Greta Lynn Uehling is the author of the new book Decolonizing Ukraine: The Indigenous People of Crimea and Pathways to Freedom. Her other books include Everyday War. She is teaching professor at the University of Michigan.
Q: What inspired you to write Decolonizing Ukraine?
A: As a cultural anthropologist who has worked on Crimea for three decades, I have been acutely conscious of the ways that Crimea’s Indigenous people, the Crimean Tatars, tend to be left out of the discussion of Russia’s war on Ukraine.
This is unfortunate because they have been disproportionately affected by the war and because their experiences offer an important vantage point on the region as a whole.
When Russia occupied Crimea in 2014, they began targeting Crimean Tatars, who have traditionally been pro-Ukrainian, for arrest and imprisonment. Journalists, academics, and political leaders were especially affected. An estimated 20 percent of the Indigenous Crimean Tatar population has fled for government-controlled parts of Ukraine and Western Europe.
From the Crimean Tatar perspective, the Russian 2014 occupation is a continuation of policies that date back centuries. They comprised over 90 percent of the peninsula’s population before the first wave of Russian imperial colonization in the 18th century.
By 1944, however, they had been entirely removed through forced deportations carried out by Soviet authorities, an act of ethnic cleansing that reduced their presence to zero. Today, Crimean Tatars make up only about 12 to 13 percent of Crimea’s population.
The dramatic demographic and cultural shifts driven by Russian imperial, Soviet, and later Ukrainian state policies reveal a pattern of resource extraction, dispossession, and population replacement that spans multiple centuries.
The population displacement sparked by the 2014 occupation of Crimea afforded Ukraine an opportunity to reconsider Crimea and Crimean Tatars’ place in Ukraine. Among the outcomes of the war is greater recognition of Crimean Tatars in Ukraine. Although most Ukrainians learned about Crimean Tatars as historic archenemies, they came to be seen as valuable partners in resisting Russian aggression.
As a whole, Decolonizing Ukraine tells the story of a historically oppressed group – the Crimean Tatars – that not only survives repeated episodes of dispossession but succeeds in reconfiguring how they are perceived by others, thereby gaining more meaningful social inclusion in Ukraine.
In answer to your question, I was inspired both by their conspicuous absence in discussions of the war on Ukraine, and their striking resilience. Moreover, their non-expropriative, reciprocal relationship to the land stands in sharp contrast to the colonial logic that displaced them, making their ongoing presence and revival all the more powerful.
Q: What do you think are some of the most common perceptions and misconceptions about Crimea?
A: One of the most persistent misconceptions about Crimea is the idea that it is “historically Russian.” In fact, prior to Russia’s first colonization of the peninsula in 1783, the region was home to the Crimean Tatar state—a sophisticated and enduring polity that lasted for over 300 years.
During that time, literature, poetry, and the arts flourished, and their political influence extended well beyond the borders of the peninsula. It wasn't until much later that a significant Slavic population began to settle in Crimea.
Another common misunderstanding is the belief that the people of Crimea freely voted to join Russia during the 2014 occupation. In reality, the referendum was held in violation of both international and Ukrainian law, with no genuine option to remain part of Ukraine presented on the ballot. Even Russian officials later admitted that the results were artificially inflated.
A closely related misconception is that the people who live under Russian occupation prefer for the occupation to continue. It is objectively impossible to assess public opinion under a regime that punishes people for their opinions. There is no freedom of speech or thought, and the punishment for dissent – even saying “no to war” - is extreme.
Moreover, it should be clear that such repressive measures would not be necessary in a place where everyone was in favor of the authorities.
Considering these dynamics, Ukraine has developed a holistic plan for de-militarizing and de-occupying the peninsula that includes the addressing the emotional and cognitive dimensions of Russia occupation. In my book, I focus on the subjective aspects of decolonization.
Q: How did you research the book, and did you learn anything that especially surprised you?
A: The fieldwork for the book was carried out as a Fulbright scholar in Ukraine beginning in 2015, and ended in 2023 when I worked with Crimean Tatars who fled military conscription in Crimea and came to the United States.
While in Ukraine, I traveled extensively, mostly on the Ukrainian rails, in order to engage with as broad a spectrum of people as possible. As an anthropologist, participant observation is an important part my research. I attended workshops for internally displaced people as well as attending cultural events and participating in informal social gatherings.
I also did extensive interviewing. The book reflects the analysis of over 90 interviews. Sixty of those interviews were with people displaced from Crimea and 30 were with people who continued to live in Crimea or were working on the challenges facing Crimea in a professional capacity.
One of the things that surprised me was the scope and range of Russia’s hybrid tactics.
Those who follow events in Ukraine will be aware Russian occupation was executed with a combination of military and non-military tactics that include hiring proxies and mercenaries, election interference, spreading disinformation, and so on. Russia occupies territory as much by influencing how people think as through military means.
What my research contributes to this understanding is that disrupting how people thought and felt about one another was also a hybrid tactic. The majority of the people who were displaced from occupied territories spoke of the end of friendships and new tensions in family relationships.
The tactic is quite explicit in encouraging students to inform on parents who may have pro-Ukrainian sentiments. The authorities have also set up a hotline for reporting on friends and neighbors who make even subtle anti-war or pro-Ukrainian statements. The accused are fined and publicly humiliated.
As a more specific example, a man I met sifting through clothing at a humanitarian shelter told me his father broke off all contact with him because he did not vote for joining Russia in the referendum. They had a falling out that led “Victor” to flee for Ukrainian government-controlled Ukraine.
Had he not experienced this rift with his father, he would have been in a position to inherit a home and property. Thus, these tactics have significant material stakes.
Q: What are you working on now?
A: Since publishing Decolonizing Ukraine, I’ve been honored to receive many invitations for talks and online appearances. It’s been a meaningful experience to share my research with audiences in places like Boston; New York City; Washington, D.C.; Vienna, Austria; and soon, Tbilisi, Georgia. I'm grateful for the interest and engagement the work has received.
Q: Anything else we should know?
A: This book is for readers who are interested in the lived experiences of Russia’s war on Ukraine. Grounded in a phenomenological approach, it illustrates contemporary political events with deeply personal stories that I hope will resonate.
I genuinely look forward to hearing readers’ thoughts, questions, and reflections. They can connect with me and explore more of my work at GretaUehling.com.
--Interview with Deborah Kalb. Here's a previous Q&A with Greta Uehling.
No comments:
Post a Comment