Mariupol is one of the most painful and bleeding wounds of the Russian-Ukrainian war. As much as has befallen its lot, probably no other city has befallen. The fact is that Mariupol resisted the occupiers like no other. And this only fueled the enemy's anger and hatred. This is the opinion of Mykhailo Pozhivanov, People's Deputy of four convocations and mayor of Mariupol in 1994-1998, who today heads the branch of the "Batkivshchyna" party in the city of Odesa.
In an interview "Center for Political Consulting" Mykhailo Pozhivanov talked about everything that the city experienced after February 24, 2022.
However, it should be noted that despite all his love for Mariupol (and Pozhivanov emphasizes that he has been associated with the city for a good half of his life, all three of his sons were born there), the politician is critical of some events in its history. We are not talking about the present, but about the year 2014, when on May 11 the people of Mariupol voted in a "referendum" for the independence of the so-called "DNR". Behind this event, says Pozhivanov, the figure of the former mayor of the city Yuriy Hotlubey and the oligarch Rinat Akhmetov, who had a huge business in Mariupol, can be seen. Two-thirds of Akhmetov's mining and metallurgical holding "Metinvest" was in Mariupol: in the city, the richest Ukrainian owned "Azovstal" and the Ilyich plant.
Nowadays, Akhmetov somewhat pathetically says that he is ready to invest not only finances, but also his soul in the revival of Mariupol, so one would like to believe that he has changed his views and regrets the times when he gave trump cards to the separatists. However, it is problematic to look into Akhmetov's soul (which he is ready to lay down for the sake of Mariupol's second life). According to Pozhivanov, the oligarch continues to influence some processes in the city, and, in particular, the current head of the city, Vadym Boychenko, is an Akhmetiv creature. All this gives some idea of why the situation in Mariupol has developed exactly as it has, but does not allow us to answer the question, what will happen to the city next?
Pozhivanov emphasizes: during the eight years of the Russian-Ukrainian war, Mariupol became a pro-Ukrainian city. And perhaps part of its population (which survived and was able to evacuate) will return to their homelands when the city again comes under Ukrainian jurisdiction. After victory and de-occupation, we will see a new Mariupol - it cannot help but rise from the ashes, although it will never be the same as it was before the full-scale invasion. In this regard, our interlocutor does not show either excessive optimism or deep pessimism. Life will put everything in its place, he repeats more than once.
— On February 24, the war in Mariupol began not even at four in the morning, but at two in the morning. Since then, explosions have been heard in the city. When you learned that Mariupol was under attack, did you already see the further course of events?
— Like the majority of the country's population, which woke up before dawn either from explosions or from the calls of relatives, I realized that a full-scale invasion of Russia had begun. But no one had a complete picture, just as there was no idea of what would happen next. Except for the leadership of the Armed Forces, although they might not know it either.
I assumed that the Russian Federation would throw all its military power at Donbas, but it did not happen as expected: both the north and the south of the country came under fire. I think that there will be many more questions about our unpreparedness for such a war.
— What percentage of collaborators in the city could contribute to his quick capture?
- I wouldn't say that the takeover was quick. And it is not entirely fair to talk about collaboration in Mariupol - in the form in which it could be observed in Melitopol, Berdyansk or Nova Kakhovka. In Mariupol, the Armed Forces, the National Guard, the Azov Regiment, and the Teroborona, let's not forget that, were concentrated. All of them stood side by side in defense of the city. And the city was not surrendered the way Melitopol or Berdyansk were surrendered - without a single shot being fired. A fierce and terrible struggle was fought for Mariupol. Because everyone understood that this was an outpost. So I wouldn't talk about collaboration.
Frankly: there were cases of looting, and not isolated ones. Could it have been avoided? Imagine that on the third day you lost electricity, television signal, mobile communication, imagine that you hear explosions every fifteen minutes, imagine that you do not understand what is happening at all. And then suddenly - a period of short-term calm, you go outside, knowing that there is nothing in the house, not even drinking water and medicine (and maybe the house itself is gone too), and here is a pharmacy with broken windows and broken doors... Yes, a person came in and took what he needed.
It was about the survival of people, and everyone decided for himself where the red lines of what you can and can't afford are for him.
— I mentioned the collaborators, because in one of your blogs you mentioned the separatism of the former mayor of Mariupol Hotlubey, but noted that without the support of Akhmetov, he would not have been able to spread his views...
— I will say this: everything that happened in 2014 could not continue without the approval of the real "masters of the city". Akhmetov owned the plant named after Ilyich, Azovstal, without his informal participation there would not have been a so-called "referendum" in May 2014. The "referendum" itself took place after the memorandum signed by Hotlubey, under which the directors of the Mariupol factories also signed.
And then - just think about it - some 50 people with automatic weapons were able to conquer a city of half a million people and hold a "referendum" in it. And this despite the fact that there were soldiers, law enforcement officers, and SBU employees in Mariupol... Mariupol was liberated, as you know, quite quickly - in June 2014, and it was quite natural that Hotlubey then lost all the elections.
— But look, Akhmetov suffered enormous losses precisely because of the destruction of Mariupol. Did these events help him understand at least something?
— The question is somewhat incorrect. I will not answer him instead of Akhmetov. Life will show who has what values and priorities. I would consider it lucky that a person preserved his life and health in the conditions of war. This means that, at least, you can continue to live and work. And money and business are such a thing...
Akhmetov lost part of the metallurgical business and the real estate market, that's true. But a significant number of his assets remained intact in other regions of the country. I would also like to add that without his support, the current mayor of Mariupol, Vadym Boychenko, would not have headed the city council. Akhmetov was accused of this more than once: positions in the city were given to those people who left the structures of "Metinvest"...
— By the way, about Boychenko. The current mayor of Mariupol is accused of absconding. He does not hide that he left the city on February 27, as information was received that his abduction was being prepared. What is your assessment of such events?
- In fact, no person knows how he would act in extreme circumstances. I have recently a monograph ("Book about the city") was published, its presentation took place, which was attended by many Mariupol residents. They approached me with the same question you are asking. The only thing is that they already had a ready answer for him, and the answer is negative. They did not accept this behavior of Vadym Boychenko. But can I condemn him? No. Everyone has their own family and their own set of priorities.
I can remember the mayoral elections in Mariupol in 1998, when my rating was around 70% and when I regularly received threats, including death threats. I didn't run anywhere then, I didn't run away - I contacted the Security Service and continued working. Later, the blackmailer was arrested, he turned out to be connected with the plant named after Ilyich But that's not the point. If we run for office and give people a promise to work for them, the rest of the issues should take a back seat. But I personally think so. And let him or his voters give an assessment of Boychenko, I don't know the whole set of details.
I only know that the current mayor is already promising a quick reconstruction of the city, but unfortunately, it will not happen. It's a pity, but in the form in which we remembered Mariupol until February 24, 2022, no one will see the city.
— And yet: could the local authorities somehow have prevented what happened to Mariupol? Or let's generalize a bit and talk about the occupied cities as a whole. Did the Institute of Local Self-Government help the offensive of the occupiers? Or when a tank gun is aimed at you, any decentralization is powerless?
- You know, I can give completely different examples, if we talk about this. The example of Mariupol and its mayor Boychenko is not an isolated one. And where was the mayor of Sumy on the second day? And where did the mayor of Berdyansk go? And the rest?.. I am talking about more or less large cities, but how many small towns are there? I saw Terekhov defending Kharkiv from the first day until today, so I can testify that he did not run away. I also saw the mayor of the city of Pokrovsk, from which Russian troops are stationed at a distance of 10-15 km, and he is doing everything possible to organize the evacuation of people.
The fact is that when the mayor disappears, other services that are supposed to support the life of the city run away with him. Many of the mayors did not pass the full exam.
And another such moment. Martial law somewhat changed the powers and capabilities of city mayors, but the financial levers remained in their hands. It's a shame when city mayors now spend these funds, for example, on markings or laying tiles instead of, for example, strengthening ground defense. So I have more than enough questions for local self-government bodies today.
In a word, there are examples of cities where everything is abandoned. And there are examples of cities where everything works. And there are examples of cities where there is too much PR, where the mayor does not get out of Tik Tok, telling how he tears his navel for his people.
— What can you tell about Mariupol now? Is the city really 90% destroyed?
— Practically all high-rise buildings have suffered one or another destruction - from global, when the building is no longer subject to any restoration, to more or less superficial. We must understand that if, for example, the second entrance to the building is destroyed, then neither the first nor the third can be lived in. And even if we talk only about broken windows, then this is in almost every house, with rare exceptions. Somewhere, in addition to the windows, the roofs were destroyed, somewhere there was a fire...
And still, some part of the residents remained in Mariupol and try to live in these destroyed houses. But today they have neither gas nor water supply. And if it is still possible to somehow exist there in the summer, then, starting from October, it will be difficult to do, to put it mildly.
— Will Mariupol not be able to overwinter?
- I think no. The occupiers will not raise all the infrastructure until the fall, it is too difficult a task. Restore all interrupted power lines, gas lines, and other communications? No, the mission is impossible, unfortunately...
- Earlier you said that we will never see the city in its former form. That is, in your opinion, Mariupol cannot be restored?
- Well, somehow he can still be reborn, but not to his former self. Still, most of the seaport has been preserved, and it will be in demand. But it is unlikely that two huge metallurgical plants will work... Mariupol was tied to the production that existed in the city for ten years, and this is not only its history, there are other such cities. And when all this is destroyed, the face of the city will be completely different.
Today in Odesa, I meet many Greeks from the Azov region, and all of them are former residents of Mariupol, except for those who immediately emigrated to Greece. To be honest, they have no faith and understanding of how they could ever return to Mariupol.
— And how many residents are currently left in Mariupol - among those who continue to live in destroyed houses without water and gas? I read somewhere that they are very limited groups, about a hundred people each, but they leave the city every day. If this is true, where are they going?
— I will not name names, but I will tell about very specific people with whom I am familiar and whom I know well. It so happened that in the first days of the war, they did not leave, and then their cars and houses were destroyed, and their businesses were also destroyed - they went through all these filtration camps, after which they left first to the "DNR", then to Russia, and then - to Latvia.
Some part remained in Russia, but the majority still headed either to Europe or found an opportunity to return to Ukraine. From the first days of March, I tried to help the residents of Mariupol by phone, I received them at my recreation center in Berdyansk, while I still had it.
— The Russians purposefully exterminated Mariupol. It is clear that the enemy needed the city to build a land corridor to the Crimea. But you also do not exclude the motive of revenge?
- I do not rule it out. First of all, they took revenge for the resistance, because the battle in the city was for every house. They fought the occupiers at two factories - Ilyich and "Azovstal", the 35th brigade of marines only left the factory named after them on April 12. Ilyicha moved to Azovstal, but continued to resist there as well.
Let's not forget what we talked about earlier: the authorities and population of Mariupol voted to join the "DPR" in May 2014. But in June, Mariupol was already liberated and the Russians and separatists were sent as far as possible. And this moment also hurts Moscow: if it were not for this release, Mariupol and the entire Donbas would already have been annexed to the Russian Federation.
Plus one more thing: during the war, Mariupol became a truly pro-Ukrainian city. I was there with Taruta at the celebration of one of the days of the city, at the same time Avakov and Dzhemilev arrived. And this is not to mention the last two presidents - they also visited there on holidays. And Mariupol was festively decorated in blue and yellow colors, emphasizing its Ukrainianness, and this was not artificial, it caused a real upsurge in the residents...
It was probably easier for Russia to destroy the city that turned all of Moscow and the Kremlin into fools than to "re-educate" it.
- It is good that Mariupol became a pro-Ukrainian city before the war, but I had to read that the townspeople seem to have a grudge against their own defenders - the Azov regiment, because, they say, if it were not for their resistance, there would not have been such significant destruction. Is it true that there are such sentiments?
- Heard about this. It is clear that these sentiments are greatly fueled by Russian propaganda. She says: look, they say, no one shot in Berdyansk, and everyone is alive, everyone is healthy, even the houses survived. Those who do not want to think about the fact that their land should be protected in any case, "buy" such words. You can't do anything about it. If such people also lost their only home in Mariupol, they will certainly look for the culprits, and the easiest way to make the culprits is the "Azovians".
- Be that as it may, the war will end. And it will end with our victory. We want to believe that we will get back all the occupied lands, including Mariupol. You do not believe in its complete restoration, and perhaps you are right, but then what can the city become after de-occupation and after the war?
— I will answer this question without reference to Mariupol. As I write in my book, any city is primarily about comfort for its residents. People must live decently and have all the prerequisites for this, in order to earn money, raise children, develop, have cultural institutions at their service, etc. All this should be in the first place.
It is also worth preserving history, because without it there can be neither the present nor the future. To some extent, we will raise Mariupol from the ruins, and probably some of its residents will want to return to the city, to remember how the fate of their families was. All this will happen, but we have already lost something irretrievably. The main thing is to ensure normal conditions for the work of business, which, as it develops, will launch a program of self-renewal of our cities and villages.
If we do this, then - I believe in this - everything will work out for us.
Natalia SWAN
