The Crimean “knot” in Western scientific thought (1991–2001): A historiographical analysis

Abstract

The article examines the evolution of Western historiography on the Russian-Ukrainian confrontation in Crimea during the first decade after the collapse of the USSR. It establishes that the peninsula became the focal point tensions in Russian-Ukrainian relations throughout this period. The early 1990s saw the Autonomous Republic of Crimea gradually turn into potentially one of the sharpest and most conflict-prone spots on the post-Soviet map.

Western scholars—historians, political scientists and security analysts such as E. Wilson, T. Kuzio, P. van Ham, G. Sasse, D. Lepingwell and others—devoted considerable attention to the issue. Their studies looked beyond the security dimension of disputes over the Black Sea Fleet or Sevastopol, addressing deeper questions of national identity, Moscow’s and Kyiv’s geopolitical ambitions, implications for regional stability.

Special emphasis is placed on the variety of Western interpretations regarding the causes and motives behind the Russian-Ukrainian rivalry. Scholars highlight, in different ways, the impact of Ukraine’s internal multicultural make-up and Russia’s resurging neo-imperial sentiment on the future of both states.

Based on the analysis, the author substantiates the need for further comprehensive research related issues on the formation of the national and cultural identity of the East Slavic peoples, taking into account religious, psychological, political and globalization factors.

Particular attention is devoted to how national identity was shaped and employed as a central policy tool by both Kyiv and Moscow in Crimea, as well as to the impact of external actors—above all the United States and Western European countries. The article traces the ways Western scholars assessed the risks of separatism, outlined possible conflict scenarios, and weighed the international repercussions of the Crimean issue.