For the past few months, Crimean collaborators have been concerned about the consequences of the disappearance of such a phenomenon as the “tourist season”. Large-scale Russian aggression has effectively destroyed this branch of the occupied peninsula, cultivated by the Kremlin as part of its imperial narratives.

Against the backdrop of these events, local collaborators began to actively talk about the idea of development of the so-called “agritourism”, which they allegedly “care about” lately. It should be noted that some activity in this direction is indeed observed, and it is associated with the understanding that in 2023 the occupied Crimea may be left without “Russian tourists” at all.

Traditionally, “agritourism” in the information space is presented by the occupiers to the Crimean residents as almost a “lifeline”, however, experts of the Association of Reintegration of Crimea sorted out whether the plans of the Crimean collaborators are really so “realistic”.

In the early spring of this year, the Mission of the President of Ukraine in the AR of Crimea summed up the disappointing results of the occupation: a decrease in the number of recreation areas; total “sale” of Crimean lands to Russian officials; blocking access to the sea by collaborators; destruction of tourism infrastructure; illegal development of unique recreational lands. All this was the reason for the rapid decrease in the number of “Russian vacationers” [1].

Without recognizing the obvious, the Crimean collaborators assured since the beginning of the year that the “tourist season” would still “take place”, even despite the beaches dug up by trenches and military equipment disguised on the Crimean coast [2]. In this vein, the aggressor’s propaganda the returned to the “idea of development” of “agritourism”.

It is fair to say that the idea of agritourism does not belong to the Crimean collaborators, as they want to present it. A few years before the occupation, Ukrainian scientists and urbanists really substantiated the prospects of rural tourism in Crimea.

It was seen as a good way to expand the tourist infrastructure throughout the peninsula, and not just on its coast. Indeed, there are prerequisites for the development of agritourism, the main of which are: a combination of several types of landscapes, unique nature and a developed private sector. In 2010, with the support of international organizations, a draft Concept for the Development of Rural Tourism in Crimea was created, in which the advantages and ways of its development were very clearly identified.

That is why the traitors so seized on this idea, which was far from being worked out by them. However, they did not take into account the fact that the total militarization, the barbaric attitude towards natural resources, the departure of the population from the temporarily occupied peninsula made it impossible to “develop agro-tourism”.

Today, even unique landscapes are under the threat of destruction as a result of hostilities and ecocide committed by the aggressor state, in particular after the dam of the Kakhovka HPP was blown up. It should be added that during the years of occupation, collaborators use the tourist infrastructure built before 2014. It is logical that this infrastructure needs to be systematically modernized and maintained in proper condition, which, of course, did not happen under the conditions of occupation.

In such conditions, the infrastructure is simply destroyed, and becomes unsuitable for serving “vacationers”. Ignoring reality, the occupiers even proclaimed “the possibility of receiving grants in the amount of 10 million rubles for the development of agro-tourism” on the condition that “70% of the applicant’s activities must be related to the production of agricultural products”.

The illegal occupiers’ “ministry of agriculture” stated that allegedly “agritourism will attract 400,000 tourists; about 500 new jobs will be created; the volume of sold agricultural products will grow by 5-10%”. But even the forecasts of the aggressor-controlled “Crimean business” are fundamentally different from such fake figures [3]. Suffice it to point out that this year there are not only “tourists” on the peninsula, but not a single “growth of the agricultural sector” either in terms of “device labor” or in terms of “production volumes”.

Moreover, the fake “authority” announced plans that “agritourism will also be popular between the tourist seasons”. Such statements look like a mockery of the Crimean residents, who tell tales about “cheese making, winemaking, creating snail and oyster farms, fisheries, growing lavender fields”.

In the meantime, “snails and oysters” exist only within the laundering of “agritourist grants” by Crimean collaborators, a decrease in demand for illegal travel to the occupied peninsula led to an increase in prices for holidays in the Krasnodar Territory [4], and Sergey Aksyonov himself was forced to state that since the beginning of a full-scale invasion, “about 30,000 workers had to be fired from the tourism industry”.

Obviously, this does not worry the Crimean collaborators too much, who, however, did not plan to distribute money to the Crimeans “for agritourism”, which can be stolen. The financial interest of the illegal “heads” of the “ministries of tourism” and “agriculture” is obvious here, and the lack of “advertising of rural tourism” in the occupied Crimea is a confirmation of this.

That is, only the criminal “power” speaks about it, which “accepts programs” and “allocates” “funds” for them, which are then “spent by grantees”.

In fact, no “agritourism” is “popularized” among the “vacationers”, and during the years of occupation, not a single “location for rural tourism” has been created. In the numerous telegram channels of the criminal “authorities” of the Crimea, there are only single mentions of lavender fields, in particular in the Bakhchisaray and Leninsky districts. In this case, supposedly “agritourism” refers to ordinary photo shoots for those who wish, which does not correspond to the concept of rural tourism at all.

In addition, there is confirmation of our assumptions regarding the attention of the Crimean collaborators to this “type of tourism”. So, the “owner” of one of the lavender farms is the fake “agrofirm” “Turgenevskaya”, which was founded by a certain Marina Shatskaya.

This person “founded” at least nine more “enterprises”, and very different in areas of activity. In particular, these are the so-called “Experimental plant of high-voltage equipment”, “Bakhchisarai fruit and vegetable base No. 1”, “Electrotekhprom”, “Onyx” for “leased property management” and so on.

The fake “director” of most of these “enterprises” is Alexey Mishin, who is registered as an entrepreneur in the Moscow region. These two defendants are very reminiscent of proxies of the aggressor’s big businessmen who have common financial interests with the Crimean collaborators. It should be assumed that it is to such “subjects” that the criminal “authorities” of the occupiers will issue their “grants in the amount of 10 million rubles”. From this we can conclude that “agritourism” is a new project for the enrichment of the Kremlin and Crimean collaborators, which consists in laundering “budgetary funds”.

However, there are radically different stories on the temporarily occupied peninsula, showing how Crimean collaborators actually “worry about agritourism”. So, at the beginning of the year, they took 200 cows for meat from a Crimean farmer. This happened in the village of Zuya, Belogorsk district. The “compensation” from the collaborators turned out to be ridiculous: “100 rubles per kilogram of live weight”, despite the fact that usually this price on the market is 600 rubles [5].

It is also worth noting that last year the occupiers intensified the illegal process of “cancelling the property rights” of Crimean farmers to land plots. About 200 Ukrainians simply lost their lands, and the unlawful “state registry office” called it “an error in registering the land” [6]. Also in early spring, individual farmers from the north of the Crimea reported that the military aggressors did not let them cultivate land [7].

This is a very vivid example of the real attitude of local collaborators to the “development of rural tourism” on the peninsula. This is also confirmed by separate “documents” of the aggressor state, which “determine the procedure for conducting a competitive selection of projects for the development of rural tourism”. This “document” is so complex and bureaucratic that not everyone who wishes will be able to even “collect the documents necessary for participation in the competition”, and this is “more than 20 points”. “The criteria for evaluating the significance of the project” are not spelled out in the “document” at all, that is, the “commission itself must determine how important it is”. Under such conditions, it is expected that “agritourism grants” will be received exclusively by participants from among “their own people”.

So, in fakes about the “development of agro-tourism” in the occupied Crimea, the criminal “authority” is trying to support the “brand of the resort peninsula” discredited by the aggressor. However, the available facts testify that “agritourism” is just an attempt by the Crimean collaborators to master new schemes for wasting “budgetary funds”.

This is another myth that the aggressor and his servants need to promote their own criminal interests and create the illusion of “development” of the occupied peninsula. In practice, in Crimea, the systemic disappearance of the tourism and agricultural sectors continues, acquiring total proportions.


  1. acii-na-turizm-u-krimu-najcinnisi-zemli-viddali-rosijskim-moznovladcam.html

Similar Posts