Aimar Ventsel: Why doesn't China just take Siberia?

China doesn't need to conquer Siberia. It's simpler and more profitable to strip Russia's Siberia and Far East of all available resources, Aimar Ventsel notes in his Vikerraadio commentary.
There is a narrative I've seen and heard for decades. It's the legend that China will soon seize Siberia from Russia.
Siberia and the Russian Far East make up 70 percent of Russia's territory, home to about 40 million people in total. The combined area of Siberia and the Far East is just over 13 million square kilometers. On the other side of the Russia-China border live several hundred million people. So, it might seem natural to assume that these tens or even hundreds of millions will eventually move north and occupy the region.
In reality, it's not that simple. I've been studying Siberia for several decades now. I first traveled there in the mid-1990s and have visited repeatedly since. I even lived there for over a year, most of it north of the Arctic Circle.
There are clear reasons why Russia's Arctic — and, in short, the entire Arctic — is so sparsely populated. Life in the Arctic is extremely costly and difficult to sustain. When winter lasts at least eight months a year and the remaining months resemble Estonia's November weather, maintaining any kind of human settlement becomes very challenging.
I ended up living in Russia's Arctic in 2000. That was also the year the city of Deputatsky in Yakutia froze over. At the time, it had a population of 20,000 — slightly more than Viljandi. The Arctic heating system in Russia back then featured a large hot-water pipeline running through the entire settlement. It was a massive pipe ring that stretched across the city. At one point, the pipe burst, and within 24 hours, the entire city froze solid.
To prevent people from freezing to death, a rescue operation was launched and all 20,000 residents were evacuated immediately. The entire operation took place during the polar night and snowstorms, when only experienced polar pilots were capable of flying. The city of Deputatsky remained frozen for half a year before residents were allowed to return.
Russia's Arctic is one of the harshest climates in the world. In the north, winter temperatures can drop below minus 60 degrees Celsius. I've personally experienced such cold, and I can say that because the air is extremely dry, it's possible to endure. The real problem is that neither buildings nor infrastructure can withstand such severe cold for long. Most people don't realize that much of Russia's Arctic lies on permafrost — land that is permanently frozen.
In most of Siberia, the ground thaws in summer by about half a meter to a full meter. Below that, it remains frozen indefinitely. Buildings constructed on this type of ground begin to sink and shift because the soil beneath them thaws unevenly. One side of a house can subside into the ground, literally tearing the building in half.
The same goes for roads. During the spring thaw, melting ice scrapes asphalt off roads as if with a chisel. All in all, sustaining human life in the Arctic is many times more expensive than in our climate. Adding to that, all the necessities of life must be transported to the Arctic, driving costs even higher — and as several instances of entire towns freezing over have shown, it's also extremely risky.
According to economists' calculations, labor productivity in the Arctic regions is eight times lower than in our climate, meaning that the work performed by people there doesn't cover the costs of sustaining them.
It may sound paradoxical, but there are actually too many people living in Russia's Arctic. In Canada, Alaska and the Scandinavian countries, there are no large cities at such high latitudes like Norilsk or Yakutsk. This means that the proportion of non-working residents in Russia's Arctic is higher than elsewhere in the North. Economists have calculated that in Russia's Arctic, each working person supports ten non-working individuals.
The Chinese are well aware of all this. China doesn't need Siberia as territory; it needs Siberia's natural resources. There's no need to occupy the region to access them. Instead, China simply signs agreements with the Russian state, allowing Chinese companies to extract natural resources on favorable terms. The Chinese are very skilled at this. I would even say they deserve a gold medal for exploiting Russia.
In seeking an ally in China, Russia is increasingly opening itself up to Chinese economic expansion. China's economic expansion resembles a termite infestation: wherever the Chinese have passed through, nothing grows afterward. The Chinese extract everything from Siberia and the Far East — wood, coal and minerals. Chinese agribusinesses lease land in southern Siberia and engage in intensive farming, which involves contaminating the soil with chemicals.
So, there's no need for China to conquer Siberia. First, they would have to support the 40 million people already living there. Second, they would need to provide at least minimal living conditions for the tens of millions of Chinese citizens who might move there. It's much simpler and more profitable to strip Siberia and the Russian Far East of all available resources — which is exactly what China has been doing for the past ten years.
--
Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!
Editor: Marcus Turovski