Cross-posted from: https://feddit.de/post/9438338
Military pay, ammunition, tanks, planes, and compensation for dead and wounded soldiers, all contribute to the GDP figures. Put simply, the war against Ukraine is now the main driver of Russia’s economic growth.
And it is a war that Russia cannot afford to win. The cost of rebuilding and maintaining security in a conquered Ukraine would be too great, and an isolated Russia could at best hope to become a junior partner entirely dependent on China.
Ukraine has a lot of fertile land. With climate change Ukraine becomes more valuable to stabilize food supply. Prices for farm land in Ukraine have been increasing sharply, even during the war.
In geostrategic terms, controlling Ukraine allows Russia to double the controlled area of the Black Sea coast.
Both aspects significantly increase the dependency of Europe and many Asian and African countries on trade under Russian control. Ukraines pre war agricultural exports show great opportunities to increase Russian influence, particularly in countries already relying heavily on food imports and being strongly vulnerable to climate change.
Russia’s agricultural potential is not currently limited by land, but rather by weather, which meets the same condition as you describe for Ukraine. The biggest advantage of stealing Ukrainian farms is an already established industry, which Russia needs to destroy in order to take the land. There are some arguments for destroying Ukraine to eliminate competition, but they are not that strong when you consider the global market demand, and if you include agricultural inputs such as fertiliser, which put the Russians into a very strong position. Russia also already has several valuable access points for the Black Sea. It would have been cheaper to develop existing ports for more deep water access than to destroy the RU economy in a war. Some more rail development would be necessary as well, but that isn’t hard for Russian industry. As we have seen lately, occupying Crimean ports and airfields isn’t as big an advantage as it used to be because warfare has changed.
The biggest reasons for taking Ukraine are cultural egotism. To redefine the Russian nation as a strong player in the world, instead of the fading gas station. There is something to say about one person’s desire to create the historical narrative as a despotic conquerer.
BTW, Vlad Vexlers videos are quite informative from the philosophical perspective, getting at both the philosophy of the Russian leadership and the historical cultural perspective of the Russian nation.
Climate zones:
Precipitation:
Soil quality:
You are right that Russia has about a similiar sized good quality land to the east/north east of Ukraine in terms of climate,precipitation and soil quality. That would still be a huge strategic improvement, independant from development of the land. You are also right that Russia has ports at the Black Sea already. It is not about just what you have, it is also about what others wouldn’t have.
We see the same thing in reverse with the NordStream pipelines. The Gas could have been continued to be transported through Ukraine and Poland just fine. But by building around them, Germany and Russia could deny a share of the cake to them, which of course they were strongly opposed to, like most other European countries and the US were too.
Most of Russia is pretty poor farm land otherwise: