly two and a half years.

It aimed to deny the North Korean navy access to the city, which was strategically significant for its large harbour, airfield and petroleum refinery.

The blockade was preceded by a dangerous mine-clearance operation in October 1950. North Korean forces had been well supplied by the Soviet Union and China with sea mines, and during the clearance, the sweepers USS Pledge and USS Pirate were sunk, killing 12 men and wounding dozens.

The operation successfully constrained North Korean and Chinese forces on the east coast, forcing them to divert thousands of troops and artillery pieces away from the front line. UN forces also captured several harbour islands, which strengthened the blockade’s grip on the port.

The blockade ended after 861 days with the signing of the Korean Armistice Agreement in July 1953. By that point, allied naval fire had almost levelled Wonsan.

US submarine blockade of Japan (1942-45)

The US imposed a submarine blockade against Japan during the Pacific War.

The blockade began taking shape in 1942, combining US naval submarine attacks on merchant shipping with minelaying operations to cripple Japan’s war capabilities, disrupt shipping and cut off vital supplies such as food and fuel.

As an island nation, Japan was especially vulnerable, almost entirely dependent on imports of oil, rubber and raw materials. Its economy and military could not function without open sea lanes.

Over the course of the war, US submarines sank some 1,300 Japanese merchant ships and roughly 200 warships. By 1945, oil imports had effectively ceased.

Food imports collapsed, causing significant shortages and malnutrition across Japan by 1945, though the extent of civilian starvation is disputed.

After the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima on August 6 and Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, Japan announced its surrender on August 15, bringing the blockade and the Pacific War to an end.

Blockade of eastern Mediterranean (1915-18)

In August 1915, during World War I, the Allied forces imposed a blockade of the eastern coast of the Mediterranean to cut off military supplies and weaken the Ottoman Empire’s war effort.

The declared area ran from the intersection of the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean Sea in the north to the Egyptian frontier in the south. The blockade was initiated by Britain and France, later assisted by Italy and other Allied powers.

The consequences were devastating. Military supplies, munitions, oil, food and medicine were all targeted. The food crisis was compounded by a locust plague in 1915 and a severe drought, contributing to severe famine across Lebanon and Greater Syria.

Reports suggest the famine led to 500,000 deaths by 1918, mostly civilians, with Mount Lebanon losing an estimated one-third of its population. Mass migration followed.

The blockade remained in place throughout the war and lifted only when Allied forces occupied Beirut and Mount Lebanon in October 1918.

Allied blockade of Germany (1914-19)

The British navy began blockading Germany almost immediately after the outbreak of the war in August 1914.

The naval blockade extended from the English Channel to Norway, cutting off Germany from the oceans.

Britain mined international waters to prevent ships from entering the ocean, creating danger even for neutral vessels.

Germany responded by declaring the seas around the British Isles a “military area”, prompting Britain and France to ban all goods to and from Germany.

The blockade’s most devastating consequence was famine. The winter of 1916-17, known as the Turnip Winter, marked one of the harshest years in wartime Germany.

The blockade had cut off food and fertiliser imports, a failed potato harvest left little to fall back on, and a breakdown in food distribution compounded the crisis. It is estimated that between 424,000 and 763,000 civilians died from diseases related to hunger and malnutrition.

The blockade was not yet fully lifted until July 1919, after the Treaty of Versailles had been signed.

The tone was set for a dazzling European encounter when both sets of fans unfurled giant tifos before kick-off – PSG’s was emblazoned with the words ‘the conquest of Europe’, while the visitors’ banner urged their side to ‘give everything’.

In a chaotic opening 45 minutes at the Parc des Princes, both sides did just that.

It was fitting the two top-scoring sides in the Champions League this season put five goals on the scoreboard in a mesmerising, end-to-end opening period.

Harry Kane’s penalty was cancelled out by Khvicha Kvaratskhelia’s clinical finish, before Joao Neves’ glancing header and Michael Olise’s moment of individual brilliance left the sides level.

Many will suggest the PSG penalty, awarded after Bayern defender Alphonso Davies was deemed to have handled an Ousmane Dembele cross in the box, was harsh. Dembele calmly converted to give PSG a 3-2 lead at the break.

But the controversial incident was ultimately overshadowed by what pundits called one of the greatest halves of football they had ever witnessed.

Former England captain Alan Shearer said on Amazon Prime: “I can’t stop smiling at how open and bonkers this game is.

“It’s one of the greatest games I’ve ever been to. Two teams that believe in their own ability to outscore their opponent.”

The chaos continued after the break with PSG building a three-goal cushion, again through Kvaratskhelia and Dembele, leaving some to wonder if the outcome had been settled.

But Bayern were unwilling to let the chance of a first Champions League title since 2020 get away from them as they fought back in fearsome fashion.

Goals from Dayot Upamecano and Diaz were met with stunned silence from the home fans and no further response from the PSG players as the hosts finished with a slim advantage.

“I have been managing for more than 15 years, and I have to say it was the most exciting [match],” added Luis Enrique.

“It is important to show that that is the way to try to play football. OK, we are not happy as a coach when you concede four goals, but I’m happy because we won.”

It was the first time in any major European semi-final that both sides had scored at least four goals, and just the second time in a Champions League knockout match after Chelsea and Liverpool drew 4-4 in the 2008-09 quarter-final.

With PSG netting 43 goals and Bayern 42, it was also the first time two teams have each scored more than 40 times in a Champions League campaign.