Skip to main content
Advertising

Originally published March 6, 2014 at 7:44 PM | Page modified March 7, 2014 at 6:25 AM

  • Share:
           
  • Comments (6)
  • Print

Crisis resurrects Crimea and Ukraine’s contentious history

The roots of the problem in the Crimea region are far deeper than the recent protests in Kiev, dating back centuries, and in that tangle of history is a series of ancient claims that for the people of Crimea, and Ukraine, are about to become very fresh again.


McClatchy Foreign Staff

Most Popular Comments
Hide / Show comments
I'm beginning to think that, like parts of Africa and the Middle East, these conflicts... MORE
We wouldn't really want people who occupied much of America 200 years ago to make some... MORE
"The writer neglects to mention that the Kievan Rus were there before the... MORE

advertising

KIEV, Ukraine —

In a Crimean Tatar cafe just off Kiev’s now-famous Maidan, or Independence Square, Igor Semyvolos looked at his phone Thursday and saw the news he’d been dreading.

The Crimean Parliament had just announced that its contested peninsula is now part of Russia. A referendum would be held March 16 to confirm the popularity of the decision, but the move, the Parliament said, was already done. Crimea might still be part of Ukraine in the eyes of the world, but to its regional Parliament, it was now Russian.

“This is war,” Semyvolos said.

The director of Ukraine’s Association of Middle Eastern Studies, an academic area that here includes Crimea, stared at a thick cup of Turkish coffee as he considered what would come next. Outside, Maidan was still basking in the afterglow after months of rebellion toppled the previous, pro-Russian government, but the joy of that seeming victory is fading. Semyvolos sees it in the faces of Ukrainians outside: the stress and the growing realization that war is inevitable.

“It’s becoming clear that there will be war in Crimea, and that war will be for the independence of Ukraine,” he said. He paused to consider his statement for a second. He continued: “Ukraine will need help from the United States in this.”

Ukraine’s most recent trouble began last summer, when Russian President Vladimir Putin threatened trade sanctions against Ukraine if it signed a new trade agreement with the European Union. It quickly spiraled after Ukraine’s erstwhile president, Viktor Yanukovych, stepped away from the new ties to Europe in November, protesters crowded into Maidan and then, after months of protests, Yanukovych fled to Russia.

But the roots of the problem are far deeper, dating back centuries, and in that tangle of history is a series of ancient claims that for the people of Crimea, and Ukraine, are about to become very fresh again.

The Russian case

Ukraine’s collapsing government fell into the hands of radical, anti-Russian elements. As such, the ethnic Russian population of Ukraine — in Crimea it represents more than half the population — is at risk. The Crimean government asked Russia to protect the people, and Putin responded — an easy move, because Russia had thousands of troops on Russian bases in Crimea; they’ve since been reinforced by an estimated 16,000 troops flown in recent days.

After all, this case goes, Crimea would be Russian today were it not for a historical accident: the decision by native Ukrainian and then-Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev — reportedly feeling especially proud of his republic and possibly, legend has it, influenced by too much drink — to mark his birthday in 1954 by transferring responsibility for administering Crimea from Russia to Ukraine.

It was a grand gift. Crimea, taken into Russia by Catherine the Great in 1783, was almost as Russian to many Russians as Moscow, and more beloved than bits, such as Siberia. But it was also a largely symbolic gift. Ukraine and Russia then were both part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and Khrushchev’s gift would change nothing: Orders would continue to come from Moscow, the Kremlin still would control the military and Russian would remain an official language. The political elite would remain Russian or beholden to Russian leadership.

Nothing changed in reality — until 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed, and the Ukrainian Republic became a free-standing nation, one that included Crimea.

Crimea has been Russian for all but two decades of the past two centuries.

“If Crimea wants to return to Russia after 20 and some years of very conditional separation, it has the right to do so,” read an editorial this week in the 1 million circulation Russian paper Moskovski Komsomolets.

The Russian view is not the only one. It may involve 200 years of history, but that’s the short version, said Stanislav Kulchytsky, a Crimea specialist at the Ukrainian Institute of History. The longer view of Crimea involves the Mongol Khans, whose reign here began in 1237, and the Ottomans, whose alliance with the Mongol Khans dates to the 1400s.

When the Russians conquered Crimea, it was the Tatars who were conquered. The Tatars were a Muslim group, born of the unification of tribes from the peninsula. Their history had been shaped by centuries of alliance with larger, dominant groups, including the Ottoman Empire and the descendants of Genghis Khan.

They originally lived along the southern edge of the Crimea, an area known for fruit trees and grapevines. Their past includes long stretches of conflict with Ukrainian Cossacks, though there were also periods of goodwill and cooperation.

The Crimea’s sea access brought them riches through trade. But the beauty of the Crimean coast also brought Russian royalty, who built palaces in the most desirable parts of the Crimea, forcing the Tatars inland.

It’s long been a Russian goal to empty Crimea of its Tatar natives.

“It’s a tragic history,” Kulchytsky said.

For most of the time Russia has ruled Crimea, its goal was to drive the Tatars from their homeland. The most notable moment in this effort was Soviet Leader Josef Stalin’s 1944 orders to relocate the entire Tatar population to Uzbekistan or Siberia. Within days, he’d moved 250,000 to Uzbekistan, where the Tatar population eventually topped 600,000. Five million are thought to have fled to Turkey.

That, as much as anything, is why Tatars today are just 13 percent of the Crimean population, while Russians make up 60 percent, with other ethnic groups holding the balance.

But that, too, has been changing. Since the Soviet Union collapsed, Tatars have been returning to Crimea from Turkey and Uzbekistan.

They’ve also been having babies — at so fast a rate, Kulchytsky said, that the number of Tatars is expected to surpass the number of Russians in Crimea in 13 years. That surge is helped by the demographic fact that many Russians there are retirees who’ve picked Crimea as a place to live because it’s cheap, a place where a pension can go a long way.

“And they have been very nervous about what it would mean when the Tatars outnumber them,” Kulchytsky said.

In any event, Russia’s takeover of Crimea is already so complete that commercial flights to Kiev from the region’s main airport, outside Simferopol, the regional capital 50 miles from Sevastopol, now leave from the international terminal instead of the domestic one as they did until last week. The shift suggests that Kiev and the rest of Ukraine are now classified as foreign territory.

Russian soldiers patrol the airport parking lot and, although still without markings on their uniforms, have dropped all pretense that they are not Russian. Asked where he was from, a masked soldier at the airport said he was with the Russian infantry and had been sent to Crimea a week ago on a mission to protect the region “against the enemy, Ukraine.”

Material from The New York Times is included in this report.



Want unlimited access to seattletimes.com? Subscribe now!

News where, when and how you want it

Email Icon

Seattle Sketcher Book

Seattle Sketcher Book

Due to popular demand, the pre-sale price of $29.95 is extended until October 5!

Advertising

Partner Video

Advertising


Advertising
The Seattle Times

The door is closed, but it's not locked.

Take a minute to subscribe and continue to enjoy The Seattle Times for as little as 99 cents a week.

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited seattletimes.com content access is included with most subscriptions.

Subscriber login ►