The Kremlin has approved a Strategy for the Sustainable Development of the Azov Sea Region through 2040 — a document that seeks to justify the illegal incorporation of temporarily occupied Ukrainian territories into the legal, administrative, and economic space of the Russian Federation under the guise of “long-term development.” Formally, the strategy covers seven Russian regions, including the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and parts of the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions, and represents another step toward legitimizing the occupation through bureaucratic and economic mechanisms.
The document proclaims goals such as “environmental transformation,” infrastructure development, tourism, inland water transport, and fisheries. However, the set of targets outlined through 2030 appears detached from the reality of a region affected by war, sanctions, and the degradation of basic infrastructure. Among the declared indicators are improvements in utility services for 2.58 million people, the creation of “comfortable living conditions” for 750,000 residents, and the formation of a tourist flow of 23.6 million trips per year. These figures are not supported by identified sources of funding or clear implementation mechanisms, while the list of environmentally hazardous facilities — of which 17 out of 30 are allegedly to be eliminated — is not even specified in the document.
The implementation plan includes 79 measures across 18 areas, ranging from the construction of the federal seaside resort “Primorsk” in the Zaporizhzhia region to the development of sturgeon farming, oyster farms, and jellyfish processing. It also separately declares the restoration of hydrometeorological and environmental monitoring systems, the removal of sunken vessels in the Sea of Azov, and large-scale changes to the water management schemes of the Don and Dnipro rivers. Taken together, these initiatives constitute a set of populist projects that disregard the legal status of the territories, real environmental risks, and technical constraints.
Particular emphasis is placed on modernizing the port and transport-logistics infrastructure of the Azov basin and integrating it into Russia-wide cargo corridors. Despite the civilian rhetoric, these measures have an obvious dual-use character and are effectively aimed at strengthening Russia’s military-logistical capabilities in the region.
Overall, the strategy serves as an instrument of political demonstration of control, combining inflated socio-economic promises with infrastructure projects oriented primarily toward the interests of the aggressor state rather than the population of the Azov Sea region.
