As our Association’s expert, Associate Professor Andriy Chvalyuk, wrote on social networks, regarding the use of the occupied peninsula for the so-called “social support of veterans” of Russian aggression, “Crimea is consistently transforming into a functional element” of the corresponding activity of the invaders.
It is indicated that in the conditions of protracted armed aggression against Ukraine, the sanatorium and resort and medical infrastructure of the peninsula, which was previously focused on the civilian population and the tourism sector, is systematically reoriented to the needs of the rehabilitation of the so-called “veterans”.
At the same time, we are talking about the purposeful integration of the occupied territory into the general model of military and post-war support for the aggressor’s personnel.
The ARC expert proves, based on his analysis, that the “expansion of federal rehabilitation programs for participants” of Russian aggression, which are financed by the Social Fund of Russia, is accompanied by the redistribution of resources previously allocated for civilian social payments.
At the same time, given the deficit of rehabilitation infrastructure in Russia itself, Crimea is considered as a reserve base aimed at “compensating for the overload of specialized institutions” and ensuring at least a minimum “capacity of the military rehabilitation system.”
This is manifested through the so-called “unified digital platforms”, “national standards for social support measures”, and through “long-term plans for the development of a network of rehabilitation and prosthetic centers until 2028”.
Thus, the expert summarizes, “the consequences of the war are fixed in the form of permanent state institutions” of the aggressor, and Crimea is included in them, “as a service resource”.
It is noted that the occupation “administration” of Crimea “actively involves local sanatoriums and medical institutions in the treatment and rehabilitation” of the aggressor’s servicemen, which is “accompanied by the actual militarization of civilian infrastructure and priority service for war participants to the detriment of the local population, which faces restrictions on access to planned medical and sanatorium-resort care”.
At the same time, the “economic contour of this integration” involves the concentration of “multi-million payments from the federal budget” around individuals and structures affiliated with the occupation “authorities” and former Ukrainian defector politicians, which turns the “rehabilitation of veterans” into a source of stable income for a narrow circle of beneficiaries.
The war thus becomes a factor in the commercialization of illegally expropriated property, the ARC expert states. Associate Professor Chvalyuk adds that “an additional element of integration is personnel and ideological programs”, which strengthen the connection between military aggression, social policy and mechanisms of control over the territory.
The integration of the peninsula into the “system of social support for veterans” performs several functions at once: unloads Russian infrastructure, redistributes budget resources in favor of military needs, creates economic rents for loyal subjects, and consolidates the long-term militarized nature of the occupied territory.
Taken together, the ARC expert concludes, these processes indicate that Crimea is being used not as an object of “social concern”, but as a tool for ensuring the war and its long-term consequences.
