In the seaside town of Kyrylivka, located in the Zaporizhzhia region of Ukraine, a shift has occurred since Russia's invasion in March 2022. Before the war, locals shared stories and videos about beach activities on their YouTube channel. However, after the occupation began, content changed dramatically to focus on violence and destruction. Now, pro-Russian bloggers are promoting tourism in these occupied areas as part of Russia's efforts to normalize its control over them.

Authorities expect around 150,000 tourists to visit Zaporizhzhia and another 100,000 in Kherson this year. They are working on restoring Soviet-style health resorts and advertising these regions as attractive vacation spots. Russian state media has been publishing positive guides about these areas, with Mariupol being touted as a prime resort destination despite its recent devastation.

Russian officials claim that beaches in occupied territories are cleaner and less crowded than those in Crimea or Russia’s Black Sea coast. The governor of Kherson stated that the resort season would be well-organized with good service.

In online communities related to vacations at the Sea of Azov, various offers for accommodations and services can be found alongside questionable listings for sex work and drugs. Prices for lodging vary; in Kyrylivka, they range from about $10 to $28 per night depending on the guesthouse.

Despite this push for tourism, many Ukrainians have been forced to flee their homes due to the conflict. In Mariupol specifically, authorities have begun seizing properties owned by Ukrainians who have left or died during fighting. To reclaim their homes, owners must navigate a complicated process that poses risks of arrest or interrogation upon return.

Tour operators from Russia are now offering packages that include hotel stays and meals while downplaying any mention of ongoing conflict or curfews imposed due to wartime conditions. As Russian tourists visit these areas en route to Crimea or directly for leisure purposes, there is a stark contrast between their experiences at the beach and the ongoing struggles faced by displaced Ukrainians trying to hold onto their property amidst occupation.

The situation highlights how tourism is being used as a tool by occupying forces while many local residents continue facing significant hardships due to war-related displacements and property seizures.

Original article

The article provides a detailed account of the situation in the occupied Ukrainian seaside towns, particularly Kyrylivka, and how tourism is being utilized as a tool by Russian occupying forces.

Actionable Information: While the article does not explicitly offer immediate actions for readers to take, it does provide a clear understanding of the current situation and the tactics being employed by Russian authorities. This awareness can potentially guide readers' choices, such as deciding against visiting these areas or supporting the normalization efforts.

Educational Depth: It offers a comprehensive overview, explaining the shift in content on local YouTube channels, the promotion of tourism by pro-Russian bloggers, and the efforts of Russian state media to present these regions as vacation destinations. The article also delves into the contrasting experiences of Russian tourists and the struggles of displaced Ukrainians, providing a deeper understanding of the impact of the occupation.

Personal Relevance: For those with an interest in travel, especially to the Black Sea region, the article highlights the ethical considerations and potential risks associated with visiting these areas. It also has relevance for those with an interest in international relations and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, as it sheds light on the tactics employed by occupying forces.

Public Service Function: While it does not provide official warnings or emergency contacts, the article serves a public service by bringing attention to the situation and the potential dangers of supporting tourism in these occupied territories. It informs readers about the ongoing conflict and its impact on local residents, which is valuable for understanding the broader context.

Practicality of Advice: The article does not offer direct advice but presents a clear narrative, which can guide readers' decisions and actions indirectly.

Long-Term Impact: By highlighting the use of tourism as a tool for normalization, the article draws attention to a long-term strategy employed by occupying forces. It encourages readers to consider the potential consequences of their actions and choices, which can have a lasting impact on the situation.

Emotional/Psychological Impact: The article may evoke a range of emotions, from empathy for the displaced Ukrainians to frustration or anger at the tactics employed by Russian authorities. It presents a complex situation, which can encourage critical thinking and a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.

Clickbait/Ad-driven Words: The language used is factual and informative, without resorting to sensationalism or clickbait tactics.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The article could have benefited from including more specific information on how readers can support or help those affected by the conflict, such as providing links to reputable charities or organizations working on the ground. Additionally, offering a more detailed analysis of the potential long-term consequences of these tourism efforts could have further enhanced the educational depth of the piece.

The promotion of tourism in occupied territories, as described, poses a significant threat to the fundamental bonds and responsibilities that sustain local communities and families.

The very act of encouraging tourism in areas ravaged by war and occupation undermines the duty of protection and care that families and clans owe to their members, especially the most vulnerable: children and the elderly. It creates a false sense of normalcy, distracting from the ongoing struggles and displacements faced by Ukrainians. This normalization of violence and destruction through tourism promotion breaks the trust and solidarity that are essential for community resilience and survival.

The seizure of properties and the complicated process of reclaiming homes further erodes family cohesion and the sense of security and belonging that is vital for the well-being of children and the elderly. It shifts the responsibility of caring for one's kin onto distant and often hostile authorities, fracturing the natural duties and bonds that have traditionally been the foundation of family life.

The presence of questionable listings for sex work and drugs in online communities related to vacations also raises concerns about the protection of modesty and the safeguarding of vulnerable individuals. The erosion of local authority and family control over these matters increases the risk of exploitation and confusion, particularly for children and young adults.

Furthermore, the downplaying of ongoing conflict and curfews by tour operators not only misleads tourists but also neglects the duty of honest communication and transparency that is essential for community trust and cohesion. It creates a false narrative that could potentially expose tourists to dangerous situations, further damaging the reputation and trustworthiness of the community.

The promotion of tourism in these circumstances also raises questions about the continuity and stewardship of the land. The focus on attracting tourists to devastated areas, rather than on the long-term recovery and rehabilitation of the land and its people, suggests a short-sighted and exploitative approach. This could lead to further environmental degradation and the neglect of traditional land management practices, which are often rooted in community responsibility and respect for the natural world.

If these ideas and behaviors spread unchecked, the consequences for local communities and families could be devastating. The erosion of trust, the fracture of family bonds, and the neglect of community responsibilities will lead to a breakdown of social structures, making it increasingly difficult for families to protect and care for their members. The continuity of the people, their culture, and their connection to the land will be at risk, and the survival of future generations will be jeopardized.

It is essential that local communities and families recognize these threats and take steps to protect their kin, uphold their duties, and preserve their land. Restitution can be made through honest dialogue, the renewal of traditional responsibilities, and the rejection of behaviors that undermine the survival and well-being of the clan.

"Russian officials claim that beaches in occupied territories are cleaner and less crowded than those in Crimea or Russia’s Black Sea coast."

This sentence uses a trick with words to make the occupied areas sound appealing. It focuses on the positive aspects of the beaches, like cleanliness and less crowds, without mentioning the context of war and occupation. The use of the word "claim" also suggests that this information is coming directly from Russian officials, which may lead readers to question its reliability.

"The governor of Kherson stated that the resort season would be well-organized with good service."

Here, the governor's statement is presented without any critical analysis. The use of the word "stated" gives an air of authority and credibility to the governor's words, potentially influencing readers to believe that the resort season will indeed be well-managed.

"Russian state media has been publishing positive guides about these areas, with Mariupol being touted as a prime resort destination despite its recent devastation."

The text highlights how Russian state media is promoting these occupied areas as tourist destinations, ignoring the recent devastation and ongoing conflict. By using the word "touted," it presents a positive image of Mariupol, which contrasts with the reality of the situation.

"Prices for lodging vary; in Kyrylivka, they range from about $10 to $28 per night depending on the guesthouse."

This sentence provides a range of prices for accommodations, making it seem like an affordable option. However, it fails to mention the potential risks and challenges faced by tourists visiting these occupied territories, such as security concerns or the impact of the war on local infrastructure.

"Tour operators from Russia are now offering packages that include hotel stays and meals while downplaying any mention of ongoing conflict or curfews imposed due to wartime conditions."

The tour operators' strategy of downplaying the conflict and curfews is a clear example of bias. By omitting these crucial details, they create a false sense of normalcy and safety, attracting tourists who may be unaware of the true situation. This bias benefits the tour operators and the occupying forces, as it helps normalize the occupation and brings in revenue.

The text evokes a range of emotions, primarily sadness, anger, and fear, with underlying tones of frustration and despair. These emotions are woven throughout the narrative, painting a picture of a region in turmoil and highlighting the stark contrast between the experiences of occupying forces and the struggles of local residents.

Sadness is evident in the description of the shift in content on the YouTube channel, from beach activities to violence and destruction. This transition symbolizes the loss of innocence and the disruption of peaceful lives. The sadness deepens as the text reveals the forced displacement of Ukrainians and the seizure of their properties, especially in Mariupol, where authorities are making it difficult for owners to reclaim their homes.

Anger simmers beneath the surface, directed at the occupying Russian forces. The promotion of tourism in occupied areas, despite the ongoing conflict and devastation, is a clear attempt to normalize an abnormal situation. The anger is further fueled by the contrast between the positive guides published by Russian state media and the reality of war-torn regions.

Fear is a pervasive emotion, especially for those who have been displaced or are facing property seizures. The risk of arrest or interrogation upon returning to reclaim one's home is a terrifying prospect, adding to the sense of insecurity and vulnerability.

These emotions are strategically employed to guide the reader's reaction, evoking sympathy for the displaced Ukrainians and anger towards the occupying forces. The writer's use of vivid language and descriptive phrases, such as "recent devastation" and "ongoing struggles," paints a poignant picture that tugs at the reader's heartstrings.

The text also employs repetition to emphasize certain points, such as the mention of "occupied areas" and "ongoing conflict," which serves to reinforce the emotional impact and keep these issues at the forefront of the reader's mind. The comparison between the experiences of Russian tourists and displaced Ukrainians further highlights the injustice and adds to the emotional weight of the narrative.

By skillfully weaving these emotions into the text, the writer aims to persuade the reader to see the situation from the perspective of the affected locals, fostering empathy and potentially inspiring action or advocacy on their behalf. The emotional language and strategic use of persuasive techniques ensure that the reader is not just informed but also emotionally invested in the plight of the Ukrainian people.