Voice of Ukraine

From Heero Hacquebord in L’viv (MTW missionary):

before we get started…

Since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine last February I have taken it upon myself to provide you with portions of background material on the history of Ukraine, especially as it concerns interactions with its now massive neighbor, Russia. I trust that this has been helpful for you to get a better grasp on Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. This is meaningful for two reasons: First, to understand the context in which we are serving the church here in L’viv – especially for having informed prayers. Second, to comprehend that this war is one that actually requires “taking sides” and helping the clear victim, because – despite what you may hear or read elsewhere – it is a textbook case of a just war.

Providing such background material is taxing on my time, though, which is part of the reason it has taken me so very long to send out this update – for which I sincerely apologize. I plan in the future to send more frequent ministry updates but with infrequent sections of background material. Today, however, there is both….

Crimea

Crimea has always been Russian. Any attempt on the side of Ukraine to take it back will necessarily be illegitimate and cross a “red line” of threatening Russian sovereignty.

This is what Russians — and audiences in the rest of the world — are repeatedly told to believe. It is the result of calculated, persistent Russian propaganda. In reality, Crimea has always been an integral part of the southern Ukrainian steppes and there can be no long-lasting peace between Russia and an independent Ukraine if Russia continues to occupy Crimea. As one prominent Yale historian puts it, “From the perspective of Ukraine, Crimea is a peninsula. From the perspective of Russia, Crimea is an island.

I had the privilege of visiting Crimea a few times. While the northern parts are fairly arid steppes, the mountains in the center create a warmer microclimate for the beautiful southern coast. This is where one finds Yalta, famous for the conference held nearby at the end of WWII. Over the last several decades much of the large peninsula (almost the size of Belgium) has been developed as a major holiday destination. But this common generalization belies a very rich and complex history that has been manipulated and twisted in order to fit a very particular Russian imperial narrative.

While Crimea was part of the ancient world with Greek settlers on its coast, the interior became inhabited by Turkic people and was eventually ruled by the Mongolian horde. From 1441 to 1783, though, the independent Crimean Khanate – a direct successor of the Mongol empire – ruled not only most of Crimea and what is today southern Ukraine, but also large swaths of modern-day Russia. Indeed, the Crimean Khanate collected a tribute from Muscovy until 1699.

While Muscovy paid a tribute to the Mongolians for several centuries, the Crimean Khanate became subject to the Ottoman Empire (centered in Turkey). In 1721 Muscovy rebranded itself as the “Rus-sian Empire”, co-opting the name from Kyivan Rus. As the Ottoman Empire gradually decreased in power the Russian Empire increased, expanding its rule also over the Crimean Khanate – in southern Ukraine and Crimea – in 1783. Catherine the Great boldly renamed this expansive territory of the Crimean Khanate “New Russia”.

Yet the population of this territory was not Russian at all, with the Crimean peninsula itself inhabited predominantly by ethnic Crimean Tatars. And so, 74 years after the beginning of Russian rule, in 1857, Russian Tsar Alexander II ordered that the Tatars be cleansed from the entire Crimean peninsula and replaced by mostly Russian peasants. This was the first Russian effort to rid Crimea of its native population. As a result, by 1900, Crimean Tatars went from roughly 80 percent of the population to only about 25 percent.

In spite of this deliberate Russification, early Soviet leaders understood the unique history of Crimea, making it an autonomous Soviet republic (on par with Russia and Ukraine). But its status changed to that of a mere region of the Russian Soviet republic after Stalin made another attempt at ridding Crimea of its inconvenient history and native population: Over the course of three days in May 1944, the Soviet secret police stormed through Crimean Tatar towns and villages, brutally rounding up and deporting a total of about 200,000 people whose ancestors had called the peninsula home for centuries. Many did not survive the long journey in deportation cattle trains. Many more died soon after arrival in places as far away as Soviet Uzbekistan. Back in sunny Crimea, their homes and property were given to settlers from other parts of the USSR, mostly Russians. Over 2,000 Tatar settlements were given totally unrelated Russian names, thereby wiping out an ages-old history and creating another, fictitious one. Stalinist officials themselves described these efforts as an attempt “to make Crimea a new Crimea with its own Russian form.”

Yet the new “Russian” Crimea was languishing as part of a Soviet Russia with which it had no physical connection. In addition, the Tatar farmers who knew the land and climate had all been deported to other parts of the Soviet Union. It is these and other problems that Stalin’s successor Khrushchev sought to solve when he made Crimea a part of Soviet Ukraine.

Khrushchev was not Ukrainian. He was born in Russia and raised by Russian parents who moved to Ukraine when Nikita was 12 years old. As head of the Soviet Union, he did not “give” Crimea to Ukraine in order to do it a favor (Soviet and Russian propaganda notwithstanding). He made an obvious administrative decision to save the peninsula from economic catastrophe. Since Crimea is “a natural continuation of Ukraine’s southern steppe,” it made perfect sense for it to be incorporated into the Ukrainian infrastructure. In 1957, therefore, Soviet Ukrainian authorities in Kyiv launched the construction of the North Crimean Canal to irrigate the arid peninsula with water from Ukraine’s Dnipro River. As a result of this and other projects realized by Soviet Ukraine, Crimea began to blossom economically as its new administrative connections reflected its natural geography – a part of Ukraine. According to one Cambridge historian, “The transfer of Crimea to Ukraine was no mistake. It was a rescue.”

When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991 the majority of Crimean residents voted for Ukrainian independence. Such attitudes (though not unanimous) persisted under democratic Ukrainian rule. Even just several months before the Russian annexation of Crimean in 2014 – despite ferocious Russian propaganda efforts aimed at Crimea, in particular – less than 25% of all Crimean residents polled wanted to join Russia. When Russia invaded Crimea in early 2014, therefore, the sham March 16 referendum to join Russia had to take place literally at gunpoint. Only in that way could Russia get its “democratic mandate.”

As part of an independent Ukraine from 1991-2014, the Crimean Tatars were encouraged to re-establish themselves and their culture in their ancestral land. By 2014 they had grown to around 10% of the peninsula’s population. Yet all of that changed again in 2014. With Russia’s annexation of Crimea the Tatars’ expression of their language and culture has once again become the target of oppression. As a result, about 30,000 Tatars have left Crimea for other parts of Ukraine. Those who have stayed suffer abuse and persecution. From time to time young men simply disappear – never to be heard from again. Many have been forced to fight – and die – in Russia’s war against Ukraine. (This is part of an apparent broader Russian strategy of exterminating indigenous men.) The Crimean Tatars’ presence just does not fit the Russian imperialist narrative – that Crimea is, and always has been, “Russian”.

And if Russian, then it must be Russian Orthodox. Two Protestant families joined our church in 2014 after fleeing Russian rule in their beloved Crimea. One couple used to work at a flourishing Christian college in Simferopol that was started with significant funding from the U.S. Under the Russian occupation the college was shut down, the beautiful property summarily seized and passed along to someone else. To my knowledge, most Protestant churches in Crimea have met a similar fate. Like the Soviet Union, Putin’s Russia does not appreciate independent thinking or opposing voices – of any kind.

More basic than free speech, water remains a crucial question in Crimea’s development. Since the Russian occupation began in 2014, Ukraine has turned off the supply of water to the peninsula through the North Crimean Canal. Instead of building a pipeline to supply water, though, Putin built a bridge. As a result, Crimean farming has suffered greatly over the past decade.

“Crimea’s historical experience of Russian and Soviet rule… has been one of persistent ethnic cleansing, violence and trauma.” As long as Crimea remains part of an imperialist Russia this history will continue. And no matter what Russia does, Crimea will always be geographically and historically connected with Ukraine. Indeed, many prominent commentators are coming to realize that there can be no lasting peace between Kyiv and Moscow until Russia recognizes the reality that reflects international law, simple geography and the will of the people – that Crimea is part of an independent, democratic Ukraine. As General Ben Hodges, former commander of the U.S. Army in Europe, says: “Crimea is decisive for this war. Ukraine will never be safe or secure, or be able to rebuild their economy, as long as Russia retains Crimea.” A Crimea ruled by Russia is a “dagger in Ukraine’s belly.”