Why are you just alluding to things, but can't clearly state your position on why UA keeps calling off evacuations or only allowing few thousand cars per day out of Mariupol? You truly believe that its out of concern for those civilians safety, and that they're are better off without food in the city about to be attacked? Hope no one here is in this position, but if your relatives were there, what would you recommend to them? Stay in without food/water for the attack or try to leave under the red cross?
Here are many reasons: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60736845
And here: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/16/frightening-evacuees-describe-harrowing-escape-from-mariupol
How is that not enough for you? You still believe that UN, Red Cross, etc can fight Russians off and enforce the corridor? The city is surrounded. Your problem was that Ukrainians allegedly didn't let people out. Now some people are getting out but you're still blaming them that they can't get everyone out at once.
Edit: Like you I don't KNOW the answer and can only guess, but outright dismissing the idea that a neo-nazi group is capable of doing things that have been done for as long as there have been wars, and calling it absurd, seems dishonest at best.
No need to guess, there are sufficient confirmed reports of Russian forces bombing and shooting civilian targets, including evacuation vehicles. This also makes the "human shield" nonsense invalid, because it wouldn't shield anything.
Once again you're just throwing articles instead of clearly stating your position. ICRC confirms that they have team in Mariupol, and that they lead the convoy out of the city Is there any proof from the Red Cross where they record violations or any shelling/attacks on said convoy, and in your typical fashion instead of addressing the question, you just pose another rhetorical question if Red Cross can fight off Russia and enforce corridors?
I can see you clearly evading, so now on to the next part, care to estimate how many of those leaving Mariupol decided to evacuate to Russian controlled territory?
...
Or another answer: terror tactics or just destroying anything big enough to group people, which, in my view, is the most likely possibility. It has been confirmed that there are a large number of schools across the country that have been destroyed, the "mistake" or the "false flag" options are just not realistic.
A number of Putin's generals have been demoted due to lack of progress, the ones that take over have seen how Ukrainians do not seem to be going anywhere on their own volition, so terror and mass destruction are now on the table.
Re Mariupol, the problem is that Putin's army does not seem to be abided by their own words. From refugees that made it out of Mariupol, the "green paths" are kind of green-grey, meaning that some of the people seeking safe passage have been massacred. And that is civilians fleeing. Killing them is an act of hate, madness and desperation that does not look like the typical coldly calculated and propaganda-covered action by Putin.
There is no comment of any refugee being forcibly retained in Mariupol. As you say, there is a balance between fear of getting killed on the road and fear of dying of the bombs and people make their choices. Some, the elder, the sick,... they do not have a real choice.
The hypothesis of the Ukrainian army or any of it groups threatening civilians is not realistic. They are fighting Putin's army and cannot afford to divert efforts nor have a hostile population under their feet. Also, Putin's army has shown little regard distinguishing between civil or military targets - any tall building is considered a risk and blown.
On Putin's army suffering an significant number of losses, it clearly matches the strategic outlook regardless of destruction tweets and Ukraine's own information war. The war is no longer a blitzkrieg. Putin is facing determined resistance and, while there are undeniable gains and advances from his troops, the price being paid may be just unaffordable politically and economically.
Seems like Putin is winning in territory at the cost of loosing very valuable equipment and even veteran soldiers he may not be able to replace - even less if the country is sent into an economic recession. He cannot risk loosing too many planes, as, in his imaginary world, the NATO can easily use that weakness to attack and gain full air superiority. He cannot afford withdrawing troops from other borders without risking inferiority. The so called reservists that artificially rise the number of Putin's military are not trained, lack leadership and cannot be supplied (they are the definition of cannon fodder).
Despite all this Putin will not (cannot stop). He may "win" in some form the war (territorial concessions), but all indicates that he will loose the peace, and, unfortunately, it will be the Russian people, whose only fault is not being able or not wanting to risk getting rid of this government, the ones that will pay with poverty and ostracism.
Or another answer: terror tactics or just destroying anything big enough to group people, which, in my view, is the most likely possibility. It has been confirmed that there are a large number of schools across the country that have been destroyed, the "mistake" or the "false flag" options are just not realistic.
A number of Putin's generals have been demoted due to lack of progress, the ones that take over have seen how Ukrainians do not seem to be going anywhere on their own volition, so terror and mass destruction are now on the table.
Re Mariupol, the problem is that Putin's army does not seem to be abided by their own words. From refugees that made it out of Mariupol, the "green paths" are kind of green-grey, meaning that some of the people seeking safe passage have been massacred. And that is civilians fleeing. Killing them is an act of hate, madness and desperation that does not look like the typical coldly calculated and propaganda-covered action by Putin.
There is no comment of any refugee being forcibly retained in Mariupol. As you say, there is a balance between fear of getting killed on the road and fear of dying of the bombs and people make their choices. Some, the elder, the sick,... they do not have a real choice.
The hypothesis of the Ukrainian army or any of it groups threatening civilians is not realistic. They are fighting Putin's army and cannot afford to divert efforts nor have a hostile population under their feet. Also, Putin's army has shown little regard distinguishing between civil or military targets - any tall building is considered a risk and blown.
On Putin's army suffering an significant number of losses, it clearly matches the strategic outlook regardless of destruction tweets and Ukraine's own information war. The war is no longer a blitzkrieg. Putin is facing determined resistance and, while there are undeniable gains and advances from his troops, the price being paid may be just unaffordable politically and economically.
Seems like Putin is winning in territory at the cost of loosing very valuable equipment and even veteran soldiers he may not be able to replace - even less if the country is sent into an economic recession. He cannot risk loosing too many planes, as, in his imaginary world, the NATO can easily use that weakness to attack and gain full air superiority. He cannot afford withdrawing troops from other borders without risking inferiority. The so called reservists that artificially rise the number of Putin's military are not trained, lack leadership and cannot be supplied (they are the definition of cannon fodder).
Despite all this Putin will not (cannot stop). He may "win" in some form the war (territorial concessions), but all indicates that he will loose the peace, and, unfortunately, it will be the Russian people, whose only fault is not being able or not wanting to risk getting rid of this government, the ones that will pay with poverty and ostracism.
Sure terror tactics is another valid option. Just as sabotage from both sides.
But the reality is, UA side claims 14.000 killed RU troops and UN puts civilian casualties at 726. This number should also include civilian casualties from the other side, like this report where allegedly 20 people died from missile attack on Donetsk With civilian-combatant ratio at 0:19 indicating an extremely conservative trigger control, no one who's even partially objective can seriously entertain the idea of Russians trying to harm as many civilians as they can.
It is widely known that anyone trying to run through a checkpoint during Martial Law would be fired upon, i also expect UA check points to be mined as well due to inevitable attack by RU . No way civilians can leave if Mariupol calls off evacuation out of concern for safety of their citizens due to Russian shelling. I am not aware of Russia calling off any evacuations.
I'm not going to entertain speculations of massacres. Fact of the matter is, objective numbers, UN/Red Cross just don't support it. Either you know something they don't or you got caught up in an echo chamber where this opinion was formed.
I'm very concerned of your outright dismissal of a neo-nazis doing something that has been done in almost every war. I'd be more skeptical if it was regular UA army in Lviv, but even then would understand how people faced with death can do anything to save themselves.
There is no if, Russia is in economic recession at best, most likely depression. I give Putins regime a year tops, they have enough food production/heat to survive the winter, the big question is if EU can survive the winter without gas? And then of course China challenging a world order would completely change everything https://youtu.be/xguam0TKMw8 Outcome for Ukraine was known the first day the war started, the interesting question now is what happens next. There's no threat from NATO attacking due to guaranteed MAD.
