Why negotiating with Russia is impossible without addressing Crimea: Interview with Mustafa Dzhemilev

Mustafa Dzhemilev is a name that has become synonymous with the Crimean Tatar people’s struggle for rights, freedom, and the return to their homeland. A lifelong advocate for justice, he has played a crucial role in shaping the destiny of his people.

In this interview, Ukrainian MP and journalist Mykola Knizhytskyi talks with Mustafa Dzhemilev, where he shares his personal journey, discusses the ongoing struggle of the Crimean Tatars, and what world leaders must do to end Russia’s genocidal policies in Crimea.

Espreso presents the full text version of the in-depth interview.

Mustafa Dzhemilev's leadership played a pivotal role in the return of the Crimean Tatars to their homeland in the late 1980s and in safeguarding their national identity. From 1991 to 2013, Mustafa served as the head of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people. Since 1998, as a member of the Ukrainian parliament, Dzhemilev has been a steadfast advocate for the rights of his people on the international stage. Following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, Dzhemilev emerged as one of the most prominent voices of resistance. He persistently urges the world to put an end to the discrimination against Crimean Tatars and denounces the occupation of Crimea. His life stands as a testament to courage, dignity, and self-sacrifice for the future of his people. Why does Mustafa believe that compromising with the occupier amounts to defeat? How does he view the international situation, and what message would he deliver to the world leaders? All this and more in my conversation with Mustafa Dzhemilev. Why is this conversation important? When discussing Ukraine's future, many argue that we should focus on the current realities, particularly the contact line. Some believe that one day we will reclaim the occupied territories. However, Crimea is not just a part of Ukraine's territory; it is the homeland of a people who have endured centuries of genocide at the hands of the Russians and continue to suffer from ongoing genocidal warfare. The future of Crimea is not only about reclaiming Ukrainian territory, though that is undeniably important. It is about the future and survival of every Crimean Tatar, those who remain under occupation and those who have been forced to flee the aggressor.

The future of Crimea represents the world's stance on whether nations can be destroyed or not. It is a return to our history and a vision for our future. This is why a conversation with Mustafa Dzhemilev is critically important for both Ukrainians and our international viewers.

Mustafa, I asked about you and why you have been held in such high regard for so long. Your colleagues in the Mejlis told me, "Because he has been active his entire life, never stopping. His unwavering dedication serves as a lesson and an example to many." This makes me curious, what are your thoughts on the current international situation, particularly regarding Ukraine and the Russian-Ukrainian war? If you were to speak with someone like Trump today, what would you tell him to do?  What would you advise European leaders to do? I ask because many suggest that territorial concessions are an option, that Ukraine might be forced to compromise. But you have spent your entire life fighting to keep your people on their land, which is perhaps what concerns you the most. Especially given that there was a time when you returned to Crimea as a triumphant leader, bringing your people back to their homeland. Now, those same people are suffering there. Should the world simply forget about them? Is it still possible to achieve what you have dedicated your entire life to fighting for?

For the Crimean Tatars, leaving Crimea under occupation would mean the end of their people. Many would emigrate – already, as of today, 30,000 Crimean Tatars have left. While this number may seem small in absolute terms, it represents about 10 percent of the entire Crimean Tatar population. This process is ongoing. Those who remain, particularly the younger generation, risk gradual Russification, leading to the loss of their national identity. When we are told to abandon Crimea, it feels as though we are being asked to sacrifice the Crimean Tatars. But this is not just about the Crimean Tatars, it’s about accepting this kind of international banditry and standing by to witness it. The rationale of "this is a powerful country, so let us agree to avoid escalating the war" delivers a devastating blow to the global order. We signed the Budapest Memorandum, trusting that nuclear powers would guarantee our security and territorial integrity. But it turned out not to be so. Now, everyone agrees it was a grave mistake for Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons. This serves as a stark warning to other countries, demonstrating that international guarantees cannot be relied upon. The message is clear: nations can only depend on themselves. This leads directly to an arms race and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Overall, it would be a huge defeat for the civilized world in the face of barbarism. No country, no people would have any guarantees. In essence, international institutions are failing. In my view, this is humanity's greatest tragedy. I am not even speaking solely about the Crimean Tatars. After their deportation in 1944, the Crimean Tatars spent nearly half a century fighting to return to their homeland. Now, once again, they are being forced to leave under pressure. I have dedicated my entire life to this struggle, and now I find myself back where I began. People are leaving their homeland. This is a great tragedy for us.

Some might ask, why should they leave Crimea? Why not stay and live under Russian rule? Who is forcing them to leave?

The Crimean Tatars’ motto is to stay in their homeland, to remain part of their people no matter what. We emphasize that it is possible to stay among your people even under occupation, but only if you live with dignity and refuse to bow to the occupiers. However, not bowing your head comes with great risks. In general, even staying silent can be dangerous. I observe businessmen, and simply staying out of politics and focusing on your work is not enough to avoid trouble. You are expected to take the microphone and proclaim how fortunate we are to be under occupation. Not everyone is capable of doing that.

How significant is the concept of dignity for a national movement and for the nation? I read somewhere that you mentioned the uniqueness of the Mejlis lies not only in being the representative body of the national movement and the Crimean Tatars but also in serving as an example of dignity. Why was this so important to you?

Dignity is essential for everyone; it should be, as it lies at the very core of a person. Without dignity, one cannot be trusted to act with integrity. For us, it was a guiding principle. I remember speaking about this during a trial when I was asked why we stood up for the Jews or opposed the occupation of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan instead of focusing on your own Crimean Tatar cause. I replied that it is impossible to demand your own rights while remaining silent when the rights of others are being violated. This is our principle. It formed the foundation for the respect the Crimean Tatar national movement has earned. I vividly recall the years of perestroika, a time of newfound freedom, when massive rallies were held in Luzhniki. During these gatherings, even before a representative of the Crimean Tatar people began to speak, the crowd would erupt in applause. Because they were not focused on themselves but saw themselves as part of the free world.

This is interesting because, for you, the fight for dignity became inseparable from the fight for your rights. At the same time, some say that your approach resembles Gandhi’s philosophy – a nonviolent struggle. Was this shaped by the circumstances you faced, or was it rooted in your personal beliefs and worldview?

I would not say that the Crimean Tatars have always adhered to the principle of non-violence. Historically, the Crimean Tatars are a nation shaped by wars, with a history of conflicts far exceeding that of the Chechens. However, there is a sense of realism in understanding that times have changed, and achieving anything through violent means is no longer feasible. Moreover, the use of violence and terror inevitably leads to the suffering of innocent people. We have always said that if you achieve something by taking the lives of innocent people, it is not a victory. It is a failure, and you will inevitably face the consequences. I often use the Bolsheviks as an example – they killed millions in the name of a brighter future. And what was the result? They met a catastrophic end, as they deserved. The same was true for German Nazism. If you want your rights to be respected, you must respect the rights of others.

Speaking broadly about your goal and the aspirations of your people, what is that goal? Is it to return to your native land, to establish an independent state, to preserve your culture within Ukraine, or to achieve autonomy? How would you define the purpose of your struggle and that of your people today?

We had many debates on this topic, particularly in the 1990s. During a major national festival, some of our emigrants from Turkey, who were members of our national movement, attended. We had a serious discussion with them. They said, “We have spent our lives fighting for the independence of Crimea, and now you’re all about Ukraine. How do you explain this?” I responded, “Be realistic. What does independence mean? Do you intend to declare the restoration of the Crimean Khanate? Where would that lead?” Even if Kyiv were to say, “Go ahead, become an independent state,” we would view such ideas as provocations. In the current reality, it is impossible to discuss an independent Crimean Tatar state. We are not Bolsheviks who would carry out ethnic cleansing, evict, or kill those who, by circumstance, live among us. I believe 99% of the Crimean Tatar people support the idea that there should be national and territorial autonomy within the Ukrainian state. Crimea and Ukraine are economically interconnected. If not Ukraine, then with whom? Turkey is across the Black Sea, far removed, while Ukraine is our direct neighbor. This is why we see no viable alternative. The goal is not to establish some vague, undefined administrative autonomy, but rather a national-territorial autonomy based on the internationally recognized right of indigenous peoples to self-determination in their homeland. We have long presented this idea to various presidents and discussed it extensively. In principle, they agree that this is the right course of action. However, the necessary amendments to the Constitution have yet to be made.

Why has no one done this? Is it due to post-Soviet thinking, a lack of understanding, or perhaps a desire to maintain control and access to resources? Could that be the reason?

There are many reasons for this. Firstly, society was burdened with numerous stereotypes. Until recently, before the occupation of Crimea, for the past 20 years, the prevailing view was that the Crimean Tatars posed the greatest threat to Ukraine’s territorial integrity in Crimea. I personally read an analytical report from the SBU in Crimea addressed to my superiors in Kyiv, which reflected this belief. Imagine the SBU in Crimea, with a staff of 2,000 people, yet not a single Crimean Tatar among them, the same as they were excluded from employment under Soviet rule. I recall Refat Chubarov speaking with a major, asking, “Why are you so distrustful? You refuse to hire Crimean Tatars.” The major responded, saying, “If we were to hire Crimean Tatars, we would need to significantly reduce our staff because our primary task is to monitor the Crimean Tatars.” I recall a conversation I had with President Kuchma in 1996 or 1997 about the imbalance in government appointments. Crimean Tatars made up about 13% of the population, but their representation in governmental structures was from 0% – in SBU – to around 2.5–3%. They were not employed in the security service at all – except as informants. That is exactly what I said. I pointed out that, according to my information, ninety-six informants were assigned to monitor Crimean Tatars, while only four monitored Russians, and just two or three were assigned to other nationalities. Kuchma laughed and remarked, "I thought we were the only ones with informants. Turns out, you have them too."

You speak of the equality of nations, so your nation, like every other, must have such people, right? But looking back, you were part of the Sixtiers – a larger movement of individuals fighting for various causes. Whether for human rights in the Soviet Union, for democratization, or for national values, like the Ukrainian dissidents of the time. Some, like academician Sakharov, focused on democratizing the Soviet Union, while others, like General Hryhorenko, fought for your cause. You even lived with General Hryhorenko, a Ukrainian by birth and a Soviet general who was later demoted, partly because of his support for the Crimean Tatars. Out of all these remarkable figures, who made the biggest impression on you at the time?

Most likely, only Hryhorenko. I had very close ties with him, living with him for about six months and even serving as his secretary for a time. When he was away, I would receive visitors on his behalf. Through him, I received information from “samizdat” and “tamizdat”. He was like a father to me; our bond was incredibly close. Of course, everyone had a role to play, including Sakharov, with whom we also had contact. However, Hryhorenko held a particularly special place in my life.

What kind of person was he? How did a Soviet general come to embrace the value-based lifestyle he lived? The Soviet system saw him as mad, but what truly happened to him?

The distinguished writer Alexei Yevgrafovich Kosterin was a remarkable figure. He spent three years imprisoned under the Tsarist regime for opposing it and later endured seventeen years in Soviet labor camps. In the 1960s, he authored a self-published article about the "small and forgotten," focusing on the repressed peoples of the Caucasus, including the Chechens, Ingush, and Crimean Tatars. This shared struggle brought us closer together. Kosterin went on to write numerous samizdat articles about the Crimean Tatars and their plight. For his birthday, our representatives in Moscow decided to organize a commemorative evening in his honor. However, Kosterin was unable to attend due to illness and sent his friend, Petro Hryhorenko, to represent him. That was how our first meeting with him happened. He gave a remarkable speech, declaring that a crime had been committed against our people – genocide. "You must stop asking the Soviet authorities," he said. "You must demand." At the time, it was an incredibly bold and radical statement. His message resonated so deeply that it spread far and wide, becoming known in almost every household. As he admitted, Kosterin had influenced him to some degree. However, back in the 1960s, alongside his sons, he founded the Union for the Struggle to Establish True Socialism.

They were all arrested. Hryhorenko was drafted into the army and later worked as a laborer. Despite this, he had already developed a strong and independent worldview. He once told me that his first moment of enlightenment came when he read a set of instructions on the procedure for assigning military ranks. The instructions prioritized Russians, Belarusians, and Ukrainians, placing them at the top. Meanwhile, for the repressed groups like the Chechens, Ingush, and Crimean Tatars it was recommended that ranks not be assigned to them at all. Outraged, he went to Minister of Defence Rodion Malinovsky and confronted him, saying, "What nonsense is this? Our Constitution declares that all peoples are equal, yet here is clear discrimination." Malinovsky gave him a stern look and replied, "Your job is not to discuss this but to follow it." That was the moment when the true nature of Soviet power became clear to him. He admitted many mistakes, including taking part in the persecution and closure of churches. At the time, he believed in the principles of true Marxism and Leninism, convinced that if they were properly understood and implemented, everything would work out. I remember when he had already arrived in America, Anatoly Jacobson asked Petro Hryhorovych, "How's your communist worldview doing?" To which he replied, "Well, I’m definitely cured of that."

And how did you manage to avoid falling for it? Many of those who protested still believed that the communist system was fair and honest, with equality for all – just that the wrong people were in power, distorting its ideals. Others recognized the flaws in the system but thought it was necessary to negotiate and appeal to those in power. Even within the Crimean Tatar movement, some tried to cooperate, hoping to persuade the authorities to allow the return of the Crimean Tatars. And you have always held such a strong anti-communist stance, despite growing up within the Soviet system. How did this perspective develop in you?

You know, in reality, not so many of our people truly believed that communism, Marxism, and Leninism were entirely sound doctrines. Our national revival began by highlighting Soviet Union heroes and senior party members, as they were not immediately arrested or executed. However, there were others waiting in the wings. It became clear that adhering to communist ideology and downplaying talk of rights could reduce the risk of repression. By the mid-1960s, though, divisions had emerged. The older generation believed it was necessary to prove to the Soviet authorities that they were not anti-Semites, that they were loyal communists, and that the deportation of the Crimean Tatar people was merely a mistake by the party – one that needed to be corrected, as the only way forward. We, representing the more radical factions, operated on the belief that our national issue would only be resolved when the top leaders in the Kremlin understood that ignoring it would come at a far greater cost. Our primary strategy was to relay information about the National Movements and the injustices of the Soviet regime to the Western world. This is why, by the mid-1960s, the main repressive apparatus was directed squarely at this Radical Wing. The worldview of young Crimean Tatars was primarily shaped within the family. I remember that after the deportation, we lived under a kind of curfew, where we were told not to go here or there. Our greatest joy was visiting one another. We would gather and talk late into the night, often sharing stories about the eviction, how it happened, who had died, and how the convoys had treated us.

In addition, they talked about everything else, what life was like under the Bolsheviks, how our leaders acted during the civil war. And we, the children, listened to it all. I still remember my mother nudging my father and saying, “Be careful, the children are listening.” Not because they thought we would act like Pavlik Morozov and betray them, but because children might accidentally say something on the street. I, for instance, would pretend to be asleep just so I could listen. In a normal healthy family, everyone naturally developed this anti-Soviet perspective. I remember 1953, the day Stalin died. Everyone was crying; it felt like the end of the world. But the Crimean Tatars gathered in small groups and spoke quietly among themselves. One of them came running and said, "Look, everyone is crying, but not us. We need to cry too. I brought onions, let’s rub our eyes, or our parents will be in trouble." Still, I noticed one girl crying. She was a Crimean Tatar. We decided her family must not be healthy. Now, when people talk about children in Crimea living under occupation with such intense propaganda, I believe that no matter the propaganda, a healthy family can withstand it. The current regime is very different from the Soviet one. Even under Stalin, you could still speak to each other in your own kitchen. There wasn’t the large-scale surveillance or snitching that exists now. Today, the danger is much greater, as it risks shaping our generation's worldview in the wrong way. Still, I think it won’t take long to undo all of it. After seventy years of communist ideology two or three years of perestroika were enough for people to see what was really happening. That’s the situation now.

Why were there Russians who once understood the rights of nations and their limitations? Sakharov, for example, came to your defense in court. And yet now, even the late Navalny, the leader of the opposition, made remarks like "Crimea is not a sandwich." Or take Ulitskaya, a writer I deeply admired. I used to read her works in Russian and enjoyed them, until I came across a passage about the Crimean Tatars returning home and how it got so dirty. It was written with sincerity, and she wasn’t against the Crimean Tatars; on the contrary, she seemed supportive. But even in her writing, there were moments where a sense of superiority over others shone through. 

Why is it that we no longer hear anyone among Russians speaking about your rights, even from those we call the "good Russians"?

Under Soviet rule, there were hundreds of generals, yet only one had the courage to stand up. How many academics were there? And yet, only Andrei Sakharov spoke out. Even at that time, such individuals were few. Now, the repressive apparatus is far stronger, and perhaps that explains it. But overall, I am not a chauvinist. I hold no prejudice against Russians. In normal nations, when their government commits a crime – seizing foreign territories – the people stand up and demand accountability, saying, “What are you doing? You are turning our country into a pariah.” But for most Russians, the annexation of Crimea and the occupation of other territories is a source of pride. Putin’s approval rating saw its biggest spike after the capture of Crimea. This is blind patriotism. They have risen from our knees, not just risen, but now they can even take something from someone else. This is the reality. While their statistics might not be accurate, the satisfaction they feel about seizing someone else’s land seems ingrained in them. Of course, there are normal people among them. For instance, the Russian Liberation Army is fighting alongside Ukrainians. However, their numbers are very small compared to the vast majority of Russians.

Speaking of Ukrainians, I know you corresponded with Chornovil, for instance. Was the Ukrainian national dissident movement different in any way from the movements of other nationalities? Did such movements even exist outside of the Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian ones? The Lithuanians also had people who fought for their freedom.

There was an incident in 1989, during the time of perestroika, when the American embassy invited dissidents – Georgian, Baltic, Russians. And we went along with Viacheslav Chornovil. We greeted those who had been imprisoned with us. I noticed that Viacheslav was somewhat distant. He greeted them but didn’t embrace anyone. I asked him why he seemed so cold toward the Russians. He replied, "You know, they’re democrats until the Ukrainian issue comes up, and that’s just how they are." And it wasn’t just the Ukrainian issue, it was any national issue. There were, of course, some who believed Ukraine had the right to independence, but the majority did not. Overall, the dissident movement included monarchists who spoke about restoring the Romanovs and Stalinists who upheld their ideology. However, the main backbone of the movement consisted of democrats with varying perspectives. Hryhorenko, for instance, used to joke, saying, "When you gain independence, make me the Minister of Defense of Crimea, and I’ll show them how it’s done." His son, Andriy Hryhorenko, remains like a brother to me. He shared his father’s belief that Russia would always pose a threat to humanity unless it was divided into smaller principalities. Hryhorenko was one of those unwavering, true democrats.

As you mention, he was speaking about Russia. When do you think Russia no longer poses a threat to Ukraine? Is such a scenario possible? What needs to be done to make it a reality?

In March 2022, during the meeting between the Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Istanbul, I was there as well. Putin's representative, Abramovich, invited Rustem because he wanted to meet with the Tatars. Abramovich owns half of the Hilton there and has his own staff on-site. We sat down and talked for a long time. I told him that the idea that "the people are not to blame, only the authorities are" is completely wrong. All of you are guilty. Through your silent consent or lack of resistance, such people came to power, and because of this, you will all bear responsibility. I also told him that you will be held especially accountable for the murdered children. By that time, 446 children had already been killed. I saw photos of children shot at point-blank range. I spoke about the nature of fascism – how, during the Second World War, the Nazis threw Jewish children into the fire. Yet, look at the model of democracy Germany has become today, and so on. This transformation was made possible, in part, because Germany experienced several years of external governance. 

Similarly, if Russia does not undergo a period of external governance, I believe Russian fascism is unlikely to be eradicated. In my view, this is true because, for centuries, the Russian soul and a sense of Russian superiority have been deliberately cultivated.

But for this to happen, the people have to realize that this is fascism. The German people got this only after their defeat. But now no one seems to be willing to face the prospect of Russia's defeat. They think it can change itself, or pacify, or get scared. But none of this will lead to any true awareness among the people.

I believe it’s simply the short-sightedness of politicians. Yes, imposing heavy sanctions on a country and its raw materials can disrupt trade relations. However, they fail to see that if this regime were dismantled, it would create far more favorable conditions for trade in the future. Unfortunately, they are unwilling to take losses now or think several steps ahead.

There was a recent film titled If Chornovil Had Become President. But it’s not just about Chornovil. Why were Central European countries like the Czech Republic or Poland able to transform, while we were not? If someone from the dissident generation had become the leader of the country, would it have made a difference? Or would that alone not have been enough in Ukraine?

We often wondered why we were all stuck in the same communist mess, yet now Poland and the Czech Republic are in entirely different places, and where are we? In my opinion, we made some mistakes. Right after declaring independence, we should have lustrated those informants who worked against their own people. We forgave them, but we shouldn’t have. In Poland, for example, there was lustration. Those who cooperated with the regime weren’t shot or imprisoned but were simply barred from working in civil service. They were warned that if they didn’t come forward and confess, their names would be published in the press. And they came forward. Unfortunately, we didn’t take such steps. In truth, Ukraine only became truly independent after the Revolution of Dignity. However, Russian influence has always lingered. Did you know that, according to the CIA, by the time Crimea was occupied, about 30 percent of Ukraine's security forces, particularly the SBU and the Ministry of Defense, had been infiltrated by Russian intelligence? For example, of all the SBU officers in Crimea, 87 percent were traitors, or perhaps not even traitors in their own eyes. Here, Akhtem Chiygoz asks an FSB officer, "How does a person feel? First, you swore an oath to one country, and now you serve another." He is a collaborator who moved from the SBU to the FSB, and he steadily answers, "We have been serving the same country all along." In other words, even while in the SBU, he was working for... There were many such failures, and I hope we are finally learning from them.

This is an important question because, when we look at what is happening in the world today, far-right and radical political forces are gaining influence across Europe. These are movements that lack any real values and present a significant temptation – even here in Ukraine. God willing, we will win. God willing, one day we will hold elections again, though now is not the time. But when that time comes, this question will resurface. In our recent elections, and likely in those to come, values seem to be losing their significance. People are drawn to simple solutions, whether populist or otherwise. However, our situation is different from that of many other countries because we are weaker in some respects, which means we must be politically stronger. What is the solution for us from a values perspective?

I remember when a Frenchman was told that France is such a civilized and intellectual country, yet they had elected a certain president? This was decades ago. He replied, “You know, there are a few thousand truly smart people in France. But it’s not these 10,000 who decide, it’s the whole nation, and there are plenty of people who are easily swayed. They fall for populist slogans and vote for whoever they want.” In a healthy society, the risk of electing an extremist party that could bring great harm to the country is much lower than in totalitarian regimes. For example, parties like Le Pen’s fascist movement or Germany’s Alternative for Germany might gain some percentage of support. However, when there’s a real threat of them coming to power, other groups, despite their differences, tend to unite to prevent it. Ultimately, I believe that society must remain healthy.

For society to be healthy, there must first be historical preconditions. And we, both Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars, are post-genocide nations. Secondly, artificial intelligence and social media play a significant role today, dividing society. One group exists in one information bubble, and another in a different one, with little accountability for who says what. This makes it incredibly easy to manipulate people, especially in a post-genocidal country like ours. Even in a country like Romania, a president can be elected and later have their election annulled by the Constitutional Court due to Russian interference. The risks we face are even greater. How can we protect ourselves from this?

Unfortunately, yes, such risks exist, but much will depend on the circumstances. However, if we have a democratic environment, and this is key, then no matter who comes to power, they can always be kept in check. The most important thing is to maintain democracy in this country as it provides the framework for finding ways to fight for our values. Simply put, defending these values is far easier in a democratic country than under a totalitarian regime. In a totalitarian regime, you can think whatever you want, but you can't do anything. Under the Soviet regime, for instance, I had seven convictions, and the occupiers convicted me in absentia for the eighth. If you were to read these charges and accusations, it would seem that, under the current occupation, I should have been executed several times over. Back then, they would give three years, or seven years if it involved anti-Soviet propaganda and agitation. Now, for just two or three words, they hand out sentences of 17 to 20 years, longer than for murder. In the face of such terror, the only hope lies in external support. Everything is tightly controlled, and there is nothing you can do. You do not have time to write anything because everyone already knows. You do not have time to say anything because everyone has already listened and you are arrested. This is why the solidarity of democratic forces is so critical. In situations like this, they must show their support.

As a prisoner, you protested against the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia and took many other actions. What inspired you to do so?

Firstly, we also tied our hopes to the Prague Spring. If the Prague Spring had succeeded, bringing democracy to a communist country, it could have paved the way for other nations to follow. That is why the crushing of these democratic beginnings under Soviet tanks outraged everyone. At the time, I was not yet imprisoned, and we did what we could to make a statement. I was in exile in Yakutia when the occupation of Afghanistan occurred. At that time, Andrei Sakharov made a statement condemning it as a crime, saying troops should not have been sent. The only action I could take then was to write a letter to Sakharov, expressing that if our dissidents decided to issue a collective statement protesting the occupation of Afghanistan and calling for those responsible to be held accountable, I wanted to be among the signatories. Later, this became a basis for blaming radicals for the failure in Afghanistan.

You have spoken with many people, including Putin, over the phone. He called you when the occupation of Crimea began, right? As I understand it, you had a long conversation. How long did he speak to you?

I believe the press mentioned that the conversation lasted about 40–45 minutes. I clearly remember the date, 15 February 2014. There was a representative of Tatneft, Rostislav Akhidov, who is half Tatar and half Russian, who later turned out to be a GRU officer. He had requested a meeting, so we met at his restaurant, located on the border between Sevastopol and Bakhchisarai. I was there with Rustem Umerov and his brother. The discussion focused on fostering cooperation between our businessmen and those from Tatarstan. They have oil, and we have resorts, so we agreed to send a delegation of our businessmen, while he would organize meetings in Tatarstan with the key people, including a meeting with Shaimiev, the former president and an advisor to Putin. He said, "It would be best if you led this delegation, as we are arranging this meeting specifically for you." I agreed. Then, unexpectedly, at the end, he added, "I am authorized to tell you that our president, Vladimir Putin, would like to meet with you."  I asked, "What would we even discuss?" "The future of Crimea," he replied. "And what does your president have to do with Crimea, which is part of Ukraine's territory?"  "Well, you can ask him that yourself. My job is simply to deliver the message." At the time, Putin was in Sochi, and I was expected to travel there. I refused, saying, "No, this isn’t my level, and I have nothing to discuss with him."

Why did you say no?

What should I talk to him about? It was quite clear. Such events were brewing for some time, and they were simply looking for excuses to justify their expansionist policy. I immediately wrote to Refat Chubarov, the chairman of the Mejlis, with a detailed report, explaining that Putin had made some comments about the future of Crimea. That was a secret. But it was all brushed aside. Then, when the occupation began, I got a call from Kazan. They said they were expecting me to visit. The plan was for us to meet there. A day or two later, Shaimiev called again and mentioned that Putin had learned about our meeting and wanted to meet with me as well. How did I respond to that? I said, "I have nothing to talk to him about. I was coming to meet you". He then said that, in any case, the meetings were being moved to the Tatarstan mission in Moscow. Apparently, this was on Putin's insistence. Fine, then. We arrived. Later, Shaimiev explained that Putin had called him, saying that since we were meeting in Moscow, he would like to speak with me. I replied, "How is that even possible? We already have everything arranged, the entire program planned out down to the minute." Then he said, "Are you coming, or should I bring you?" In the same tone. And I had to come. To be fair, Shaimiev wasn’t pleased about the occupation of Crimea. He simply asked, "How can I help you in this situation?" When Shaimiev mentioned Putin wanted to talk, I started seeking meetings with our leaders. I couldn't find Turchynov, but I managed to meet with Yatsenyuk. I told him about the situation. He said, "It's obvious what Putin will want to discuss with you." He added that he didn’t see much point in meeting with him and said it was up to me to decide. However, it was crucial for me to understand Putin’s ultimate goal in Crimea.

To be honest, I couldn't imagine that in the 21st century, he would simply seize Crimea and declare it his territory. My thoughts were more focused on the broader autonomy they had previously pushed for in Russian-speaking Crimea. Would they create quasi-republics like Abkhazia and South Ossetia? I needed to find out. Even though I had initially refused, I decided to go to Shaimiev and see how things unfolded. Meanwhile, the press had already caught wind of the situation, and the Internet was flooded with reports that I was planning to meet with Putin. When I arrived in Moscow, my first meeting was with our ambassador. He pointed out how isolated he was and suggested that meeting with Putin might be beneficial. After that, I met with the Turkish ambassador to Moscow and informed him about Putin's proposal. He said, "Meeting with him doesn’t mean you agree with him. At the very least, you should hear what he has to say." I considered how our fellow citizens would perceive it, so I refused anyway. During my conversation with Shaimiev, I said, “Don’t you realize that Putin’s decision to seize Crimea will damage relations with our country for decades? No one will ever recognize this occupation. In the end, Russia will find itself in such isolation that it will suffer far more harm than any potential benefit.” Shaimiev shook his head sadly and said, “You can tell him that yourself, he’s waiting for your call.” So, we went upstairs to the second floor, where he had a special room with a sofa, an armchair, and a telephone for direct connection. And that’s how I ended up speaking with him for forty-five minutes.

What was your emotional impression of him as a person?

First of all, I expressed my gratitude for the hospitality in an Eastern manner, as there were no passport checks onboard, and I was treated as a head of state. He, in turn, complimented me, calling me a world-renowned human rights activist and expressing his respect. When we got to the main topic, the first thing I said to him was, “Mr. President, you are the leader of a large and powerful country with many advisers. I didn’t come here to offer you advice. I came to share the perspective of the indigenous people of Crimea, which has been occupied by your troops. You’ve made a huge mistake. You need to leave our country immediately." In response, he claimed that Ukraine had illegally left the USSR. He went on about how Ukraine had failed to address the needs of the Crimean Tatars during 23 years of independence, while he had resolved all of our social, political, and legal issues in just a few months because, as he put it, they are a great and courageous country and so on. I told him that the Crimean Tatars found themselves in this situation largely due to Russia’s actions. When we were deported and subjected to genocide, we were part of the Russian Federation. I said I now understand that it was a different system, perhaps Russia still bears responsibility for that genocide. If you genuinely want to help us, you need to sit down at the negotiating table, but not with us, but with our leadership, with the leadership of Ukraine. For the conversation to be productive, you need to withdraw your troops. No one will negotiate with you under occupation." He continued talking about how pleased we would be to have such a meeting. It felt like a conversation between two deaf people – he was speaking his own language, ignoring what I was saying. The discussion ended with him repeating, "Let’s wait three more days." It was March 12, and the so-called referendum was scheduled for the 16th. "Let’s see the will of the Crimean people," he said. I responded, "A referendum cannot be conducted this way. It violates international norms and, most importantly, Ukrainian law. You cannot hold a referendum on our land." He dismissed my concerns and said, "Let’s see the results of the referendum, and then we’ll talk again." And added, "Here is the phone we’re using now. I’m available 24/7 – feel free to reach out anytime. If you want, we can meet." Immediately afterward, I went to Brussels, where I had been invited to a NATO meeting, and then to the UN Security Council. Upon my return, I was informed that I was banned from entering Crimea.

So you could go to Russia again or not?

When I was leaving, it was to attend a session. At the border, they handed me a piece of paper, or rather, they just showed it to me. Akhtem Chiygoz grabbed it from them, and it stated that, under a certain paragraph of the migration service regulations, I was banned from entering the Russian Federation for five years. The date was April 19, 2014.

So Putin has promised you that you can come and talk. And then the very next day he banned it. Or three days later. 

Well, it was about entering Russian territory. I played along and said, "I haven’t been to your Russia at all since my release from Kolyma, only this one time at your Putin’s invitation. So what have you decided to ban me for?" They replied, "Crimea is also Russia." I responded, "You’re very optimistic if you think you’ll still be here in five years." I believed that such a blatant violation of international law, such overt international banditry, would provoke a much stronger reaction from the global community.

Are you still an optimist now?

No, I was optimistic about the West’s reaction. But yes, of course. Let me put it this way: during Soviet times, the dissident human rights movement seemed almost hopeless. Everyone believed it was unrealistic to overthrow the communist regime, as it was a massive, powerful state. Still, there was always hope. We never really expected to see the fall of the communist regime in our lifetime or to return to Crimea in our lifetime. Yet, we were committed to fulfilling our duty regardless of the consequences, so that future generations would not have to start from scratch but could build on what we achieved. Now, there are far more reasons to be optimistic than there were under Soviet rule. What is Putin compared to the immense Soviet power? I believe Putin’s time is no longer measured in years but in months. His end is already near.

Well, God willing, it will be so. Thank you.