Gas beneath the Shallow Sea: Russia’s Extraction Plans in the Sea of Azov and the Geopolitical Consequences

In the shadow of the ongoing war in Ukraine, Moscow is quietly moving to consolidate control over a different kind of strategic front—not a trench line, but the seabed. Since the occupation of southern Ukraine and the illegal annexation of additional territory along the Azov coast in 2022, the Russian Federation has increasingly signalled its intention to develop natural gas extraction operations in the Sea of Azov, a shallow inland sea whose shores are now dominated almost entirely by Russia.

These plans, if realised, would represent a major geoeconomic shift, with consequences for Ukraine’s sovereignty, the security of the Black Sea basin, and Europe’s long-term energy posture. They also signal Russia’s determination to entrench its hold on occupied Ukrainian territory not only through military means, but by extracting value from it—both literally and symbolically.

The Geography of Seizure: Russia’s Strategic Position in the Sea of Azov

The Sea of Azov is the shallowest sea in the world, bounded by Russia to the east and north, and by southern Ukraine—including the now-occupied Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions—to the west and north-west. Access to the Azov Sea is controlled via the narrow Kerch Strait, now fully dominated by Russia since the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the construction of the Kerch Bridge.

Since February 2022, Russia’s control over the entire Ukrainian Azov coastline—including the ports of Mariupol and Berdiansk—has given her undisputed de facto control of the sea itself. Ukrainian vessels are no longer present, and maritime activity is regulated by Russia’s Black Sea Fleet.

With this dominance, Russia has begun surveying undersea hydrocarbon fields and dispatching technical vessels associated with Gazprom and Rosneft, both state-aligned energy giants. These operations have reportedly focused on untapped gas-bearing formations along the northern shelf, which had previously been the subject of Ukrainian exploratory interest prior to 2014.

The Hydrocarbon Potential of the Azov Sea

While not as rich in reserves as the Black Sea shelf or the Caspian Sea, the Azov Sea contains several modest but commercially viable gas fields, particularly in shallow areas accessible to relatively low-cost extraction technology. Estimates vary, but Ukrainian geological surveys prior to the war suggested potential reserves in the low hundreds of billions of cubic metres—significant enough to justify development, especially in a post-sanctions economy.

Key advantages for Russian exploitation include:

• Shallow depth, making offshore platform construction easier and cheaper;

  
  

• Proximity to Russian-occupied territory, reducing logistical and security challenges;

  
  

• Existing pipeline infrastructure, particularly via Crimea and southern Russia;

  
  

• Lack of international oversight, due to the effective exclusion of Ukraine and foreign observers.

Moscow views the region as a low-risk, high-reward opportunity to expand domestic gas output at a time when Western sanctions have cut off access to most international markets and complicated Arctic or LNG developments.

Legal Status: The Problem of Illegitimacy

From the perspective of international law, Russia’s claim to exploit resources in the Sea of Azov is highly dubious. According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and multiple bilateral treaties, the maritime zone off Ukraine’s southern coast—including the Azov seabed—falls within Ukraine’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Russian military occupation does not alter this legal status.

Moreover the Treaty on Cooperation in the Use of the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait, signed by Russia and Ukraine in 2003, designated the Azov Sea as shared internal waters. That treaty has been rendered void in practice by Russian aggression.

Thus, any resource extraction by Russia in these waters constitutes a violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and international law. However, without freedom of navigation and with no effective maritime enforcement capacity, Ukraine is unable to prevent Russian activities in the area.

Geopolitical and Economic Implications

1. Permanent Economic Colonisation

By extracting gas from occupied waters, Russia is attempting to transform military control into economic dependency. She seeks to demonstrate that these territories are not temporary holdings, but part of an integrated Russian economic zone. The revenue generated would likely fund further militarisation and domestic propaganda.

2. Energy Narrative for Sanctions Evasion

Russia can portray Azov gas as “internal production,” which may make it easier to launder these resources through partner countries such as China, Turkey, or in future post-sanctions black markets. Azov-based production could also feed local industry in occupied territories, creating the illusion of postwar recovery under Russian rule.

3. Challenge to NATO Maritime Posture

While the Azov Sea is geographically constrained, its development ties directly into Russia’s broader maritime strategy in the Black Sea, where she has attacked grain corridors, laid underwater mines, and targeted critical infrastructure. NATO’s naval options in the Black Sea are limited by the Montreux Convention, and Azov developments further complicate the security picture by pushing Russia’s footprint westward.

4. Precedent for Occupation Economies

Allowing Russia to exploit the Azov seabed without consequence risks setting a dangerous precedent: that military conquest can be followed by quiet economic consolidation, even in violation of international maritime law. It may embolden similar tactics in the Arctic, the Caspian, or even in East Asia.

Implications for Ukraine

Ukraine stands to lose not only valuable resources, but also strategic deterrence. If the Sea of Azov is fully converted into a Russian inland sea, it will become a launchpad for future coercion against southern Ukraine and a barrier to Kyiv’s postwar maritime recovery.

Key Ukrainian concerns include:

• Loss of long-term energy sovereignty in the south-east;

  
  

• Obstacles to reintegration of occupied territories, especially if local populations are drawn into gas-related employment and infrastructure;

  
  

• Weakened case for international restitution, if Russia is allowed to “normalise” economic activity in annexed zones.

The Path Forward: Countering Exploitation

Ukraine has few direct options to halt Russian resource extraction in the Azov Sea while the war continues. However, several measures could be taken to increase the long-term cost and risk for Moscow:

• Documentation and legal claims, filed in international courts and arbitration fora, to establish clear records of violations;

  
  

• Targeted sanctions on companies, vessels, and foreign intermediaries involved in Azov-based gas projects;

  
  

• Maritime intelligence cooperation with NATO, to monitor activity and deter expansion into the Black Sea proper;

  
  

• Postwar compensation frameworks, seeking restitution or trade sanctions against any future state benefiting from illegal Azov gas.

Moreover, Ukraine’s allies should make clear that economic integration of occupied territory will not be tolerated, and that all energy produced in the Azov zone is tainted by illegality.

Extraction as Occupation by Other Means

Russia’s plans to extract natural gas from the Sea of Azov are not merely economic—they are an extension of the war by other means. They aim to cement territorial gains, reward client elites, and present the world with a fait accompli: that what is occupied can also be exploited.

For Ukraine, the defence of sovereignty does not end on the battlefield, but must extend beneath the waves. The seabed of the Azov may seem distant compared to the burning forests of Donetsk or the streets of Kharkiv, but it is no less part of the national territory. If the world allows Russia to loot beneath the sea as she does on land, it will have failed to grasp the full scope of what is at stake in this war—not just territory, but the very principle of lawful order.