According to Russian President Vladimir Putin the events known variously as land grab, annexation or reunification of the Crimea were about “therapy” for a deep trauma, “a wound inflicted on our people as the result of the dramatic schism of the twentieth century”.   This explanation attempting to justify a clear breach of international law was given at an address to members of the Russian State Duma in Yalta, Crimea on August 14. Journalists were swift to report his supposedly “conciliatory tone” and declared intention in eastern Ukraine to “do all in our power to ensure that this conflict is stopped”.  Since the speech was made just hours before UK journalists saw a column of armed personnel carriers and other heavy military technology crossing from Russia into Ukraine, scepticism is warranted. 

Putin was, however, cautious even in his rather vague historical references to “civil war”.  He was much less circumspect in his annexation speech on March 18,when he left no doubt that the trauma he was referring to was the break-up of the USSR and the fact that Ukraine and Russia are now separate states. 

In recent weeks Moscow’s denials that it is supplying arms and mercenaries to the militants, including the Buk surface-to-air missile system that downed Malaysian airline MH17 seemed to be for the record only. The militants have openly boasted of Russian reinforcements, and former Russian top figures such as Alexander Borodai and former Russian military intelligence officer Igor “Strelkov” Girkin have beenreplaced by the former security chief of another unrecognised pro-Russian republic Transnistria, Vladimir Antyufeyev, its former vice president Alexander Karaman and others. 

With the death toll rising and Russian support unabated, many analysts have suggested that the west may try to secure an end to the conflict in eastern Ukraine by agreeing to some kind of compromise on Crimea. In view of this, it is worth considering what the first six months of Russian occupation have brought many Ukrainians, including the overwhelming majority of Crimean Tatars.

A Soviet-style show trial

Crimean Tatars know trauma very well.  Their experiences both in Tsarist and Soviet times made them profoundly anxious of ending up under Russian rule. In any case they and many other Ukrainian nationals, including some ethnic Russians, regard themselves as Ukrainian and have no wish to change that. 

In the first month after Russian soldiers seized government buildings on February 27, it was mainly paramilitary pro-Russian units who suppressed open opposition to the annexation. This has now become government-enforced.  A number of measures carried out by Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) together with the occupation authorities are aimed at silencing dissident voices and deterring others from speaking out.

Source – Al Jazeera: putin-soviet-therapy-crimea