Aida Abdrakhmanova is an activist and representative of the Tatarstan independence movement. She advocates for the decolonisation of Russia, the protection of the rights of non-Russian nations, and international recognition of the imperial nature of Russian policy. The interview explores topics of international attention regarding the Russian Federation’s colonial policy, the role of the Crimean Platform, support for national movements, and prospects for cooperation.
The speaker was Valentyn Demenko.
Question: How do you assess the general level of international attention to the topic of the Russian Federation’s colonial policy and to national movements seeking liberation, in particular, Tatarstan?
Unfortunately, in most cases, Russia’s war against Ukraine is viewed solely as “Putin’s war” — and it is this narrative that is actively promoted by the so-called Russian liberals, whom the leaders of democratic countries embrace.
However, since the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, the activation of national movements abroad, and the support for the idea of decolonisation of Russia by deputies of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, politicians, and public and political figures, attention to the colonial structure of Russian aggression has undergone significant changes.
Increasingly, international politicians are using terms like “Russia’s imperial war” and “Russia seeks to restore the empire.” Bolder politicians and those with whom we interact directly are no longer shy about talking about the violation of the rights of non-Russian people in Russia, the destruction of nations, and the use of nations in imperial war.
This is certainly a positive result, but much work remains to be done to consolidate and disseminate this terminology and understanding among the international community.
Question: What changes in the approaches of foreign states have you noticed after participating in the IV Parliamentary Summit of the Crimean Platform?
We notice that parliamentary rhetoric has become more robust and coordinated, and the practical linkage to sanctions/accountability reflects a shift from declarative rhetoric to more concrete mandates in parliamentary circles. Nordic countries, particularly Sweden, are strengthening their role as public advocates for the Ukrainian agenda and the principle of the inviolability of Ukraine’s borders.
Another notable shift after each Crimean platform is that states and international institutions have ceased to perceive the issue of Crimea (and the occupied territories) exclusively as a problem of Ukraine — they are increasingly willing to consider it as part of the global problem of aggression, colonialism, violation of nations’ rights and international law. This expands the field for international support, sanctions, human rights protection, and coordination.
Question: What reactions and assessments of the Crimean Platform did you receive from foreign participants in the events in Stockholm — primarily representatives of Sweden, Nordic countries, and diplomats from other countries?
In general, as someone familiar with Swedish politicians, I can note that the very fact of holding the summit in Stockholm, under the patronage of the Swedish Parliament, can be perceived as a signal that the countries of Northern Europe are not just outside observers, but active participants in the international coalition around the topic of Crimea and its de-occupation. The Swedish Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard herself, in her speech at the opening of the summit, made it clear that Sweden considers the goal of the summit — “to put an end to the occupation of Crimea” — as an important part of European and global security. The President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, Pere Joan Pons Sampietro, in his speech at the summit, directly stated: “We stand with Ukraine — its sovereignty, its independence, its territorial integrity,” and emphasised that any future peace agreement must be based on international law, not force.
Question: Is there a willingness among them to increase support for non-Russian nations who are under imperial pressure?
Today, there is a growing willingness among international actors to view those affected by Russian occupation not simply as “victims of war,” but as target groups for rights protection, rehabilitation, documentation of crimes, and long-term support. This provides space for a broader discussion, and theoretically, for the “Ukrainian” issue to be joined by an agenda of protecting nations oppressed within imperial structures. Russia’s war against sovereign Ukraine is increasingly being called an “imperial war,” but the willingness to support movements for national self-determination, autonomy, or decolonization in the republics of the so-called Russian Federation is not yet evident: the public focus remains on the restoration of Ukraine’s borders, the rights of people in the occupied territories, universal human rights, and international law.
Question: What practical mechanisms do you think could be developed for cooperation between the Tatarstan independence movement and the states participating in the Crimean Platform in the near future? Have specific formats been discussed – educational, cultural, political, or security-related?
This particular platform did not envisage such a dialogue. The IV Parliamentary Summit of the Crimean Platform was fully focused on Ukraine and the issues of the de-occupation of Crimea, both in the political and humanitarian and human rights dimensions. Therefore, individual formats of cooperation with the Tatarstan independence movement, as well as the discussion of the threats associated with the continuation of the Russian occupation policy in our republics, were not officially put on the agenda.
Such issues require an individual, confidential format of communication, without excessive publicity, to avoid pressure and risks for participants.
Nevertheless, in the future, practical cooperation mechanisms may develop in some areas that logically fit into the mandate of the Crimean Platform member states, for example, in terms of monitoring and documenting human rights violations, in creating channels for transmitting evidence of repression, assimilation, and pressure on non-Russian nations within the so-called Russian Federation — with further processing by international human rights structures, participation of national movements in consultations, working groups, informal diplomatic contacts, with an emphasis on legal protection and international representation, discussion of sanction packages, including violations of the rights of non-Russian nations, human rights reports, and international lawsuits. Another important, fully realised idea could be the possibility of creating consultative or expert mechanisms under the national parliaments of the member states, within the broad framework of countering imperialism and repression, where we can be represented.
Any real solutions and possible progress will emerge gradually, as non-public contacts develop and individual states become more willing to expand their involvement.
Question: From the perspective of Tatarstan’s experience, what key factors can contribute to the consolidation of nations fighting against Russian occupation policies from the 17th–18th centuries to the present?
Let’s start with the fact that the Tatars have been fighting to restore their independence since the 16th century. We were one of the first non-Russian nations to be captured by Ivan the Terrible. The experience of Tatarstan and Ichkeria shows that it is extremely difficult for a separate republic or region to achieve independence: Moscow is not ready to give up territories, and the republics do not have enough forces to oppose centralised power.
Therefore, the key factor is the joint actions of all republics and regions, as well as the support of potential allies – countries to which Russian imperialism also poses a threat. There are many such countries. With joint efforts, we will be able to more effectively convey to the international community the real threat emanating from Russia, both within the country and for neighbouring states.
No less important is the clarification of reality for our compatriots who are still under the influence of Russian propaganda.
Question: What signals, in your opinion, are most important to convey to the government and analytical structures of Ukraine today regarding internal sentiments in Tatarstan and the potential of the anti-imperial movement?
I would like to convey that Tatarstan retains strong feelings of national identity, historical memory of independence, and awareness of Moscow’s repressive policies. This means that anti-imperial potential exists, even if it is not always expressed publicly.
The Kremlin demonstrates stability and support for the region, but the real sentiments of the population and youth often differ from official rhetoric.
At the same time, any contacts and programmes supporting anti-imperial movements must be cautious, without public announcement, so as not to put participants at risk.
Support from Ukraine’s allies and international organisations could increase the visibility of the threat of Russian imperialism and create space for an international response.
Question: Does the Tatarstan movement feel supported by other national organisations, such as representatives of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people?
Yes, to a certain extent, there is mutual support between the Tatarstan movement and other national organisations, including representatives of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people.
Today, many representatives of national movements, leaders of national liberation initiatives and representatives of regions are united by a common goal. Several nations and two regions are members of the League of Free Nations, and permanent discussion forums are held based on the Forum of Free Peoples of Post-Russia, which Vladimir Putin recently spoke about personally. In addition, there is an organisation called the Anti-Imperial Block of Nations, which has significant experience in working with nations enslaved by Moscow since the Second World War. Thus, we are in a position of “togetherness” and continue to keep our finger on the pulse of events.
Question: What joint initiatives do you consider to be priorities for strengthening ties between Tatars, Crimean Tatars and other nations who suffered from Russian enslavement?
One of the effective and easily implemented ideas could be information and media campaigns – dissemination of truthful information about the situation of the nations, the struggle for rights and threats from Russian imperialist structures, joint publications, documentaries, Internet resources and social campaigns. That is, countering propaganda and forming a single narrative about resistance to the Russian occupation. International interaction, participation in forums, conferences and parliamentary platforms, where you can present the nations’ positions nd attract the attention of the international community. During the development of digital technologies, you can coordinate efforts in creating digital archives and platforms that document the history of resistance and repression.
Question: In your opinion, what steps by international institutions could most effectively weaken the Russian imperial machine — economically, politically and informationally?
Of course, only the comprehensive use of economic, political, and informational tools by international institutions can significantly weaken the Russian imperial machine. A coordinated approach that combines economic pressure, diplomatic isolation, and informational influence, while simultaneously supporting the rights and initiatives of nations under pressure from Moscow, is especially effective.
As an example of support for the rights of enslaved nations, we can cite the participation of politicians and diplomats from different countries in Sweden at the presentation of the international human rights project of the Anti-Imperial Block of Nations “Putin’s Real Prisoners”, organised by us in Stockholm this spring. Also, this fall, the Forum of Free Peoples of Post-Russia was held, one of the co-organisers of which was also our Committee for the Independence of Tatarstan.
Thus, we conduct diplomatic and explanatory work in the countries where we are based every day, in order to eventually become organisers or co-organisers of significant panel discussions and ideological inspirers of the adoption of documents that will contribute to the weakening of the fake Russian federation and the promotion of the rights of nations to self-determination.
Question: What role can the Nordic countries play, given their increasingly tough stance towards Russia?
The countries of Northern Europe are today more clearly than ever feeling the manifestations of aggression from Russia and the issue has long been not limited to just harsh statements from Moscow. In recent months, air alerts have been declared in several Western countries, airports have been temporarily closed, flights have been delayed, and spy networks working for Russian special services and causing real harm to the security of democratic societies, have been regularly discovered.
In these conditions, the need to “prove” the true nature of Russian policy has practically disappeared: reality speaks for itself. History is repeating itself before our eyes — just eighty years after the end of World War II, war has come to Europe again.
The main question facing Northern Europe today is whether it is really ready to preserve for future generations, a constant threat in the form of an empire that, under any power, continues to strive for revenge, expansion, and suppression of neighbouring independent peoples?
It is no longer possible to “sit back” or wait for the danger to disappear on its own. Decisive, far-sighted steps are needed. As they say, “you can’t be afraid to look behind closed doors,” especially if behind them lies the source of a systemic, long-term threat to all of Europe.
