Marina Shapovalova: "No spoon-feeding will help Crimea"

Publicist Marina Shapovalova writes about the difficult fate of the peninsula, which many times in its history turned out to be a political toy in the wrong hands:

“Until 2014, there were pro-Russian sentiments in Crimea, but there were no mass movements for joining Russia. Because everyone understood that this was impossible. In Crimea today there are pro-Ukrainian sentiments, but there are no mass movements for a return to the jurisdiction of Ukraine. Because the possibility of such a turn of events is not visible in reality. Mass moods are always latent and appear only at such a moment when cardinal changes are already taking place. The trouble is that in both scenarios - real and hypothetical - changes were or can be initiated only by external forces claiming ownership of Crimea. And this is not the choice of Crimea. This is "girl, do you want to go to the dacha, or to have your head torn off?"

The subjectivity of Crimea has always been suppressed. Within the framework of the empire, there was simply no question of it, but then the Crimea at least stayed in conditions equal to all imperial territories. For the last hundred years, he was raped, not allowing him to regain consciousness: they shot, conquered, evicted indigenous peoples, settled in "forced-voluntary" settlers, passed them back and forth as props. The people inhabiting it have always been a low-value consumable for the authorities: they can always be replaced with others. Independent value was implied only for the territory.

But people in Crimea became Crimeans. Not only in the second generation, but also in the first. We can say that this is the magic of the place. The uniqueness of the peninsula gives rise to a “feeling of homeland”, which grows roots to the entire historical depth. A sharp, traumatic feeling of injustice and destructiveness for the Crimea of the intervention of external forces tells a person that he is a Crimean.

But the Crimean does not have the right to choose a fate independent of external forces. Whoever he is, he is here - nobody. Always an immigrant, even if he returned to the homeland of his ancestors. He will always be told that “like him” here - 5-10%, well, let 15%, and the rest - different and different, and think differently, having different ideas about the desired future of the peninsula. Which, unfortunately, is true: Crimeans are not one people, despite their obvious love for their common land. The perfect alignment for any outside power.

The post-Soviet "learned helplessness" - for everyone except the Crimean Tatars, who are accustomed to surviving relying only on their own strengths - reinforces the orientation towards the metropolises, without which Crimea is allegedly unviable. Although to common sense the subsidization of such a resource-rich region should seem absurd.

Crimea has not been developed for a hundred years - it was only used. Moreover, in the tail and in the mane, cheap and cheerful. So that, not having sufficient sources of forming its own budget, Crimea existed on handouts "from above". A giant project of an algal canal, seemingly aimed at the development of the region, reinforced the dependence of Crimea on the mainland - so that "nothing of its own", and no chances to think about economic independence. "And if you resist - we will cut off the gas!" This is not an imperial, but a purely Soviet way of tying territories to the governing center.

The subjectivity of Crimea is questionable until the Crimeans themselves - all "too different" Crimeans - do not realize that real development can be carried out only relying on their own forces and resources. No amount of "spoon-feeding" by the metropolis will replace it and will not launch it. But until such self-awareness becomes a reality, Crimea will not have a real choice for the future.