Sergei Baburin: Crimeans returned to the Soviet Union, but ended up in neoliberal Russia
September 4 marks the 25th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of State Sovereignty by the Supreme Council of Crimea. PolitNavigator spoke with former Deputy Speaker of the Russian State Duma Sergei Baburin about the significance of this date in Russian history and the country's current issues . In 1991, Baburin was one of seven deputies who voted against the ratification of the Belovezh Accords, which dissolved the USSR and established the CIS, at a session of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR.
Subscribe to PolitNavigator news on Telegram , Facebook , Odnoklassniki , or VKontakte
“PolitNavigator”: What was the reason for the adoption of the Crimean Declaration of Sovereignty?
Sergei Baburin: Twenty-five years ago, the collapse of Soviet statehood began. The defeat of the State Emergency Committee was used to finally dismantle the Soviet Union. In this situation, Russian and Russian-speaking citizens of the USSR outside the Russian Federation found themselves in a particularly difficult position. The same applies to residents of autonomous republics within other republics, such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia. Crimea is the most disadvantaged group of Soviet citizens because they were forcibly stripped of their Russian citizenship in 1954, when, without asking, overnight, they were converted from citizens of the RSFSR to citizens of the Ukrainian SSR. Seeing the Ukrainian leadership's desire to separate from the Russian Federation, Crimeans were unwilling to part with their homeland. Their adoption of a declaration of sovereignty was a reaction by the vast majority of residents to what was happening and an intention to defend their right to remain Russian. This action was legally correct in the context of the deteriorating political situation.
“PolitNavigator”: Did you take part in the adoption of this document?
Sergei Baburin: At the time, I was one of those trying to preserve a unified country. We helped the Russians in Estonia, Crimea, and Transnistria as best we could—with consultations, advice, and political support. But we were a minority in the parliamentary leadership of what was then Russia.
“PolitNavigator”: What do you think is the significance of today’s date for Russian history in the light of subsequent events?
Sergei Baburin: This date is of fundamental importance for the modern history of Crimea, Ukraine, and Russia. It suggests that the Crimeans' decision in 2014 wasn't spontaneous or accidental. They had been moving back to Russia for 25 years. Although, perhaps, since 54. While this wasn't a pressing issue in the USSR, everyone understood that there was only one country. But after 91, the situation changed. In the near future, this date will have exceptional political significance.
“PolitNavigator”: Crimea has been Russian for more than two years, but nevertheless, many large domestic companies and banks (the same VTB and Sberbank) do not enter the territory of the peninsula due to sanctions. Do you think this behavior is justified?
Sergei Baburin: Sorry, let me correct you: Crimea has always been Russian because Russia never formally transferred it to anyone. And it never transferred Sevastopol at all. The peninsula was under Ukrainian jurisdiction for a long time. That ended two years ago.
On the merits of the question, unfortunately, you noticed the right problem. The largest Russian companies that operate abroad are afraid of sanctions and something else, and do not risk entering Crimea. This is sad because it is seen by many in the West as Russia’s readiness to return to the issue of the status of Crimea. It is necessary to clearly explain to everyone without exception: the issue of Crimea has been resolved and is not subject to revision. And the fact that some Crimean companies do not work there is a temporary and fixable matter.
“PolitNavigator”: Dmitry Medvedev’s phrase “There is no money, but you hold on” has become a catchphrase. Do you think the situation of pensioners in Crimea and throughout Russia is really that difficult, and what needs to be done to overcome it?
Sergei Baburin: The problem with my Crimean brothers and friends is that they happily returned not just to Russia, but also to the Soviet Union. But the Soviet Union is gone; they've found themselves in the Russian Federation, which is under the heel of a neoliberal government. In this regard, Mr. Medvedev's phrase, "There's no money, but hang in there," rings true not only for Crimea, but for all pensioners and citizens of the country. Crimeans, freed from their Ukrainian problems, are now enjoying the full benefits of all-Russian ones. Together with the entire Russian Federation, they must fight for change not only in their own republic, but in Russia as a whole. I hope the State Duma elections will be a major step in this direction.
“PolitNavigator”: Do you think it will be possible to form a coalition government after the elections to the State Duma?
Sergei Baburin: I say openly that the overarching goal of these elections is to consign to the dustbin of history not only the current Medvedev government but also its socioeconomic policies. The policy of mobilizing our economy and society as a whole for revival can only be achieved through a concerted effort, following the example of the Primakov, Malyukov, and Gerashchenko governments. We must focus on a genuine party coalition. This is vital.
“PolitNavigator”: What do you think is behind the installation of a memorial plaque to Mannerheim in St. Petersburg? It has already become clear that she appeared illegally.
Sergei Baburin: These are all details. All this fuss with the plaques and other PR stunts, like Livanov's dismissal, is all election hype that can't lose sight of what's important. The current Russian government must go.
“PolitNavigator”: Can you make a forecast of how and when the Ukrainian conflict will end?
Sergei Baburin: I really don't like making predictions. My sincere wish is for the anti-fascists to win in Ukraine, for us to restore the fraternal relations that have been damaged in recent years by Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs and corrupt officials in both governments.
To do this, Russia needs to gain courage, take for granted and recognize the independence of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics, and Ukraine needs to realize the need for internal changes and the geopolitical reality into which the 2014 coup d’etat placed it. Ukraine cannot be the same, just like Russia. This should be understood both in the Kremlin and on Khreshchatyk.
Sergey Baburin: Crimeans returned to the Soviet Union, but ended up in neoliberal Russia.