What is the rationale of Russian troops not allowing civilians to evacuate from the encircled cities?

Question

According to Aljazeera, civilians have a hard time evacuating from Mariupol which was surrounded by the Russian troops:

Previous attempts to establish evacuation corridors to allow civilians to escape the city, and to allow humanitarian aid to enter, have fallen apart as earlier ceasefires collapsed.

The two parties have traded the blame for such failures, with Ukrainian authorities accusing Russia of deliberately opening fire on aid convoys heading towards Mariupol. Russia has blamed Kyiv for sabotaging ceasefire agreements and holding civilians hostages.

I do not understand why the Russian troops would not allow the civilians to evacuate. Isn't trying to conquer a city easier if virtually only the combatants remain? It would also diminish the likelihood of committing war crimes committed during the bombardments.

It would make even less sense for the Ukrainians to sabotage the ceasefire, that's why my question is focused on the Russian part of the possible ceasefires agreement.

Answer 1

They do appear to be allow evacuations but only towards areas that they control and I assume they are doing this so they control the fate of those people and have more leverage.

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/07/1084875710/russia-sets-cease-fire-for-evacuations-amid-heavy-shelling

Some of the evacuation routes, however, would funnel civilians toward Russia or its ally Belarus — unlikely destinations for many Ukrainians who would prefer to head toward countries on the western and southern borders.

Answer 2

I have not seen this directly mentioned in any news sources, but it makes sense.

Historically, the most basic way to win a siege is to starve the defenders out. Therefore defenders sometime expel noncombatants to reduce the strain on their supplies. When this happens, the attacker has occasionally refused to allow the noncombatants to leave. See Lieber code - the code of conduct for Union armies in the American Civil War.

Art. 18: When a commander of a besieged place expels the noncombatants, in order to lessen the number of those who consume his stock of provisions, it is lawful, though an extreme measure, to drive them back, so as to hasten on the surrender.

By not allowing civilians out of Mariupol, Russia forces Ukraine to provide for their sustenance. They will run out of food quicker, after which they will be forced to surrender.

Viewed from this perspective the humanitarian disaster in Mariupol is actually by design, and it's exactly what has won many sieges in the past. Why do we frown on it today then? I asked this on History SE some time ago, you might be interested in the answers there.

Answer 3

Russian news outlets report the opposite. According to them it is Ukrainian troops (Asov) that do not let people out while Russian troops have ceased fire as per agreement and schedule with Kiev and prepared transport to evacuate people.

Source: I read Russian and "Western" news. They blame each other for the same things with similar photos/videos.

Answer 4

The publicly stated goals of Russia seem somewhat contradictory. Their use of nazi seems to translate as Russia's enemies, even if they are Jewish. Some journalists believe that Russia's goal is to take control of Ukraine, at the very least install a puppet government, possibly annex parts or all.

The military plan seems to have been a shock and awe campaign of quick mechanized thrusts, similar of what the US did to Iraq in 2003. This failed due to greater-than-expected Ukrainian resistance and Russian incompetence (possibly because the Russian leadership deceived their own troops). The campaign seems to be transitioning into a war of attrition, which ends when one side or the other is too exhausted to fight. It does help Russia if the defenders of besieged cities have to share their supplies with the civilian population.

Answer 5

It's a military tactic designed to draw defensive forces into a situation more favorable to the aggressors.

By inflicting high civilian casualties, the defensive army is baited to reposition in the direction which is already fortified by the offensive army. And by doing this, the defensive army is baited to leave its own fortified position.

A large portion of Ukraine's army is currently dedicated to defense of the capital city Kyiv. There is an opinion that Russia would be able to demoralize Ukrainian army if Russia manages to take Kyiv and arrest or kill most of the legitimate Ukrainian government. But taking a highly-fortified large city would result in a much higher number of casualties than Russia is willing to suffer. And, given how successful Ukrainian army has been so far, it is far from certain that the Russian army would, in fact, be able to take Kyiv even if commits all of its troops to that one task.

So Russia is trying to bait Ukraine's forces away from Kyiv by committing atrocities in places as far away from Kyiv as possible.

Answer 6

According to Vitaly Portnikov, a political analyst, Putin's goals include occupation of the area that includes Mariupol. Possibly, the land connection of Donbass (occupied by Russia) to Crimea (ditto), possibly to Odessa and Transnistria (territory of Moldova occupied by Russia).

AFAIK, all other priorities are rescinded (such as preserving the industrial base, which could be reused later by the Russians).

The entire civilian population is expendable, according to the current apparent plan. Otherwise, why the bombings of the Drama Theater marked with huge word "DETI" ("children", in Russian), and of the maternity hospital (unless the pregnant women are Nazi troops of the Jewish President Zelensky, only in disguise).