Mariupol: the showcase reconstruction and the 90% still missing

Mariupol unveils new buildings while the city remains in ruins

How much is a block of new flats worth when an entire city around it still needs to be rebuilt? In September, according to the announcement that peine the conversation, Russia inaugurates the first reconstructed buildings in Mariupol. The original message spared no adjectives: "IMPRESSIVE RUSSIA", "WHAT A WAY TO WORK". The most common reply was another figure: if 90% of the city still needs to be rebuilt, along with water and electricity, the headline does not hold up well.

The core of the disagreement is not whether there is construction work. It is what it means. Some see propaganda with a handful of bricks; others, proof that Moscow does not intend to leave. And in between, an uncomfortable question: who leaves a city reduced to rubble and then spends millions rebuilding it?

What is being inaugurated and what the video shows

The announcement refers to the first buildings completed in September. The fine print comes from the discussion itself: **90% of the city is still pending**, along with basic services such as water and electricity. A video of the reconstruction, according to several comments, mostly shows destruction. The image being sold and the one being filmed do not match.

The quality of the product is also debated. Some describe the blocks as **prefabricated concrete boxes**, easy to restore and hard to turn into anything else. The video's closing shot, a finished kitchen, is summed up like this: a simple sink and an electric oven with no extractor. For others, however, it is a normal kitchen, bright and with a four-ring hob. A matter of taste.

Quality prefabricated flats or propaganda with bricks?

The most enthusiastic defence claims the construction standard is **efficient and better than Spanish public housing**, with unflattering comparisons to Spain's brick building tradition. Against that, the technical reading tempers the enthusiasm: they are simple prefabricated flats, built to 21st-century standards, but prefabricated. Like the Soviet ones that were destroyed, only better. Calling them top-notch is another matter.

The harshest argument goes in a different direction: if there were a genuine will to do something different, the Soviet blocks would be demolished and something else built. Rebuilding the same thing is cheaper and faster. And more photogenic.

The debate over who destroyed the city

Here the exchange heats up. One side blames Kyiv for the situation; the other responds with a household analogy: if someone breaks into your house to rob it and wrecks it, the fault is not yours. The discussion drifts towards the very legitimacy of the operation, with the argument that replacing a regime with an imposed authority is not liberation but subjugation.

The comparison with other razed cities also comes up, along with an observation that needs no adjectives: **if you don't raze cities, you don't have to rebuild them**. Seen this way, the skyline of cranes is evidence of the crime, not proof of efficiency.

From bricks to geopolitics: Syria, Chechnya and the narrative

The initial enthusiasm soon drifts towards the track record attributed to Moscow: Syria, Afghanistan, the Moscow theatre, Beslan. The conclusion drawn is that there is a country fighting terrorism and a leader with staying power. The rebuttal comes with the shadow of doubt over who was behind some of those episodes, and with the warning that questioning it carries a cost.

The thread closes with an idea that is neither propaganda nor slogan: **the Russians do not seem to intend to leave**. That turns every building handed over into a political argument, even if the water never arrives.

With that picture, the reconstruction of Mariupol looks less like a public works project and more like a shop window. A few new flats and 90% still to do: arithmetic was never propaganda's strong suit.