Gayana Yüksel (Crimean Tatar: Gayana Yüksel) is a Ukrainian Crimean Tatar journalist, a member of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people, Professor at the Department of Journalism at the Educational and Scientific Institute of Philology and Journalism of Tavria National University named after V. I. Vernadsky (Kyiv), Doctor of Sciences in Social Communications, Associate Professor, and Head of the International Women’s Union named after Şefiqa Gaspıralı in Turkey.
— Ms. Gayana, you are a journalist, scholar, and public figure who has defended a dissertation, received the Gratitude of the Prime Minister of Ukraine, and participated in numerous international events. How do all these roles influence your sense of inner balance, and what do you use as a resource for growth?
In reality, it may appear from the outside that my activities are divided into completely different areas—journalism, academia, public work. But for me, it is something holistic. All these spheres are organically intertwined, reinforce one another, and shape my path.
I am a journalist by education, and my professional journey began in communications. Over time, however, this activity went beyond the classical understanding of media—it transformed and deepened. My first academic work focused on the history of Crimean Tatar media in the 1920s–30s. It was not just an academic interest but rather an attempt to preserve, comprehend, and return part of our history to the public sphere. My doctoral dissertation addressed changes in Crimea’s information space after its occupation. So, I remained within communications, but at a deeper level, working with its impact on societal processes and identity.
In 2013, I became a member of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people—this was a conscious and responsible step. Not merely a civic stance, but a personal choice driven by a sense of duty to my people. At that time, 30% of the Kurultai delegates were women, and I am proud to have joined the Mejlis alongside three other women. This shows that the female voice in the Crimean Tatar movement is influential.
For me, it is completely natural to be simultaneously in academia, the public sphere, and the affairs of my people. This does not drain energy—on the contrary, it provides inner support. I have never felt a lack of balance because I am engaged in what I truly love.
I am interested, I care, and it matters to me. And this is my main resource. Love for my work, dedication to my people, and a sense of purpose—these are what give me the strength to grow, learn, and endure challenges. It is not always easy. But when you understand why you do it, where you come from, and for whom—you gain resilience, and even in the hardest moments, balance remains.
— You work extensively on the topic of the rights of the Crimean Tatar people. In your opinion, what role does a woman play in the processes of restoring and supporting the community?
First of all, I would like to clarify: we are not talking about a “Crimean Tatar community,” but about the Crimean Tatar people. This is fundamental. Crimean Tatars are an indigenous people of Ukraine and Crimea, with a deep history, a formed political culture, and a clear system of representative bodies such as the Kurultai and the Mejlis.
As for the role of women, I am convinced that Crimean Tatar women have always played an exceptionally important, leading, and sometimes innovative role in the life of our people.
This is not rhetoric—it is a historical fact. One only needs to look back to see how deeply and consistently women were involved in key processes. Janike-khanum, the daughter of Tokhtamysh Khan and wife of Edigu Khan, played an important role in the formation of the Crimean Khanate and held real political influence. Şefiqa Gaspıralı, a prominent public figure, educator, and publicist, was one of the first five female delegates of the Kurultai in 1917 and Deputy Speaker of Parliament. In the 20th century, especially during the deportation of 1944 and the return of the people to their homeland, women were active participants in the national movement. They not only supported—they organized work, maintained communication, preserved families, traditions, and memory.
I once even heard the opinion that Crimean Tatars have a form of hidden matriarchy. I don’t know how accurate that definition is, but the fact that our women are strong, active, and resilient is undeniable.
In the context of collective trauma, women and men respond differently. Men are often “on the surface” of events—on the front lines, in the spotlight. Women hold the rear—they preserve everyday life, families, and stability. Very often, the entire burden falls on their shoulders when men go to war, are imprisoned, or face repression.
Today, under the conditions of the full-scale invasion in 2022 and the occupation of Crimea since 2014, with nearly 200 Crimean Tatar political prisoners, women take responsibility for their families. They not only raise children but also fight for truth, justice, and human dignity. They maintain communication with society, international institutions, and media, defending the interests of their husbands, sons, and brothers.
That is why I do not just see women as support—I see in them the strength that sustains the backbone of the nation even in the darkest times. Their role is not secondary; it is fundamental.
— What helps you recover and find the strength to continue your active public and academic work after relocating to Turkey?
Thank you for this question. First, I would like to clarify: we did not “relocate” to Turkey in the classical sense. Our life has always existed at the intersection of Ukraine, Crimea, and Turkey.
After the occupation and the ban on entering Crimea imposed on my husband in 2014, we moved to Kyiv—not Turkey. Because Ukraine and Crimea are our home.
Even now, we do not consider ourselves as having “relocated.” We continue to work while maintaining a constant connection with Ukraine. I teach at Tavria National University, defended my doctoral dissertation in Kyiv, and my husband continues to run a business in Ukraine and pay taxes. We remain active citizens of Ukraine.
At the beginning of the full-scale invasion, we organized humanitarian aid—trucks with clothes, water, and medicines for Ukraine, assistance for the military and civilians. This was systematic work, and it continues.
So what gives strength? Probably faith and continuous action. When you keep moving and understand that you can be useful, strength appears. My “practice” is action—being connected to people, being in motion, knowing that your work matters. And also—faith in Ukraine, in our people, and in our victory.
— Tell us about your latest monograph. What are its key conclusions?
This work was created between 2020 and 2024 and defended as my doctoral dissertation. But I see it not only as a scientific study, but as a historical testimony.
It documents the transformation of Crimea’s media space after the occupation in 2014. The information sphere was one of the first to be seized and reshaped. Through media, Russia launched a massive propaganda campaign.
One of my goals was to dispel the myth that Crimean journalists “accepted” the occupation. I provide numerous examples of professional resistance.
The monograph consists of four parts: pre-2014 media context; events of 2014 and media suppression; ten years of transformation with mythologization and militarization; and Ukraine’s reintegration information policy.
— What keeps you from losing optimism over the years?
For us, there has never been a question of losing optimism. The Crimean Tatar people as a whole demonstrate resilience.
Our history is full of trials—migration, repression, deportation, return, and occupation again. Yet we have always preserved identity and dignity.
Our work is part of this process. We created the QHA agency in 2005, later launched “Hayat” radio, and implemented many initiatives. We continue this work today.
Our motivation comes from understanding that if we do not continue, no one will. This work must go on—for our people, for Ukraine, for Crimea, for the future.
— How do you see Crimea after the war? Are territorial concessions possible?
I see Crimea as a Crimean Tatar national-territorial autonomy within a free and independent Ukraine.
The de-occupation process will be complex, whether military or diplomatic. After liberation, we may face a destroyed peninsula and the need to rebuild everything.
The key challenge will be communication—between the state and society, and within society itself. We must not repeat past mistakes.
We will build a new Crimea—democratic, just, open to development, where human rights are protected and indigenous peoples have their rightful place.
I believe in de-occupation. History has many examples. The main thing is not to lose hope and to continue working for victory. Then we will have a free Ukraine and a free Crimea within Ukraine.
Read also: ТОП-7 українських чоловіків-дипломатів за кордоном, відкритих до співпраці з медіа
Photo: Gayana Yuksel