We're getting coverage of people released from the steelworks at Mariupol, plus affecting accounts of what it's like to be in a shelter when the area is being shelled.
Naturally the narrative we're encouraged to adopt is the relentless wickedness of the Russians, and first-person witness accounts load emotion in so that we can be distracted from a cooler look at the bigger picture.
But if I were a civilian and knew that the enemy was focusing on a strategic objective like the steelworks, why would I choose to shelter there?
An alternative interpretation I can offer - perhaps we will know the truth one day - is that the besieged Ukrainian fighters have seized non-combatant hostages as a human shield; and that the siege has caused food supplies to run low so the fighters have released a number to extend their own holdout period.
I read from various sources that the military trapped in the steelworks have been told to resist to the end; that they are likely to include elements of the extremist Azov battalion, whom the Russians are determined to kill immediately, or otherwise put on trial and sentence to death, as fascists, so these will see no point in surrendering; and that there may also be some foreign military with them, perhaps American and/or British special forces.
Meanwhile our grandstanding Prime Minister has delivered a sub-Churchillian speech to the parliament of Ukraine and agreed a £300 million package of military 'support.' With similar subventions from other foreign sources this will of course prolong and intensify the losses and suffering on both of the sides that are actively involved in the conflict.
One cynical remark I have read says that America is determined to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.
I fear that in the event of a long stalemate we may eventually see the use of battlefield nuclear weapons.
No comments:
Post a Comment