tzor wrote:So anyway I'm not going to congratulate the people of Crimea. From what I've read they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Ukraine is their biggest customer and source of revenue. A lot of Ukrainians go to their resorts. The biggest Vodka distillery in Crimea sells mostly to the Ukraine. No tourist trap will survive long by pissing off their largest customer base. More interestingly, there is this odd rumor that Russia wants Crimea to go to hell in a hand basket because that way the tourists will flock to neighboring Sochi where they just spend a bucket load of money for the recently finished Olympics.
(That's what you get when they start delivering the Financial Times to your door.)
Secession talk leaves Crimea with supply hangoverWhen he bought a vodka plant in Ukraine, a country with no shortage of spirits drinkers, British businessman Neil Smith thought he was on to a winner.
But of all the risks Mr Smith might have considered, a geopolitical crisis was not one of them. For Mr Smith’s factory is in Crimea, and Crimea has been in effect cut off from the rest of Ukraine. Thus, the Crimean Vodka Company cannot deliver to most of its market.
He can apply for reparations from UK... last I know UK supported the rebels so they should pay the bill

tzor wrote:Crimea obtains some 80 per cent of its water and electricity from the mainland, and some 65 per cent of its gas. Two-thirds of the holidaymakers coming to the tourism-dependent peninsula are from the rest of Ukraine. Kiev funds an estimated $800m of the $1.2bn annual regional public budget.
“Crimea costs ‘big Ukraine’ a lot of money,” said Oleksandr Shlapak, finance minister, on Monday. “In the economic sense, Ukraine would not lose out [from secession] because Crimea has always been a region which has been subsidised.”
Can Ukraine afford to not export some of its goods to other countries? I think that will hurt them more then Crimea.
Most of the "subsidized" money were actually cumming from Russian Black Sea Fleet.
tzor wrote:So significant is tourism that Ili Umerov, the mayor of Bakhchysarai, the Crimean Tatars’ traditional stronghold, grumbles Russia may have engineered the conflict to divert travellers to its Black Sea resort of Sochi, where it invested heavily for the Winter Olympics. The Tatars oppose the desire of the majority Russian-speaking population to leave Ukraine.
I doubt that even the Russia can invest and change everything over night. Crimea will most likely be "next big thing" which will follow after Sochi.
Pope Joan wrote:tzor wrote: Ukraine is their biggest customer and source of revenue. A lot of Ukrainians go to their resorts.
That is actually the problem. Crimea has a huge tourist potential but needs large investment and good governance to realize it. At the moment anyone with a choice will just go to Turkey to enjoy modern tourist infrastructure at 80% of the price. Most of the tourists it attracts go there on a tight budget from neighbouring parts of Ukraine. They have to endure dilapidating Soviet infrastructure and Nigerian level of corruption from policemen, bandits and all sorts of local officials.
Since Ukraine wasn't investing, maybe Russia will, like in the case of Sochi

Pope Joan wrote:Their ideal outcome would be a larger degree of autonomy, large investment, and a transparent, democratically elected local government. It is not immediately clear how they should play their hand but they are not doing it right.
Why they are not doing that right? Because they are making a referendum instead of rebellion like their former EU sponsored countrymen?