| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| 'Initially, Catherine II held a different view on the future of Crimea' |
| 2023-04-20 |
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. [REGNUM] "When the last Khan Shahin Giray was once again deposed from the throne, and he was forced to flee on a Russian ship, Crimea was declared a Russian possession," said Andrei Malgin, a leading Crimean historian, in an interview with REGNUM. 240 years ago, Catherine II issued a manifesto on the acceptance of the peninsula and the Kuban lands under the rule of the Russian crown. Why did the empress initially have other plans for the Crimea, and which of the three geopolitical tasks of Russia did the annexation of the peninsula help solve? 240 years ago, on April 19, 1783, Catherine the Great issued a manifesto entitled "On the acceptance of the Crimean peninsula, the island of Taman and the entire Kuban side under the Russian State." Crimea and the current lands of the Krasnodar Territory, which - under the rule of the Crimean khans and Ottoman sultans - for centuries posed a threat to Rus'-Russia, became the All-Russian granary, the focus of transport arteries and the stronghold of the state on the Black Sea coast. The manifesto spoke of "a happy transformation from rebellion and disorder into peace, silence and lawful order." In the following centuries, these lands experienced “mutinies and disturbances” more than once, until in 2014 Crimea returned “to its native harbor” forever. Last year, thanks to the reunification of the Azov and Kherson regions with Russia, Crimea ceased to be an “island” separated from the rest of the country, a land corridor appeared in the east of Novorossia, and the Sea of Azov again, as in the time of Catherine II, became the inland sea of Russia. About the historical path of the Crimea over the past century and over the recent nine years, REGNUM news agency talked with the leading historian of the region, the general director of the Central Museum of Taurida Andrey Malgin. REGNUM : Andrey Vitalievich, if we look into the past, how will we see Crimea in the period preceding its incorporation into the Russian Empire? What kind of state was it, what policy did it pursue towards Russia? Andrei Malgin : This historical period should be divided into two parts. Before 1772 and after, until 1883. Until 1771–1772 (when the Karasubazar peace treaty was concluded between the Crimean Khanate and the Russian Empire), the Crimean Khanate was a vassal state within the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans had several such vassal states. These were Moldavia and Wallachia, Georgia and the Northern Black Sea region - Crimea itself. But, unlike Moldavia and Wallachia, as well as Georgia, which were the Christian vassals of Istanbul, Crimea was a subsidiary Muslim state. At one time, he played a very important role in the expansion of the Ottomans into the territory of the Commonwealth and the Russian state. Therefore, the Crimean Khan was called "the main scimitar of the Sultan." But then, after 1699, after the Peace of Karlowitz, after the defeat of the Ottomans in their last onslaught on Europe, in an agreement between European players and the Ottoman Empire, the Crimean Khanate was forbidden to raid the territory of the Commonwealth and the Russian state. This leads to a rather serious decline in the military strength of the khanate and, accordingly, its economy, because it was built to a large extent on military campaigns to the north. BakuToday : Did you have to switch to other territories? A. M . : Yes, mainly for military operations in the Caucasus. The khanate also participates in clashes between the Ottomans and Persians. But, in general, it is going through hard times and decline. BakuToday : Was this fragment of the Golden Horde a typical oriental despotism? AM : No, rather it was a Muslim authoritarian democracy. The structure of the Crimean Khanate was somewhat reminiscent of the Commonwealth, since the main role was played not by the khan himself, but by the beys who put the khan on the throne, and the Ottoman Empire claimed him. In other words, the Khan was largely a politically dependent figure. Rather, it was a hereditary commander, and his task was to organize campaigns. And political life was carried out by representatives of Bey clans. In addition, the Crimean Khanate is a multinational state. Its ethnic basis was the Crimean Tatars. In the north, several Nogai hordes roamed. In addition, a large Christian population are Greeks and Armenians. In short, a kind of state with a complex system of government. BakuToday : Why does St. Petersburg ultimately decide to include the Crimean Khanate in the empire? A. M . : We must say that at first, when Catherine II came to the throne and began to engage in southern politics in the Crimean direction, she, thanks to the point of view of Nikita Panin (the head of Russian foreign policy), held a different view on the future of Crimea. By default, it was assumed that if the Crimean Khanate gained independence from the Ottoman Empire, then it would gradually abandon its hostile position towards Russia and eventually become a friendly semi-independent state - a protectorate. But when the khanate gained independence from the Ottoman Empire and became a Russian protectorate, this did not lead to a stabilization of the situation. Rather, the opposite is true. IA REGNUM : Why? A. M . : The fact is that the last Crimean Khan Shahin Giray began a policy of reforms in the spirit of Peter the Great, and this turned almost the entire Muslim population of the khanate against him. Two major uprisings broke out against Shahin. Russia has spent a lot to support Shahin - both troops and money. However, when Grigory Potemkin and Alexander Bezborodko began to lead Russia's foreign policy, they developed a new concept of empire in relation to Crimea - the entire Crimean Khanate must be annexed to Russia, otherwise peace and stability cannot be achieved. Because the Turks, looking at the constant problems in the Crimean Khanate, were ready to return it under their rule. Therefore, when the Crimean Khan was once again overthrown from the throne and he was forced to flee on a Russian ship, Crimea was declared a Russian possession. BakuToday : What was the strategic importance of the Crimea for the Russian Empire? A. M . : Catherine II and Potemkin solved a pragmatic problem. During that period, Russia is experiencing a turning point in its geopolitical destiny. And the annexation of Crimea was a kind of result of the transition to a new quality. Russia was a major European state and an important factor in the affairs of Europe. But before Catherine II, it was not a great state. In other words, the solution of world problems did not depend on the opinion of Russia. When did you become addicted? Thanks to three important facts. First, in 1779 Russia becomes a mediator in the fateful dispute between the Austrian Empire and Prussia (Teshino peace). The second fact: 1780 - England is fighting with its colonies, the United States is trying to achieve independence, and Russia takes the side of the rebel colonists and declares armed neutrality. The third fact: access to the Black Sea region is the annexation of Crimea. Here are three facts that turn Russia from just a big state into a great power. And she maintains this status to the present. BakuToday : Crimea, thus, was continuously part of Russia from 1783 to 1954. And after the transfer from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR, the peninsula was part of a single country, the Soviet Union. In fact, Crimea was “foreign” only during the difficult period of 1991-2014. What policy did Kyiv pursue towards the peninsula? A.M .: Let's start with the fact that Crimea became part of Ukraine rather unexpectedly. This was not a fully thought out decision of Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev (even if it had its own internal logic). Therefore, during the entire period of its stay as part of Ukraine, Crimea remained the fifth wheel in the cart of Ukrainian statehood. Ukraine, despite the fact that it owned the Crimea, did not attach any great importance to it. Of course, the policy of the formation of the Ukrainian state, which was associated with the inevitable Ukrainization, was not accepted in Crimea. Plus, the problem of the repatriation of the Crimean Tatars has become a factor that greatly complicates relations between Simferopol and Kyiv. All this periodically led to crisis situations and eventually turned into the events of 2014, when Crimea carried out a change of sovereignty. As a result, the life of the local population has also changed. BakuToday : Can we say that over the past nine years we have managed to overcome all or at least most of the problems inherited from the Kiev authorities? A. M .: In relation to Crimea, the Russian Federation is pursuing a quite definite policy - aimed at solving those problems that Ukraine has not solved for a very long time. Because Ukraine never became a state in the sense and in the sense in which we can talk about the modern Russian Federation. Rather, post-Soviet Ukraine is a state of individuals or corporations. The public side of the activity of the Ukrainian state has always been much less pronounced. There was no money, no desire, no opportunity to invest in any socially significant projects. For example, such as road construction. In other words, the period of Crimea being part of Ukraine is the time of the progressive decline of the social infrastructure. Russia put an end to this practice and began to allocate money for what is really important to society - highways, bridges, airports, gas supply. And the results of this policy can be seen with the naked eye. The changes are really great, and they are of a systemic and infrastructural nature. Many enterprises that had not received orders before started working. Agriculture is reviving, and the security of Crimea is ensured and is at a very high level. April 19, 2023 Ivan Zhurenkov |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #1 So it would seem that even Turkey has a more credible claim to Crimea than Ukraine. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2023-04-20 11:20 |