Skip to comments.UKRAINE: Putin TO Crimean Tatars: "The Greeks were here before you and me"
Posted on 05/16/2014 9:30:48 AM PDT by UMCRevMom@aol.com
GOOGLE TRANSLATION: "Russian President Vladimir Putin has called into question the STATUS of the Crimean Tatars as an indigenous people of Crimea.
According to the Russian service Bi -bi -si, a statement he made at a special meeting of the Crimean Tatar communities in his Sochi residence.
Thus, in response to the proposal of veteran nationalist movement Ayder Mustafayeva provide Crimean Tatars that status Putin said that this "issue requires careful consideration."
According to the Russian president, on the peninsula were other repressed peoples in the Soviet era.
"They (the Greeks) were there before us. Why we need the most careful way to see it all," - said Putin.
"If you have any concerns that a decree was signed by me (on the rehabilitation of the Crimean Tatars), is not an absolute guarantee that there is contained inside, one might think that in addition to such concerns arose. I willing to think along with you,"- he said.
As you know, May 16, BANNED psevdovlada Crimean Crimean Tatars TO hold a rally on the day of memory of the deportation of Crimean Tatars from the Crimea. [Many are expected to come anyway]
At the SAME TIME, Putin officially announced SUPPORT for the Crimean Tatars, claiming that the alleged Russia will do everything to make people feel full owners of their land.
Crimea's Tatars on Sunday commemorate 70 years since their deportation by Stalin, a day of mourning that this year will be marked amid a ban on mass gatherings and tensions over Moscow's annexation of the peninsula.
Tens of thousands gather every year in the regional capital Simferopol to commemorate the tragedy on May 18, 1944, when Soviet secret police began shipping Crimean Tatars to Central Asia.
A Turkic-speaking Muslim group, the Tatars were accused of collaborating with Nazi Germany during its World War II occupation of the Black Sea peninsula.
Official figures say 193,000 people were deported, but Crimean Tatars put the number at closer to 240,000 -- including many soldiers who fought in the Red Army.
This year the ceremonies are being eclipsed by recent political upheaval and the continued crisis in Ukraine, with some fearing clashes at Sunday's events.
Local authorities have not granted permission for the usual gathering on the main square in Simferopol, and on Friday the local government announced it was banning all public gatherings until June 6 "to eliminate possible provocations by extremists".
Nariman Dzhelyalov, the deputy head of the Tatar governing body, the Mejlis, said some 40,000 people are nonetheless expected.
"People will still come, and if it's banned then they will come already in a mood," Dzhelyalov said.
Many Crimean Tatars opposed Russia's annexation of the peninsula in March and firmly reject the new pro-Russian authorities.
"It is the most important day for Crimean Tatars," said Mustafa Dzhemilev, a hugely respected leader of the 300,000-strong community and a lawmaker in the Ukrainian national parliament.
He said the 70th anniversary was expected to be a "massive commemoration" but authorities locked horns with Tatar leaders over how to go about it.
"They wanted a publicity show, to announce how great life will be for Crimean Tatars (in Russia), but were told no," Dzhemilev told AFP.
"They are afraid there will be Ukrainian flags."
In March the Tatars, who make up about 12 percent of Crimea's population, widely ignored the referendum organised on the peninsula that led to its annexation, and many are still figuring out how to co-exist with the new regime.
The United Nations on Friday voiced deep concern about "serious problems" of harassment and persecution of the Tatar community in Crimea.
Dzhemilev said he has received reports in advance of the anniversary of riot police camped in the outskirts of the city and even Russian special forces troops.
- 'Monstrous genocide' -
AFP correspondents this week observed military trucks used to carry police and interior troops on the highway to Simferopol.
"Without question, it has to do with the rally," Dzhemilev said, fearing clashes between Tatars and security officers.
Dzhemilev, a 70-year-old former dissident who spent years in Soviet prison over his activism for Tatars and human rights, was a newborn when NKVD secret police troops forced his family on a train to Uzbekistan.
"It was a monstrous genocide," said historian Elvedin Chubarov.
Crimean Tatar families, already malnourished after years of Nazi occupation, were crowded on trains for weeks with no drinking water or medical care.
Those who survived the journey had to live in special camps until after Stalin's death in 1953.
And unlike many other ethnic groups deported during Stalin's rule, they were not allowed to return to Crimea until the period of openness in the late 1980s.
When the Crimean Tatars did return -- those who found the money to relocate their entire lives thousands of kilometres -- their homes had been taken over by others, leading to conflicts about land ownership that persist to this day.
"The memory of the deportation is a giant bleeding wound," Chubarov said. "It touched everyone, the entire nation was resettled and every family has its own story of deportation."
Moscow has made overtures to the Crimean Tatars, and President Vladimir Putin even signed a decree to formally rehabilitate people unjustly deported from Crimea.
Speaking to the Tatar community in the southern Russian city of Sochi on Friday, Putin said it was important that Crimea's Tatars not become "bargaining chips" in the dispute between Russia and Ukraine.
But he added: "It is in the interests of the Crimean Tatars today to be in Russia."
Many in the community however say they will never trust anyone in the Kremlin again.
Dzhemilev meanwhile finds himself once again unable to return to Crimea -- local authorities banned him from entering the peninsula after a recent trip outside the region.
"How can a person be denied the right to go home?" he lamented.
Well, is Putin correct or not?
Say what you want about Putin but he wont be in such a big hurry to give Muslims a foothold in his newly ill gotten gains.
This could be the flashpoint between Russia and Turkey. (By the way, I have a friend who’s actually planning to go on a Danube River cruise with his wife this summer, with a side trip to Istanbul. I think he must have found an attractive bargain.)
Muslims are deeply sad that the new authorities won’t give a green light to handle an infidel population the way they like.
Ankara to Black Sea Turkey and Russias Age-Old Struggle for Regional Supremacy
The demise of the Byzantine Empire was one of the greatest geopolitical catastrophes of the century.
When Muslims are a minority it's all victimhood and tears.
When they eventually get to a majority its intimidation, the Jizya, and subjugation by beheading for everyone else.
If the Tatars want to go back just 1000 years they will have to admit that Crimea was part of the Kingdom of Khazaria for centuries...and was officially Jewish by conversion.
So, uh, Mohammed...whose land is it?
History's a beotch, ain't it?
The Greeks were themselves invaders and settlers.
That’s the problem with the whole “indigenous peoples” issue. Who qualifies and why?
I’ve recently been reading up on the Sioux/Lakota claim to the Black Hills. Their claim is based on conquest, their defeating the Cheyenne in 1776. The Cheyenne had previously defeated the Kiowa and driven them out of the Black Hills.
Exactly 100 years later the Lakota lost a war against the United States and lost the Black Hills.
I’ve always wondered why conquest legitimately transferred title from the Kiowa to the Cheyenne, and from the Cheyenne to the Lakota, but not from the Lakota to the United States.
If we’re going to give the Black Hills back to its “indigenous people,” should that be the Lakota, the Cheyenne, the Kiowa, or whoever the Kiowa might earlier have pushed out?
Similar but even more idiotic issues arise with the SW USA. Many Mexicans claim they still have a claim to this land. Yet Mexico conquered it from Spain in 1821. The Spanish (sort of) conquered it in previous centuries from the native tribes. Mexico controlled the area (very ineffectively) for only 27 years.
Yet that 27 years is supposed to constitute title superior to the USA’s highly effective control for 166 years?
There was a book many years ago that suggested that Ashkenazi (European) Jews were actually descended from the Khazars and are non-sematic. I think it’s been proven false, however.
The demise of the Byzantine Empire was one of the greatest geopolitical catastrophes of the century.
It was the disaster of the millennium and nearly the end of Europe civilization. I am no fan of Putin but I would cheer him on if he led Russia to attack Turkey to retake Byzantium. From what I have read he seems intent on using Greek Orthodox Christianity to unify Russia and his comment about the Greeks being there before the tartars probably has the Turks crapping in their pants.
That was the best chance to retake Constantinople, but the West blew it.
How about the last 500 years. The West destroyed them because of orthodoxy. That is a root cause of the Russia vs the West paradigm.
A bit late.
I believe Koestler's theory is generally rejected. Modern Jews are descended from the ancient Israelites.
I don't know if it could be ruled out that a small number of Khazars kept their Jewish religion and later were assimilated by European Jews, but if so their contribution to modern Jewish DNA would probably be infinitesimal and too small to be detected by DNA studies. Besides, how would Khazar DNA be recognized?
History is a poor use to pick out victims and who owned what—This includes The Jews in the Holy Land too—sadly. I am remided of the last words of Alexander the Great—as he was dying in Babylon—his generals ask to whom he would leave his empire? His answer: “The Strongest”. The strongest should own the land. The Victims must move on. Sad but this is the real world.
The greatest was the demise of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Those were the days.
Problem is, there’s no ancient Khazar, or even an ancient Israelite around when you need them.
yeah the Catholic West preferred Muslims over Christian “heretics”.
I don’t know if there are any identifiably Khazar cemeteries from the Middle Ages...if so maybe some Khazar DNA could be extracted from some of the bones. But they may have been a mix of different backgrounds just like the Huns (for the same reason—the Khazar men having children by women they had enslaved).
At Kosovo in 1389 many of the troops fighting on the side of the Serbian king were Catholics. The pope kept trying to launch Crusades against the Turks without much luck. There were efforts in the 1200s and in the period just before the fall of Constantinople to end the schism between Rome and Constantinople, which failed because of lack of support on the Orthodox side. The Greeks preferred being ruled by the Turks to being reunited with Rome.
When the Turks were overrunning Hungary and threatening Vienna, the French were allied with the Turks.
1204 A.D. has something to do with that.