<blockquote>
<p>Would Russia get richer or economically more powerful if it managed to annex ukraine?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Likely not.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Countries generally do not get rich by having a lot of natural resources. In fact it is often the opposite (e.g. see <a href="https://www.economist.com/special-report/2005/12/20/the-paradox-of-plenty" rel="nofollow noreferrer">paradox of plenty</a> or also the <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dutchdisease.asp" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dutch disease</a> which is one reason for paradox of plenty). Empirical studies also show that most resource rich countries are economically poor save for few exceptions (Venables 2016). Also Russia is already is resource rich country with abundance of natural gas, oil etc.</p>
</li>
<li><p>How 'rich' country is in economic terms generally depends on how much output country can produce. Larger countries of course can produce more output just because they are large, so typically for any international comparison we would compare output <strong>per person</strong> as that is more accurate measure of how rich country is.  Currently Russia's output <em>per person</em> is about \$10000  and Ukraine's  output per person is about \$3700 (according to the <a href="https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=UA-RU" rel="nofollow noreferrer">World Bank data</a>).</p>
<p>Hence if Russia would annex Ukraine (and productivity of Ukraine would not change), <em>new</em> Russia (e.g. Russia with extra state of Ukraine), would become poorer in per capita terms.</p>
<p>Only if under new Russian management would Ukraine somehow manage to become significantly more productive than it currently is, Russia would become richer.</p>
</li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-12T21:08:40.447Z
I'd contest. Countries don't necessarily care about the per capita wealth for all people - they often consider conquered people as nonpersons. Similar problems (of smaller magnitudes) happen in urban or regional economics when dealing with non-locals or non-citizens.  Countries also certainly care about total assets, the personal wealth of major political stakeholders (not our area of expertise) and *guaranteed* access to those assets. Conquering territories gives that guarantee and increases the total assets of the country for citizens.
RegressForward
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-12T21:15:54.283Z
@RegressForward those are some reasonable points but I would retort: 1. OP did not ask about wealth but “economic power”. That term is ambiguous but wealth is already past saved income, I believe “economic power” is more reasonably described by amount a country can produce. 2. I don’t think that if Russia annexes Ukraine it will just make all Ukrainian stateless non-citizens, they did not do that with Crimea which was annexed as well. 3. I don’t think Russia would just seize private assets of all people (again arguing based on Crimea example). Russia would have to govern that territory
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-12T21:19:23.723Z
Creating apartheid state would likely just create continuous costs due to terrorism etc from Ukrainians
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-11T16:55:58.550Z
2021-12-11T17:55:28.427Z
2021-12-11T17:55:28.427Z
1muflon1
<p>Russia seems to take preparations for an invasion of Ukraine. Would Russia get richer or economically more powerful if it managed to annex ukraine? If so, in what ways? On the one hand Ukraine has a lot of natural resources like iron ore, coal, manganese, natural gas, oil, salt, sulfur, graphite, titanium, magnesium, kaolin, nickel, mercury, and arable land. But on the other hand the country is poorer than russia.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-11T14:11:30.867Z
Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking.
Community
<resource-economics>
What would Russia gain economically speaking if it conquered Ukraine?
Maurice
# What would Russia gain economically speaking if it conquered Ukraine?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-12-11)

Russia seems to take preparations for an invasion of Ukraine. Would Russia get richer or economically more powerful if it managed to annex ukraine? If so, in what ways? On the one hand Ukraine has a lot of natural resources like iron ore, coal, manganese, natural gas, oil, salt, sulfur, graphite, titanium, magnesium, kaolin, nickel, mercury, and arable land. But on the other hand the country is poorer than russia.

**Tags:** resource-economics
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2021-12-11. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

> Would Russia get richer or economically more powerful if it managed to annex ukraine?

Likely not.

1. Countries generally do not get rich by having a lot of natural resources. In fact it is often the opposite (e.g. see [paradox of plenty](https://www.economist.com/special-report/2005/12/20/the-paradox-of-plenty) or also the [Dutch disease](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dutchdisease.asp) which is one reason for paradox of plenty). Empirical studies also show that most resource rich countries are economically poor save for few exceptions (Venables 2016). Also Russia is already is resource rich country with abundance of natural gas, oil etc.
2. How 'rich' country is in economic terms generally depends on how much output country can produce. Larger countries of course can produce more output just because they are large, so typically for any international comparison we would compare output **per person** as that is more accurate measure of how rich country is. Currently Russia's output *per person* is about \$10000 and Ukraine's output per person is about \$3700 (according to the [World Bank data](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=UA-RU)).

   Hence if Russia would annex Ukraine (and productivity of Ukraine would not change), *new* Russia (e.g. Russia with extra state of Ukraine), would become poorer in per capita terms.

   Only if under new Russian management would Ukraine somehow manage to become significantly more productive than it currently is, Russia would become richer.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: I'd contest. Countries don't necessarily care about the per capita wealth for all people - they often consider conquered people as nonpersons. Similar problems (of smaller magnitudes) happen in urban or regional economics when dealing with non-locals or non-citizens.  Countries also certainly care about total assets, the personal wealth of major political stakeholders (not our area of expertise) and *guaranteed* access to those assets. Conquering territories gives that guarantee and increases the total assets of the country for citizens.  
> **username_2**: @RegressForward those are some reasonable points but I would retort: 1. OP did not ask about wealth but “economic power”. That term is ambiguous but wealth is already past saved income, I believe “economic power” is more reasonably described by amount a country can produce. 2. I don’t think that if Russia annexes Ukraine it will just make all Ukrainian stateless non-citizens, they did not do that with Crimea which was annexed as well. 3. I don’t think Russia would just seize private assets of all people (again arguing based on Crimea example). Russia would have to govern that territory  
> **username_2**: Creating apartheid state would likely just create continuous costs due to terrorism etc from Ukrainians  

---

