Tourism and Resorts During the War: How the rf Is “Planning” the Future of the Occupied Azov Region

The kremlin has approved the Strategy for Sustainable Development of the Azov Region until 2040 – a document that justifies the illegal inclusion of the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine into the legal, administrative, and economic space of the rf under the guise of “long-term development”.  The strategy formally covers seven subjects of the rf, including the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and districts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions, and is another step towards legitimizing the occupation through bureaucratic and economic mechanisms.

The document declares “ecological transformation”, development of infrastructure, tourism, water transport, and fisheries, but the set of goals for 2030 seems detached from the reality of the region that is in a state of war, sanctions, and degradation of basic infrastructure. The  stated indicators include the improvement of utility services for 2.58 million people, creation of “comfortable living conditions” for 750,000 residents, and formation of a tourist flow of 23.6 million trips per year. These figures are not backed up by either sources of funding or clear implementation mechanisms, while the list of environmentally hazardous facilities, of which 17 out of 30 are planned to be eliminated, is not even specified in the document.

The strategy implementation plan includes 79 measures in 18 areas, ranging from the construction of the “Primorsk” federal seaside resort in Zaporizhzhia region to the development of sturgeon farming, oyster farms, and jellyfish processing. Separately, the restoration of hydrometeorological and environmental monitoring systems, the disposal of sunken ships in the Sea of Azov, and large-scale changes to the water management schemes of the Don and the Dnieper Rivers have been announced. Taken together, these initiatives are a set of populist projects that do not take into account the legal status of the territories, real environmental risks, and technical limitations.

Special  emphasis is placed on the modernization of the port and transport-logistics infrastructure of the Azov basin and its integration into the all-russian freight corridors. Despite the civil rhetoric, these measures have an obvious dual purpose and are in fact aimed at strengthening the rf’s military-logistical capabilities in the region.

Ultimately, the strategy is a tool for political demonstration of control, combining exaggerated socio-economic promises with infrastructure projects focused primarily on the interests of the aggressor state rather than the population of the Azov region.