![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This essay focuses on the problem of the decolonization of Crimea within the context of the ongoing Russia–Ukraine war. Both authors agree that the decolonization of Crimea involves a complex intellectual challenge for Ukrainian society and for the rest of the world. For centuries Crimea was a settler colony of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. In 2014, Russia resumed its settler-colonial project by means of discrimination against the indigenous Crimean Tatar people, persecution of political prisoners, and mass resettlement of Russian citizens to the occupied territory. Since 2014, Ukraine has rediscovered Crimea and Crimean Tatars. While the general perception of Crimean Tatars has become more positive within Ukrainian society, there is still no agreement on the future of the de-occupied peninsula. While Ukrainian society generally agrees that Crimea should be an integral part of Ukraine, some of the views about Crimea’s future are rooted in the narratives produced by colonizers for the purposes of colonization. This essay shows that military de-occupation does not equal decolonization and that some complicated questions remain unanswered.
RÉSUMÉ
Cet essai se penche sur le problème de la décolonisation de la Crimée dans le contexte de la guerre entre la Russie et l’Ukraine. Les deux auteurs s’accordent à dire que la décolonisation de la Crimée représente un défi intellectuel complexe pour la société ukrainienne et pour le reste du monde. Au cours des derniers siècles, la Crimée a été une colonie de peuplement de l’empire russe et de l’Union soviétique. En 2014, la Russie a repris son projet de colonie de peuplement en discriminant le peuple autochtone des Tatars de Crimée, en persécutant les prisonniers politiques et en réinstallant massivement des citoyens russes dans le territoire occupé. Depuis 2014, l’Ukraine a redécouvert la Crimée et les Tatars de Crimée. Si la perception générale des Tatars de Crimée est devenue plus positive au sein de la société ukrainienne, il n’y a toujours pas d’accord sur l’avenir de la péninsule après sa libération. Si la société ukrainienne s’accorde généralement à dire que la Crimée devrait faire partie intégrante de l’Ukraine, certains points de vue sur l’avenir de la Crimée sont enracinés dans les récits produits par les colonisateurs pour asseoir la légitimité de la colonisation. Cet essai montre que la libération militaire n’est pas synonyme de décolonisation et que certaines questions complexes restent sans réponse.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. Musk (@elonmusk), “Ukraine-Russia Peace,” Twitter post, 3 October 2022, https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000.
2. Kotkin, “Historian of the Future.”
3. Wolfe, Settler Colonialism, 163.
4. O’Neill, Claiming Crimea, 2–3.
5. Dickinson, “Russia’s First ‘Orient’,” 4–5.
6. O’Neill, Claiming Crimea, 60.
7. Martin, Affirmative Action Empire, 10, 19–20.
8. Conquest, Nation Killers; Kirimal, “Complete Destruction”; Naimark, Stalin’s Genocides.
9. Martin, “Origins of Soviet”; Williams, “Hidden Ethnocide”; Pohl, “Soviet Apartheid.”
10. Uehling, Beyond Memory, 39.
11. Veracini, Settler Colonialism, 47.
12. This dehumanization had racial aspects as well. See Sviezhentsev and Kisly, “Race in Time.”
13. After 1956, Crimean Tatars started their struggle for return to the homeland. The Crimean Tatars’ national movement was one of the most vigorous national and dissident movements in the Soviet Union. The idea of returning to the homeland and the non-violent struggle for the realization of this idea were able to unite the entire nation around a common goal.
14. “Informatsiia otdelov TsK KPSS.”
15. Bekirova, Piv stolittia oporu, 119.
16. Hixson, American Settler Colonialism, 11 (emphasis original).
17. Finnin, “Why Crimea.”
18. Crimea SOS, “Nasylnyts′ki znyknennia v Krymu.”
19. Uehling, “Genocide’s Aftermath,” 15.
20. Kalin, “Crimean Tatar Minority.”
21. Crimea SOS, “Dyskredytatsiia rosiiskoï armiï.”
22. Radio Svoboda, “Krym ne ‘gordost’.”
23. Crimea SOS, “Poroshenko pidtverdyv obitsianku.”
24. Derkach, “Chubarov i Poroshenko.”
25. New Voice of Ukraine, “Crimean Tatar Leader Suggests.”
26. Iurii Romanenko, “Chubarov vchera na Kryimskoi platforme zaiavil,” Facebook post, 25 October 2022, https://www.facebook.com/yuriyrom77/posts/pfbid02ZTPAPr1uqah4PPn3kErKhysA9yhz4MYEy3at66SQ8bG7LKv1GaKc8RDgM1F1LfxWl.
27. Kis′, “Kyrymly chy tatary?”
28. Fedevych, “Zvil′nenyi Krym.”
29. Williams, Crimean Tatars, 25.
30. Tuck and Yang, “Decolonization Is Not.”
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Maksym Sviezhentsev
Maksym Sviezhentsev is a historian of Crimea. He received his PhD from the University of Western Ontario in 2020. His dissertation was entitled “Phantom Limb: Russian Settler Colonialism in Crimea (1991–1997).”
Martin-Oleksandr Kisly
Martin-Oleksandr Kisly was born in Simferopol, Crimea. He is a historian of Crimea and Crimean Tatars with a focus on the Soviet and post-Soviet periods. He earned his PhD from the Kyiv–Mohyla Academy in 2021 after defending a dissertation entitled “Crimean Tatars’ Return to the Homeland in 1956–1989.” His research interests include oral history, memory, trauma, identity, migration, and colonialism. An alumnus of the Fulbright Research and Development Program, he spent an academic year at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He is currently preparing his thesis for publication.