Paul
Goble
Staunton, February 18 – Except for
the Crimean Tatars, the overwhelming majority of the population of Crimea
supports its annexation by the Russian Federation; but the arrogance of local
Russian military commanders, the worsening economic situation, and the cavalier
behavior of nouveaux riches from elsewhere in Russia is changing that, a Moscow
historian says.
In today’s “Nezavisimaya gazeta,”
Aleksandr Shirokorad says that these three factors are undermining support for
integration and that at a minimum Moscow needs to consider introducing a longer
transitional set of arrangements to prevent things going from bad to worse (ng.ru/regions/2016-02-18/3_kartblansh.html).
He points out that “all territories
joined to the Russian Empire for a lengthy period at a minimum of many decades
had a special status and their own laws,” including Ukraine, Poland, Finland,
the Caucasus, Central Asia “and others.”
This was true “even in Soviet times” when Western Belarus and Western
Ukraine from September 1939 to June 1941 had “special” status.”
“Why not give a special status to
Crimea?” Shirokorad asks rhetorically. “The southern coast of Crimea and
Sevastopol were a window of the Russian Empire and the USSR. Yes, there should
be military bases in Crimea. But all the remaining territory should be used
exclusively in the interests of the local population and those vacationing from
Russia as a whole.”
Shirokorad’s proposal is unlikely to
find much support in the Kremlin, but the arguments he makes in favor of doing
something radical for Crimea now are certain to worry the upper reaches of the
Russian government because of what they imply could easily happen if nothing is
done.
Sevastopol, he points out, “was the
most secret city of the USSR;” and now, again, it “is the most secret city of the
country,” where the military command does things without much concern as to how
they affect others on the peninsula. Despite promises, they have not opened
more airports; and they have shown propaganda films that are highly offensive
to Crimeans.
Moreover, in Sevastopol and other
cities in Crimea, prices have been allowed to skyrocket and now are three times
those in Moscow. That has not only reduced the standard of living of all the
people in Crimea but raised questions about local officials and their ability
to help anyone.
And finally, Shirokorad says, the
behavior of Russia’s nouveaux riches in Crimea means that “’the wild nineties’”
have returned there, with the rich flaunting their wealth, elbowing out
everyone else, and no one in Crimea or in Moscow doing anything to stop it.
Crimeans are especially outraged that they are losing their beaches to people
who come only a few days a year.
What is occurring, he says, “automatically”
leads people to compare the present with Soviet and Ukrainian rule in the past.
“And, alas, the present day does not always withstand comparison with the past.
Yes, up to now in Crimea and Sevastopol, the prestige of the Russian president
remains high.” But they don’t like much that they see about them.
“The actions of the Sevastopol
administration aren’t popular with the overwhelming majority of the population,”
the historian continues. And they don’t like it that polls about their
attitudes are taken only when Moscow needs them for propaganda purposes.
Fewer than seven percent of Crimean
residents “if one doesn’t count the Crimean Tatars” want to return to being
part of Ukraine. And that number would fall over time, if the authorities were
behaving in a more sensitive fashion. “But
it isn’t difficult to guess how the population views” the arrogance and
insensitivity of Russian officials on the peninsula and in Moscow.
Crimeans now talk about these people
only with curses, and that is true particularly of those who backed the idea of
including Crimea within the Russian Federation.
Now, some of them are ready to “say the word ‘independence’ … ‘if all these
ugly actions continue.’” That might please Kyiv and the West but it won’t make
Moscow happy.
No comments:
Post a Comment