Material “From the devastation of war to the “Dubai of Donbass”: Mariupol through the eyes of Gabriele Micalizzi” is presented as an architectural reportage, but its optics create a different, much more dangerous effect — the occupation is depicted as a “new stage of development,” rather than as a consequence of violence. This is a key claim to the text. The photo report accompanying the publication captures the “active reconstruction” and reinforces this frame.
Disclaimer: Domus magazine was founded by the prominent Italian architect and designer Gio Ponti in 1928 in Milan, and it became one of the world's most influential publications in the field of architecture and design. Ponti himself, an anti-fascist and a central figure in the development of modern design and architecture in post-war, democratic Italy, was unlikely to have appreciated the "architectural achievements" in occupied Mariupol, in our subjective opinion.
"The siege took lives": how responsibility disappears
In the introduction, the author cites frightening figures: “One of the main theaters of hostilities after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it (Mariupol. — Ed. note) was one of the first cities to be attacked in the Donbass — an industrial region of eastern Ukraine that has been contested since 2014. The three-month siege, from February 24 to May 20, claimed, according to Ukrainian authorities, about 21,000 civilians and left the city devastated.” But the key manipulation is already visible in the wording, even if it is not conscious: “the siege took lives.” This is convenient grammar without a subject. It works as if people died as a result of natural forces, and not as a result of specific actions of a specific army.
But Mariupol did not “suffer from the siege” per se. It was destroyed by Russia. It was bombed by Russian troops. It was occupied by Russian forces. And it is Russia that is responsible for the war crimes that occurred in the city. For its part, the author transfers the tragedy to the plane of impersonal disaster, where there are seemingly no culprits.
Photo report by Gabriele Micalizzi
In addition, the wording "region of eastern Ukraine, which has been disputed since 2014" violates the main postulate of the Constitution of Ukraine, which from the very first article enshrines the right of the state to be unitary. The territorial issue is not disputed, it is a proven fact.
It is worth noting that part of the editorial material is actually structured as an interview between Mikalizzi and the Russian-appointed city manager Anton Koltsov, whom the author calls the “new Russian mayor” of Mariupol.
Photo report by Gabriele Micalizzi
In the text, the journalist cites his direct quotes and formulations that work as ready-made elements of a propaganda message. For example, Koltsov speaks of the desire to make Mariupol a “seaside city,” to develop the embankment, “hotels, restaurants, beaches, children's resorts,” and also presents the occupation as proof that “normalcy has returned” and the city is becoming “a model for Donbas.”
Passion for construction speed instead of ethics
The text then moves on to the topic of the "reconstruction" of Mariupol.
"From where we stand, we still imagine the city completely destroyed. This is not true: today Mariupol is an open-air construction site. I saw bodies still lying on the ground, and people were already washing windows," Micalizzi comments.
Mariupol is described as an “open construction site” where reconstruction is proceeding “with astonishing speed.” The author emphasizes that the city is supposedly coming to life, that “people are returning,” and that subsidies and mortgage programs are in place.
Photo report by Gabriele Micalizzi
“Anyone who works in the military or the Russian government can get preferential rates of 0% to 2% to buy a house,” Micalizzi writes.
This description looks like an attempt to create an effect of normality — and it works for the occupation narrative: they say, yes, it was scary, but now life is getting better.
But the problem is that reconstruction in occupied territories is not a humanitarian gesture. It is a tool of control that has a very specific goal: to show the world that the occupation is stable, functional, and irreversible.
Photo report by Gabriele Micalizzi
Note that the editorial text mentions a report by The New York Times and an independent investigation by Bellingcat, which describe the reconstruction of the city as a process intertwined with the normalization of the occupation. However, this reference does not have sufficient convincing force in contrast to Mikalitsa's "living narrative", since it does not provide specific data on the crimes committed by the Russians.
Reconstruction erases traces of crime
The material notes that residential neighborhoods in Mariupol suffered the most, and were demolished and rebuilt first.
“In such cases, it’s better to demolish than to rebuild. When you have a twenty-story building with holes right in the middle, where entire vertical rows have collapsed, it’s impossible to rebuild it — and it’s not worth it,” says Mikalizzi when asked how much of the city’s Ukrainian past remains reflected in its architecture.
The most dangerous thing in this perspective is not even what the author says about construction. But what he doesn't say. The rapid reconstruction of the occupied territories by Russia has another function: it physically destroys evidence.
Photo report by Gabriele Micalizzi
Mariupol is potentially one of the largest sites for an international investigation of war crimes: the destruction of residential neighborhoods, mass graves, disappearances, deportations, filtration procedures, the destruction of civilian infrastructure. But when a city is rapidly “renovated,” demolishing buildings, digging up territories, changing the layout of neighborhoods, it’s not just renovation. It’s rewriting the space that is the scene of the crime.
To ignore this fact is to agree that a crime can be "covered up with a facade."
“Mayor”, “administration”, “DPR”: the language that makes the occupation “official”
The text uses phrases that sound like administrative normality: “mayor of Mariupol”, “city government”, “general plan until 2035”, “DPR funds”.
But in reality, this is not a city government, but an occupation administration. This is not a legitimate mayor, but a figure appointed by Russia. This is not the “DPR region,” but part of the temporarily occupied territory of Ukraine.
Photo report by Gabriele Micalizzi
When the media reproduces these words without reservations, without the framework of international law, without a clear definition of the status of the territory, it turns the occupation into something ordinary and manageable. And this is legalization through vocabulary.
Architecture is like a weapon, but whose voice says it?
The article makes a strong point: an "ideological war" is underway in Mariupol, which is being waged through architecture. But the problem is that the text presents this war almost as a fascinating urban case study: reconstruction, styles, proportions of new buildings, "how the Romans shaped conquered cities."
Photo report by Gabriele Micalizzi
The main thing here is missing - the voice of those who were conquered. Mariupol in this story exists as a territory, as a "project", as an "urban experiment". But not as a Ukrainian city with Ukrainian residents who were killed, expelled or forced to silence.
"Restored by Russia" Theater
The part about the drama theater sounds particularly cynical. The author reminds us that “in March 2022, a huge number of Ukrainian and Russian civilians took refuge, trying to escape the crossfire that engulfed the city. […] Nevertheless, it was here that bombs dropped by Moscow planes hit on March 16, 2022. For the international community, this was one of the most brutal war crimes committed during the invasion; Russia continues to deny responsibility.” But then comes the description of the theater’s reopening after “full restoration” as a fact of cultural life.
Photo report by Gabriele Micalizzi
"The facade was left largely unchanged, but the layout and interiors were partially redesigned. Funding for the reconstruction came directly from the Russian Federation: after all, every public building in an occupied city is considered state property," the article states.
However, in the legitimate Mariupol City Council emphasized, that this is not a reconstruction, but the actual construction of a new building. In July 2023, the occupation administration ordered the basement of the theater to be filled with concrete, destroying possible traces of the crime. The new building only imitates the destroyed theater: the authentic sculptures have been lost, and the facade, which was previously faced with white Crimean stone, has simply been painted.
"Megapark" at the scene of the tragedy
This paragraph suggests that not all of Mariupol is an active construction site, and that the gaps in Moscow's urban plan are primarily ideological. The territory of the Azovstal steelworks is largely destroyed and inaccessible. However, the occupiers plan to turn it into a "megapark with adjacent museums to commemorate the battle — and perhaps at the same time control its memory."
Photo report by Gabriele Micalizzi
The phrase "perhaps at the same time to control her memory" sounds almost like an analytical remark, but: it does not call it a propaganda tool, does not talk about the suppression of Ukrainian memory, does not explain that it is about the rewriting of the history of the war by the aggressor.
That is, memory control is presented as a side effect, not as a deliberate political crime.
Journalism has no right to be “neutral” about the occupation
“But the fight for Mariupol’s future is not fought on just one side. In 2023, even before the Russian master plan was approved, the Ukrainian government launched the “Mariupol Reborn” project — a reconstruction and urban renewal plan conceived “for later” if the city is liberated. The Russian and Ukrainian visions are two mirror images, but radically different images of the same city. But beyond propaganda, they show, above all, one truth about the future of war: reconstruction today no longer just consolidates conquest — it builds it in real time. These are no longer urban projects that begin after the fighting ends, but master plans that are implemented while the war is still going on — simply on the ruins,” the article concludes.
Photo report by Gabriele Micalizzi
The Domus material has the appearance of a report about a city being rebuilt. But in essence, it works as a document of occupation aesthetics: it shows “construction” without properly talking about the crime, it calls out “administration” without defining its illegitimacy, it talks about “normality” without acknowledging that this normality is based on violence. And the scariest thing is not even what is written in the material. It is the fact that after such a text the reader is left with the feeling – yes, there was a war, but now everything is moving forward.
We want Italian readers, journalists and publishers to finally understand that Mariupol is not the object of an urban experiment or an exotic reportage about reconstruction, but a city that Russia destroyed and occupied, and is now trying to rewrite its history. Normalizing the occupation through neutral language and the "impressive pace of reconstruction" works for propaganda - even if the author did not set such a goal.
Photo report by Gabriele Micalizzi
We call on the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy of Ukraine to strengthen international communication about what is happening in the occupied territories and demand responsible coverage from foreign editorial offices: with a clear definition of the aggressor, the context of war crimes, and the understanding that "reconstruction" under occupation is also a tool of war.
Finally, we cannot fail to mention Italy's contribution to the preservation of Ukrainian cultural heritage. Only recently, the Verkhovna Rada adopted a law on the ratification of the Grant Agreement between the governments of Ukraine and the Italian Republic on the program "Restoration and Preservation of the Cultural Heritage of the Odessa Region". It provides for the allocation of 32,5 million euros in non-repayable assistance for restoration and preservation of 6 monuments Odessa, in particular the UNESCO World Heritage Sites, which is a clear cultural and political message for Ukraine.
Main photo: Alexander Ermochenko / REUTERS
