The Future of Mariupol: Will Russia Rebuild or Reclaim?

From the rubble of Soviet ruins to the scars left by conflict, the question of Mariupol's future hangs in the balance. As Russia seeks to solidify its control over the city, the possibility of reconstruction looms. Will Russia want to rebuild Mariupol, or will the ruins serve a different purpose?

Russians are not known for their post-war rebuilding efforts. The state of eastern Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall provides a stark reminder of this. Half of the buildings that were destroyed by Russian forces during World War II remained in rubble, a testament to the lack of reconstruction efforts. If this pattern continues with Mariupol, the city may remain a testament to conflict rather than progress.

Prognosticating the Future

The fate of Mariupol is closely tied to the expectations for its future under Russian control. Troops from the Donetsk People's Republic are expected to liberate the city from Ukrainian forces, which took control in 2014. By analogy with previous conflicts, the fate of Mariupol can be assessed by examining the lessons from Chechnya's civil war, particularly Grozny.

Chechnya and the Lesson of Grozny

The civil war in Chechnya offers a potent case study in the destructive and reconstructive power of conflict. In a parallel scenario, the liberation of Mariupol by pro-Russian forces may mirror the events that unfolded in Grozny.

During the chaos of Gorbachev's administrative changes, the leaders of Chechnya sought to maintain their power. This conflict was marred by financial crimes, political oppression, and the rise of Islamists and Wahhabis. Yeltsin's attempt to restore order led to a full-scale civil war, involving not only Chechen militiamen but also foreign support from Arab countries and Western intelligence services.

The Chechen conflict escalated into a brutal war, culminating in the almost complete destruction of Grozny. This was followed by a host of humanitarian crises, including an economic downturn and a surge in hostility between Russians and Chechens. The situation only improved when Chechen Islamist militants retreated and a referendum allowed for Chechen autonomy within Russia.

Over time, Chechnya was rebuilt, and the Wahhabi version of Islam was abandoned for traditional Islamic practices. Today, Chechnya is a part of Russia, and many former militants are now integrated into Russian society, including the military.

Implications for Mariupol

The parallel between Grozny and Mariupol is clear. Despite initial chaos and destruction, history suggests that the Russian perspective could similarly prioritize integration and stability over wholesale rebuilding. If this occurs, Mariupol may be transformed rather than rebuilt.

Ukraine's future under this scenario could mirror Chechnya's post-war reconstruction, with restored economic and social ties with Russia fostering resilience and growth. Unlike the EU and NATO partnerships that Ukraine had before the conflict, integration with Russia could offer a path to rebuilding and prosperity.

But what about Russia's resources and priorities? Given the economic strain of maintaining occupied territories, a full-scale rebuilding effort for Mariupol could be financially unsustainable. Russia might prefer to reclaim the city in a way that minimally disrupts its economic resources.

Conclusion

While Russia's intentions with Mariupol are unclear, historical precedents suggest a focus on reconstruction over immediate rebuilding. The lessons from Grozny and Chechnya indicate that a more sober approach to stabilization and integration may be the preferred path. However, Ukraine's fate under such a scenario would see a renewed focus on integration with Russia, fostering economic and social ties that could lead to a more prosperous future.