????沒有克里米亞對烏克蘭反而是好事。事實上，如果烏克蘭想利用俄羅斯總統弗拉基米爾?普京，除了這個落后的半島外，它還應該把東部和南部的更多省份都送給俄羅斯。

????克里米亞脫離烏克蘭的方式令人不快，這可以理解。但從長期來看，沒有克里米亞對烏克蘭而言反而可能是好事。

????周二，普京簽署文件正式接收了烏克蘭的克里米亞半島，結果股市立刻上揚。與此同時，在烏克蘭首都基輔，很少有抗議這種非法竊取領土行為的大規(guī)模示威。當然，政客們在表達他們的憤怒，宣揚俄羅斯即將采取進一步的侵略行動，但在大街上感覺不到人們的憤怒，至少在最近幾周并沒有達到令民眾起義的程度。與此同時，烏克蘭軍隊大部分都駐扎在營地，計劃平靜地撤離克里米亞。

????俄羅斯攫取克里米亞的行為正常情況下將導致烏克蘭或這個地區(qū)的其他競爭力量與俄羅斯的軍事機器爆發(fā)大規(guī)模沖突，因為他們希望在失控之前遏制俄羅斯的對外擴張。尤其是，克里米亞地區(qū)多年來一直是國際爭論的焦點，其中大多數都以流血沖突開始和結束。

????但市場卻正確地認識到，圍繞這個地區(qū)發(fā)動戰(zhàn)爭是上一個千年的做法。沒有任何一個國家，即使是美國，愿意派軍隊維護烏克蘭的領土主權。事實上，美國及其盟友甚至不愿意對俄羅斯實行經濟制裁。畢竟，克里米亞并沒有豐富的資源，甚至連富裕都算不上。這里有一座由俄羅斯控制的海軍基地，還有一些沙灘。僅此而已。

????目前大多數評論的焦點都集中在從政治和社會角度分析分裂的烏克蘭對基輔意味著什么，不過也有從經濟角度切入的分析。簡而言之，烏克蘭確實需要“瘦身”。這個臃腫國家的人口是俄羅斯人口的三分之一，而國民生產總值卻僅有俄羅斯國民生產總值的很小一部分。這種狀況在很大程度上是由于烏克蘭缺少外國投資，也沒有豐富的自然資源。烏克蘭農業(yè)發(fā)達，但食品很便宜，出口小麥的收益與出口石油或天然氣根本不能相提并論。

????克里米亞更是經濟上失敗的典型。2013年，這個地區(qū)的稅收和其他政府收入約19億格里夫納（約合2億美元）；同時，從中央政府得到的撥款為57億格拉夫納（約合6億美元）。它意味著烏克蘭政府凈損失了38億格拉夫納（約合4億美元），為了解決克里米亞的赤字問題，烏克蘭政府不得不將中部較發(fā)達地區(qū)的資金進行重新分配。在資源方面，克里米亞也并不突出。正如薇薇安?沃特上周在《財富》雜志（Fortune）所寫的那樣，克里米亞幾乎算是一塊不毛之地。不像烏克蘭物產豐富的農業(yè)地區(qū)，這里既沒有茂密的森林，也沒有黑土地。這個地區(qū)的收入大部分都來自夏季的沙灘游客——其中大多數游客來自烏克蘭本土，約占70%。

????如今，失去了烏克蘭游客，這個夏天的克里米亞將遭遇一場經濟災難。在可預見的未來，俄羅斯可能每年至少要撥款五億美元，才能幫助克里米亞解決經濟困難。這還不包括俄羅斯為幫助恢復基礎設施和服務承諾投入的50億到60億美元。

????Ukraine is better off without Crimea. Indeed, if Ukraine really wants to stick it to Russian President Vladimir Putin, it should hand over a few more of its southern and eastern provinces to Moscow, in addition to the backwater peninsula.

????While the way in which the Crimea was ripped away from Ukraine was understandably traumatic, the country will be far better off without it in the long run.

????The markets rallied Tuesday as Putin signed documents formally annexing the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine. Meanwhile, in Kiev, Ukraine's capital, there were little, if any, major demonstrations protesting the illegal territorial seizure. Sure, politicians voiced outrage and spoke of further Russian incursions on the horizon, but there was no real anger in the streets, at least not to the extent that led to the popular uprising in recent weeks. Meanwhile, Ukraine's military has largely stayed in their barracks and is set to peacefully withdraw to the mainland.

????A territorial grab like the one Russia just pulled in Crimea would have normally led to a major conflict with the Russian military machine -- if not with Ukraine, then with some competing power in the region, as they would want to cap Russian expansionism before it got out of hand. Crimea, in particular, has been the focus of many international squabbles over the years, most of which began and ended with some sort of bloody conflict.

????But the markets have rightly understood that fighting over land is so last millennium. No one, not even the United States, is willing to send troops to defend Ukraine's territorial sovereignty. Indeed, the U.S. and its allies haven't even been willing to impose economic sanctions on Russia. After all, it's not like Crimea is resource rich -- or even rich at all. It has a naval base, controlled by Russia, and some beaches. That's pretty much it.

????Much of the commentary so far has focused on the political and social aspects of what a divided Ukraine would mean for Kiev, but there is also an economic angle as well. In short, Ukraine really needs to downsize. The bloated country has a third of the population of its Russian overlords but only a fraction of its GDP. Much of that is due to the fact that Ukraine lacks foreign investment and abundant natural resources. The country is an agrarian paradise, but food is cheap and the benefits that come from exporting wheat isn't the same as it is with oil or natural gas.

????Crimea, in particular, is an economic loser. The territory was on course to transfer around 1.9 billion Hryvnia ($200 million) in taxes and other government revenue in 2013 and receive around 5.7 billion Hryvnia ($600 million) from the central government. That equates to a net loss of 3.8 billion Hryvnia ($400 million) for Kiev, forcing the government to redistribute funds from its more productive regions in the center of the country to keep Crimea in the black. As for resources, well, Crimea really doesn't have any. As Vivienne Walt wrote in Fortune last week, Crimea is mostly an arid place with none of the lush forests or black soil that characterize the rest of Ukraine's abundant agricultural land. It makes most of its cash from beachgoers in the summertime -- with the vast majority of tourists, some 70%, coming from Ukraine.

????Now, the loss of all those Ukrainian tourists will be an economic disaster for Crimea this summer. As such, Russia will probably need to transfer at least half a billion dollars per year for the foreseeable future to keep the province afloat. That's in addition to the $5 billion to $6 billion Moscow says it will pump into the region to bring its infrastructure and services up to snuff.