Dr Olga Suhomlinova, Lecturer in Management at the School, responds to a question which she now finds herself expected to answer<\/i><\/p>\n
\u201cSo, what do you think about Crimea?\u201d This is the most frequent question I have had to field during the past month, for I am Russian. What I could have written about this Wales-size peninsula, wedged between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, before the recent much publicized events, could have fit on a postcard. \u00a0Indeed, they quite literally once did, when, at 19, on my first independent trip away (to Crimea), I wrote home to Moscow, extolling the beauty of beaches and mountains. \u00a0This is precisely what Crimea has traditionally meant to a Russian: a picture-postcard-perfect tranquil holiday destination (think Cornwall, rather than Brighton or Bournemouth), with some exotic\/romantic flair (due to its connections with Greece and Rome in antiquity and the Middle East in the Middle Ages) and reflected in Russian painting (e.g. dramatic seascapes of the \u201cRussian Turner\u201d, Ivan Aivazovsky) and poetry (e.g., Pushkin\u2019s The Fountain of Bakhchisarai<\/i>, a story about the tragic fate of two women in the harem of a Crimean khan).<\/p>\n
Apart from its natural beauty, Crimea has very few riches: its main industries are tourism and wine (the majority of which is exported to Russia, as its quality is no match for international competition). It is self-sufficient only in gas and some foodstuffs, but the rest \u2013 drinking water included \u2013 needs to be brought in from the outside. It has, however, historically attracted conquerors for political motives – as a strategic outpost offering control over the Black Sea routes. \u00a0This military history still echoes in the British consciousness, steeped as it is in images of The Charge of the Light Brigade<\/i> and of Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole ministering to the wounded. Similarly, Leicestrians are reminded of Crimea by the cannons captured by the Leicestershire regiment in the Crimean war, now on exhibition in front of the Newarke Houses. For these reasons, I reckon it is easier for the contemporary Brit than for the contemporary Russian to imagine Crimea as a site of hostilities. Yet here I am, writing about the conflict in Crimea. For what it is worth, I am not a political scientist so I would not presume to provide an expert assessment of the current situation. Nevertheless, I have dabbled in the studies of federalism and property rights and may at least aspire to an educated opinion. To wit, below!<\/p>\n
To whom Crimea should belong is anyone\u2019s guess, since the historical claims upon it are many and varied. The peninsula has belonged to, in reverse chronological order: Ukraine (to which it was transferred by Russia by a Soviet government decree for no obvious reason, ostensibly as a “symbolic gesture” to mark the 300th <\/sup>anniversary of Ukraine joining the Russian Empire) – for 60 years (1954-2014); Russia (which won Crimea in the Russo-Turkish war) \u2013 for 180 years (1774-1954); Turkey (as the successor of the Ottoman Empire, which took control over the originally Tatar-Mongol Khanate of Crimea) \u2013 for 300 years (1475-1774); Mongolia (via the Golden Horde, the western part of the Mongol Empire) \u2013 for 450 years (11th<\/sup>-15th<\/sup> centuries), and Iran (as the modern-day homeland of the Scythians, the nomadic people of Iranian stock, who have dominated most of the peninsula from 7th<\/sup> century BCE until 7th<\/sup> century BE) \u2013 for about 1,400 years. Territorial claims upon Crimea might also be made by Greece (which colonised the coastal areas from 5th<\/sup> century BCE), Italy (via the Roman Empire\u2019s and the medieval Genoese colonies), Lithuania (the Grand Duchy of which invaded Crimea in 14th<\/sup> century), Germany (via the Goths) and China (via the Huns): both the Goths and the Huns invaded Crimea in 3rd<\/sup>-4th<\/sup> century and intermixed with the Scythians). Suggesting, then, on historical grounds, that Crimea should belong to its latest ruler (Ukraine) seems as arbitrary as suggesting that it should belong to its penultimate (Russia) or its longest (Turkey? \u00a0Mongolia? \u00a0Iran?) occupant, or that it should be somehow carved \u00a0up between its various pretenders.<\/p>\n An argument based upon an ethnic principles, rather than territorial ones, would not get us very far either, as the table below suggests. Crimea\u2019s ethnic mix has been a reflection of the politics of its rulers and, even over the past 120 years (as far back as the census data go), it has fluctuated greatly. Russians constitute between a third and two thirds of the population, Ukrainians \u2013 between 11% to a quarter and Crimean Tatars \u2013 between zero (due to the post-World War II deportation) and a third of its population at different times. Incidentally, the \u201cothers\u201d who, in the 1897 census, covered a fifth of its population and included 6% German-speaking and 4% Jewish-speaking people have today diminished \u2013 either physically or through a statistical fluke \u2013 to a nominal 5%.<\/p>\n