The phenomenon of “Krymnashism”

I want to tell you an instructive story. In 1990 I left Russia for the US as part of a research exchange program. Fate decreed that I met an American, my future wife, in Washington, where I worked at the Congress Library. I was almost immediately offered a job, although I had no citizenship or even a green card yet – all I had was a work permit. So, I stayed behind. At that time, I was still considered a defector, but this made no difference to me. Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn has an excellent phrase: “Jim didn’t like the spiders, and the spiders didn’t like Jim.” It did not matter to me what the USSR thought of me because I hadn’t liked Soviet power since my childhood and Soviet power hadn’t liked me. I came back to Moscow 15 years later. Moscow did not impress me much. But there were changes on the shelves of food and book stores, and this – daily bread and spiritual bread – is the crux of the matter. For this reason, I was glad for Muscovites and Soviet Russians in general.

Besides, the downtown had assumed a far more respectable, i.e. a less Soviet, shape. But only the downtown. On the whole, the city called up a customary association with the feeling of defenselessness which had always haunted me in the USSR. There was a little more freedom in the air, but the atmosphere was in general almost as depressing as it had been in the communist years. Yet I was incredibly pleased to meet my old, close, and adorable friends. I was and still am deeply grateful to them for memory and welcome. One of my old lady friends, whose daughter grew up before my eyes and on my fairytales (as did a girl friend of hers, the daughter of another friendly couple from the same milieu), has a husband. He is much older than her, fought and was decorated during World War Two when he was very young. He is a major Russian authority on handicapped children treatment, Doctor of Psychology, professor, member of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences.

Naturally, he knows the price of communism. They invited me to their house, and we were very glad to see each other. We began to talk about various things of life, changes, etc. Then he suddenly says to me: “It’s simply a disgrace that Crimea was handed over to Ukraine!” It was in 2005, incidentally. “It is Khrushchev who did it,” I answered automatically without a moment’s hesitation.” “But he had no right to do so!” the professor cried out. I must also add that he is a pure Belarusian by origin, and when I once asked him whether it was true that Belarusians almost did not differ from Russians, he explained to me firmly, pompously, and in easy-to-grasp terms that they did differ and were totally different nations. Which is, after all, true. I mean he was not, and most likely is still not, a Russian nationalist at all. Obviously, a rabble-style mentality can instill itself in any brain. To say that this retort and the whole conversation astonished me greatly means to say nothing. I would have been less surprised if the professor had suggested that we get married secretly and run away to Brazil or Salvador, or, to avoid any risque points, if an American policeman had suddenly stopped me on the street and said that, in his opinion, Portugal must take back the island of Zanzibar because it was part of the Portuguese colonial empire in the 16th century.

Crimea was part of the Russian colonial empire, but it had never been part of Russia. The best comparison is as follows: if Britons wished now to take back New England, Frenchmen – Canada (New France), and Spaniards – Mexico (New Spain). The same applies to the so-called Novorossia, the idea of which was prompted the Russian KGB, now in power, by a well-wisher named Solzhenitsyn. I finally answered the professor that this topic seemed strange to me and that he should, above all, inquire about the opinion of Crimean Tatars. My answer did not impress him, and I hastily changed the subject. I am saying this because even highly-educated people in Moscow seem to be able to go bananas at any moment and God knows why.

What could cause such an odd crack-up in the mind of a quite educated, jovial, and mild person in 2005? Why was he so eager to share his “suppressed pain” with me? What is the moral and legal basis (emotions do not matter to me) of this statement from the mouth of a sane person? And in what way does this differ from the moral and legal basis of the actions of top communist bosses who handed over territories hither and thither by the decrees that nobody could challenge? The point is that, from the geographic and economic angles, Crimea is very closely linked with Ukraine and even with Turkey, but in no way with Russia. Russia could only lay claim to Crimea under the condition that Ukraine has been hindering the life of Crimean Tatars, the indigenous population of Crimea for many centuries, by way of oppression and deportations. But it is Russia that had always been doing this. I would like Russian “Krymnashists” [those who support the annexation of Crimea. – Ed.] to say honestly and sincerely if they have any arguments other than “Crimea is ours, for it is ours.” What’s the essence of their “Russian truth”? What’s the idea of “Krymnashism”? Are there many Russians there?

Firstly, there are not much more of them than Tatars and Ukrainians. Secondly, most of the Russians were resettled to the places where the deported Tatars had lived. They were granted ownership of the Tatars’ land and property. Thirdly, Corsica used to be part of the Republic of Genoa, one of the Italian states, long ago. In terms of language and family names, the Corsicans are closer to the Italians than to the French. Why is nobody saying that it must be immediately given back to Italy? Because France and Italy honor the agreements and Corsicans themselves (there is no other population there) do not want to be part of Italy. But even if they wanted to, it would be not so easy to do so because of a treaty similar to the one signed by all the Soviet republics in 1991.

This process would have dragged on for years, and no country would have even considered moving in its troops. Why are the Swedes not robbing Finland of the Aland Islands? Why are the French and the Dutch not dividing up Belgium? If a Crimean wants to live in Russia, it is enough to buy a ticket and move there to live. He or she should not and is not authorized to challenge the treaty-based international system because of this detail in their life story. So what’s the matter? Resorts? Firstly, Caucasian resorts still remain in Russia, and, secondly, Russia, as well as Ukraine, seems to have entered a new historical period, when it is possible to go to far more exotic lands for a vacation. Has any blood been shed for Crimea? Yes, the blood of colonizers and invaders, and – still more – the blood of Crimean Tatars.

Cultural links? Chekhov, Bunin, and Aleksandr Grin lived there? Then why not annex Baden, where Chekhov lived and died; Capri, where Tchaikovsky, Stanislavsky, and Gorky lived; Florence, where Tarkovsky lived; Bougival near Paris, where Turgenev lived with Pauline Viardot and died; and Paris itself, where Berdiayev, Bunin, Vrubel, Korovin, Merezhkovsky, Rachmaninoff, Remizov, Chagall, and Chaliapin also resided? Or why not annex at least the Russian cemetery Sainte-Genevieve-des-Bois? This passes all understanding. You will not grasp Russia with your mind, as the poet Tyutchev said (ironically, in my opinion). Incidentally, he lived in Munich for a long time – why not make it part of Russia? However, Tyutchev also wrote: “I am not homesick, I miss a strange land.”

Let us say bluntly that, for a start, Russia should return Eastern Prussia to Germany; the Vyborg province, Petsamo, the islands of Valaam and Hogland to Finland; the Kuril Islands to Japan; Petseri to Estonia; and Abrene to Latvia. Instead, as is known, Mr. Putin pronounced a well-known catchphrase in his favorite street-ruffian style: “They will get a dead donkey’s ears, not Abrene.” I am saying this not just for effect. The Russians told the world recently that they are supposed to teach the world justice. But Russian justice always goes, for some reason, in the Russian direction only. Before laying claim to Crimea or Northern Kazakhstan, which Solzhenitsyn, whom I utterly dislike, also spoke, Russia first ought to return the abovementioned area to the respective countries. This would be moral and fair. I do not mean that Russia has at least one percent of the right to own Crimea. Russia has no right at all to own Crimea. But if Russia still chooses to insist on its rights, which it likes to do very much, it should start with Vyborg, Valaam, and Koenigsberg. What is the secret of Russia’s never-ending “struggle for rights”? The Russian masses and, therefore, the whole Russian nation have the eternal feeling of a hurt national pride. Do you know whose pride is eternally hurt?

This occurs in the people who suffer from malign narcissism. A malignant-affected narcissist is never guilty before anybody, but the entire world is always guilty before him. The Russian person harbors a lot of complaints about and claims to all things possible, and he always wants to play first fiddle. And what the Russian person does not have is self-respect. The fact that the Russians, who came to know about the awful scale of KGB-orchestrated repressions against the people, not only agreed to have but even allegedly voted for a KGB president ten years later, testifies to a complete absence of any honor and dignity – both personal and national. Further on, only one way was possible – the way down. We are thus seeing a moral and physical degeneration of the nation. Both “Krymnashism” and “covetous eyes,” typical of today’s Russians, are the fruit of this degeneration. There seems to be no other explanation of this phenomenon.