Up until recently Iryna Brunova-Kalisetska lived and worked in Crimea, a peacebuilder focusing on identity-based conflicts and diversity education in a multicultural and multi-confessional context. Following Russia’s annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula she found herself among thousands of people faced with a situation where hard choices had to be made. For a number of reasons, including concern over her personal safety, she left Simferopol, her home town in Crimea. She is currently living in Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, finding ways to re-adjust her life while continuing efforts to contribute to peaceful solutions to the rapidly deteriorating context.
As the attention of the global media focuses on the geopolitical dimension of the crisis in Ukraine, Iryna shed some light on how the conflict has been affecting her life and the lives of Crimean people since November 2013. In a conversation with Deniz Duzenli and Zahid Movlazadeh of the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict, she also talked about challenges and possibilities for peacebuilding interventions.
The Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict(GPPAC) is a civil society led network working on conflict prevention across the world. Iryna Brunova–Kalisetska is a member of GPPAC working in Ukraine and in Eastern Europe. She has previously held the position of Associate Professor in Psychology at Tavrida National University. She has also coordinated a number of initiatives around peace and conflict resolution education in Crimea and in other contexts affected by conflict.
On managing own identities
Since November last year I had to pay more attention to being conscious in distinguishing between different roles I play as a university lecturer, peacebuilder, civic activist, psychologist, political expert. In my day to day communication and public engagements as part of university lectures, media commentaries, communication via social media, engagement with colleagues or beneficiaries of peace education project, there is an ongoing internal reflection as to how my words and actions could influence an interlocutor or an audience.
Assessing and reassessing my own emotional responses rooted in fears, stereotypes and distorted perception constitutes a part of my daily mental routine. This in turn informs the way I manoeuvre and respond to the similar reactions among my friends, colleagues and students in trying to prevent them from furthering polarization at the individual and interpersonal levels – this comes as an individual responsibility a peacebuilder needs to bear.
On working across divisive values
A friend of mine, a Crimean journalist, happens to have rather strong pro-Russian and pro-Putin convictions. Since the early days of the growing divide between people supporting EuroMaidan or Anti-Maidan, we were both very much aware of the fact that our interpretation and perception of the events in Kiev and in Crimea are fundamentally opposite. We agreed, however, that these differences should not translate into inter-personal confrontation. Moreover, having been contextualised, the difference, in a way, served as a peacebuilding mechanism. Here is what I mean: at a certain point, as demonstrations in Ukraine continued, there was a point where interethnic violence in Crimea was of highly probable. Two demonstrations were scheduled for the same time in Simferopol. There was a possibility that pro-EuroMaidan Crimean Tatars and pro-Russia political movements and organizations could have clashed and the consequences would have been grave. In line with our political preferences, both of us participated in two different demonstrations. We kept communicating with each other however, ensuring that we let each other know about indicators of increasing tensions on each side, or in case there was a motion to attack.
She continues to live in Crimea, while I moved to Kiev. We keep exchanging our observations and perceptions from both sides – in this case, literally across the divide. This is highly important to maintain a connection with a person “from the other side” with whom you can reflect together not only on different positions but can speak openly about fears and other deep concerns knowing that the reality of these differences is respected and accepted.
On hard identity choices
The current developments are affecting various groups in different ways. But to what extent those groups are affected and in which particular ways has yet to be analysed in detail. For many, the conflict has forced them to choose between multiple identities, whether those are of ethnic, cultural, linguistic, political, regional or civic nature. This choice needs to be made by people of diverse different cultural backgrounds traditionally populating the peninsula: Russians, Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars, Jews, Azerbaijanis, Armenians, Germans and Greeks among others.
These decisions are most painful for Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars who identify themselves with both Ukraine and Crimea. While Crimean Ukrainians feel abandoned by Kiev after the Russian occupation, Crimean Tatars perceived the events through their own recent history of deportation in 1944 under Soviet Union. Right now, there is anger and desperation that Crimea joined Russia, a country they have been against. They are faced with two options, the choice between staying a Ukrainian citizen in Crimea, for which the procedure of getting a residence permit and working as well as owning property remains unclear; or becoming a Russian citizen, which makes everyday life easier, but may be perceived as an act of betrayal towards their own motherland and identity.
On practical life implications
According to some estimates, about 5000 people have already moved out of Crimea. There is no specific information on the ethnic identities of these people. The main motivation is clear however – they do not want to live under Russian rule. Family separation is taking its toll. Many face the difficult decision of either staying home, in Crimea where their future is uncertain or moving to other regions in Ukraine or abroad for a better future. For the younger generation who are hoping to build their futures elsewhere, the decision is not as easy as it may seem as this would mean leaving their elder family members behind.
Even Russians in Crimea may not yet fully comprehend the consequences and the level of impact on their lives. For instance, the Russian parents of young boys could have never imagined that their children would have to join the Russian army once they turn 18, and may have to serve in the North Caucasus, which is not seen as the most preferred option for many. They are also seeing more Russian political influence and propaganda in their daily lives. To name an example, a poster appeared recently by the railway station in Crimea portraying the faces of Russian opposition leaders describing them as agents of war and of Western influence. This type of propaganda is not something that has been common in Crimea. There was a popular joke in Crimea about Russian groups protesting against Euromaidan that this could have been their last protest.
The current situation has caused major practical implications affecting daily life. Lawyers and notaries licensed in Ukraine cannot practice in what is now Russia. Property, marriages and even newborn babies cannot be registered. This is causing anger and frustration, worsened by the new political situation. Russian political parties are already present, ready for the local elections scheduled for September. People worry they will not be able to take part due to the long and poorly organised process in applying for a Russian passport and becoming eligible to vote.
On peacebuilding in Ukraine
We often forget that in the context of ongoing violence, talking about or applying peacebuilding approaches is perceived differently as compared to pre- or post-violence situations. People that are affected by the conflict do not necessarily have emotional capacity to think in peacebuilding terms. Whereas we often assume that groups will happily embrace peacebuilding initiatives, the reality is different. What is the most effective way to promote dialogue when people are primarily concerned about their physical safety and security, and turning to arms seems like the most viable option to defend themselves?
As a network we have been doing what we could in these circumstances: professional psychologists from the network have been supporting different groups in Crimea just before and after the annexation. My GPPAC colleagues have been bringing groups together particularly in different cities to help decrease tensions. As a network we are also active in providing conflict analysis and sharing those with relevant institutions and with the public via traditional and social media. Other non-Ukrainian members of the network, particularly from Moldova, Belarus and Russia are providing support to the above activities, while reaching out to other GPPAC members around the world who are providing support and advice on effective conflict prevention strategies which can be applied to the current crisis situation in Ukraine. The work has also started in Eastern Ukraine – the network members recently visited Donetsk having spent a few days there engaging with groups of different political and cultural affiliations to identify the potential incentives and opportunities for bringing groups together.
As a GPPAC network we have developed a process that seeks to address the crisis by supporting civil society-led dialogues between different groups within the country wherein different interest groups are able to articulate their needs, fears and motivations to hopefully land at a shared understanding of how to address tensions in both the short- and long term. We are also looking into bringing together civil society, media and political experts from Ukraine and Russia to maintain a conversation between the divided parts of the society. We will continue closely monitoring the situation while sharing our analysis with public as well as with policymakers whenever possible.
It is a long term process that also heavily depends on the political reality and spaces for civil society to engage. In general, there is a lot of work for a peacebuilder as usual I’m afraid.
Zahid Movlazadeh supports the work of the GPPAC network in Eastern Europe;
Deniz Duzenli is the Content Manager at the GPPAC Global Secretariat. www.gppac.net
