EXPERIENCE AND MISTAKES OF CRIMEAN MASS MEDIA IN THE PERIOD OF THE FORMATION, DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION OF TENSE CONFLICT SITUATIONS IN THE AREA OF INTERETHNIC AND INTERCONFESSIONAL RELATIONS (1995-2002)

Two ways to develop social consciousness.
How the multi-ethnic society in Crimea developed over the years. Appearance of some hot-points of interethnic tension.

The Crimea has been a multi-ethnic region for a long time. However the parameters of its multi-ethnicity were different during various historical periods. During the period of the existence of the Crimean Khanate (XIV-XVIII centuries) on the territory of Tavrida there co-existed peacefully especially the Crimean peoples - Karaites, Krimchaks, Crimean Tatars, including representatives of different ethnic groups, who were considered as foreigners here, - Greeks, Turks, Genoese, Ukrainians and Russians, who arrived on the peninsula by different ways, either settled after campaigns or settled as captives, slaves, or voluntarily arrived seeking a better fate.

There are a lot of examples in Crimean history of conflicts as well as of close cooperation, and mutual assistance of peoples irrespective of race and religion.

Some historians think that in that period the Crimean population constituted five million people. I.Medvedev asserts that after the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 1783 the population of Crimea constituted four million people. A part of them evacuated to Turkey. In comparison with the present number of population of Crimea (2,3-2,5 millions persons) - this is a great number, which indicates that the real opportunities on the peninsula concerning the expansion of population and scales of economical activity, perhaps have not yet been imagined.

There have been two ways in history in which communities have been formed on a territory of a certain region: natural and artificial. The artificial way in contrast to the natural one goes not by way of spontaneous self-development, but by way of forcible exiles and forced migrations. A difference between them lies not only in the specific character of the social self-consciousness itself, but in the whole and particular qualities of specific problems and their interactions. In the course of natural development, when such factors as self-government, self-development and self-protection of social self-consciousness operate to generate a dispute they are self-regulating and dissipate. One can say that a self-governing society doesn't undertake its next phase of development, without having solved the contradictions of previous phase. In case of forcible, or artificial, formation of social self-consciousness during a period of moves and migrations, which were forcibly carried out or by administrative authority the contradictions accumulate and later can engender the onset of tense conflicts. In such cases, the potential contradictions can be hidden, but in the end one or another circumstance can result in their aggravation and they develop into conflict.

The Crimean social self-consciousness was formed by the natural way only in certain periods - before the beginning of the Crimean Russian-Turkish wars and liquidation of the Crimean Khanate, and also after the collapse of the USSR. However, beginning from the 18th century and up to the end of the 20th century in Crimea was formed that social consciousness, which was inherited by independent Ukraine. As a result, in this social consciousness was accumulated a lot of unsolved contradictions and discrepancies which potentially can develop into social, economical, criminal and even war conflicts.

An absolutely different type of interethnic situation appeared in the peninsula after the Crimean Russian-Turkish wars, with the signing of the Kuchuk-Kaynardzhiyskyi peace and annexation of Crimea to Russian Empire. A periodic mass migration of the indigenous Turkic population to Turkey, Romania, Germany and Poland practically transformed Crimea into a desolate land.

Maximilian Voloshin described the ethnic history of Crimea: "Being located only at an extreme extension of Greek culture, it {the Crimea) during two thousands years had endured the repeated inundations from the Wild Field {steppe} and one by one these races were influenced by Hellenism when they attacked and settled in Crimea. Scythians, Sarmats, Alans, Goths, Hunns, Ugrs, Varangians, Pechenegs, Khasars, Polovets, Tatars, Turkic tribes; all of them appeared by turns in Crimea."

However in the XVIII century the Wild Field of barbarians once again inundated the Crimea. In that time, it was more serious and long-term, because these barbarians were Russians, and behind them there was not a weakness and unstable waters of nomadic people, but the heavy hand of the Sankt-Peterburg Empire. The agony brought on from outside Crimea created a home grown one. The basis of any southern economy is water. Tatars and Turkic peoples were the great masters of irrigation. They could catch a spurt of underground water, and direct it by underground conduits to big reservoirs.<...> It means that this entire wilderness was a blooming garden yet a hundred years ago. All this paradise of Mahomet was completely destroyed. Instead of magnificent cities from "The Thousand and one nights", the Russians built some poor districts in accordance to Russian commonplace patterns and partly by virtue of Potemkin romanticism. Partly, for publicity of Ekaterina, they were named by pseudo-classic names - Sevastopol, Simferopol, Yevpatoriya. The old Gothia from Balaklava to Aluston was re-built by improper imperial villas in style of rail bars, brothels and hotels in style of imperial palaces."

I beg the reader's pardon for so contentious a citation, however this piece of text by an author of authority, for whom, a life in Crimea was not foreign or unknown, brightly testifies about the situation of that time, and processes, which took place here. The author's appraisal of historical events of the XVIII century is very valuable in the text. Thus, since a certain number of researchers write that other specialists give a disputable negative appraisal on the role of the Russian Empire, it is worthwhile to attract their attention to the appraisal of such great persons of authority as Maximilian Voloshin or M. Sarkizov-Sarazini, who cannot in any way be suspected of "Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism".

The historian S. Kaschenko writes: "The protest of Tatars against the liquidation of the Khanate was shown in the form of the mass migration from the peninsula to the territory of the Ottoman state. During a trip to Crimea, Katherine II tried to make the Austrian Emperor and French and English ambassadors, who accompanied her, to change their minds that the Crimean Khanate was liquidated by her almost by the desire of the inhabitants. However, in spite of all the efforts of Potemkin to make them change their minds Katherine II failed. "Tatars," - stressed in his letter from Karasubazar to Vienna, the Austrian Emperor, -"are very unsatisfied. And those few inhabitants, who remained, also are going to run. On the way to Kaffa (from the Old Crimea) to the empress were submitted over a hundred applications, all of them of persons who wanted to move. She got very angry and wants to evict all of them".

The guidebook, which was already cited, contains statistics on the dynamics of population of Crimea: "In accordance to general census in 1921, a total number of population in Crimea constituted 720426 persons (remember recent number of 4 millions persons - Author), including 393340 (54,6%) in rural areas and 327088 (45,4%) in cities. Such big percent of townspeople in comparison with the population of rural areas is typical for Crimea. For the 24 years, that passed between two general censuses in 1897 and 1921, the population of Crimea increased on 31,8%, at the same time, that of the townspeople by 43,2%, and the population of rural areas on 23,6%."

Crimea is similar to, by its number and diversity of peoples, who populate the peninsula, the Caucasus with its inhabitants of different races and of many languages. There are representatives of twenty two nationalities in Crimea: Russians, Tatars, Germans, Greeks, Armenians, Bulgarians, Jews, Karaites, Krimchaks, Poles, Czechs, Moldavians, Turks, Gypsies, Italians, Estonians, emigrants from France, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, Persia, Turkey and other eastern and western states. This large number of peoples, who live in Crimea, is explained by its historical past, its location on a great transit way once united Europe with Asia: through Crimea passed the shortest caravan way, that directed to rich India (including, I add on my behalf, a telegraph circuit London-Deli! - Author.).

From since that moment, as the heavy boot of Katherine's soldiers went across the wide steppes of Tavrida, and over the centuries-old Khan's palace raised a flag with a black silhouette of an eagle, the face of the region started quickly to change. The proud progeny of an once powerful horde, in front of which had frozen Russia, Lithuania and Poland, were now scared by the rumors of coming baptisms.., and left in panic fright the cities, villages, tombs of parents, and ran to Islamic Turkey. <...> The artificial settlement of state peasants and lavish distribution of lands by the licentious empress to princes and noblemen could save Crimea from desolation.

According to the scientist, Pallas, the number of Tatars, who emigrated, in 1790 amounted to 80000 persons out of the 140000, who lived in the region. During the Crimean War the number of Tatars who emigrated reached 180,000. <...> At the same time, the Russian government aimed to settle libertine retired soldiers to replace the emigrated Crimean Tatars. However, in Crimea were settled Bulgarians, Greeks and emigrants from Turkey. In 1804-1805s in the peninsula arrived immigrants from Switzerland (Zurich canton), Wurttemberg and Baden. They established three settlements in Feodosia district and four settlements in Simferopol district. After the Crimean War in steppe districts appeared the settlements of Estonians and Czechs."

Thus, as a result of Russian colonization, in the course of time, the artificial multinational situation developed, which is characterized by increased the influx of Slavic population, primarily Russians but, including settlers - Bulgarians, Germans, Estonians, to whom the Russian government gave unprecedented benefits in that period for striking roots in the new land.

The second phase, specifically, of this kind of national policy of Russian government developed during the years after the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, when: 1) they restrained the aspirations of Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians to create their own national autonomies and national statehood, and instead of that in 1921 - by decree of Lenin - was established the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialistic Republic and was begun a heretofore unprecedented process of forcible creation of national collective farms - Crimean Tatar, German, Bulgarian, Estonian and so on; 2) the non-Russian national culture was oppressed, and finally annihilated in education, religion and culture; 3) the national intelligentsia was annihilated (let's remember the case of Veli Ibraimov and party "Milli Firka"). All this became the main blow of Russian Communist dictatorship inflicted on the national structures of the former Empire. Namely, in this period were destroyed national formations that had been very tolerant to Russian authority, which in the beginning of the campaign were branded as nationalistic. Already, in these actions was hidden a striking incongruity: nationalistic Tatar forces were destroyed, but nationalistic Russian (which for some reason received a label of non-nationalistic) - were brought to domination. One should remember that an expansion of Russian imperialism of that period in the form of Communist power, which proclaimed internationalism by word of mouth, not in the least made it as non-national, but, at the same time, developed an unprecedented aggressive energy and gave an opportunity to ignore the national needs and peculiar properties of other peoples.

What was the worth of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialistic Republic, taking into account it, as a national autonomy? Really, very little. However, latter came the third phase of the establishment of the hegemony of the Slavic national component in Crimea, that was a deliberate and purposeful political line. Thus, the Crimean ASSR was abolished in 1944 - after the deportation of Germans, Crimean Tatars, Armenians, Bulgarians and Greeks. The Communist national policy of USSR reached its apogee - when in what had been mainly a Turkic Crimea remained not one Turk, in a formerly Moslem region remained not one Moslem. Crimea again became deserted.

Thus, to renew its life, they again used already a known migration policy - with assistance of so-called "organized recruitment", they resettled Russians in the peninsula, mainly, from Kurschin, Voronezh, Podmoskovye, Krasnodarskyi region, and latter the Crimea was transferred to Ukraine for economical "putting in order" and in addition it was resettled and pelted by organized recruitment of man power from Ukraine.

Here Volodimir Sergeychuk writes on this period in his book "Ukrainian Crimea", making references only to facts of archives: "However, the plan on resettlement of settlers to Crimea, which Moscow didn't reduce, although Ukraine itself was deserted by Hitler's occupation and felt a manpower labour famine, particularly, in the southern regions. In this connection, Kyiv had to realize a plan itself: Vynytsa had to send 600 farms, Kamyanets-Podolsk - 600, Zhytomir - 500, Kyiv - 400, Chernigov - 350, Symi - 350, Poltava - 200. Ukraine over-fulfilled this task: 3023 families were resettled in Crimea, in which there were 10379 persons, including 6260 able-bodied.

By the way, among them there were 45 heads of collective farms, 35- rural councils, 44 teachers, 5 doctors, 4 mechanics, 11 agronomists and 6 zoological technicians.

However, when they arrived at the destination, for all there was not a place for resettlement, about which Kyiv's authorities had warned Moscow. In this connection, 700 Ukrainian families, who couldn't settle in Kuybishevksyi region, were settled in other regions of the peninsula by small groups (SAARC. F.652, i.24, r.27, p.70).

The final resettlement of arrived persons in Crimea in 1944 in southern regions was the following:

Alushtinskyi - 2349 families from Krasnodarskyi region;

Balaklavskyi - 2015 from Voronezhskyi oblast;

Bakhchisarayskyi - 2146 from Bryanskoy and Orlovskyi oblasts;

Belogorskyi - 1556 from Kurskyi and Tambovskyi oblasts;

Kuybishevskyi - 2349 from Ukrainian SSR;

Starokrimskyi - 1268 from Rostovskyi, Tambovskyi and Kurskyi oblasts;

Yaltinskyi - 35 from Rostovksyi oblast.

A resettlement in steppe regions of Crimea was following:

Azovskyi - 162 families from Zhitomirskyi oblast;

Dzhankoyskyi - 27 from Kamyanets-Podolskyi and Kiyvskyi oblasts;

Evpatoriyskyi - 150 from Kamyanets-Podolskyi and Kiyvskyi oblasts;

Zuyskyi - 212 from Rostovskyi, Kyivskyi and Vinitskyi oblasts;

Kirovskyi - 428 from Tambovskyi oblast;

Nizhnegorskyi - 320 from Tambovskyi oblast;

Oktyaborskyi - 57 from Vinitskyi and Kyivskyi oblasts;

Primorskyi - 204 from Tambovskyi oblast;

Simferopolskyi - 216 from Vinitskyi oblast;

Sovetskyi - 180 from Tambovskyi oblast.

<...> Finally, the very critical situation on the peninsula continued to get worse, especially in agriculture, and this made Moscow again return to resettlement of Ukrainian villagers to Crimea. And in 1950 Ukraine received a plan for sending thousands of families to Crimea - by 300 from Vinitskyi and Sumskyi and by 200 - from Kamyanets-Podolsk and Kyivskyi oblasts. The campaign began during the first days of the New Year. One says that in the middle of January in Drogobitskyi oblast were handed 25 applications. However because of ideological motives, obviously, the western oblasts of UkSSR were not included in the resettlement, because as we can see from documents this process was connected only with eastern regions, which were considered by Bolshevik authority as more "reliable". On July 3, 1950, to Crimea were resettled 972 families: 200 - from Kamyanets-Podolsk, 292 - from Vinitskyi, 184 - Kyivskyi and 296 - Sumskyi oblasts. Total number of persons, who moved to Crimea 987.

The number of persons, who moved to Crimea from regions of Russian Federation, were following: Vladimirskaya oblast - 291, Penzenskyi - 513, Moscow - 205, Stavropolskyi region - 94, Krasnodarskyi - 100, Chuvashkyi ASSR - 106.

However, as in the first postwar years, the Crimean authorities didn't take any measures for creation of normal living conditions and work of settlers, in this connection, many of them left the peninsula and returned home. In this connection, a chief of the main emigrant department under Council of Ministers of USSR S. Cheromushkin, pointing out, on March 9, 1950, to his subordinate in Kyiv that a lot of families resettled in Crimea in 1950, left the peninsula, proposed to take measures for identifying such families and conducting among them "explanatory work on return of them" (CSABOBD. F.4626. i.1. r.105.p.4.)

The annual plan was overfulfilled - to Crimea were resettled from oblasts of UkSSR 1426 kolkhoz families: from Chernigovskyi - 452, Sumskyi - 434, Zhitomirskyi - 215, Khmelhitskyi - 229, Kyivskyi - 246 (CSABOBU. F. 4626, i. 1, r.27, p. 93).

The RSFSR almost reached the same level, in that year to Crimea moved 308 families from Kurskyi oblast, 447 - Voronezhskyi, 252 - Ryazanskyi, 202 - Moskovskyi, 102 - Rostovskyi.

In 1953 in Crimea firstly arrived more organized settlers from Ukraine than Russia. Thus, Voronezhskyi (320), Kurskyi (309) and Ryzanskyi (375) oblasts sent to peninsula only 1004 families, while Sumskyi (617) and Chernigovskyi (518) - 1135 (CSABOBU. F.4626, i.1, r.27, p.94). Totally 1285 families from Ukraine moved to Crimea in that year.

For 1944 and 1950 - 1953s from Ukraine to Crimea were sent 7903 families, above the planned 7800.

From Vinitskyi oblast were moved 1657 families, Zhitomirskyi - 715, Kyivskyi - 838, Sumskyi - 2128, Khmelnistkyi - 1037, Chernigovskyi - 1328 and Poltavskyi - 200 (CSABOBU. F.4626, i.1, r.273, p.3).

The role of Ukrainian settlers among those, who moved in Crimea for permanent residence, was permanently increased. If in 1944 a number of settlers constituted less than a fifth part of the total number then in the beginning of 50s this ratio, as we can see, started to change in favour of Ukraine".

Namely, by such ways during two centuries was formed an artificially established international and inter-ethnic situation - practically of one religion, only Christian - Crimea. (Nevertheless, it latter was proclaimed as "cradle of Christianity in Russia") with its monolithic picture: Russian - 70-80%, Ukrainians - 15-20%, and the rest 5-10% - representatives of other nationalities.)

(Nevertheless it was stressed that in Crimea almost 100 nationalities and peoples live similarly to the rest of the USSR". Or it was put out that there was the presence of 80 nationalities, which, we can point out was only a fiction, because some tens or hundreds of representatives of that or any nation, who are dispersed by settlement all over Crimea, were not able to develop their own cultural features within the multinational whole).

Finally, in late 80-90s started the fourth phase - to Crimea returned formerly deported peoples and national groups: Crimean Tatars, Armenians, Bulgarians, Germans, and at the same time, increased the aspirations of Krimchaks and Karaites to self-identification.

A difference between this and the previous phases is that practically after more than 200 years in Crimea was now restored a natural method of formation of national diversity of population.

Because of the unhealthy defects of all previous social self-consciousness that existed in Crimea during 200 years which consisted of their being formed under the influence of compulsory factors - forcible deportations, exiles, artificial migrations, and in this connection were not natural, and latter were not optimal, as they were formed under laws of nature itself.

Thus, in the genetically artificial Crimean social self-consciousness began to return that natural for Crimea national and religious element - Crimean Tatars, including Armenians, Greeks, Bulgarians and Germans.

And instead of welcoming the formerly deported peoples and congratulating them on their return to home, the Soviet Crimean authority still meets them with hostility, and is not going to give them land, house, work and other social blessings. Thus, the conflicts which were accumulated in Crimea during two centuries, began to break out quickly (within one-two years) and extensively (because with 2,5 mln. of local Slavic and Christian population live about 300,000 formerly deported peoples, 250-280,000 of them are Crimean Tatars, that is Turks and Moslems!). The conflicts are roused by imperial ambitions of certain political circles of Russia, which attempt on Crimea, - thus, the disruptive interventions of Luzhkov and Zatulin left wakes and scars of hostility of one people for others.

The unfortunate election by the people of the president of the Autonomous Crimea, who was a man of little education and professionalism, which was testified to by former his colleagues - lawyers, who was a graduate of Moscow State University, Yuri Meshkov, intensified the conflict potential of the situation. The coming to power at first the representatives of criminal circles and latter their replacement by Leonid Hrach with his communist improvisations hampered the development of Crimea as a self-governing entity and as well its social self-consciousness. The illegitimate preservation of Crimea as a Russian enclave by spirit and letter and neglect of the historical need to transform the Crimea into a Crimean Tatar national-cultural region by the Ukrainian authorities lead to the preservation of pre-existing conflict.

Thus, "we have that we have". It is evident that precisely this approach to the development of Crimean social self-consciousness has resulted in the formation of some centers of tension, namely: 1) in area of the political arena - through opposing opinions about the creation, character and role of the autonomous Crimea in Ukraine; 2) in the area of culture - taking into account the different desires for their role, whether it be Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar; 3) in education area - concerning context and structure of education in Crimea; 4) in area of economy - through different approaches to demands for restoration of historical justice, namely a return of the formerly deported peoples the lands, houses, and compact resettlement of them on the territory of the peninsula; 5) in area of religious relations - through lack of agreement on the role and positions of religious confessions - Christians of Moscow and Kyiv patriarchate, Moslem community; 6) in area of social planning and forecasting - taking into account the disputes on the role of Moscow and Kyiv in the life of Crimea and direction of future development of peninsula: or should they go along with Ukraine and join Europe, or pull Ukraine to Asia; 7) in military area - through unsolved issues on military organization in Crimea, including a statute for the Ukrainian military units and Black Sea fleet, and the issue of the entrance of Ukraine in NATO.

What about Crimea Mass Media?

Mass Media and conflict situations. The position of the Mass Media and reintegration of Crimean Tatars into Crimean society. Who is behind the Crimean Mass Media, in particular, who controls the policy of the Crimean media?

After liquidation of the Communist Party in 1991, a number of publications and the media market itself flourished in Crimea by leaps and bounds. First, the party control system for forming of Mass Media and censorship of the publication of information collapsed. A part of the former party newspapers became independent. A national press appeared. In Crimea, began to publish national newspapers - Armenian "Golub Masisa", Bulgarian "Izvor", Jewish "Sholom", Crimean Tatar "Golos Krima", "Dostluk", "Avdet", "Areket", Ukrainian "Krimska svitlitsa" - and a lot of other publications. Whereas the Communist party press wrote on Crimean Tatars mainly with condemnation, the new newspapers displayed an understanding of the situation.

A great stabilization role of objective portrayal of the problems of the Crimean Tatars is played by the bulletin "Krimskotatarske pitannya" (Crimean Tatar question) (beginning from 1998 was published about 30 copies), which in that complicated period of Crimean history the Crimean Tatar Center started to publish by political researchers and journalists (headed by Volodimir Pritula). The bulletin contains documents that were adopted by the Crimean Tatar National Movement and Kurultays; historical, analytical and scientific researches, including materials of "round tables". The main values of this bulletin - using an unbiased language of documents, including tolerance and lack of typical emotionality for Crimea, which damages one's case in great measure. The bulletin "Krimski Studii" of Center of Information and Documentation of Crimean Tatars, which began to be published in Kyiv in 2000 is highly popular among serious analysts, politicians and sociologists. One can say that namely these two bulletins brought into the previously chaotic, emotional-amateur debate on the nationality issue, a scientific character and based on unquestionable historical facts, weighted sociological information.

The first conflict period in Crimea began with the first contacts of Crimean Tatars, who had returned to Crimea, with authorities. In that period, the settlers at once met a refusal of bodies of government to give lands and were forced without permission to settle on already cultivated lands. Conflict was very tense. Finally, it resulted in acute conflict, because the Crimean authorities destroyed several times Tatar settlements by tractors. And when the militia went again to destroy Crimean Tatar's settlements near the village Krasnyi Ray that was located near Alushta, they met with resistance and it had to arrest a few tens of settlers. In their turn, Crimean Tatars held the all-Crimean meeting in Simferopol, which resulted in an attack on the building of the Verkhovna Rada of the ARC, and as a result of this the Crimean militia was forced to release prisoners from custody.

In a few newspapers - for example, in "Krimskaya pravda" (The Crimean truth) a process of resettlement was named as "samozakhvat" (self-acquisition), and at the same time, other newspapers named it as "self-return". Already, on this lexical level, was felt a difference of estimations: pro-Russian and communist party's newspapers unanimously condemned actions of Crimean Tatars. At the same time, democratic newspapers wrote that there was no other way for return and resettlement of deported Crimean Tatars to the Motherland. At the next All-Union meeting of National Movement of Crimean Tatars (NMCT), which was held in a building of the former political education of regional committee of Communist Party (at present a building of Court of Appeal of Crimea), a participant of this Movement, Rustem Voyennyi, shouted to Leonid Hrach, who was in the hall: "Give our land! We have no place for resettlement!" Some public political newspapers of Crimea tried to regard the Crimean Tatars' problems with understanding and tried to give them a word for propagation of their ideas. Simferopol regional newspaper "Leninets" (now "The rural worker") published some articles by Yuri Osmanov, in which he told about NMCT and the history of the Crimean Tatars, and familiarized readers with conceptions of Ismail Gaspinskyi. Belogorsk regional newspapers and others readily allowed the Crimean Tatars to publish. This reduces an ideologically tense area: gradually, Crimean Tatars received an access to a public forum for expression of their ideas on return to Crimea and reminiscences on deportation which gave an opportunity for local population to feel their pain and understand their problems. Other Crimeans began to see that Crimean Tatars are such people as themselves, they have no curved knives, and they don't knife people and do not eat children, they are able to work, and know a lot of such things of Crimea, that they even didn't guess. Only of Crimean Tatar's writers and journalists was formed the editorial staff of newspaper "Dostluk" (Friendship), which made a significant contribution to popularization of tolerance and prevention of conflicts.

At the same time, another part of the press of that period published materials on "collaboration" of Crimean Tatars, trying to stigmatize them, and to sully them by facts of collaboration with Fascists. "Golos Krima" (The voice of Crimea) in reply placed the materials on participation of Crimean Tatars in partisan movement in Crimea, memoirs of partisans, members of underground organizations, soldiers of Soviet Army, who fought on fronts, including stories on deportation and suffered privation in exile.

In 1991, practically, at the same time, that NMCT of Yuri Osmanov, and conducted elections of Organization of the Crimean Tatar National Movement (OCNM) of Mustafa Dzhemilev which convened II Kurultay (I Kurultay was held in Crimea in 1917). At this meeting they adopted documents, which caused a great resonance; among these documents was the Declaration on sovereignty of Crimean Tatars, which is criticized up to now, because it proclaimed the Crimea as place of sovereignty of the Crimean Tatar people, and the land and natural resources of the peninsula as its property. The newspaper "Krimskaya pravda" (Crimean truth), latter "Krimskoye vremya" (Crimean time), and than "Ruskyi Krim" (Russian Crimea) and "Russkyi mir" (Russian world), which were established still latter, expressed and express their negative attitude to this document, that it proclaimed a land of Crimea as the property only of the Crimean Tatars. Thus, from that period, all groupings which were established and headed by Mustafa Dzhemilev, were labeled by the newspapers "Krimskaya pravda", "Krimskoye vremya" and some other publications as "so-called Kurultay-Mejlis".

At the same time, the newspaper "Krimskaya svitlitsya" had a more favorable understanding about it, explained decisions of Ist Kurultay as progressive political acts, and the declaration – as a document, which restores a historical justice concerning indigenous people, proclaiming such property of people on land, as not exclusive, but it obliges the authorities in future to be careful of any actions with Crimean land, on which there will be no consent of the Crimean Tatar people.

There are also other nuances. Since 2000, when in Crimea began the organized persecutions of so-called "Wahabism", the "Krimskaya pravda" has published articles, whose authors used a colorful expressive pseudonym "Dmitryi Kulikov" (in memory on Kulikovskaya battle), placing here the articles having a very negative opinion about "Wakhabism", Crimean Tatars, decisions of Kurultay, actions of Mejlis, and latter on activity of Council of Representatives of the Crimean Tatar people under president of Ukraine, in which entered all members of Mejlis headed by Mustafa Dzhemilev.

After the appearance in parliament of the ARC, the people's Deputy, Oleg Rodivilov, and on his advice the Crimean press put into circulation a term "organized criminal group Kurultay-Mejlis". "Krimskoye vremya" names this as "criminal group" and "unregistered underground (illegal)" as well. Already, in October 2002 at session of the Verkhovna Rada of Crimea, Oleg Rodivilov, who pretends to the stature of one of the leaders of the Russian movement of Crimea, put questions to the public prosecutor of the ARC, Olexander Dobroriz, "when at last will be finished with activity of OCG (organized criminal group - Author) Kurultay-Mejlis", the public prosecutor answered that he doesn't know of such a COG.

These newspapers had a negative estimation of the role of the faction "Kurultay" in the Crimean parliament I (democratic) convocation, described it as extremist. Their position aggravated the political situation. At the same time, the newspapers "Krimskaya svitlitsya", "Krimskaya gazeta", "Avdet", "Golos Krima" and others indicated the stabilization role of the faction "Kurultay", asserted that it defended the interests of the Crimean Tatars by parliamentary ways, and in addition many times prevented the Crimean Tatars from going into the street. Namely, the Crimean Tatar parliamentarians popularized a conception of non-violent actions of the Crimean Tatar people that gave an opportunity of reduction of tension in society. In contrast to them, wrote these newspapers, the representatives of coalition "Russia" have been resorting in truth to separatist actions, bolstering propaganda for President Meshkov, and latter - for aggravation of the relationship between Crimea and Kyiv and for a split.

In this period, in the Crimean press there appeared heated arguments on the character of the Crimean autonomy, in which every publication had it own way. Thus, some of the newspapers explain the acts of 1921 and history of CrimASSR up to 1944 in a manner that claims that the previous autonomy of that period was not the Crimean Tatar National, and even put into circulation a new term "territorial autonomy", which was latter taken and advertised widely in his "works" by Leonid Hrach. These publications oppose a transformation of Crimean schools into national ethnic schools, enlargement of national education at the expense of reduction of teaching of Russian language. They actively support the program of people's deputy of Crimean Verkhovna Rada, Maria Piddubna, in this direction. She with assistance of Russian Movement of Crimea (RRC) has conducted polls of parents, who practically express without exception, support her her statement against the teaching of Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian and against any changes in such education at all. Unfortunately, these newspapers maintain such positions up to now. For example, "Krimskaya pravda" contrived and widely uses an expression "creeping Ukrainization". The vivid publication in this newspaper of an attack against minister of economy of Crimea Arsen Yatsenuk, who gave the order that obliged all workers of ministry to fulfill the Law on State service - to learn Ukrainian and use it in office work. For this order, the minister received "stain" "economist-Ukrainizator". Such line of "Krimskaya pravda" was significantly intensified in August - September 2002, when its editor, Michael Bakharev, who was a candidate for deputies of Crimean Parliament in "communist" 25th constituency after Leonid Hrach. The newspaper is often issued and issues under a typical-for-it anti-Ukrainian "banner headline" - for example, "To protect Russian and our children from Ukrainization" and so on.

Such strategy of publication was supported by the ex-head of parliament Communist Leonid Hrach.

However, one should admit that this position disregarded the Ukranian government's policy that is certainly firm: the newspaper changes this policy even in the face of present circumstances. Thus, after election of Boris Deych as head of the Crimean parliament he gave an interview to the newspaper in which he said: "Here I am ready to begin debate with this strict position, which was taken by the newspaper concerning the stature of Russian language in Crimea. The subject, really, as you noted in the question, is "hypothetical", but except for the politicians and journalists was not brought up by anybody. Being a people's deputy and deputy head of Verkhovna Rada of the ARC and now - as a head of Verkhovna Rada of the ARC - I didn't receive any application from voters, inhabitants of Crimea, in connection with concrete oppressions of their right to speak in Russian: concerning Ukrainian, or Tatar - yes, Russian - no.

Let's be honest - when we hear in our environment the Ukrainian language, that this person is 99% sure - a tourist or visitant from the continental part of Ukraine, and we forget that almost 30% of the population of Crimea is Ukrainian, and let's be open - we did little for creation of conditions in which this significant part of the population would be able to speak in their mother tongue ("Krimskaya pravda", #190, on October 15, 2002).

However, namely, in this number, the newspaper include Ukrainians, who call for rehabilitation of soldiers of the Ukrainian Rebellious Army as "neo-fascists", in the next number from 16 October, the readers were informed about support of the aspirations of the Russian Diaspora in Ukraine by mayor of Moscow, Luzhkov, who had just visited Kyiv, including a statement by Leonid Hrach "Disrespect of Aleksyi II - shame for Ukraine", and Hrach again interprets state positions as nationalistic.

Obviously, the journalists don't want to admit fully that their position can bring about results and the result can be tension in society. An example of this is a recent dispute between newspapers. "Krimskoye vremya" (Crimean time), which was accused of kindling of inter-ethnic and inter-confessional tension, themselves accused the newspapers "Golos Krima" (Voice of Crimea), "Krimskaya svitlitsa".It said that these newspapers also kindle a tension, on the own part. Does such position correspond to reality? Are the actions of these newspapers in two different camps equivalent?

One should look for the roots of the dispute deeply in history and policy. In each historical period there are the progressive and reactionary political and social courses. For the XXI century practically the progressive process should be a restoration of historical justice, establishment of democracy, inclusion in national and inter-confessional relations, development of national education and culture, and also a restoration of once oppressed cultures. Namely, these processes will restore modern democracy to a once imperial land. It is understandable that the remaining pro-imperial forces will act against development of democratic processes and will try to preserve the positions, which were gained by imperial force. The activity of the press, which is directed to the informing the public about how the formerly deported peoples are returning to the Motherland, restoration of their national rights, development of culture, language, education, is a progressive tendency and not a kindling of inter-ethnic hostility. You know that equality of rights and positions of different peoples is an obligatory component of democratic societies. Also one should recognize that inter-ethnic discord is kindled, namely, by those publications, which try to preserve a national inequality, oppression of any cultures, inequality of national languages, including religions. This is a reactionary tendency...

In due time, in 70-80's of the past century (of course, in conditions of party censorship) "Krimskaya pravda" in Crimean informational area was high-professional, high-quality newspaper, which was distinguished by professional, analytical materials. All of the Crimean journalists without exception considered it an honour to write for "Krimskaya pravda". However, latter this newspaper became practically as commercial appendage to former party publishing house "Tavrida".

Currently, "Krimskaya pravda" headed by Michael Bakharev is the single voice in Crimea for reports, convoluted machinations and pro-Russian appeals of Leonid Hrach, and it takes a strict position. In the article "We return to you, Motherland", which was published on October 27, 2001, the main editor asserts that neither a Ukrainian people, nor a Ukrainian language exists, and calls for the return into the bosom of Russia. Certainly, a person, who is able realistically and adequately to estimate the events and circumstances cannot write such things. In later TV-interview M.Bakharev explained that he personally believes this. However, the press publication, if this is Mass Media cannot used as a platform for a single position, which acts from such arguable and particularly contentious positions. What kind of publication would this be if by its character, its functions became those of a training sheet.

The editorial staff of "Krimskaya pravda" has taken under its patronage one of the ships of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, and restored Soviet decorations on its logotype. The circulation of the newspaper has fallen from some hundred thousands to 60 thousands. On the other hand there were other ways for development by the Crimean press. Evidence of this is the work of the analogous party publication mentioned above and once equivalent to it - "Krimskaya pravda". This is the former Yalta's Communist Party newspaper, which changed some names, certainly, and also could have moved in this way, but didn't. However, the journalists found other financial support - government of Crimea and their own work collective - and began to write realistically and non-tendentiously about Crimean life, Ukraine and Russia, Crimean Tatars, problems of development of democracy and parliamentarianism. Thus, from being a narrowly resort oriented newspaper it was transformed into an all-Crimean public-political publication, which successfully increased its circulation, found advertising accounts and has authority and confidence among readers.

What is Crimean Mass Media today in general? Below we give some tables, which were made from information of the Crimean Republican Committee on Informational Policy, which characterizes the present informational area on the peninsula.

From these tables one can understand that in the Crimean informational area Russian and Crimean-Russian language publications dominate. Thus, their negativism and inadmissible attitude to those or other national groups in significant measure can be considered as a factor in the preservation of appearance of conflict in society.

At the same time, one can observe other processes. Crimean informational area very slowly - though with impediment - is transformed. Crimeans began to give preference to Ukrainian publications. By number of publications, as the deputy director of Crimean directorate "Ukrpost", Svetlana Volkova, informed, Crimea takes 24th place of 27 oblasts. Out of 3,000 titles of subscription publications, which it receives, 2,500 are Ukrainian, 150 are Crimean. What is hidden in these statistics is that locally published papers have very few subscribers and hardly anyone reads them, which is understandable. There was a time when they were the stalwart organs of the Communist Party, though always they had the lowest subscribers. Now the level of the peoples' demands on the press was increased, but newspapers remained on their former level.

"The readers are not satisfied by materials and designs of these newspapers" - stated S.Volkova. Thus, the Krasnogvardeyskyi regional newspaper "Ogni Mayaka" is in popular demand among such newspapers, because in contrast to other newspapers it could improve its methods of work in modern conditions. The least popular newspapers are of Sakskyi region, for example, Sakskyi-Evpatoriyskyi newspaper "Zhituha".

Generally, the low level of many Crimean publications was not lost on them. As says specialist of "Ukrpost", Valentina Yanina, for last two years the number of subscribers among Crimeans to Crimean publications was reduced by 7%, at the same time, a subscription for Ukrainian ones was increased by 16%. Under the words by V.Yanina "the Russian publications in Crimea are subscribed to mainly due to their narrow focus" (See information of Crimean Agency of News from 17 October 2002).

One should say that subjects on multi-culture, poly-ethnicity and inter-confessional tolerance now are very popular in Crimea. Already, hundreds of seminars and "round-tables" on these issues were held in the peninsula. However, the fact is these are conducted only by unprejudiced organizations. When in comes to organizing such debates, those organizations whose aim is only a kind of multi-culturalism, which would provide for their hegemony in Crimea, their actions only kindle contradictions and enlarges a ditch, which separates Crimeans. However, lately the attempts to incite activists of national minorities against the Ukrainian state, and Ukrainian politicians and prove that it will be easy to come to an agreement with Russia became very popular.

"As long as the rights of indigenous peoples are not maintained it is useless to think about a multi-cultural Crimea", - thus think the members of the Council of Representatives of the Crimean Tatar people under President of Ukraine. They said it a at round-table "The dialogue of cultures: problems of integration into Crimean society", which was organized in Verkhovna Rada of the ARC by the Center of Ethnosocial researches with assistance of the Embassy of Germany in Ukraine and German cultural center "Gotte-institute" in Kyiv. During work of the "round-table", there were working sections "Multicultural communities", "Interconfessional relations and integration process", "Culture and education as way for integration", "Economical factor of integration", "Role of Mass Media in process of integration".

The new tendencies in relations between Crimean Tatar people and Ukraine were competently analyzed by Nadir Bekirov, member of Council of Representatives of the Crimean Tatar people under President of Ukraine, head of department on political-legal issues of Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people, and president of Foundation on researches and support of indigenous peoples of Crimea in his article "Crimean Tatar factor in context of ethno-political tendencies of Crimea".

Its conclusions should be studied in order for us to understand this situation, which was established in the area of national-public relations in Ukraine. N. Bekirov analyzed differences between Russia and Ukraine, relations of Crimean Tatars and Ukrainian state before declaration on independence of Ukraine, features of national relations and inter-ethnic contradictions at the present time, and he came to a conclusion that Crimean Tatars in modern "multi-vectorial" (read - as non-established, uncertain) policy of Ukraine sometimes became oppositional not by their own desire. He writes: "A part of nationals-liberals, who fought for restoration of full sovereignty of the Ukrainian state (though in accordance with Constitution of USSR, and Ukrainian SSR it was formally sovereign), decided that there are no other peoples in Ukraine except Ukrainian, and the quantity of rights of one or another ethnic minority will be depend on the size of its population. Communists, who act for abolition of Ukrainian independence and restoration of Soviet Empire, who depend, mainly, on Russian or Russian Diaspora, supported this approach."

What are the priorities of development of Ukraine? The strengthening of independence and state sovereignty? Are the Crimean Tatars for this?. The market economy? Are we for this, if because of it we will be not deprived a property. Human rights, democracy, legal state? We fought for it long before the appearance of an independent Ukraine. European choice? We did it for ourselves a long time ago.

So, why we are considered as opposition? <...> Already, in the independent Ukraine efforts are under way to deny us the use of values, continuing against the Crimean Tatar people that regime of illegal, non-democratic, non-European, inhuman ghetto, which was established previously by Soviet power. We are at least lucky and so is Ukraine that an ethno-political situation after 10 years of declaration of independence so significantly differs from the Russian nightmares. Our and Ukrainian common responsibility is that it further develop in the European, and not Russian direction".

However, the Crimean Constitution of 1998, which was adopted by Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, maintains, and does not in the least reduce tension as in the Crimean society in general, as in Crimean informational and linguistic area. Its main defect, as Crimean and Ukrainian newspapers now write, is the difference between spirit and letter. Thus, it establishes in Crimea only Ukrainian as the official language. However, to Russian language were dedicated four articles, which give more rights and opportunities than for the official language. Actually, this approach promotes not the widening of tolerance, establishment of equality of languages, but the domination by Russian. It is detrimental to the prejudice of Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian languages and cultures. It was admitted by Leonid Hrach himself: ".Russian is more protected, than official". At the same time, the Constitution which is often criticized by Crimean press, doesn't provide for valuable representation of Crimean Tatars in parliament and other bodies of government, that also causes a tension during elections and in other complicated situations. Let's remember that the first Crimean Constitution determined three official languages in Crimea, including a quota for formerly deported peoples in parliament. During the period of "domination" by Leonid Hrach, Crimean Tatars actually lost an opportunity though somehow to influence by legal actions on life of Crimea. However, being true to principle of non-violent acts, they demonstrated a loyalty to Ukraine and further continued to obtain their rights by way of parliamentary activity in Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (two deputies), and took part in elections of new Verkhovna Rada of Crimea in 2002. It turned out, that in eight majority constituencies the voters, who were mainly Russians voted for Crimean Tatar candidates. Namely, they are considered as more business-like and professional and namely, to them were given a mandate of confidence. At the same time, Crimean Tatars received 14% of deputy's places in councils of all levels.

One should pay attention that to raise anti-Tatar or even anti-Ukrainian hysteria in Crimea is easier than anti-Russian, even if anybody would have the courage. The local Crimean newspapers made a significant contribution to such education of Crimean social consciousness, which for decades described a Tatar as a betrayer, a Ukrainian - as stupid, and a Russian - as a hero and clever man.

Some of Crimean newspapers, for example, "Flag of Motherland", "Krimskaya pravda", "Krmskoye vremya" continue this line up to now - in particular, in the section of anecdotes, which are constantly published. In this genre of "oral folk work", which was made in offices of the KGB, if one is a Chukchi, Moldovan, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar - this is a stupid person, who deserves only contempt, but "big brothers" are described as more attractive. It is an old method but one which is still efficient, and some newspapers don't scorn to use it.

A formation of inter-religious situation in Crimea after establishment of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. The press and inter-confessional conflict situations.

Seventy years of atheism and forty years of religious monotone didn't pass for Crimea without leaving a trace. In the 20-30s were destroyed Christian churches, including the cathedral dedicated to Olexander Nevskyi in the center of Simferopol, a lot of mosques, in significant measure were destroyed as well as Christian and Moslem clergy. All Crimean monasteries were closed, destroyed and robbed. One says from Svyato-Uspenskyi monastery, on which we refer to latter, Bolsheviks removed a few wagons of gold. After deportation of Crimean Tatars the religious monuments of Moslems were destroyed. Only Khan's Bakhchisarayskyi Palace with mosque remained, though it was reconstructed. It was not destroyed only because Pushkin visited it, and he described Palace in some his works. The reconstructed Karaite's kenassa in Simferopol was converted into civil needs - in which and now is placed Crimean radio committee. The same lot befell Jewish and Karaite's synagogues, Armenian monastery Surb-Khach and other sacred places. Even churches and chapels at cemeteries of Russian soldiers were destroyed, hundreds thousands of them had died during the Crimean-Turkish wars and were buried in land of the peninsula.

No wonder that the establishment of independent Ukraine caused a Renascence of religious life. At the same time, with return of Crimean Tatars on peninsula, Islam also returned. The progressive Crimean newspapers welcomed an establishment of inter-confessional council "The peace - charisma", however the religious figures of Ukrainian Orthodox Church thought that the establishment of this council not for the purpose of preservation of inter-confessional harmony and coordination of activity of churches in complicated situations, but as a form of dictation of their own will to other churches. Crimean eparchy adopted a decision, without agreement with inter-confessional council, on placement of worshiped crosses in each settlements of Crimea. It was planned to place a thousand crosses. The crosses were placed on high mountains, for example, on Mangup, by entrances to small villages and big places, for example, Feodosia and Yevpatoria, and even there, where ever lived mainly Moslems, which latter resulted to opposition by certain groups of population. Some crosses were brought down, but they were re-placed with greater enthusiasm. The great iron cross was placed on mountain near village Morskoye, near Sudak, where there was once the Moslem cemetery. Conflict between local Moslem and Christian population ensued. The inhabitants of village Morskoye were going to hold a meeting about regulating this vexed question, but the authorities, and press interfered in the case. The newspapers "Krimskaya pravda" and "Krymskoye vremya" published articles, which condemned "demolition of crosses" and accused only Moslems of religious extremism.

Worst of all was that Leonid Hrach being a head of Verkhovna Rada of Crimea in that period took one side, which resulted in aggravation of conflict. "Golos Krima", "Krimskaya svitlitsya" explained that Moslems have a right for protection of their own sacral territories from symbols of other religion, and Christian communities are obliged to fly right. When achieving their own right for restoration of religious symbols, they are not to violate the same right of other communities, which have a right for protection of their own sacred places from symbols of other religion. However, the forces were unequal. News on "demolition of crosses" were heard by Moscow, which were re-printed in big and small newspapers and were placed in web-sites. In the course of time, in imaginations of their authors they developed into "process of demolition of Christian sacred places". That was already misinformation, because it did not correspond to reality. Namely, here we have a striking example how biased position of authority and its official press (so one can say on "Krimskaya pravda" in relation to communist leader Leonid Hrach) results to lingering conflicts and cause new contradictions. Namely, in village Morskoye in October 2002 new discord broke out, which everybody then had to regulate - and Verkhovna Rada of Crimea, and government and Office of Public Prosecutor. The reason for conflict is the same: same rural head of Morskoye Leonid Krisov, not applying to community, without discussion, but self-willed rented to the Moscow association "Tsentrokniga" a plot on the coast allegedly for building a cultural center "Summer-XXI". For some years a plot was empty.

However, local inhabitants recently saw the Moscow announcement in the Internet on sale of plots around Morskoye and Sudak. Crimean Tatars of village Morskoye, who stated that not all repatriates, who returned from places of deportation, were allotted plots for building of house, occupied the disputed plot and spoke about the necessity of openness and clarity of process of allotment of land in the village. On the one hand the Crimean News Agency, newspaper "Krimskiye izvestiya" (article "The land will be enough for all, if deal with it sensibly", #194, 17 October 2002), "Krimskaya gazeta" (statement of Serhiy Kunitsin "Today's laws are to be observed by all", #193, 17 October 2002) and other published and brief press accounts, and big, objective and true on the course of investigation of decisions of authorities, and as Boris Deych and Serhiy Kunitsin regulated conflict. On the other hand the newspaper "Krimskaya pravda" published tendentious article "Occupants were not punished", in which only Crimean Tatars were accused (#161, 16 October 2002). Nevertheless, the truth is that according to the information of the "Crimean News Agency" from 15 October 2002, the head of Crimean Parliament Boris Deych said: "The irresponsibility and incompetence of actions of the rural head of Morskoye, Leonid Krisov, resulted in the problem situation, but an occupation of lands - not a method of regulation of vexed questions <...> I think that the self-acquisition is necessary to stop in Crimea - there is a supremacy of law and one should to follow it". In his opinion, this critical situation was provoked by actions of the rural head, who was not going to take into account the peculiar properties of the region and incompetently dealt with land: "Rented a plot on coast for 49 years, and now are placed announcements on sale this plot in Internet". Last time, as you remember it is also reported on the incompetence of Krisov and illegality of decisions of rural council.

Thus, in answering the questions of people's deputies 17 October 2002 at session of Verkhovna Rada of Crimea, the public prosecutor of the ARC, Olexander Dobroris, said that a law applies not only to those persons, who occupied land, but also to bodies of local authorities, which adopted incompetent decisions.

The real press epic work in Crimea was developed over subject of "Wakhabism". "Krimskaya pravda" wrote a big article by the already known for us Dmitro Kulikov, in which a number of legal Arabic-Moslem organizations, which officially act in Ukraine (for example, association "Arraid"), were named as "Wakhabist". This makes use of the fact that the Christian population mainly doesn't know even the basic postulates of Islam. In this article he named quite legal literature as "incendiary", and "anti-state" as well. It poured oil on the flames even though there are contradictions among Moslems. Local mullahs interpret Islam on their, and the doctrine of the Arab emissaries, who arrived in Crimea and built here mosques, organized annual Hadj, differed somewhat from the postulates of traditional Crimean Tatar Islam. Leonid Hrach again interfered in this conflict on the side of "Krimskaya pravda", and named the publication as a great success, and, in fact, gave his blessing to conflict between Moslems and local population, which, however, it failed to turn into protracted conflict.

One should note that similar statements of "Krimskaya pravda", which contradict to logic of life, as a rule, have not any influence. In spite of support of the newspaper by Leonid Hrach, life moves by its own way. As informed newspaper "Avdet" 14 September 2002 in Simferopol in ceremonial atmosphere with participation of permanent representative of President of Ukraine in Crimea and other officials opened an office of Inter-regional association of NGOs "Arraid" (#17, 9 October 2002) - namely, this organization was named by newspaper as a cell of "Wakhabism" in Crimea.

The disposition of Crimean press again was the same: "Golos Krima" and "Krimskaya svitlitsya" wrote that Wakhabism - this is not quite that exists in Crimea. In addition, a part of Crimean publications started to say about the presence in Crimea of "refugees-bandits" from Chechnya, who already bought up already a lot of flats in Kerch, Simferopol, in villages of peninsula. They intended to sow distrust among peoples, to spike fear into them of their neigbours, and create an atmosphere of jealousy in the cities. Moreover, they began to write that in sanatoriums of Saki and Yevpatoria wounded Chechenian soldiers are receiving medical treatment. Namely, by this, they accused Ukraine of assistance of one side of the Chechenian conflict. Latter, the press agitated about Chechenian informational centers.

Thus, one can come to a conclusion that a part of the Crimean press during the appearance of any conflict situations immediately supported one of the sides of the conflict, and didn't take a position of tolerance and objectivity towards both parties. This is neither a sign of tolerance, nor professionalism. Of great significance was the conduct of the authorities: the statements of communist Hrach, who is known by his anti-Crimean Tatar, anti-Turkish and anti-Moslem opinions, were knowingly directed toward kindling of conflict. Thus, L. Hrach in some interviews, mainly in Moscow publications, expressed suspicion that Crimean Tatars hide in the Crimean Mountains "Stingers" and other weapons, which purportedly were brought here from Turkey.

"Krimskaya pravda" wrote also against the activity of organizations of Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivskyi patriarchy in Crimea. It periodically published articles, which were disparaging of the views of the Ukrainians, and "denounced" supposedly "splitting character" of DOC KP.

The situation was especially critical twice - during the visit of Patriarch Filaret in Crimea, who in this publication was literally anathematized, casting doubt on legality of his cloth, - he was named as "apostate Denisenko" as well. Another pretext for accusations about him utilized those arguments which were built up around the construction of the Cathedral of the apostolic princes Saint Volodimir and Olga. This temple of DOC KP was established in one of the buildings of a former military school. As "Krimskya pravda", as "Krimkoye vremya" took the position to remove the church from the building because the Foundation of State Property and Verkhovna Rada of the ARC didn't set an expiration date for the lease and therefore the media asserted that the DOC KP illegally paid them rent for the building However, in this time, by virtue of well a thought out position by the Council of Ministers of Crimea and its head Serhiy Kunitsin, the bodies of government adopted a decision to give this building for a temple to the Crimean eparchy of DOC KP.

Almost the most critical was (at any case, longest!) was that tensions were heightened by the dispute between pro-Russian forces - Cossacks, Russian bloc, part of Crimean press – and Crimean Tatars and Moslems concerning the ownership of land and the history of the Svyato-Uspenskyi monastery near Bakhchisaray. The fact is that at the location of the medieval Moslem Zindzhirli-madrasah - a cell of Crimean Tatar education for period of Crimean Khanate, near which exists also a National Crimean Tatar necropolis, where were buried such prominent figures of people, as Ismail Gasprinskyi, Choban-zade and others - during the Soviet regime a psychoneurology centre was established. It is located not far from the Bakhchisarayskyi palace-museum. All regions around this historical place for Crimean Tatars were filled by numerous monuments of history and culture not only Russian or Crimean Tatar, but a lot of other peoples, for example, Karaites. The Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people, national-cultural organizations pressured the Crimean government to transfer the mental hospital to other place.

The Mejlis intended to establish on this place a complex of monuments, to restore a national educational institution as well.

However, nearby Svyato-Uspenskyi monastery was located, which really played a great role in the history of Crimea: firstly, already during the period of the Khanate this was the main center of Crimean Christianity; secondly, namely, from here was organized a movement of Crimean Armenians-Christians to Priazovye. As this place was named in that period Maryam-dere, that new place was named Maryam- pole, which latter became Mariupol on Azov. However, a conflict erupted, properly speaking, because the authority of Bakhchisaray implemented a law for return of the former cultural buildings, returned to Svyato-Uspenskyi cathedral all of the land, which it possessed under the Empire, and gave for it a state certificate. The same state certificate was given for lands, where the Zindzhirli-madrasah was located, - but to Crimean Tatars. Thus, an authority of Bakhchisaray created for itself a conflict situation: on the same plots were given documents to both subjects. The senior abbot of the monastery, father Siluyan, developed an active building activity, and placed high fences around it.

Thus, Zindhirli-madrasah was pushed between fences and building materials. The Svyato-Uspenskyi monastery usurped a famous historical place for all of Crimea, thereby practically blocking tourists from the other sites such as the Zindzhirli-madrasah and the sacred places of Karaites, who have resettled not far from here at by Dzhuft-Kale - kenassa of the Karaites' ancestor's cemetery Balta-Tiymez (in translation - "an axe doesn't touch"), as well. As the apogee of the conflict there developed an attempt to replace on the motorway Simferopol-Sevastopol a direction sign "Bakhchisarayskyi palace-museum" by "Svyato-Uspenskyi monastery". It demonstrated not in the least his service to God, but, as a minimum, Father Siluyan's aggressive commercial intentions.

The newspaper "Golos Krima" criticized the behavior of the abbot and the decision of the Bakhchisaray regional council. It wrote that during the era of the Crimean Khanate and Empire, not only monasteries possessed by lands, but also educational institutions, in particular, Zindzhirli-madrasah. In addition, the decree of the President of Ukraine on return of relics, firstly, doesn't require the return of lands, particularly, and in such culturally multiple places, and secondly, when returning land to the monastery (their general square 46,5 former dessiatines), the Bakhchisaray regional council should think about the neigbours as well - museum complex of Karaites on Dzhut-Kale and Zindhirli-madrasah. If Crimean Tatars put the question about return of vakuf lands on their agenda, which once possessed religious communities and mosques (and their total square - about 5000 dessiatines!), including near "Zindzhirli-madrasah", that would practically disorganize life in Crimea, at least, in the agrarian sector. However, "Krimskya pravda", particularly, "Krimskoye vremya" and "Russian world" wrote articles, which justified the decisions of the rural council, claiming it purportedly was historically based. The conflict relating to the Svyato-Uspenskyi monastery has not been solved up to now. Father Siluyan continues to keep an offensive tactics - he is protected buy Bakhchisaray Cossacks, and by veterans of SPETZNAZ groups.

As in the situation with the "demolition of crosses", some Mass Media, not taking into account concrete facts, create "events". After one of the scandals around the monastery, in which the militia was forced to interfere, in Moscow the media publicized about the constant power conflicts between the interconfessional groups in Crimea and called upon Russian tourists to boycott trips to Crimea as a tourist objective, although the Svyato-Uspenskyi monastery is registered in all catalogues along with the Bakhchisaray palace and Dzhuft-Kale. The newspaper "Golos Krima" dotted one's "theoretical" "i's" and crossed one's "t's". At the same time, as "Krimskaya pravda" and "Krimskoye vremya" defending the positions of only one side of the conflict, accused the Crimean Tatars in (articles "playing footsie with extremists is very dangerous", "A meeting on protection of Svyato-Uspenskyi monastery in Simferopol was held" as well), and a part of Crimean publications published emotional and offensive materials for them. The newspaper "Golos Krima" made thorough analysis of the problem. Ibraim Abduallayev in article "Placed under monastery" analyzed on the basis of archival documents of events and realities of that historical epoch, when were formed land estates and established relations between the monastery and the khans, who lived not far, and Zindzhirli-madrasah, traced the history of vakuf land estates.

Thus, only this newspaper could find those conclusions, which are attested to now by authorities, which try to put an end to this conflict.

As the newspaper "Avdet" informed, in Bakhchisaray a problem of Svyato-Uspenskyi monastery was discussed at a meeting of the Council of Representatives of the Crimean Tatar people of Bakhchisarayskyi region under head of Bakhchisaray regional state administration. "As a result of discussion the participants in the meeting came to the conclusion that for regulation of such a situation and reduction of tension in the region it is necessary to revise quickly the decision on a state certificate on land, which was given to the Svyato-Uspenskyi monastery. The mayor of Bakhchisaray, Vitalyi Kurbatov, stated his readiness to submit for consideration by the local council, whose executive committee gave this state certificate, a question on its recession. The Bakhchisaray regional state administration and regional council adopted a decision to apply to the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Crimea with a request to give a legal estimation about the state certificate, and Bakhchisarayskyi local council - to consider a question on recession of this illegal decision.

Besides, the regional offices of public prosecutor, militia, tax inspections, local councils, the main architect of region and heads of regional department on land resources were given instructions to take measures for making in concordance with legislation of Ukraine an organization of car parks and trade outlets, including construction - installation works on the territory of the historical-cultural reserve. At the same time, it was charged to pay especial attention on building and construction of all objects in the territory of the old part of the city.

Let's remember that from the summer of the previous year a state certificate on using of land, which was given to the Svyato-Uspenskyi monastery, became a main source for destabilization in the region. The state certificate was signed by the city mayor without agreement with the Bakhchisaray state-cultural reserve, Republican committee on protection and defense of monuments and Ministry of culture of the Crimea. As a result, a monastery received a part of the territory of an historical complex, which never belonged to it. Besides, on the territory of the monastery construction works were started without agreement from appropriate state structures.

In addition, in the previous year appeared a serious conflict because of the representatives of other confessions who were forced to come to their sacred places, in particular to the Zindzhirli-madrasah and mosques, through the territory of the monastery, that caused a dissatisfaction of believers. The last chord in the long conflict became the replacement of direction signs to the Khan's Palace by direction signs to the Svyato-Uspenskyi monastery, in August of this year. As regards this, the regional Mejlis adopted a statement, in which they considered actions of local authorities as provocation, which aimed to aggravate the inter-ethnic and inter-confessional tension in the region.

The question on replacement of direction signs also was considered at a meeting of thee Bakhchisaray Council of Representatives of the Crimean Tatar people. On proposal of director of Bakhchisaray state historical-cultural reserve, Yevgenyi Petrov, it was decided to place at the entry to Bakhchisaray a common shield showing all historical-cultural monuments of the city" ("Avdet", #17, 9 October 2002).

However, "Krimskaya pravda" in number from 17 October 2002 published for protection of Svyato-Uspenskyi monastery in Crimea, a letter of citizen N.Nikolayev from Donetsk oblast under headline "Do not touch the earth's angels!", the main leitmotif of which is an appeal "Help to hold out in Bakhchisaray". Soon, this newspaper again published material, which took a whole page, signed by the same "Dmitry Kulikov". In material under the headline "The temple directions are the point of dispute. History in documents in the beginning contained two letters - archimandrite Siluyan to premier of Ukraine Anatolyi Kinakh and Mustafa Dzhemilev – to President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma. These letters are accompanied by comment, that was written in a very tendentious and traditionally biased form. Here appeared expressions, which are beyond public propriety: "the Slavs have two proverb, one about an uninvited guest, and another about an unwritten law" "organized criminal group "Bakhchisaray Mejlis-Kurultay" (here Oleg Rodivilov has devised a new public enemy!), "so-called politicians", "all of these Mejlises-Kurultays", "Moslems-extremists" and so on ("Krimskaya pravda", 6 November 2002).

It is understandable that similar statements don't promote the resolution of conflicts, and only kindle them with new force.

Anti-Semitic statements developed as a shameful page in the Crimean press. Let's cite here a letter of the ex-first deputy head of the Crimean parliament, Boris Deych, to the public prosecutor, which illustrates this tendency.

"To public prosecutor of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea Dobroriz A.A.

Dear Olexander Olesiyevich!

I apply for You in connection with an unprecedented, in my opinion, event in the area of information in our Crimea. In the social and political newspaper "Russian Crimea", # 5-6, October 2001, (which founded the NGO Russian Movement of Crimea, the registration certificate of CM #648, 18 May 2001 was not indicated in the dateline, the editor, V. Korolyov whose address is Simferopol Pushkin street 11, permitted publication of an article entitled "On sore point", by the author, E. P. Malakhovski. The dateline would have been officially stamped by the Republican Committee on informational policy of the ARC. In the present article is described one of the numerous nations in a very humiliating form, which inhabit a multi-national state Ukraine, - the Jews.

By way of rude twisting and direct falsification of historical facts the author and editorial staff try to suggest an idea to readers that, namely, the Jews are guilty of all disorders in our state. Malakhovskyi directly writes that "a nation was chosen by the Devil. Jewish nation didn't give anything to people except evil, blood and troubles." Because of it, the publishers of this anti-Semitic lampoon are very dissatisfied that some newspapers "are shifting antipathy from Jews to the Tatars." In this phrase, as practically in the entire article, the tasks are clearly seen, which was instigated by the inspirers of this article, - on the eve of future elections to kindle in the Crimea a hostility and inter-ethnic discord between people in our region.

On November 4, 2002."

As regards this, the Crimean Republican Committee on Information policy applied to the Yalta court with a request to give a legal estimation about the statement of the newspaper. However, the fact that a court didn't recognize this blatant anti-Semitic statement of kindling of inter-ethnic hostility is evidence, properly speaking, of the level of our courts. Thus, in the following paragraphy is the text of an e-mail that was sent on behalf of the Russian Movement of Crimea to numerous addresses:

"For information. From: "RDK". Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 9:37 p.m.

The justice was crowned! On August 16, a court declined a suit of the Crimean Republican Committee on Informational Policy against the publisher of "Russian Crimea". In history of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea this was the first attempt to close a newspaper, and it was not accidentally the newspaper "Russian Crimea". Especially, Boris Deych, a head of Crimean Parliament, insisted on closing of the newspaper, and especially gloated over the closing of the newspaper of the main editor of newspaper "Republic of Crimea" Mr. Yoffe Hrihoryi Adolfyovich. Thus, you judge for yourself how easy it is to close a newspaper "Russian Crimea" in Russian Crimea. The head of Russian Movement of Crimea A. Chernomorov RMC" Taking into account that regulation in the courts of this open kindling of inter-ethnic hostility by "Russian Crimea" failed, one should ask is it time to put questions on the role of courts in the formation of psychological climate in society and to find out do they assist with promotion of its tolerance, or on the contrary, result in aggravation of conflicts on national and religious basis?

The lack of readiness of many judges in this area is evident. This is an long-standing example of Soviet "administration of justice", because such issues as the work with Mass Media, freedom of speech, including non-possession of basic theoretical theses of conflict science in these fields, in particular, unfamiliarity with legal principles of work of Mass Media, freedom of speech, function of religious organizations and history were not addressed. And this is understandable: because a majority of judges - came from the Soviet court system, in which, actually these problems never have been considered, - and in that legislative system there were not even similar statutes.

Because of this, many judges have neither experience, nor practice in consideration of such questions.

So, often, judges who try to pronounce judgement in such serious cases, are guided by general impressions and tastes, their own common tastes and sympathies to the parties at trial, and appropriate laws or extracts from them read directly before hearing of the case.

It is time to submit these serious questions of existence of society to courts for consideration by only judges-specialists, who had appropriate training, namely, in area of law, sat for appropriate examinations and have certificates giving such qualification.

The lessons of Crimea: mechanisms of approval of tolerance, measures for reduction of opposition and strengthening of confidence in the press by society

Therefore, one can classify typical mistakes (or intentional actions), which are made by some bodies of the press, or other Mass Media, including Internet-publications, causing among readers (audience) not a tendency to reconciliation and reasonableness, but a general increase of appearance of a conflict situation and social delimitation by national or other categories.

1. First of all, here one should refer to the attempts somehow or other to aggravate a history or real course of events. It is clear that sometimes they are made unintentionally, mistakenly.

However, such mistakes, as a rule, quickly become clear. For example, the mistaken treatise on the history of Crimea dominated the pages of newspapers of the peninsula in 80-90s of the previous century, when there were not yet in public official historiography true works on the occupation of Crimea by the Russian Empire, Crimean Khanate, and history of Crimea in the beginning and in the middle of XX century. Six Russian-Turkish wars (1735-1739, 1768-1774, 1787-1791, 1806-1812, 1828-1829, 1877-1878) represent in memory of inhabitants as completely triumphant liberation wars of "Russian weapon". However, at the same time, the truth was not told about the execution of national intellectuals in Ukraine, or repressions in the XVIII-XIX centuries and in the first half of XX century. In 80-90s the population of Crimea, including journalists, widely didn't know the truth about the Crimean Tatars and other peoples of the peninsula. The history of Crimea was understood exceptionally through the prism of the forged Russian-Bolshevik imperial conception on liberation of "Crimea" from "blood-thirsty" Turkish occupants by heroic Russian troops, and "returned" it into the bosom of mother-Russia and only through a peaceful way by virtue of the wisdom of Katherine II and consent of local inhabitants themselves, annexed it to Russia. As a material confirmation of this conception still up to now towered, in Simferopol not far from the Verkhovna Rada, an obelisk of "liberation" of Crimea from Turkic occupants by prince Dolgorukyi (it was written on it).

Actually, none of the ordinary local inhabitants were able to answer about questions, who are Crimean Tatars, where did they come here, and what has become of them. It is clear the journalists also became pressured by the Communist Party and waited for different terrors, when, for example, it was informed (even by radio), that in this night, it is possible, to begin a return of Crimean Tatars in villages of Crimea and their attacks on houses and local inhabitants. People closed the doors of their houses with fear, were scared to go out of doors, and didn't go on mass actions.

In order to spread the news quickly, the regional committee of the party (they say by initiative of Leonid Hrach, ex-leader of department on propaganda) announced a quarantine allegedly against an epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease. On all roads were pickets that checked all transport, with militiamen who pretended to be sanitary doctors, examined each bus and car - though they made a show of wanting to prevent an epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease, though they didn't make a secret of the fact that they were looking for Crimean Tatars. The news about Crimean Tatars was wide spread - all of Crimean Tatars have curved knives, all of them collaborated with fascists during the war, that they cut people, especially Slavic children. Such mass propaganda action, as is clear, resulted in the publication of false information.

However, latter, when the true history on Crimea was published, when Crimean Tatars settled in each village, when the truth on their deportation appeared, and when it became broadly known that this people arrived in Crimea not from other places, particularly, from Turkey, but was formed here in Crimea, and on the contrary, some other peoples came from other places, - and namely, in this period the myth of "Tatar collaboration" was destroyed. To write, as they wrote about Crimean Tatars in the 80s and generally during all the second half of the XX century, became non-professional, immoral, disreputable, and dishonest. No wonder, but we saw that some newspapers still up to now don't recognize the real facts of history, and continue to uphold imperial pseudo-historical theories. But now - this is a criminal case, because it leads to propaganda about national and religious animosity, which was prohibited in Ukraine by laws and can be prosecuted in the courts.

2. A general thesis of this writing that kindles discord is the concealment or substitution of the orgin of events, shifting the blame to other parties, concealment of actions of one of the parties. This took place in Crimea during the so-called "demolition of crosses" and for conflict around Svyato-Uspenskyi monastery and Zindzhirli-madrasah. Newspapers "Krimskoye vremya" and "Krimskaya pravda" announced that purportedly the reasons for the conflict were neither the promulgation of Crimea as the "cradle of Orthodoxy" nor the intention of the Orthodox Moscow patriarchy establishes Christianity in a Moslem land. They put up thousands of crosses, while invading those places, which are sacred to the Crimean Tatar people, as for example, Islamic cemetery near village Morskoye (Kapsikhor), that is nor far from Sudak. Thus the media could claim that the actions of Crimean Tatars, who tore down the crosses, were extremists.

It is understandable, if the Crimean authority of that time headed by Leonid Hrach and the leadership of DOC of Moscow patriarchy led by a member of higher orders of clergy Lazar were able to think that the forthcoming celebration of the millennium of the Christianization of Russia-Ukraine could be celebrated more loudly and widely, more nicely and tolerantly. Their aims could have been achieved more easily had they made use of the inter-confessional council "The peace - charisma", in which took part all confessions, including Moslems. One could attract to this holiday the Moslems and muftiyat. One should discuss jointly with them a procedure and program of celebration and include only those measures, which wouldn't contradict the general awareness of history, and not offend the religious feelings of believers. Unfortunately, it did not occur. In the best communist traditions of management of conflict the press was also attracted. The conflict was significantly intensified. As a result, the muftiyat announced its exit from the interconfessional council "The peace - charisma", as a result of which its work became generally unnoticeable, and properly speaking, stopped totally, - and this also intensified the distrust between certain part of the Christians and Moslems. Undoubtedly, the thousandth anniversary of the Christenization of Russia-Ukraine could not be celebrated suitably in Crimea because here in significant measure the rebirth of Islam had been halted. As a result, a prospect of mass mutual understanding of Christians and Moslems in Crimea was postponed to the future.

3. Negative publications typically hide their real agenda in conflict situations, as a rule, they support one of the parties. An example of this is the slant of publications of a part of the Crimean press during the "demolition of crosses". If then it had been publicly acknowledged by the press, radio and TV that the Christian church recognizes the presence of Moslem organizations in Crimean land and presence of Islamic sacred places as legal, and recognizes the equal right of Moslems on this land, and also their right to establish their symbols, then the conflict would not have occurred. By the way, one should indicate that a conflict around the Svyato-Uspenksyi monastery is not merely religious or philosophic. It is a question, first of all, of possession of profitable tourist sites and lands (where there are road, and car parking as well), which can be used for commercial purposes (and namely, and what these terrestrial "angels of land" would not share the Bakhchisaray palace-museum, or the resort with the Moslems). But commerce, as a belief in God, also likes equality and justice.

4. The efforts of Mass Media also don't promote establishment of tolerance. Their efforts are directed towards expansion of conflict in other areas of life and objects, for example, in the resort-tourist area. Thus, during the conflict around the Svyato-Uspenskyi monastery Internet-sites popularized information that "Russian tourist agencies call tourists to keep from trips to Bakhchisaray and Crimea as a rule."

It generated an illusion that around the Svyato-Uspenskyi monastery a significant social conflict was occurring, which caused mass disturbances, which threaten the life and peace of tourists. This is a surprise because such appeals threaten the income of the Svyato-Uspenskyi monastery itself, but the "holy fathers", obviously, hoped to repair them in the future, replacing direction signs. At the same time, the extremist publications also foment dormant inter-ethnic and inter-confessional conflicts, which historically appeared in Crimea, spreading them by education, and publishing as well. An example is an appeal, which was widely, spread by Crimean press "To Russian schools - Russian textbooks!" which promoted not conciliation, but an increase of conflict which actually injured pupils of Russian schools. This was in reality a detriment to their future professionalism and a hindrance to their competitive ability during entrance examinations to institutions of higher education and their search for future work.

Thus, the making similar errors (as well as intentional actions in this course) are not only a demonstration of non-professionalism of journalists, but also an illustration of the transformation of newspapers, where they work, from Mass Media into ideological weapons. The Mass Media become in the hands of politicians not a way for communication, but an instrument for expanding conflict, kindling of social, national and religious contention, and animosity. "To madness of power we sing songs", - wrote apropos of this Crimean political scientist Olexander Formanchuk. One should remember that such behavior of the press is a crime.

5. Another mistake, which leads to escalation of tension is the efforts of authors, firstly, to build up a single fact into a global issue, secondly, illegally to generalize events and to equate them with a "global" issue.

For example, a demolition of an Orthodox symbol by Crimean Tatars in Kapsikhor received a heading of "demolition of crosses". Latter - in a second phase! - the newspapers began to write about it  as a "demolition of Christian sacred places and monuments", and that engendered the impression, that these were not single actions, but were a general response to "Christian aggression" by the DOC Moscow patriarchy. This was portrayed as a part of a world-wide aggression, not as a demolition of self-made crosses, which were not sacred places, but as a systematic attack on monuments, causing the demolition of "Christian sacred places". Thus, using only linguistic-stylistic ways, the authors of such publications tried to influence the subconsciousness of their readers, to convince them of a priori "guilt" of Crimean Tatars, properly speaking, to attribute the crimes of communists to them. Communists in the first half of the XX century systematically destroyed Christian sacred places in Crimea (as, for example, the Cathedral dedicated to Olexander Nevskyi in Simferopol), and in second half - all of the Moslem monuments, including libraries, mosques and cemeteries. One should not forget that in such cases only concreteness will guarantee a true reflection of events and adequate perception of texts.

6. Finally, the newspapers "Krimskaya pravda", "Russin Crimea", "Krimskoye vremya" and a number of other newspapers employ certain terms with old meanings, though they have already lost them, enriched by new content by virtue of modern scientific works and newest approaches.

Often, they have lost their own previous negative tinge, their are taking on a positive meaning for instance is used relative to a local person in the same meaning as in Soviet Communist Party propaganda, - as synonym of word "chauvinist" - that is a person, who gives preference to his own nation to the detriment of other nations and for their account. A modern sociology gives to the word "nationalist" if not positive, then at least a neutral tinge, using it to mean a "person, who likes his own nation, not doing harm to other nations and their rights". It is ironic that some Crimean newspapers, whose authors are, obviously themselves big Russian nationalists, to such a degree that their nationalism transforms into chauvinism, nevertheless actually equate in others "nationalist" with "chauvinist", though even the well-known "Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism" had never been a chauvinism. In addition, in materials about the celebration in Crimea of the 60th anniversary of the Ukrainian Rebel Army, the newspaper "Krimskoye vremya" named nationalistic those organizations, which are not nationalistic even in  a neutral meaning of this word - they are rather merely national-cultural, or educational unions, or national-political parties. Certainly, especially, in very negative meaning these newspapers implant words "banderovets", "ounivets", and "soldier of URA" as well. "Banderovskyi actions - no!" - such headline was given by "Krimskaya pravda" from 12 October 2002 to information on the celebration of the 60th anniversary of URA in Crimea. "In Sunday, banderovts go into the streets in Simferopol" - scared newspaper "Krimskoye vremya" on October 11, 2002. This is a gross mistake showed a sociological and philosophic illiteracy of such authors. Thus, stressing by any ways, a colloquial-negative content of term "nationalism", putting stain on nationalism those things, which in reality are not. They disorient the reader and incite him, in this case, against Ukrainians and that is Ukrainian. The analogous way they use towards Crimean Tatar organizations, name, for example, the Mejlis as nationalistic and extremist, though it is neither one nor the other.

7. The authors of biased publications, as practice shows, almost always used old myths, stamps, cliches, which return readers to previously formed negative perceptions. To a number of such ways one should refer the famous expressions of communist propaganda: "persons of Caucasian nationality", "Banderovets", "Mazepinits", "national bourgeoisie", "capitalists", "bourgeois nationalists", "to anathematize" as well. However, actually, an archbishop Filaret can be proud, namely, that Russian Orthodox Church anathematized him, as it once did Lev Tolstoy and other great thinkers of mankind. May be, only in this way did it recognize, who is really who in history. In addition a new cliche was already created, that was called upon to kindle discord: "Wakhabits", "terrorists", "national conscientious citizens", and recently one met in one of the Crimean newspapers something new - "citizens of new-Russian nationality" as well. In this line there are such stylistic ways, as insertion in Russian text deliberately not translated and knowingly disfigured Ukrainian definitions - "nezaleznhist" (independence), "yazik" (language), "derzhava" (state) as well - to give them a trace of any underdevelopment, baseness and demonstration of own contemptuous attitude to them. In this list "one heard" and attempts to give to words "bad" content, which, in the opinion of the person who is using it, is an example of the underdevelopment of those whom he is writing about.

Thus, "Krimskaya pravda", and "Krimskoye vremya" often use an irrelevant expression "Mejlis-Kurultay" which is to show a scorn of "Dmitryi Kulikov" towards certain part of the Crimean Tatars. This is the equivalent of calling the Russian parliament a "presidium-duma", but nobody does that. Non-russians were not able to understand the depreciatory nature of the use of these terms and they have no culpability in this. For example, Crimean newspapers once distributed the anecdote: "Why in Russia do they have a duma, and in Ukraine the parliament is named "Rada". Why is it named Rada? Answer: because it is not a duma!

One should say that even though it is named in Russia "duma"; that doesn't mean that it always thinks before it acts. Generally, a national symbolism (national names of bodies of government - are also symbolism) are always respected by cultural and high-bred people. And this is not even a matter of laws about tolerance, but simply people’s tactfulness. Using of slighting sobriquets and labels in similar materials is not inadmissible in general. From it Russia only loses, it becomes only more "rough" and profanes itself. Such "spitting" on Ukrainians on the part of Russian, and the reverse which also takes place, does not led to establishment of mutual respect. Namely, the Mass Media should serve expansion of mutual respect in society.

For journalists, if they really aim at truth, it is very important to be precise, it means, they should learn to tell the difference between "terrorism" and "national-liberation movement", and what is "splinter", and other church or other confession. Mass Media which aim at tolerance in questions of inter-ethnic and inter-confessional relations, would refuse from using of old epithets, and at the same time, learn to describe current situations and events, taking into account modern ideas on history of their appearance. They should learn to find clear figures and comparisons, to aim to influence the intellect and consciousness of the reader, but not aim at his subconsciousness and emotions, to stimulate mainly positive reflexes in the area of inter-ethnic relations, because a negative here cannot be constructive. This is an important law: truth and constructive truth concerning events in this area carry only positive emotions and impression. At the same time, the negative expressions most likely are worthless and it is a better to keep silent about them, here namely in this case, silence - gold.

Most of the defects mentioned here as pertains to the Crimean press are not applicable to the all- Ukrainian press. Similar expressions and terms, for example, are not meet in the best Ukrainian newspapers, such as "Zerkalo nedeli", "Day", "Golos Ukraini", "2000" and "Uryadoviy visnik" and so on. The distinguishing feature of Ukrainian journalism is its friendly and professional attitude to inter-ethnic and inter-confessional milieu, recognition of it as one of the highest human values. Recognition of journalistic ethics as one of humanities prize values held in high esteem for its professionalism which can be tainted by low level publications that are offensive to a reader of different nationalities and therefore not one of us. A journalist prides himself in not speaking against someone but instead speaking for humanity, honesty, and truth.

Literature

1. Medvedev I. Russkaya Tavrida (Russian Tavrida). M., 1946.

2. Yakobson A. L. Krim v sredniye veka (Crimea in the Middle Ages). M., 1973.

3. Crimea. Guidebook. / Under ed. Doctor I.M. Sarkizov-Serazini. M.; L, 1925.

4. Serhiychuk V. Ukrainian Crimea. K., 2001.

5. Bekirov N. Krimskotatarskyi factor v kontekste etnopoliticheskih tendentsii Ukraini (Crimean Tatar factor in context of ethnopolitical tendencies of Ukraine)//"Golos Krima", # 39, 4 October 2002. P. 5-6.

6. Kaschenko S. G. Iz istorii krimskih bolgar // Krimskiye repatrianti: integratsia v ukrainskoye obschestvo (From history on Crimean Bulgarians//Crimean repatriates: Integration into Ukrainian society). 2001.

7. Bagrov N. V. "Krim: vremya nadezhd I trevog (Crimea: the time of hopes and alarms).

8. Formanchuk A. A. Mifi sovetskoy epohi (The myths of Soviet period). B. 1-2. Simferopol, 2001-2002.

9. Vozgrin V. E. Istoricheskiye sudbi krimskih tatar (The historical destinies of Crimean Tatars). M., 1992.

10. "Krimskaya pravda", (Crimean truth) 1995-2002.

11. "Krimskoye vremya", (Crimean time) 1999-2002.

12. "Krimskaya svitlitsya", 1999-2002.

13. "Golos Krima", 1999-2002.

14. "Krimskotatarske pitannya", 2001-2002.

15. "Krimskiye izvestiya", 1999-2002.

16. "Ruskyi Krim"(Russian Crimea), 2002.

17. "Ruskyi mir", (Russian world) 2002.

18. "Krimskaya gazeta", (Crimean newspaper) 1999-2002.

19. "Avdet", 1999-2002.

20. "Areket", 1999-2002