A planned 11-hour ceasefire in the Ukrainian city Mariupol has collapsed. Home to over 400,000 people, the town is currently without power and water, while an estimated 200,000 are expected to flee as food and medicine are in short supply.
After the ceasefire took effect early Sunday, a convoy of buses was expected to bring residents through a 60-kilometer humanitarian corridor created under a recent deal between Moscow and Kiev. Reporting from the ground, however, Al Jazeera’s Charles Stratford noted "an increasing number of private vehicles taking families out," but said "there was no sign of that convoy."
The second ceasefire in Mariupol to fall apart in recent days, the latest deal was intended to allow residents to escape the city surrounded by Russian forces and controlled by members of Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Avoz Batallion.
Both sides traded blame for violating the agreement. An official from Ukrainian President Zelensky’s office said "The Russian side is not holding to the cease-fire and has continued firing on Mariupol itself and on its surrounding area."
The Mariupol city council echoed Kiev’s charges, saying "It is extremely dangerous to take people out under such conditions," and an official from the Azov Battalion similarly accused Russia of firing on the city as the buses were still being loaded.
Russia’s Defense Ministry, meanwhile, pointed the finger at militant "nationalists" in Mariupol preventing people from leaving, adding that Ukrainian forces had fired on Russian troops as soon the ceasefire began.
Kyle Anzalone is the opinion editor of Antiwar.com, news editor of the Libertarian Institute, and co-host of Conflicts of Interest.
Mariupol is the place where Azov Brigade placed all its best forces, They will not let people go. Vast majority Russian. Thise fanatics are prepared to die there anc I fear out of sheer hate they may do harm to populatiom.
This is a case of mass hostage taking. It is rather clear who is not lefting population go, and who is trying to save them,
That’s because the Azov Nazi militias trained by the US is using the people as human shields. Easy for them to do since they or their US patrons don’t consider these predominantly Russian Ukrainians, humans.
Another thing is that these hardcore Nazi’s are surrounded in a cauldron and will be entirely de- nazified i.e eliminated or in some cases taken to the war crimes tribunals and they know it.
Russia will have to do what they did in Chechnya. Unfortunately.
Unfortunately, the Russians will get no credit for trying to limit civilian casualties.
More likely they will do what they did in Syria: encircle cities, cut off food and water, probing attacks to locate resistance, weakening attacks to weaken resistance, wait for the city to fall, then mop-up the diehards. Minimum civilian casualties this way.
Cui Bono? (Who benefits?)
Russia gains nothing by increasing civilian casualties. They make Russia look bad. The best way to avoid civilian casualties is to either keep the fighting out of the cities (where most of the civilians are) or to have the civilians leave the cities. Ukrainian forces, particularly the Azov Battalion, have chosen to take their stands in the cities. Partly this is good military tactics. Cities provide good cover for defenders, and make offensive operations, particular with armor, more difficult. (Ukraine doesn’t have much in the way of mountains ((outside of far western Ukraine, which is so far not implicated in the fighting)) or other good defensive terrain.) Cities also provide great PR for Ukraine. Every shell or bomb that goes off in a city, again, causing civilian casualties, destroying homes and cultural landmarks, makes Russia look bad.
Of course, it rings a little hollow to complain about civilian casualties when you have chosen to fight your battles where the civilians are, rather than out in the open country. The proper way for the defender to avoid civilian casualties is to hunker down outside the city, and declare the city to be “open,” ie undefended. Thereby making violent offensive operations against the city unnecessary, and unlawful under international law. The defender retreats past the city; the attacker occupies the city without a battle. This was done in multiple cities, by both sides, in WWII.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_city#Examples
When a defensive force chooses not to abandon a city, the other side often accuses it of using “human shields” to protect their defensive forces. (The US, the Russians, the Saudis, and the Israelis have all made this very accusation at one time or another in their wars in the Middle East, by the way.)
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2017/4/2/the-human-shields-of-mosul
The city is home to large military formations, weapons dumps, arsenals, command centers, etc, but if the offensive force attacks the city it is accused of causing civilian casualties. This is what is happening in Ukraine. Thus, a plausible case can be made that the defenders are “hiding” behind the civilians.
Russia, for PR and military reasons, would benefit from the Ukrainian civilians leaving the cities, as there would be fewer civilian casualties for the Ukrainians and their western supporters to complain about. A city devoid of civilians is, for the most part, just another battlefield, and the Russians would have a freer hand in reducing and destroying the defenders.
The Ukrainians, particularly formations like the Azov Battalion, have every military and PR reason to keep the civilians in the city. And, they are also irredentist ethno nationalists, and perhaps think that the civilians should fight as well. Or, at least, not run away.
So, in my view, it is more likely that the Ukrainians are sabotaging the humanitarian corridors out of the cities than the Russians.
Correct. Spot on.