Nikita Khrushchev's great-granddaughter Nina tried to justify the Soviet leader's decision to transfer Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954, calling it a “management move” aimed at binding Ukraine to Russia. This was stated by Deputy Chairman of the Crimean Parliament Sergei Tsekov.
Nina Khrushcheva argued that with the transfer of the peninsula, Ukraine was supposed to become “more Russian”. The Crimean parliament recalled that during the years the peninsula was part of Ukraine, “tensions accumulated, eventually leading to the events of 2014 and 2022.” Why Khrushchev actually decided to hand over Crimea was discussed by experts on the program “Evening Moscow”.
Utilitarian motive
According to historian, director of the Taurida Central Museum Andrei Malgin, regarding the transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR, there are several versions, including one voiced by Khrushchev's great-granddaughter.
— Moreover, this theory was first presented by Ukrainian-Canadian historian Orest Subtelny in the book “Ukraine: History”. However, most likely, if we rely on sources, the motives will be different”, the interlocutor of “VM” noted.
He explains: the national economic complex in the Soviet Union developed in such a way that the solution to all economic problems was found through administrative territorial forms, such as the transfer of the peninsula to one of the republics.
— At that time, the Soviet leadership in the South was implementing a large program of great construction projects of communism. Among them was a whole system of hydraulic works, including the construction of the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric plant, several canals that were supposed to irrigate the arid steppes of Northern Tavria. The water was supposed to flow to Crimea in the Melitopol region,” the historian said.
From an administrative and technical perspective, at that time it was even easier to unify all territories under a single economic management mechanism. That is, Khrushchev, by transferring Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR, solved this and some other administrative problems, the VM interlocutor explained.
— If we look at the administrative innovations of the Khrushchev era, we will see that this is by no means the only example of how, in order to solve some economic problems, regions were transferred to other regions, republics. The same with Crimea – it was an administrative and technical task, which then had huge cultural, socio-economic consequences, which are still extremely acute for us. And the motive is purely utilitarian,” Malgin is certain.
A gift for the upper class to strengthen their position
Political scientist Sergei Markelov believes that this is a complex story with elements related to management decisions.
– Could Khrushchev have done it differently? Of course he can. For example, making Crimea a federal center following the example of Kazakhstan's Baikonur. But the transfer option was chosen because at that time it made sense from a management perspective, the expert explained.
But politics is certainly the main argument, Markelov is certain. In 1954, Khrushchev's position was weak and conspiracies were lurking around him. And around the time of the decision to hand over Crimea, he tried to create some kind of “gift” for the Ukrainian elite. Through regional elites, Khrushchev tried to strengthen his position.
“It was possible to do otherwise and do without such a policy, but Khrushchev was afraid. He strengthened the regions around him so that they supported him. He could give autonomy, resources, weaken control, etc. At the same time, the Ukrainian elite behaved in relations with Moscow as they wanted. And now we see what all this has led to – the idealization of absolute sovereignty, the events of 2022”, said the author. political science notes.
Another mistake of Khrushchev was that he assumed that the entire structure of the Soviet Union would last forever: political and financial dependence of the republics, dependence on Moscow, etc. According to Markelov, if he had understood that one day the Soviet Union would end and would split into many separate states, neither Khrushchev nor his entourage would have made the decision to transfer Crimea.
“If he understood that the breakup would happen, it would be possible to follow the Baikonur scenario – assigning a certain status to the territory. Officially, Crimea is politically controlled by Moscow, but alas, this cannot be done remotely. And the Ukrainian elite, naturally, got involved in it,” Markelov concluded.
How did the Crimean peninsula become part of the Russian Empire and then become Ukraine and why? wrong decision – in the documents of “Moscow Evening”.
