There is some sad symbolism in the fact that on the eve of the next anniversary of deportation in society and social networks the polemic about the status of the Crimean Tatar autonomy was again inflamed, writes Vitaly Portnikov for the Crimea. Realities - And even now, when the Crimea is not controlled by Ukraine - and it is not known when it will come under its control - there are people who assure that the Crimean Tatars "must know their place" that Ukraine is a unitary state in which there can not be autonomies, And that the maximum that a country can provide to Crimean Tatars is the support of their language and culture.

I will not even say that this is foolish politically. Even if you are a chauvinist who sincerely believes in the correctness of the medieval slogan "Ukraine is for Ukrainians" (of course, for ethnic Ukrainians), you may not give yourself out even until the moment of liberation from enemy control and demonstrate extreme sympathy for other people's national needs. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, by the way, did exactly this. While struggling with tsarism, he wrote whole books about the right of nations to self-determination, and how he came to power - he nudged all these same nations, turned their self-determination into a fiction. But our chauvinists, of course, are smarter than Lenin and Stalin. They honestly say: we will not give you anything, but you support us simply because we are smart and beautiful. Even not smart and beautiful, but because Ukrainians.

But I do not want to call my fellow citizens to cynicism. I want to call them to morality. To historical morality. The Crimean Tatars created the state in the Crimea even when many European nations could not dream of their own statehood, but of their own national revival. This state was not simply occupied by the Russian Empire. The people who lived there literally squeezed out of the Crimea - good, cultural, linguistic and religious affinity with the Ottoman Empire contributed to this. Stalin only completed what other evildoers began - the Russian emperors.

Ukrainians need to understand that they are simply historically lucky to stay on their land - even though they were tried to be expelled and killed, the Holodomor is one such attempt. But the Crimean Tatars gain a foothold in the occupied Crimea, to stay there the national majority failed. But this does not mean that the Crimea has ceased to be their homeland. This does not mean that they must give up their dream of statehood. Simply, this statehood should be created by them with the support of the Ukrainian state and the Ukrainian people. The Ukrainian people are indebted to the Crimean Tatars.

The very Crimean autonomy - and when it was created, and when it was being restored - was conceived as autonomy of the indigenous peoples of the Crimea. Territorial autonomy is falsification, "deceit", about the danger of which I warned back in 1991. If the autonomy of the Crimea had a distinct Crimean Tatar accent, if on a peninsula there was, say, a bicameral parliament with the representation of nationalities, no occupation of the Crimea would simply have happened.

And the peninsula itself would be different and would otherwise be perceived by both the Crimean Tatars and the Slavic population.

I am amazed that many do not just do not want to understand this obvious fact, but also try to encourage us to repeat the mistakes that have already been made.

Editorial site is not responsible for the content of blogs. The editorial opinion may differ from the author's.

Join the group "Browser Blogs" on Facebook, stay tuned!.