Maja Suslin/TT News Agency/AP
Ukraine's Jamala reacts on winning the 2016 Eurovision Song Contest final at the Ericsson Globe Arena in Stockholm on Sunday. Jamala was crowned the winner of the show early Sunday for a melancholic tune about the 1944 deportation of Crimean Tatars by Soviet authorities, which has angered Russia.

Ukraine's Eurovision win highlights Russia's Tatar challenge

A song contest, meant to unify Europe, instead puts Ukraine and Russia at odds over a controversial song that obliquely reflects Russia's current moves against a Crimean minority.

These days, there are few realms where Russia and Ukraine do not find themselves at odds.

So it was again at this weekend's Eurovision contest, a kitschy annual song competition whose founders intended it to be a cross-cultural unifying force in post-World War II Europe.

This year, Russia's early favorite Sergei Lazarev was ultimately topped by Ukrainian entry Jamala, who sang "1944," about the brutal Stalin-era expulsion of the Crimean Tatars – including Jamala's great-grandmother – from what is now Russian-annexed Crimea

Jamala's win cued predictable controversy, with Australians complaining that their entry had stronger support from the voting professional jury than Jamala and Russians claiming that public voting favored Mr. Lazarev, who was allegedly derailed by pro-Ukrainian jurors. Russian lawmakers are already warning they might boycott next year's contest, which Ukraine would host as this year's champion.

But a deeper problem is the reason "1944" is so controversial in the first place. Why do Russians continue to feel stung by references to the Stalinist uprooting of national minorities accused of collaborating with the Nazis, such as Crimean Tatars and Chechens? Especially when it was carried out by the USSR, a regime that disappeared a quarter of a century ago.

Ignored in Ukraine

That's in part because post-Soviet Russia never really publicly aired Stalinist crimes, and under Vladimir Putin the Kremlin has been actively reviving nostalgia for the former superpower and its great achievements, such as the victory over Nazi Germany.

The Crimean Tatars who survived expulsion to Soviet central Asia were gradually allowed to return to Crimea from the 1980s, says Alexei Makarov, a historian with the Memorial human rights group. But they found their former homes and lands occupied by hostile Russians and Ukrainians, and no backing from authorities to reestablish themselves.

"The authorities of newly independent Ukraine declared that they were building a democratic state, but in practice did nothing to solve the problems of Crimean Tatars," he says. "That left them to squat on plots of land [in their traditional areas] where they had no legal status. The Crimean Tatars insisted they were restoring historical justice, but Ukraine pretended not to see this problem because the crimes had been carried out by another state, the USSR."

Ironically, it was only last year, after Russia's annexation of Crimea, that the Ukrainian parliament officially recognized the Soviet-era treatment of Crimean Tatars as "genocide."

Accused in Russia

But the new Russian authorities in Crimea have moved to actively crack down on the Crimean Tatars, first by closing down the only Tatar-language broadcaster and, last month, banning the Mejlis, the self-governing body of Crimean Tatars, as an "extremist" organization.

Russian legislation now makes it a criminal offense to call for the return of Crimea to Ukraine.

Russia accuses Ukraine-based Crimean Tatar groups of carrying out acts of sabotage, such as  earlier this year cutting the electricity pylons that provided power to the peninsula.

The few reliable polls to be done inside Russian-annexed Crimea appear to show that majorities of ethnic Russians and Ukrainians on the peninsula are generally satisfied with the transfer to Russian control, but Tatars remain largely disaffected.

Russian authorities insist that they are moving to address the social and economic demands of Crimean Tatars, while separating them from the influence of "extremist" leaders whom they claim are associated with Islamist and Ukrainian nationalist forces.

"Relations between Russia and the Crimean Tatars remain very tense," says Mr. Makarov, which helps to explain the raw nerve struck by Jamala's Eurovision victory. "On the whole, the Russian authorities have created an environment of terror [for Tatar activists in Crimea], with constant searches and interrogations. This is not a problem that will go away anytime soon."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Ukraine's Eurovision win highlights Russia's Tatar challenge
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today