Ukraine’s Historical Narrative of Crimea

Abstract

In 2014, Russia’s occupation of Crimea was accompanied by an extensive information campaign aimed at mitigating international condemnation. A central element of this campaign was the deployment of historical narratives claiming Crimea’s longstanding ties to or belonging to Russia. These narratives emphasized Russia’s role as the legitimate successor to Kyivan Rus and positioned Crimea as a sacred site of Christianization. Furthermore, they portrayed Crimea’s history as predominantly Russian, with the temporary exception of the period leading up to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in the 18th century. These narratives were used to support propaganda suggesting that the majority of Crimean residents supported Russia’s attempted annexation, thereby influencing international opinion.

In contrast, since Ukraine’s independence in 1991, scholars have worked to distance Ukraine’s historical narratives from Soviet imperial frameworks. However, Ukrainian historiography has primarily focused on ethnic Ukrainian perspectives, sidelining Crimea as a peripheral topic. This marginalization stemmed from perceptions of Crimea as an “other” rather than an integral part of Ukrainian history. Consequently, the deconstruction of Soviet-era narratives about Crimea lagged behind efforts to reevaluate broader Ukrainian history. As a result, many Soviet-influenced perspectives on Crimea persisted uncritically within Ukrainian society.

Russia’s 2014 occupation of Crimea served as a wake-up call, prompting Ukrainian society to critically examine Russian-imposed narratives about the peninsula. This led to growing awareness of the colonial and imperialist elements embedded in these narratives. Over the past decade, Ukrainian scholars have actively worked to reconstruct Crimea’s history from a decolonial perspective. This effort has been fueled by increased interest in Crimea’s past and its role within Ukraine’s civic identity. The focus has shifted from viewing Crimea as an external entity to recognizing it as an integral part of Ukraine’s historical and cultural landscape.

Ukraine’s response to Russia’s aggression has also catalyzed broader changes in its national identity. The concept of a civic Ukrainian identity has expanded beyond ethnic definitions, encompassing diverse groups, including the Crimean Tatars. This inclusivity has heightened interest in the history of the Crimean Khanate, which is now being framed as an integral component of Ukraine’s historical narrative. In educational contexts, Crimean entities are no longer portrayed as foreign but rather as part of Ukraine’s shared heritage.

The ongoing reconstruction of Crimea’s history signifies a departure from ethnocentric historiography. While elements related to Russia and its colonial legacy are gradually being scrutinized or rejected, this process has also encouraged a more inclusive understanding of Ukraine’s multicultural past. If successful, this integration of Crimea’s history into Ukraine’s national narrative could serve as a model for incorporating the histories of other ethnic minorities. Such an approach would demonstrate the adaptability and inclusiveness of Ukraine’s national historiography, contributing to a broader understanding of its complex and diverse identity.

In summary, Ukraine’s efforts to decolonize Crimea’s history and integrate it into its national narrative reflect a broader transformation driven by resistance to Russian aggression. This process not only redefines Ukraine’s relationship with Crimea but also challenges longstanding imperial narratives, fostering a more inclusive and pluralistic vision of Ukrainian history and identity.