Mustafa Jemilev: Crimean Tatars were seen as unreliable, yet we emerged as the primary force against the occupation.

On the situation in Crimea, the lives of Crimean Tatars in mainland Ukraine, international negotiations to end the war, and the role of the Crimean Tatar people in the defense and development of Ukraine – Mustafa Jemilev, leader of the Crimean Tatar people and member of the Ukrainian parliament, shared his insights in an interview with RBC-Ukraine.

Main topics of the conversation:

• The Crimean issue after the USSR and the "People's Movement"
• The occupation of Crimea and talks with Putin
• Searches and repressions in Crimea
• Crimean Tatars in the army and in power
• Turkey, Erdogan, and negotiations
• The de-occupation of Crimea

On February 26, 2014, thousands of Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians gathered outside the Supreme Council of Crimea to thwart Russia's attempt to seize the peninsula. This date has become known in Ukraine as the Day of Resistance to the Occupation of Crimea. Despite the aggressor ultimately capturing the peninsula, the Crimean Tatars remain loyal to Ukraine.

"When I said before the full-scale invasion that 95% of Crimean Tatars support Ukraine, I received calls from Crimea asking how I could say that 5% do not support Ukraine. Those collaborators can be counted on one hand," Mustafa Jemilev, the leader of the Crimean Tatar people, recounts in the interview with RBC-Ukraine.

We spoke with Mustafa-aga just as the Munich Security Conference was taking place, President Donald Trump had a chance to converse with dictator Putin, and Ukraine was being pressured to sign a burdensome agreement regarding critical minerals. Therefore, during our discussion, we covered the evolving events surrounding Ukraine, the role Crimean Tatars play and could play in Ukraine's diplomacy, particularly in the Middle East and Turkey. We also touched on the place of Crimean Tatars in the formation of the modern Ukrainian state, all through the lens of Mustafa Jemilev's own life experiences.

Below is a condensed text version of the interview. The full recording of the conversation is available on the RBC-Ukraine YouTube channel.

– Currently, there is active and intense diplomatic activity regarding the end of the war in Ukraine. Throughout your life, you've witnessed several pivotal moments. How do the current events appear from your perspective?

– In a word, I would say it is alarming. The President of the United States is a non-systemic person. You can expect anything from him. But thank goodness, the United States is not a sultanate. Not everything is done as the president wishes. There is Congress, there is democracy. So there is no particular pessimism. Nevertheless, statements have been made that Trump is talking to and planning to meet with a war criminal who is on the wanted list. Of course, those are not pleasant statements. Well, we will see.

The Crimean issue after the USSR and the "People's Movement"

– In 1998, you became a member of parliament, but even before that, you became close to the "People's Movement of Ukraine" party and its leader, Vyacheslav Chornovil. What are your memories of him?

– I corresponded with him even during my exile. I learned about him from our underground samizdat publication – "Chronicles of Current Events". I first saw him in 1988 when the US Embassy invited all dissidents to a cocktail party. When he was exiled to Yakutia, I was in a neighboring district. Yakutia is a vast territory, and the distance between us was about 500 km. We corresponded.

– Did your communication continue after Ukraine declared independence?

– Yes, we later met when he visited Crimea. In fact, the "People's Movement of Ukraine" was the most active in supporting the Crimean Tatars among all political forces. Later, when they adopted a program, it clearly stated that Crimea should be a national-territorial autonomy based on the principle of the right to self-determination of the indigenous people on their territory, meaning the national-territorial autonomy of the Crimean Tatar people.

With Vyacheslav Chornovil, we traveled to the inauguration of President Aslan Maskhadov in Chechnya in 1997. He said: in general, the Crimean Tatars should have their representative in the Verkhovna Rada, we have elections, and "People's Movement" will definitely pass – it is a sufficiently influential political force – and I will include you in my first ten.

We had such an interesting conversation. It is no secret that at that time, to get into the nominal part of the list, one had to pay. The principle was that if you were very influential and had the votes, you could do it without money. But if you were not influential enough, you needed to pay a sum. Back then, I think the cost was about two million dollars to become a deputy.

I said: you, Vyacheslav, better give me those two million as a dry ration; I have nothing to do here. But he insisted: you must be a deputy. So in 1998, I became a deputy for the first time.

– What were the opinions in the Verkhovna Rada regarding Crimea? There was a lot of discussion then about whether autonomy was needed in Crimea or if it should be an integral part of Ukraine.

– We firmly adhered to the principle that there should be a national-territorial autonomy. We opposed cultural autonomy because this is the land of the Crimean Tatar people. Our statehood existed there; we want to be a national-territorial autonomy within the Ukrainian state. That’s all, point. Nothing more. And, of course, the "People's Movement of Ukraine" fully supported us in this.

However, they were always in the minority in parliament. Initially, the Communist Party was particularly strong, followed by the Party of Regions. But we were constantly allied only with the "People's Movement of Ukraine". I remember when we discussed the issue of restoring the rights of persons deported on national grounds. There were discussions in the Verkhovna Rada, but it did not pass. I remember, Petro Symonenko, the leader of the Communist Party, spoke against restoring our rights. He had words like, "Crimean Tatars should be grateful to Stalin for not executing them all but merely exiling them." And there was applause in the hall.

Later, I remember another member from the "People's Movement" spoke. He mentioned the name of a general of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army who later captured the Soviet general who was in charge of the deportation of Crimean Tatars. This general was shot by our fighters like a dog. And that was our revenge, he said, for our Crimean Tatar brothers. In general, there was such resistance. But there was never the necessary majority to pass the needed laws in the Verkhovna Rada.

Everything changed after the occupation in 2014. In Ukraine, there remained an attitude towards Crimean Tatars from Soviet times as unreliable. I remember when GRU agents seized the Council of Ministers and the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea, there were a total of 110 of them. They could have been quickly neutralized because not far away – twenty kilometers from Simferopol – was our troop grouping.

After these events, when the chairman of the Mejlis, Refat Chubarov, spoke with a major – why they did not neutralize them, the major said: first of all, we did not have the command, and secondly, we had instructions that the main danger to the integrity of Ukraine in Crimea were the Crimean Tatars.

It turned out that in 2014, the main organized force that clearly stated it did not recognize the occupation and that Crimea is part of Ukraine were the Crimean Tatars. At that time, both in society and in the corridors of power, the attitude towards Crimean Tatars changed dramatically.

The occupation of Crimea and talks with Putin

– When do you think Russia began preparing for the capture of Crimea?

– Although Russia recognized Ukraine's independence, stating that there were no territorial claims and that Crimea is part of Ukraine, the FSB and intelligence services were actively working to undermine it. Dozens of pro-Russian organizations were involved. Their activity mostly depended on funding, and they constantly fought among themselves, proving who was more Russian, who loved Russia more.

One incident stands out in my memory: on February 15, 2014, just weeks before the occupation, a representative of "Tatneft", Rostislav Vakhtov – a half-Kazan Tatar and half-Russian – requested a meeting with us. We had a generally normal relationship with them, and he requested a meeting for