The National Council for Soviet and East European Research Title VIII Program (original) (raw)

Since the collapse of the USSR, the Crimean peninsula has been engulfed in what sometimes seems to be a never-ending cycle of crises. Political instability, repeated political confrontations with its parent state Ukraine, and signs of rising ethnic tensions, have led some to view Crimea as a potential powderkeg. Added to these internal tensions, Crimea has found itself at the center of a dangerous war of words between Russia and Ukraine as these two immense neighbors struggle to redefine their relationship. Given the multiple political, ethnic. and geopolitical tensions that have entangled the region, it may seem odd that the Crimea has not experienced the outbreak of violent conflict observed in other parts of the former USSR. In this paper, however, I argue that the absence of violent conflict is both predictable and understandable if one considers the interactions between Crimea's three levels of crises: ideological, ethnic, and geopolitical. The paper is divided into three sections. In Part I, I consider Crimea's unusual history and the ideological, ethnic, and geopolitical cleavages this distinctive historical path created in Crimean society. In Part II, I consider how Crimean politicians in the post-Soviet era have attempted to mobilize support based on these historical cleavages. Crimea's politicians have attempted to mobilize social constituencies along ideological cleavages (neo-communist, social welfare platforms versus market-oriented capitalist policies), ethnic divisions (Russian versus Ukrainian versus Crimean Tatar), and geopolitical lines (pro-Russia, pro-Ukraine, and proindependence). In Part III, I argue that while certain politicians hoped to mobilize society along a single deep and dominant cleavage-in particular, ethnic Russians with aspirations for reunification with Russia versus ethnic Ukrainians committed to Ukrainian affiliation-such a cleavage in fact barely exists in Crimean society today. In fact, this analysis shows that (l)commitments to ideological platforms are generally weak and malleable amongst most major constituencies; (2)ethnic divisions between Russians and Ukrainians are almost non-existent. with the exception of the 3.8% Ukrainian-language speakers on the peninsula; and (3)aspirations for independence or reunification with Russia are based almost entirely on economic considerations and, with the exception of the Sevastopol military population, do not reflect strong popular commitment. In addition, it should be noted that Russia's involvement in Chechnya has drastically curtailed Russian political interest in overt intervention in Crimea.