Mariupol Theater Bombing: Shelled from the South

March 29, 2022

Russian forces have now taken control of the central square in Mariupol, including the drama theater and shelter they allegedly bombed on March 16. New images from widely-banned Russian media are somehow making the rounds, allowing closer glimpses of a scene that's now different than it was last we saw. RT drone footage of March 27 or 28, I guess. On first glance, it looks just about as bombed in the middle as it did ever since the disputed bomb blast nearly two weeks before.

Interestingly, that shows a neat pile of timbers in the front parking lot, seeming just the same as it did in aerial views of the 19th and 21st. But from this different angle, it's clear the opposite, east end has suffered a new collapse - compare solid wall casting a solid shadow vs. noting, in an image with almost the exact same solar angle as the first.

On-the-ground images are clearer about the extent of new damage, showing a direct hit from a powerful weapon. It flattened the middle of the once-intact wall, burying the elegant staircase. There's a clear difference in damage on the left/south vs. right/north, suggesting a missile strike from the south; the blast is in all directions, but especially in the direction of travel. New debris piles more to the north (yellow), including pieces that chipped the wall to the north (lime), some very big pieces that went north, and the northern half of the broken arch (orange) seems physically moved by the avalanche of debris. None of that is seen south of impact. (dome of church in blue, just to clarify the scene match)

All this we see outside the building also could suggests some east trend, although maybe not much - it also seems to have hit close to the edge, or right above the entrance. That would be a rocket/missile fired from at least a bit west of south, relative to the building. 

West entrance ... we see at least 2 or 3 sets of fragmentation marks from mortar shells or the like impacting nearby, like perhaps where Russian troops had just been advancing from the northwest. The angle evident in at least the one band of marks, maybe these other two, suggests a trajectory at least partly from the south. (incoming trajectory tends to be perpendicular to the resulting band of marks, because the fragments fly out perpendicular from the rocket tube). 

A few minor differences in the pavement might reflect where these impacted, but nothing obvious pops out to say where. Maybe a vehicle or something else since moved took the nearest hit. And it might seem odd this shelling did so little to affect that pile of timbers, but those really shouldn't go sliding around very easily, unless there was an impact very close to that discrete pile.  

It's not clear if these wall marks are new since the 21st, but that makes the most sense. They would have nothing to do with the initial bombing inside the building on the 16th, and were absent in a photo from shortly after the blast (note posters still up, timbers not piled together yet). 

Both basic angles given as ranges (not gospel), mapped to true north from the building: Distance is unclear and likely varied; the rocket-type and mortar-type fire were probably from different spots at different times, but in similar directions. 

everything outside the blue zone here should be controlled by Ukrainian forces. Neither side can control their area to the absolute exclusion of the other - especially of sneaky provocateurs. But they tend to do that pretty well, especially where heavy artillery is involved. Consider if these Ukrainians had fallen back from the center, the outer part of these red areas might be smart - depending how things go, they could retreat or regroup with others to the south, and/or link up to the east with their comrades in the Azovstal plant.

The shelling at the west end makes clear enough military sense, and hardly affected the building. But why should the Ukrainians fire a missile on the theater where 300 people were "feared" buried and possibly still alive? It sure couldn't help any Russian-led rescue or recovery operation, now that this is possible. But, of course, it could be blamed on the Russians. And that just might be reason enough.

But if so, it doesn't seem they have the ballistic evidence on their side.

Mariupol Theater Bombing: Molfar "Destroys" Russian "Propaganda Bloc" in Edinburgh

March 28, 2022

Note: A previous overview post on the theater bombing to leave as-is, updates and changes will be reflected in new posts like this (rough, to refine maybe).  

edits 3/29

A new attack piece in the Times addresses yet again the urgent problem of academics in the Uniuted Kingdom raising questions - a frequent theme at the Times and elsewhere. Again they apply some pressure that might have another dissenter - Tim Hayward, professor of environmental political theory at the University of Edinburgh - sacked or shut up somehow. 

This latest published article by paid, mainstream "journalists" was based on a March 19 tweet (deleted? screen grab by self-appointed Witchfinder General Chris D. York) wherein Hayward shamelessly shared a March 18 article from Max Blumenthal at the Gray Zone about the Mariupol Theater bombing on the 16th. That article was described as being (or at least containing) "the propaganda of the Russian government," which the non-sacked professor was now spreading. That was again news. Very bad news. 

For this important attack on a professor - over a tweet - about someone else's article - the Times  commissioned a Ukrainian open-source investigation group called Molfar, who claim to be "the next frontier of intelligence." They partner financially with the US and Ukrainian government, as Bumenthal notes. Surely they could cut through state-backed propaganda efforts and show these alleged "questions" to be some kind of unacceptable Russian lies.

Molfar published a "step-by-step" explanation that proves handy in tracking down their missteps. In fact, I didn't see any other kind of steps. https://teletype.in/@molfar/DkDhLfvbeVt

Molfar specialists have conducted an operational investigation for one of the world's most important resources – Thetimes.co.uk, digital version of the newspaper The Times. We tell step by step how everything happened and what results were achieved. Another step-by-step case with the result in the form of a destroyed propaganda bloc of Russia and one accused of propaganda...

Really, they crafted a crude straw effigy to burn in another witch hunt. They conflate claims from Russian media and officials, with reports from locals in Eastern Ukraine, and from other parties, along with Blumenthal's own thoughts, and take it all, sloppily, as "a propaganda bloc of Russia." Some "lies" were supposedly found, "destroying" that bloc as they say. But anything REAL they might have done was not included in this explanation. 

First, Some Valid Issues 

Blumenthal's piece was a welcome addition that elevated some very interesting questions. But on my one quick read (so far), it seemed far from perfect. For example "all civilians appear to have escaped with their lives" - that was both alleged/implied and also quite disputed, so it really appeared unclear.  The article might stretch and force some other points too, whereas the evidence is actually more mixed - this and the backlash inspires me to really try and just ask questions and let the answers emerge when they do. But then Molfar kept annoying me...

Witness issues in particular need more careful attention. Accounts passed on by Russian and separatist media and thence the Gray Zone, etc. have the Azov Battalion in charge of the shelter as a base, and "holding" 1,000 people there and rigging bomb in the roof to detonate on them, but in the end perhaps everyone left, or some 300 remained ... mostly text accounts, largely second-hand - compelling, but unclear - one worth knowing, translation perhaps needed: Irina (one posting on Twitter)   

Those who have spoken to western media don't mention any of that militant activity, or fears of an on-site bomb, and describe an open shelter were people were free to come and go, mainly deciding to go based on Russian bombs falling too close. So far it seems the latter are greater in number, with more specific accounts, largely with names and faces attached - one account from an editor in Kyiv sounds kind of ... edited to Kiev's tune, but otherwise they sound legitimate.  (note 3/29: what must be that editor's youngest daughter, the bubbly Maria from Mariupol adds little credibility, IMO) 

In the past, I have had to consider whole sets of witnesses lodging two conflicting stories (or two+ classes of internally conflicting stories) where one set at least had to be lying - it does happen. But it's always worth trying to correlate all versions with a middle reality people saw differently, and that seems broadly possible here. It also seems likely enough that one set of witness accounts or witness-based claims is largely based on lies, maybe assisted by confusion. I hope to make more time to hear from people who were there, or claim to have been there - primary source evidence, alleged and real, not just 2nd hand claims and guesses possibly colored by ideology. 

Until I have done that, no further word, and my main point would be it's not really clear what to make of the witness record. Likewise the physical evidence is not conclusive, that I can see. So as I see it, whoever is asking a question wins on principle over someone claiming a sure fact. Blumenthal asked "Was bombing of Mariupol theater staged by Ukrainian Azov extremists to trigger NATO intervention?" He did suggest the answer was quite likely yes, but still it's a question. Professor Hayward shared the link to a piece and asked: “What do we know of the reality?” If there was one exact best question to raise, that might be it. Emphasis mine

In contrast: "Molfar experts are always eager to help find out the truth, and will provide an indisputable amount of evidence against Russian ideologues," and they'll do that without becoming ideological themselves, because they were ideological and nothing but, before they even set out. They had to scoff at Hayward's misread "pathetic question: "What do we know about reality?"" (not THE reality of THE event, but about anything at all). Answering the misread question, they pontificate with misplaced hostility: 

"And we know the following about reality: if you lie, you will be found, your guilt will be proved, you will be deprived of status and regalia, you may even be accused of criminal involvement. In general, with the support of Russian propaganda, the whole civilized world will turn away from you."

Now how does a whole team of supposedly investigative-minded people come across sounding this unhinged?

Seven Big "Lies"

Molfar thinks they found so many lies here they had to narrow it down to seven biggest ones to explain in detail. To some extent, these are points I found slightly weak, so I'll include my own notes. "Exposed lies" include what they would call:

* three fallacies filed under "Arguments of Max Blumenthal and the Russian media: «The fighters of the Azov Battalion themselves blew up the building, where their headquarters was located»" 

* three examples of misusing the claims and experiences of locals to support those lies, and finally 

* an appeal to lack of visual evidence 

That might sound good, but check this out. 

Lie #1: Azov Battalion base: "based on a video uploaded March 11, the theater at that time really did shelter civilian residents of Mariupol" 

And therefore ... it could not be a military position as alleged? They don't clarify the significance. The theater was allegedly a base for firing positions in certain areas, upper floor probably, that also sheltered people in other areas, including the basement. That's HOW Azov was allegedly able to wire bomb over the heads of hundreds of people in a shelter. Blumenthal didn't deny people were sheltering in this likely militant base, he just questioned the number of them, and he did so citing that same video: "Only a small group of civilians could be seen in the video, however." That suggestion MIGHT be misleading, but I don't see any lie here, and no new reason to doubt the serious and compelling allegation Molfar seeks to bury. 

Lie #2:On-site bomb: Russian media also claimed that Azov Battalion fighters planted explosives on and under the roof" but team Molfar somehow knows booby-trapped buildings are always seen "collapsing from below, “sitting down” and “folding down” and, furthermore, the whole building would be destroyed, whereas "in the photo of the drama theater, only part of the building was destroyed, which is typical for a shell hit from the air." 

This sounds like gibberish to me. I'm not an expert, but it seems to me if an air bomb can do this, then a stationary one of the same power could do just as well. 

We have a blast seemingly centered in the raised "attic" area, where the Azov bomb was described as being (roughly as shown here). We still have Russia denying an airstrike, and no one alleging it has produced a radar track or any kind of evidence to counter it. Molfar offers this nonsense forensic opinion and nothing else, then proceeds to consider a Russian bomb as a known fact. That really feels like an ideological choice. 

Lie #3:shifting stories from "the Russian side" - whole text for this one: 

Information about the plans to blow up the building was allegedly reported to the Russian side by a fugitive fighter of the Azov battalion, including the number of civilians in the theater building. However, after the announcement that the bomb shelter had withstood the explosion, the Russian side suddenly announced that the Azov militants had allowed civilians to leave the building before the explosion of the Drama Theater and they were able to evacuate. These inconsistencies cast doubt on the veracity of the information about the fugitive fighter and the reliability of his words as a whole.

They have their sources muddled, I think, but I'm a bit unclear myself. It seemed like "local sources" compiled by DPR/LPR "News Aggregator" are credited for the main, detailed prediction of March 12, with a bomb rigged in the building. Other re-located locals (at least two of them) reported first that Azov allowed everyone to go (see here), and then another said that not quite everyone went, some 300 were left behind (see here). An Azov defector was separately reported to have leaked information on the theater situation, details unspecified. Screen grab of what I've heard included right here. 

Hardly anyone noticed those reports, but Molfar is aware of the "alleged" Azov defector and keen on discrediting this obscure man. I'm more compelled by his allegations now, and come to think of it...

It is POSSIBLE this defector is the original "local sources" and that might explain why some sources knew of a rigged bomb and most others didn't; he had insider knowledge they lacked. And consider if so, he defected by March 12, when that prediction went out. Molfar seems to assume that. That prediction might cause a plan change, with Azov letting people go, but his story was already lodged; it wouldn't suddenly become inconsistent - he just didn't have a crystal ball to predict that change back on the 12th. Molfar only trusts witnesses who have crystal balls and the correct political views. 

Then, after pretending accounts attributed to locals were just "suddenly announced" by "the Russian side," Molfar turns to "the words of civilians in the published material" as cited by Blumenthal to support that "Russian propaganda bloc." 

Lie 4: A witness claiming Azov Battalion blew up the theater was found to have pro-Russian views. They looked it up on VK, and she or someone looking a lot like her held pro-Russian views.  

That's all they needed to say on this 1/7 of their biggest lies. Her account could all be true, but her views disqualify it from consideration. As it happens, her account seemed a little vague and mostly second-hand to me, but still of some potential value. 

Lie 5: "The article's author, Max Blumenthal, also cites a March 11 video shot in the theater as evidence of local residents being used for “Azov” fighters’ needs. However, the video itself was filmed and provided by Azov fighters ..." 

Above, his ignoring the civilians proven by this video was one of the big lies they focused on. Here, his citing the same video of civilians is another big lie. Azov provided the video of civilians, so people were sheltered there AND Azov had access. But FWIW, that doesn't prove anything. 

Lie #6: a cited video with no words was posted by a Serbian person with bad politics, and that was the posting Blumenthal cited, if maybe not the original source. 

As far as Molfar could find, the video showed the relevant criminality it was "purported" to show - Azov Battalion trapping citizens in the city, attacking those who tried to flee. Other evidence Molfar didn't touch also supports this view. Yet they focused on this video and mainly on the political views of someone who posted it. 

I did see somebody claiming that violent footage from a highway checkpoint was from Mariupol in 2014. While I couldn't find an example to prove that, it seemed possible, so I didn't cite that video. Now I see the Molfar crew presumably investigated the open sources better than I did or could have (?), maybe sparked by the same unexplained comment. And it seems they could only raise vague doubts in the end, as they fell back on more ideological screening. Seeing that, it seems more likely that video is relevant. Still, it's not clear, and ideally it shouldn't take space from anything that is clear. 

Lie #7: "And the final argument is that there is no video of the attack on the theater!" Molfar acknowledged the relative lack of visual evidence, but offered this clear and complete answer:

The lack of photo and video materials is explained by a simple fact: a full-scale war is going on in Ukraine, and the city of Mariupol itself, where the attack on the Drama Theater took place, has been surrounded by Russian troops since the beginning of March. Local residents are practically cut off from communications, electricity, and regular food and water supplies. Even humanitarian convoys with the necessary products cannot enter the city through the checkpoints of the Russian military. In such isolation, people simply do not have the technical ability to share enough information, photos and videos from the scene.

Of course there was the war, spotty communications, limited electricity, dangerous conditions - all could explain some lack and some delay in reports and images. But even considering that, the visual record and news updates were extremely vague and infrequent and tended to show a totally vacant scene over and over (albeit not that many times over). 

This allowed for certain conclusions like no rescue effort, and maybe no one trapped, like it was all a "hoax." But as it played out, these views were challenged by the next reports and images to surface. That too could be a natural effect of a war-staggered flow of information. Moflar decided this is the sole reason we don't see much of the main events, and a natural let-up in these limitations must explain how we suddenly saw a lot more of it after a 9 day wait, on the 25th. But they did not and cannot prove this is all natural, and their very denials might even underline the importance of standing questions about all that. Either way, the flow of images and reports seemed interesting enough to address in a separate post (forthcoming).

Another Missile Misfire in Kiev

March 26, 2022

(rough, incomplete)

When it happened before

Early on in the Russian campaign in Ukraine, I analyzed a terrible missile strike in Kiev, Feb. 26, that probably killed more than the zero people reported. This is a famous scene still pushed as a Russian crime. 

Anyone who doesn't know, we can be fairly sure that was a Ukrainian surface-air missile that malfunctioned and slammed into an apartment tower.  The Russians always said so, FWIW, and so did several informed observers, and the evidence supports that as well.  

The missile's exhaust plume was seen from launch to impact in two publicized videos. See composite view below, from a wide video pan. The plume is widely considered to be consistent with a SAM, and the unusual bend where the stage 2 liquid fuel failed to ignite fully (?), it turns horizontal with a weak plume and begins to fall, then maybe ignites more fully at the end for the final explosive dive into that tower. 

Monitor on Massacre Marketing: Triangulating the Source of Kiev Apartment Missile Attack (libyancivilwar.blogspot.com)

The launch was clearly just outside of, or perhaps within Kyiv city limits, where no Russian forces were known to be. Two views of the plume, both of which I geolocated myself, and two carefully set lines of sight allowed a clear placement of that launch on a loop off the highway, about 1.5 km from Sikorsky airport, where SAM defenses would be likely. Russia was blamed only vaguely, but deaths were denied, even CNN's Clarissa Ward could see it might be a Ukrainian accident ... what more should we need to know?

A Misfire in March

The Re-Surfaced Video

Now we have a second such video, with several postings on and since March 18. It's easy to take this as a new view of the February incident, but it was actually a less new view of a later incident. Here is a composite view from two frames.  

SOme recent postings on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/UAWarUpdatesEN/status/1504840844540534784

https://twitter.com/MarioLeb79/status/1504834188477964288

https://twitter.com/MukhtarT/status/1505149098378207233

https://twitter.com/_Ministreliya/status/1506263061702881290

https://twitter.com/200_zoka/status/1504826782767271941

I think all come pre-stamped with that KAK TO TAK. If anyone finds a different version, let me know. 

But to start, this is not a new video. It was on my to-do list for about a week before these postings, after Chris Kbusk, another sharp-eyed observer, brought me that composite frame AND what seems to be another view of the same plume, on March 10 (mid-day here, would be night in Kiev). He showed me both scenes already geolocated to suggest launch and impact area, after finding them, seemingly new,  but were already impossible toa day or so earlier. But he couldn't re-locate them when we talked about it on the 10th, as if they were quickly removed (or just hard to find).  

He had asked for my thoughts - it took a while to come back to it, double-check the work, and assemble this post, and in the meantime the video resurfaced. I checked the work and it's good - somewhat re-created here with some open questions below in a try at crowd-sourcing for the relevance of this finding. 

Plume view 1: location: 50.389606° 30.464330° - roughly a corner apartment in that block, with a view to the west and northwest - map labels agree with this basic color-coding. Note building in white is absent from the satellite views I used - built since then, but with a lot already marked out.

Note the long shadows of morning, with a solar azimuth (shadow line up the middle from view building corner to yellow building corner) which I read as ~122.5 = about 8:35-8:40 AM (NOAA solcalc), if this was on March 10, or about the same on prior days. 

Below is a sort-of sharpened view of the plume - up steeply, then a sharp bend into a semi-circle, for a sickle-shaped start, then it's almost invisible for a while before it re-appears, wiggling lower for a long ways before it hits - a small-seeming dark gray mushroom cloud means it detonated in the city, causing damage. Distances are hard to gauge right off, but it seems the impact spot seems to be a bit further from the camera than the launch spot is. 

Impact line of sight: to the NW, across nearby buildings, the Sikorsky airport's open airfield, what must be the next sizeable building, the main terminal, and that plume is rising probably not far behind that tallest building I found, marked gold = Mykoly Shepeljeva St, 5 (Google Maps) - somewhere north-northwest of there.

Below is a close view of that line in orange, marked where it seemed to cross two nearby buildings, one of which wasn't even built in the satellite view I used. Also the line to launch spot traced in yellow in a similar way. They meet nicely in a space not quite where the camera was, so this isn't exact. 

After that, the yellow line extended - note how close it comes to the Feb. 26 launch spot.

The Alternate View

As I said above, there was also a second image of the same plume ... just a screen grab provided, with red box already added. Possibly more on the source...

Chris already geolocated this to the railroad tracks just meters from the Feb. 26 launch spot. It's a bit of a vague spot, but almost certainly the one - as provided, not oriented to north - here I'd pin a spot just across the tracks as a nearest possible point AT that level, with what happens below less clear (white shape gives just some idea), with a middle option lined up with the trees and scrub there, to establish lines of sight - yellow, to launcher - and a white line to a spot roughly beneath the plume when it vanishes:

We can see the plume for a ways here, but not to impact. At first, it curves a bit towards the camera and right, turns left towards the camera and finally to almost straight ahead up the tracks - as seen above, it visibly fades away after that hook, and it must do the same here, and we just see more of that curve from this angle - here, it seems to be aiming up the tracks at last sight, but it's hard to follow from there - in the full mapping below, a white line traces to where we can't see it. From there, it must angle more to the left than you'd think to line up with the seen plume.

this could allow a similar launcher placement ... I hesitated over the possible blowback of disclosing air defense locations, especially noting how the images seem to have vanished. But these systems are mobile for a reason, this video is out there anyway, and the Russians probably can already say where these things ARE, not just where they were back on March 9 or so. It is a slightly different spot from the one used Feb. 26, but very close, apparently a the cloverleaf exchange, SW part (red vs. pink for the earlier spot). Do they always launch from around there, or only these misfires?

Open questions

Can anyone find a posting of that video anywhere on March 10 or earlier? Or even before March 18? That would help clarify how it predates the recent postings. Or does anyone know of reports or images that might correlate? Again, the established details to spark a memory or guide a search: 

* a missile impact on this area of Kiev: near Sikorsky airport, perhaps called Vidradnyi district

* On March 8-10, or possibly earlier

* in the morning, around 8:30-8:45, if a time is specified 

* especially anything with visuals. 

I'm curious how was this sold, if at all. But even with a few hours digging, I didn't find a likely match-up yet. One possibility at least worth suggesting:

3/11 Russian missile in Kyiv. Had not reached the target.

https://twitter.com/hypnomez13/status/1502294660794007554

Some More Hell for Russian-Occupied Mariupol

< Who is Really Flattening Mariupol?

March 24, 2022

updates 4/4 ... 

Red Cross Warehouse

March 30, the Russians shelled Red Cross warehouse they were on the verge of securing ... because it was an Azov base? Because it could feed the people? Or did they do it at all? Analysis start here: https://twitter.com/CL4Syr/status/1509964058581082118 - more + graphics forthcoming.

Vostochniy

The site of the infamous January 2015 false-flag shelling massacre, the first part of the city Russia secured by March 9, with what should have been overwhelming local support ... still getting shelled by the Russians 10+ days later? Not likely. See here for now: https://twitter.com/CL4Syr/status/1507719831222509568

Livoberezhnyi 

Another display of Russia's alleged devastation of Mariupol caught my interest - I believe the stamps mean this drone video was made and published by the Azov Battalion, and then re-published by Radio Free Liberty / Radio Europe, U.S. funded. I'm using their posting on Twitter: "Drone video revealed widespread devastation in the besieged Ukrainian port city of Mariupol on March 22." And whatever, the camera doesn't lie. There's a span of Mariupol with nearly every tall building damaged or burned at some point, and even at filming, some 4 apartment blocks in the foreground are visibly smoking (visible in the frame below), and at least one tower in the distance is engulfed in a huge fire, pouring heavy black smoke across whole city blocks.   

It was an easy overall geolocation with adequate mappable details along a distinct coastline - Livoberezhnyi district - along Mosrkyi and Azovstal's'ka boulevards. Google Maps. Color-coded features:

A quick, approximate line of sight extension suggests the distant smoke comes from the fields up to and near Pionerske to the east, and a possible huge fire further out may be near the town of Zaichenko to the northeast. It's not clear if either means much - maybe two fields on fire, presumably from more Russian shelling to the east of Mariupol, 

Is this just more Russian brutality in revenge for military setbacks against the steadfast Azov defenders, or what?

Institute for the Study of War's first Mariupol map shows as of March 17 Russian control extended to a line across the middle of this scene, about at the end of that purple line, running left-right just short of the burning tower. A 3/18 map (on Twitter) shows the previous line and a newly assessed advance to include most of the area seen in the new video, marking a curve between administration building seized in the north and Chechen fighters seen in the south. 3/20 advance only noted on 3/21. 

On March 22, as that video was filmed, per the ISW map, nothing is assessed as different from the 20th, maybe just from a lack of video and/or analysis. This whole time: a huge yellow unknown of supposedly claimed control since March 10, when an Azov Battalion base was blown up. I've seen as of yesterday the plant's massive grounds were considered more like 60% controlled, 2 weeks later. Below: cropped from their 3/21 map with mine roughly scaled and rotated to match at coastline and marked roads.  

Side-note: full ISW map gives location of theater bombing as a sure Russian airstrike - near that, perhaps under Russain control now, is the children's & maternity hospitals struck on March 9, it seems to me (see here), with two missiles fired from the E-SE, best fitting with the southern part of the Azovstal steel plant, occupied by the Azov Battalion, whose positions there Russia bombed the next day. I didn't know what to call it then ... needs updated. 

I'm not sure how exact that curve of a frontline is to show control, but it makes all these newly-burning structures exactly front-line as of 3/18 and still, as far as the ISW knew. The places burning on the 22nd are all likely perches for snipers and light artillery to slow the Russian-Chechen-DPR advance on the Azovstal plant, where the Azov Battalion remained based, if battered. Or, depending on unclear details, these blocks might also be cleared of resistance and sit well behind Russian lines. 

In fact, considering how they helped make this video, Azov Battalion may have just fired those rockets or shells themselves, just to film another "Russian" crime. The further and terrible fire is harder to explain as Russian fire, and same for the distant fires way behind the front line. That looks like random devastation just inflicted on areas Russian forces already occupied for at least 5 days. It gives them no military advantage, just human losses, perhaps, and a mess to clean up, and more rebuilding to do with a strangulated economy. That only makes a sick, possible sense for the Ukrainian side. 

Truth, Justice, and "Twitter Rules"

March 22, 2022

(rough, may be edited)

It's clear that following Russia's invasion of Ukraine a month ago, the range of independent thought and public discourse is being narrowed in unprecedented ways. Many media outlets and people's social media accounts are suspended or deleted, views are filtered and banned like never before, or drowned out by moronic shouting from "self-appointed" mobs of anti-Putin heroes "standing with Ukraine." 

I'm far from the first or worst-off, but on Sunday I was suspended from accessing my Twitter account for "violating" the Twitter rules. Someone reported a tweet, an unusually popular one by my lowly standards, that scored more likes and retweets than usual, including by the widely-followed Stephen McIntyre, bringing a lot more views than usual (for content, see below). It's now blanked out with a demand to delete it, and I'm suspended until I do so.

The complaint, they said was filed under the "engaging in targeted harassment" rule. As explained:

"On Twitter, you should feel safe expressing your unique point of view. We believe in freedom of expression and open dialogue, but that means little as an underlying philosophy if voices are silenced because people are afraid to speak up. 

In order to facilitate healthy dialogue on the platform, and empower individuals to express diverse opinions and beliefs, we prohibit behavior that harasses or intimidates, or is otherwise intended to shame or degrade others. In addition to posing risks to people’s safety, abusive behavior may also lead to physical and emotional hardship for those affected." 

I didn't harass anyone or silence any voices. Whoever accused me, I'd say, targeted me for harassment and to silence my voice which .... mattered enough to warrant that effort, anyway. 

At first, it seemed like Twitter made a mistake, but a convenient one; act like these false complaints are true by default and hide them, only undo the error after a wait, hoping the target deletes the information, just to get back to work and communicating their usual way. But as it happened, a break from Twitter was a good idea, and I took one while I waited on my appeal. 

It didn't take long before I heard back that it was no error: 

Our support team has determined that a violation did take place, and therefore we will not overturn our decision.

You will not be able to access Twitter through your account due to violations of the Twitter Rules, specifically our rules around: 

The space after was left blank, just like that. The rule I broke ... is unwritten? I have to guess what part of the harassment rule I supposedly broke, and on review, I suppose it's based on the recently-added rule against "Denying mass casualty events took place." As explained:

"We prohibit content that denies that mass murder or other mass casualty events took place, where we can verify that the event occured [sic], and when the content is shared with abusive intent. This may include references to such an event as a “hoax” or claims that victims or survivors are fake or “actors.” It includes, but is not limited to, events like the Holocaust, school shootings, terrorist attacks, and natural disasters." (emphasis mine)

This troublesome rule might require us to play along with hoaxes or even false-flag massacres of innocents; if violence is involved and Twitter's censors buy into a false explanation for it, and then use a super-broad definition of "abusive," the truth would be deemed "denial" and disallowed. That's obviously problematic, even if the rule serves a good purpose on most other counts.

Still, I didn't break that rule. I'm not sure if they misunderstood my arguments even upon review, or if there's an unwritten rule to never question claims from Ukrainian authorities. 

In case it's the former, I'll explain: In this case, it's clear a bombing occurred at Mariupol's central drama theater on March 16th, and I've never remotely denied that. I also haven't seen absolute proof to rule out or deny Russian forces did it with an airstrike, as alleged. Therefore, I did not deny it. But I did seriously question the allegation, proposing the ultra-nationalist / neo-Nazi Azov Battalion might have done it instead. I never said as fact that they did it, even though I do suspect that. And I don't think I raised these questions in an "abusive" way, though I'd have to see Twitter's working definition to be sure.

See the text of it here and judge for yourself:

I linked to this blog post https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2022/03/mariupol-theater-bombing-3172022.html collecting my works and thoughts on the theater bombing - unexplained points below are explained there. Mainly I noted the odd lack of rescue video aside from one I showed (and show again here - improved to show characters for CHILDREN still under the dust)  - at the site of a very real bombing.

This aspect might be central to Twitter's decision; it sounds like I'm calling this a fake rescue effort. All I meant to do is say is it might be, and to improve the record by pointing to at least one rescue-themed video, whereas we had seen none at all before (raising doubts in many minds, often even sharper than my own).

In that sense, I don't think I broke the written rule on either count specified - denial or abusive intent -  whereas the rule wording makes it sound like both are required. And still, I "acknowledged" violating the rules, just to have my account back. So was I forced to lie AND censor myself, or what rule DID I break? None that are written down. 

And yet, I ran into this problem suggesting there is an unwritten rule that we aren't allowed to question Kyiv's wartime propaganda - it's all to be accepted as factual. And conversely, there might be an unwritten rule we MUST deny any explanations or possibilities that run counter to Kyiv's claims, regardless of the evidence or the gravity of the denial required. 

People including myself have still questioned Kyiv's claims without censure, and I've seen people flat-out deny them too, and logged-out I can see people have continued. But when someone reports it, as someone did here, any of us might find the same unwritten rule applying. 

Consider: Mariupol locals are credited with reports, passed on by separatist-linked source, that bombs had been rigged in the theater by Azov Battalion, ready to detonate on top of the hundreds sheltering there, and to be blamed on a Russian airstrike. That claim may be legitimate or not, but it was publicized 4 days before the Russians were reported as bombing the drama theater, trapping 1,200 people in the basement shelter. 

Are we required to deny that alleged false-flag provocation just because whoever at Twitter is sure Russians dropped that bomb? Even with Russian denial, no radar track or other proof, nor even a rational motive, widely-accepted claims from Ukrainian officials sufficed to convince them, so they should be good enough for all of us? 

Some locals also said Azov Battalion "allowed" all the shelter inhabitants to leave prior to the blast, as if changing their mind about the false-flag plan that was just revealed. I had read that as saying they HAD all left, but it's not clear this has even been alleged. And other stories suggest or are clear at least some remained there after some left on their own accord. If the former story was true AND the shelter was emptied, we might expect no rescue efforts (if they knew there was nothing to find), or efforts that might find no one, or  - grim but possible - there might be no effort because Azov wanted those people dead. That's not so crazy - whatever you think "Ukrainians" would never do to "their own," Azov Battalion in their last days occupying Mariupol is where that will apply the least.

Considering all that, any claims or shows of rescue could be false or legitimate, and either one seems possible here. The lack of rescue footage or even news of progress adds to the questions, but the dangerous situation, lack of electricity and communications, and by the 19th reported street battles right there, might partly or totally explain the lack of progress, or any published video of it. And so I have advised against certainty either way; the number of people left trapped beneath the rubble is somewhere between zero and ~1,300. Zero is less suggested than I had thought, but it's at least hyopthetically possible. If I were an Azov planner with that much blood set on a plot that was just publicized, I might change plans. 

I was always unsure but now, I personally suspect a sizeable number of people somewhere in between 0 and 1300 were in there at the time. A few sources have cited UP TO 700 to 800 left near the end, hopefully before quite a few left in the days before. The same sources gave 500 as a low estimate, hopefully dated and even lower. However many were stuck there still alive, sadly, they will be dead and dying about now, 6+ days on, unless someone has gotten them out. It may be up to a post-conflict Russian-led effort, with urban combat slowing it for days still, and when and if hundreds of dead people are found, Russia alone will be blamed - but only after the eyewitnesses had all died. 

I've also advised from the start against declaring no one died just because no deaths were confirmed yet, even when that went on 2, 3 and 4 days. 4x unclear just means unclear, especially as things have gotten worse as the days go by. Even with the Art School shelter 500 meters away reportedly bombed by the Russians 3 days later, trapping another (or maybe the same?) 400 or so people (for 16-1700 total, per official claims), and this time zero images at all 3 days on ... still, there is a war going on, so it's hard to say how suspicious that is. I guess I'm not supposed to mention that it even could be suspicious, and a possible clue to a reality that physically matters?

There's much we don't know. In fact, there's almost nothing we know for sure. But someone at Twitter thinks they know it well enough to decide what cannot be "denied"?

So in review, I got in trouble because either: 

A) Twitter determined the Russians bombed this shelter, all 12-1300 people were still in there, and the rescue efforts including the one I panned were definitely legitimate, and the way I questioned that counted as "denial" in their book, and somehow that denial appeared "abusive" to them.   

B) They're looking for excuses and ways to silence voices that challenge the dominant paradigm. 

I've deleted the offending tweet and am preparing to do some catch-up. But they warn me further violations may result in suspension, as I'm still left guessing just what I need to avoid repeating. I guess I need to engage in the stand-with-Ukraine news charade, or just keep quiet, or keep going as I see fit and hope to get reported as little as possible. I'm going with that last one, and we'll see how it goes.

Mariupol Theater Bombing, 3/16/2022

< Who is Really Flattening Mariupol?

Mariupol Theater Bombing 3/16/2022

March 18, 2022

last updates 3/30

(rough, incomplete)

On March 17 16, between 500 and 1,300 residents of Mariupol, largely women and children, were reportedly taking shelter from the city's destruction in a basement at a historic drama theater. ДЕТИ - "CHILDREN" in Russian - was marked in huge characters on the pavement at either end of the building, as seen in satellite photos released by Maxar (and here: modified from a March 15 photo given to HRW). 

People love to highlight and point to those letters because Russian forces were just proven to have bombed that shelter anyway. Initial reports suggested most of those hiding there may have died, then news was put out the basement shelter they were in had held up, allowing perhaps everyone to survive. But the shelter itself remained buried, they say, and questions remain with no clarification, as of first writing almost two days later (and still upon updates on the 20th and 21st). 

Debate continues whether Putin and his accomplices just didn't care about the giant letters ДЕТИ, or if the promise of dead children actually drove their decision to drop that bomb, but the latter view seems to be winning. And still a few stubborn souls argue the Russians might be correct in denying any air strikes in Mariupol that day, on any military targets or on any well-marked civilian shelters. 

MoD statement: "During daylight on March 16, Russian aviation carried out no missions involving strikes on ground targets within Mariupol limits." https://tass.com/world/1423275 This denial could be false, and AFAIK it could be a dodge - I'm not sure when the bombing occurred, be it in daylight hours or that night. But do take note that no one has produced a radar track or anything of the sort to prove the Russians are lying, and I predict they never will. An SBU-provided audio recording might well surface, but these are often very dubious. And until someone can provide proof of a Russian jet even passing over this spot, there is no reason to believe it happened, and instead, there is reason to suspect it did NOT happen, which would mean the Ukrainian side is lying. 

And, of course, their forces in Mariupol are led by the Anti-Russian neo-Nazis of the Azov Battalion, who are doomed and desperate now, and may have no further use for Mariupol and its mostly Russian-speaking residents, except as human shields or propaganda fodder. And it's Azov that traps people in the city to die, per the more credible reports. DPR forces manage to smuggle out a few, under fire: here a car labeled ДЕТИ was shot at, and not by Putin's men. 

Finally, this incident includes an unusual twist: locals in Mariupol were credited with reports, publicized on March 12, that a version of this attack was already planned by Ukraine as a false-flag provocation; people were herded into a shelter run by Azov or allies, which some claim was rigged with bombs to mimic a Russian airstrike - and these claims were published 4 or 5 days before that airstrike was reported. This is obviously of interest, but it also raises potential issues I'd like to address here.

other points of interest I'll address here: 

• what does it mean that someone did this attack despite its being predicted?
• the lingering lack of clarity on death toll - what might that mean?
• the differing stories from people who've left, and reports that everyone was allowed to leave - hopefully true, but not quite sure yet
• the physical evidence 
• some circumstantial evidence, including the second/replacement shelter bombing claims 

Basics: theater Драмтеатр  

Location: 47.095989° 37.548896° - about one kilometer east of the Maternity and children's hospital provocatively attacked by someone a week earlier.

Death toll: 0 to ~1,200 - yet to be clarified.

A Troubling Prediction

https://twitter.com/gbazov/status/1504163614218936325

TWEET + SOURCE: https://t.me/novostldnr/2145

published March 12, 2022, at 23:29 Moscow Time.

As translated:

"Zelensky is preparing two [false flag] provocations in Mariupol. ... The second provocation Zelensky is preparing  ... after the failed provocation using the Mariupol maternity hospital" (see here) "Ukrainian military, together with the administration of the drama theatre, gathered women, children, and the elderly from Mariupol in the Drama Theatre building, so as to - given a good opportunity - detonate the building and then scream around the world that this is the RF airforce and that there should be an immediate "no fly zone" over Ukraine.

The essence of it was tweeted March 12 by Elena Evdokimov in English - people searching found few if any other instances there, but Russian and other language searches (Spanish?) and across more platforms might turn up more. This was published and there was a small buzz. But no Russian officials or diplomats brought it up in advance, that I've seen. They have cited it later alongside their denials MoD: "According to the verified information, militants of the Azov nationalist battalion carried out another bloody provocation by blowing up the rigged theater building,” https://tass.com/world/1423275

I had my doubts initially, but especially since it really was out there, it seemed "too convenient" or ... something unsettling. On reflection, I guess what's so odd is the event was predicted and yet it happened. Before in Syria, the Russians would predict a terrorist chemical false-flag attack was planned, and then it wouldn't happen, maybe because that risked proving Russia's point. 

Here, if Azov planned this, they went ahead despite this plot spoiler. That would be a bold move, and we should wonder if they have a plan this plays into.

So far, I haven't seen any answer from Western governments or experts as to how this event was predicted like that. But once they do, logically, they will say the Russians saw that prediction - perhaps after seeding it themselves - and acted to kill Mariupol innocents in order to blame Azov, not for no reason at all like usual. Russia is the only country that actually plans false-flag events, don't you know? And they do it all the time. Adding such a concrete motive could make this an especially effective event. And still, it could stand little chance of success at convincing any governments outside Asia or the global South, and allies there don't need convincing anyway. 

Still, lock-step minds will take this as Putin's clever plan, assisted by dangerous characters who spread his murderous disinformation. And as of writing, there may be some further twist that will make that project read as even more sinister, and those helping could be easily discredited and demonized.  

Still, there was the prediction of an AZOV FALSE-FLAG, which definitely has its own logic (see...) this might just be the smoking gun it seems, reflecting direct witness knowledge of the true events. But considering the dangers of this information war, my advice to truth-seekers is to acknowledge this evidence as ambiguous - likely very high value, but possibly something else that's too tricky to mess with - leave it undecided for the time, and focus on the other evidence that exists with regard to motive, means, and opportunity, and especially, as possible determining what physically happened.

It might also be worth looking at the first provocation alleged: "Ukrainian artillerists shelling the territory of the mosque from their positions at [Zinsteva] Balka in Nizhniaya [Lower] Kirkova," with an eye to hitting it eventually and provoking Turkey to retaliate against Russia. If existing damage can be seen (?), and those spots mapped, this claim can be checked for physical consistency at least. (not planning to do that myself, but if it suddenly seemed easier I might)

And this same day alert, "Irina" says, shortly before the bombing, that a defector from the Azov Battalion had fled Mariupol and leaked additional information to Donetsk separatists, NOT related to the bomb plot, but to Azov basing at the theater and hundreds held there under armed guard, besides information on prior atrocities in Mariupol. I'm not convinced about that, but very interested to hear if anything comes of his evidence. https://twitter.com/Irina48205830/status/1504183941258956805/photo/1

No Word on Deaths

that's not the only headache with this case... twists: shelter held, but it was buried and rescuers still digging to get to it - but also people were coming out, somehow - 

"People sheltering in a theater in the Ukrainian city of Mariupol are emerging from the building after it was bombed, the former head of the Donetsk region said Thursday."

Ukrainian lawmaker Serhiy Taruta said on Thursday that there were no casualties reported so far after the strike.

"After a terrible night of uncertainty, on the morning of the 22nd day of the war, finally good news from Mariupol! The bomb shelter has held out," Taruta wrote in a Facebook post. "People are coming out alive!"

An official at the Mariupol mayor's office was quoted by the Reuters news agency as saying that the bomb shelter withstood the bombing, adding that authorities believed survivors were trapped underneath.

"The bomb shelter held. Now the rubble is being cleared. There are survivors. We don't know about the [number of] victims yet," mayoral advisor Petro Andrushchenko told Reuters.

https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-mariupol-theater-bomb-shelter-holds-after-blast/a-61158421?maca=en-Twitter-sharing

AP: "More than a day after the airstrike, there were no reports of deaths. With communications disrupted across the city and movement difficult because of shelling and other fighting, there were conflicting reports on whether anyone had emerged from the rubble."

“We hope and we think that some people who stayed in the shelter under the theater could survive,” Petro Andrushchenko, an official with the mayor’s office, told The Associated Press. ... Other officials had said earlier that some people had gotten out." 

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-putin-kyiv-europe-world-news-303fbd14ea7d3f131abc9b3d5739123f

A woman speaking on an Azov Battalion video, elsewhere date March 17, speaks of difficult rescue translted in a Telegraph video as saying there are or were 800 people inside, and "when the building collapsed only around 100 people ran away," as if on their own feet, just after the bombing, prior to any rescue. Others have reported people "coming out" as if on their own, but this "around 100" could be the same 130 reportedly "rescued" by about this time:

By 12:09 PM on the 17th, "According to MP Olga Stefanyshyn, about 130 people have already been rescued from the rubble." Later on the 17th "Ukraine’s human rights commissioner Liudmyla Denisova said there was no update on figures released, which reported 130 people rescued from a total of 1,300 people believed to have been sheltering in the building." On Friday the 18th, pres. Zelensky repeated this claim, still with no update. (CNN) 

Belkis Wille, Senior Crisis & Conflict Researcher at Human Rights Watch heard another 70 had been rescued, one injured and the rest not. 7:58 PM on the 18th: Saga at #Mariupol theater continues- I just spoke to city's deputy mayor who says rescue workers have been able to rescue 200 ppl, including 1 woman who is wounded and in hospital. He said they have yet to get information about the 100s more that might still be under the rubble

https://twitter.com/belkiswille/status/1504879954344955913

3/19, 3/20 no update - "street fighting in the city centre is hampering efforts to rescue hundreds of people trapped inside" the theater basement (BBC)

Rescue was slow because, as First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Emine Dzheppar said, "Russians hampering rescue operations by opening constant fire." The accompanying video from azov.org.ua shows a guy quietly filming the scene, from close range, with no one else in sight, no sign of constant attack, and no signs of any rescue operation even attempted. It is early, with some smoke still rising.

Some rescue efforts were shown on a March 17 Azov video: 2 women preparing to go in, equipped with at least one headlamp and one jug of water, but they seem in no rush as they explain how difficult it is, or will be. (composite view below - note FWIW the ДЕТИ still visible under the debris) https://twitter.com/JPaulKirby/status/1504552573667315716 

But otherwise, none of this emergence or rescue is shown in videos or photos anyone I know has found. Times are very dangerous, communications ae unreliable, and electricity is scarce, and the Russians allegedly have blown up many of the city's fire trucks, rescue gear and rescuers. Still, it seems there's strangely little to show at this site, and that held until news of a new drama unfolding just meters away; 400 sheltering civilians trapped or killed beneath an art school bombed by Russia the night of the 19th (see below, "Circumstantial Evidence").

Add 3/22: ~34 cars parked in the days before the bombing, ~0 in the days after. Trapped people don't drive off. Others might take their cars. Maybe everyone with a car drove off ahead of time? We've heard from a few without cars who hitched rides out in the days before. We've heard from one family who say they climbed from the rubble and hitched a ride out of town - apparently with someone else who escaped the rubble, meaning there was at least one car left at the time of the bombing. Interesting. Compare images above and below of east and west lots, or see here, if it's still allowed.

Different Stories From People Who Left

Some people who managed to leave the building before it became rubble have shared their stories: "Some refugees from Mariupol have already been placed, including in Crimea. A relative of my close friend, who was yesterday at the Drama Theater of Mariupol, has already written from Simferopol. He said that there were more than a thousand civilians in the theater"

https://twitter.com/spriter99880/status/1504403807878492168 One version on Telegram comes from these people, via DPR-connected sources. Some said Azov Battalion let "all" of the civilians go before the blast for some reason. These reports add that bombs had been rigged on and under the roof. 

BBC reports a different story from "Kate", another local who got out of the city. 

As Russia's relentless assault continued, Kate said the buildings around the theatre had been either damaged or destroyed. "We knew we had to run away because something terrible would happen soon," she said.

A day before the attack, Kate and her son left the site. "We jumped in a car while the theatre and the area were being shelled," she said. They shared the vehicle with a family of four, who had brought four dogs and a cat.

"We asked to go with them, because we didn't have our own [car]," she said. They were part of convoy of about 2,000 cars that escaped Mariupol on Tuesday.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60776929   

This story is probably being repeated a lot and will prevail for western audiences. It makes clear that no Azov people held anyone against their will, that people could leave at will, and that Russian bombs alone chased them into and out of that shelter. 

So at least two differing stories of people leaving before the blast, both told after leaving the city - maybe no one who remains in Mariupol after leaving the shelter, either before or after the blast. One story has perhaps everyone vacated prior to it. 

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/16/ukraine-mariupol-theater-hit-russian-attack-sheltered-hundreds

"On March 16, just hours before the attack, Human Rights Watch interviewed over a dozen Mariupol residents who had escaped the city the day before in a convoy of hundreds of private cars and had arrived in Zaporizhzhia. Two people interviewed separately mentioned civilians sheltering in the basement of Mariupol’s theater. One of them, a doctor, said she had visited the theater in the days before she left and that between 500 and 800 civilians were staying there. The other person, who had spent the past two weeks delivering food, water, and medicine to shelters across the city, said that he had delivered aid to the theater multiple times and that it was housing between 500 and 700 civilians."

"Human Rights Watch was unable to reach anyone in Mariupol by phone on March 16 to determine whether civilians had left the theater immediately prior to the attack." 

Note: people were let out - 500-800 estimated by some informed sources, 1,200-1,300 by others. Logically, it might be there were 1200-1300 until 4-800 were allowed to leave. Just which ones and why might be of interest, but it's unclear aside from they tell 2+ stories about events. This could even explain the claims "all" were released; e.g. some half were let out with promises the rest would follow, but then they weren't.

Perhaps Azov had held people here and planned to blow them up, but decided - maybe because the plan was leaked - just to blow the building. It could help Azov pretend they had never held those people or knew much about them - to the degree they had no idea everyone had left "on their own accord" - and maybe THAT will be why Azov THOUGHT up to 1200 people were still trapped in there, and wound up leading the world to THINK up to 1200 MIGHT have died. and keep thinking that for a few days as they consider increasing military aid.

Still we're led to speculate when there's no clear evidence who is or is not still in there, alive, dead, or what. For all we know, the final plot twist might be the shelter survived, but Putin had "Novichok" chemical weapons in that bomb and it killed the 500 or so people still in there.  (seems this mystery element can do anything you want, so why not?) In that case, it could be Ukraine gets their "no fly zone" and it's NATO et al. vs. Russia, China et al. - and I didn't realize the SCO now includes India AND Pakistan besides - ostensibly a mutual defense pact just like NATO, and surely Iran would join along with the whole resistance axis and most of the global south) we all get decades of global war, military and economic, and some of us may get nuked.

And maybe not, but anyway ... let's try to stay mentally nimble here. That was me nimbly leaping way ahead on a tangent. 

Add 3/22: harrowing tale from Serhii, a 56-year-old editor in Kyiv, from his own wife and two daughters trapped in Mariupol. Says he told them to go the drama theater shortly before it was bombed, to his sharp regret, but the story has a positive spin - one daughter was out when it happened, came back to find her sister hid "in a portion of the theater that did not collapse, and her mother, who was dug out of the bomb shelter along with other survivors" was also okay, and they were able to check in by phone. Some 1200 others were less lucky. Others who escaped - or just others - had a car to give the three a ride to safety. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/mariupol-they-thought-they-would-be-safe-in-the-theater-then-it-was-bombed/ar-AAVkzop

Images and Forensic Analysis

Again: Until someone can provide proof of a Russian jet even passing over this spot, there is no reason to believe that aerial bombing happened, and instead, there is reason to suspect it did NOT happen, which means the Ukrainian side is lying. 

Nonetheless, we can learn from the visual record, albeit scant in this case. 

a few photos and one video at least published by Azov Battalion: https://twitter.com/With__Ukraine/status/1504522796990406663

All four combined at smaller size, showing east end, NE corner, NE corner, north south side 

Calling the last north side was wrong - it never did fit clearly, and Max Blumental noted in a good piece at TheGrayZone it's the same spot shown in a HRW photo, which is clearly the south face. Trees on the left match exactly, and the rest is consistent but for location and angle of view and, obviously, the damage inflicted. Compared here with damaged area in red, and for reference some sidewalk edges and pole marked in green for the mapping below.

Video: This shows the northeast corner. Panoramic view:

(from first posting I found: https://twitter.com/V_Schneiderman/status/1504652989747056642 )

Otherwise, there are 1 or 2 10-second videos posted early after the blast, and about three photos or stills of differing quality, and as far as I can find, zero non-Azov additions since - all 3 early basic views I saw making the rounds: https://twitter.com/CL4Syr/status/1504531878249852942 - 2 views from the south, one from the north - all 3 combined below.

I collected a bunch of before views from different angles for comparison ... I'll be adding at least some of these here. Here we see the south and east sides from above, with the approximate collapsed area and destroyed roof marked out.

Maxar Technologies satellite imagery from the morning of March 19 was released, allowing some overview - cropped here - showing more roof missing than what Illustrated above. Note the total lack of cars of people sheltering here, compared with the crowed lot seen in the earlier view. Did everyone with a car leave? Did someone come and remove the cars belonging to the 1,200 people in there?

Next ... a pretty detailed damage and debris mapping on a working scene model, consulting many images to try and mark all sidewalks and intervening spans relevant to placing the seen debris. Note the lime green lines and green dot on south side - refers to pole and edge labels in the image above. 

This can at least give some idea of the size of blast involved. A basic point we can be clear on is that debris spread somewhat evenly to north vs. south, maybe a bit further to the south, but that might reflect the wind as much as anything. It doesn't give the sense of any kind of missile trajectory as seen with prior "Russian bomb" drops. This could be a dropped bomb, IF there were any jet up there to drop it. Otherwise, I think it's a stationary bomb set up inside the building. Will be expanding on this and seeking other views. 

Early views with fires still burning seem to have the north wall still partly standing - in later views it has collapsed. Two trees on the north side are downed with most branches intact, apparently after the wall collapsed. At least one tree on the south side was downed, and stripped of branches as if in the blast itself. This is possibly a clue to where the bomb impacted, or was set. Again, south of center is suggested. 

building damage will hold more specific clues I can't exploit very well - wider at the top, suggesting a blast center about at the roofline - consistent AFAIK with either an aerial bomb as reported, or one rigged at that level, as also reported. 

Shelter scenes - to consider when looking at wooden pallets, other things

https://twitter.com/belkiswille/status/1504331621352226820  

Circumstantial Evidence

Did Zelensky Know?

On March 16, just hours before this attack, Ukraine's President Zelensky had addressed the US congress pleading for no-fly or advanced weapons, citing the 1941 Pearl Harbor and 2001 9/11 attacks when "innocent people were attacked from air" and killed in droves that started or brought the US into global wars. Zelensky added "Our country experienced the same every day" since Russia invaded,  (CNN). The theater bombing really made his case like nothing before; March 16 looked well set to become such a "day of infamy." Was that coincidence, or was it planned to come out that way? 

But the 4-digit death toll was stalled, at least. On the 18th CNN reports on Zelensky confirming but not updating earlier reports that 130 people had been rescued, of about 1,300 believed to be inside and zero confirmed dead. "Zelensky said that rescue operations are continuing at the site despite the difficulties." Limited reports of 200 rescued followed that night, but nothing since, and there are still no images of this operation or any rescues. We can be expected the process to "continue" slowly, to drag out the drama of how many lived, as Zelensky pleads for better weapons (it seems a "no fly zone" is now beyond reach? “We shall call even louder on certain Western leaders and remind them that this will be their moral defeat if Ukraine does not receive the advanced weapons that will save the lives of thousands of our people.”). 

Art School Bombing

It was starting to seem there may be no one under the rubble, but then late on the 19th the Russians allegedly bombed another shelter just 150 meters to the southeast. Some 400 civilians, mostly women, children and elderly, who had been sheltering beneath an art school were feared trapped or killed, again with uncertainty over who survived. Now it's some 1,600-1,700 feared buried and zero confirmed deaths in this same small area.

Location: BBC map shows this art school almost next to the drama theater. A telegram post from Mariupol City Council gives школу мистецтв №12 = school of arts №12, Shkola Mystetstv (music school) on Google maps - Immediately south of the central square on the drama theater grounds, it's 1/2 visible in Maxar site photo (in the crop below, upper right corner). So far (3/22) no imagery from the scene that I've found.    

This 400 might add to the people at the drama theater for a really massive catastrophe. Or it might replace them, since they were all gone before the bombing, allowing the story to continue despite a false start. I don't think anyone predicted this event like they did for the theater, but then that event may have been canceled, or just moved and re-scheduled, for all we know. So far the reality behind either story is extremely unclear. 

More posts on the Drama theater bombing:

Continuing development of this case carried out in later posts:

Truth, Justice, and "Twitter Rules" - on the right to ask questions

Molfar "Destroys" Russian "Propaganda Bloc" in Edinburgh - 

Shelled from the South - subsequent damage cause after March 21 - seems to be caused by Ukrainian fire from the southwest