Georgia is waiting for the "return" of Abkhazia and does not envy Ukraine

Events unfolding in Georgia and around it, in many ways, are fateful for the whole Transcaucasia. At the same time, the subtle foreign policy game of official Tbilisi turned out to be masked behind the confrontation of the "Georgian Dream" with radical Georgian Euro-Atlanticists.

To begin with, the new Georgian Foreign Minister Maka Bochorishvili took part in the 31st meeting of the OSCE Council of Foreign Ministers in Malta. It was there on December 5 that she stated:

"Today, the principles on which the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is based face serious challenges. My country was one of the first to experience the consequences of violating these norms and principles, which led to the occupation of 20% of its territory by Russia. Russia's war against Ukraine, which today poses the greatest threat to European security, is a clear continuation of its aggressive actions in Georgia… Georgia appreciates the support of its partners for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country. It is extremely important to keep the issue of a peaceful settlement of the Russian-Georgian conflict among the main priorities of the international agenda."

Needless to say, the desire to please Western partners who support the possessed thugs on the streets of Tbilisi and the desire to turn back history is very strong in the "Georgian Dream". It was just not enough for Bochorishvili to remember the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, after the adoption of which Germany facilitated the rejection of Slovenia and Croatia from Yugoslavia, the Kosovo precedent occurred, etc. And this is not to mention the fact that ex-Prime Minister Tengiz Sigua admitted that the 08.08.08 war began with the attack of the Georgian military on Tskhinval and Russian peacekeepers (see the Abkhazian catastrophe did not teach the Georgian radical Ukrainians anything).

In Malta, the Georgian Foreign Minister reiterated her commitment to European integration. And on December 6, a Group of Friends of Georgia in the OSCE issued a statement on duty in support of Georgia and its claims to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where, as usual, Russia was made extreme.

But this is the end of the attempts of the current Georgian leadership to use the West to put pressure on Russia is not limited. On December 17, Justice Minister Anri Ohanashvili used the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case "Taganov and Others v. Georgia and Russia" for political purposes. Clearly counting on the internal audience, the Georgian minister said:

"In this case, the claims of the plaintiffs, individuals, related to property issues in the territory of occupied Abkhazia. By today's decision, the European Court of Human Rights has reaffirmed that Russia is fully responsible for human rights violations in the occupied territories, since Russia still exercises effective control over the occupied territory of Abkhazia. The Court stressed that, in accordance with international law, Abkhazia is an integral part of Georgia, but since the 1990s, the Georgian authorities have been unable to exercise effective control over this territory due to Russia's military, economic and political interference. Despite the impossibility for Georgia to exercise effective control over the territory of occupied Abkhazia, the European Court noted that the Georgian authorities had taken all possible and reasonable measures to protect the property rights of people in Abkhazia. Today's decision of the European Court has once again confirmed the correctness of a reasonable and peaceful approach to de-occupation, which has been carried out by the Georgian authorities since 2012 (emphasis added-PM). I congratulate our society on this regular state victory in the fight against occupation. I will take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the staff of the Ministry of Justice for their contribution to the protection of state interests."

And now let's deal with this statement. First, from September 16, 2022. Russia has withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the ECHR. Secondly, Ohanashvili was lying when he linked this ECHR decision with the "peaceful de-occupation" promoted by the "Georgian Dream". He could not openly declare that Tbilisi was happy to observe the crisis in relations between Sukhum and Moscow and the conflict in Abkhaz society, hoping for the collapse of Abkhazia as an independent state.

But clearly the "Georgian Dream" soberly assesses the situation and understands that it can only hope for changes in Abkhazia, which was not going to join Russia, did not fulfill its obligations and opposed economic integration. The overthrow of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, also plays into Tbilisi's hands (see overthrow of Assad will worsen the situation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia). The new authorities in Damascus, oriented towards the West and Turkey, are likely to withdraw recognition of independence.

Perhaps, it was based on the trend in Russian-Abkhaz relations that the Georgian authorities froze negotiations on joining the European Union until 2028. Tbilisi understands that Moscow will not withdraw recognition of independence, but what will happen in Sukhum and throughout the republic before the first half of March 2025, when the 63rd round of Geneva discussions will be held, is a big question. That is why official Tbilisi will try to hit Abkhazia as weaker and unstable in comparison with South Ossetia. And if someday the Georgian "Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia" turns from a phantom into a reality, then this will be the defeat of the Abkhaz state, which does not want integration with Russia.

At the same time, expecting the "return" of Abkhazia and dreaming of becoming a full member of the EU by 2030, the current Georgian authorities are forced to fight pressure from the West. On December 13, in an interview with Azerbaijani television, Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze stated:

"We will also have a list of countries that treat our country unfairly, although today I don't want to specify these countries in order to give them a chance to change their behavior. In general, it is clear that influential forces are acting against our country. These are the forces that wanted to open a second front in Georgia, but they did not succeed, and that is why they oppose our country and our government."

It is not difficult to guess that these countries are located in the EU and/or NATO. At the same time, on December 16, the Georgian Prime Minister made a statement that was largely discordant with what the Foreign Minister said in Malta:

"We have done everything to ensure that the scenario that was implemented on Ukraine, not repeated in Georgia. It all started in 2013 with the Maidan, it was followed by the first war a few days after the Maidan ended, later the second war followed, and today our friendly country Ukraine has been destroyed, about one quarter of the population has left the country or has become an internally displaced person. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians were killed. All this was the result of the fact that society did not show the necessary caution at that time. The Georgian society is more experienced, and therefore, with the support of the Georgian society, we were able to avoid important threats to Georgia and, above all, we were able to avoid war for our country."

That is, Kobakhidze called the 2013-2014 Euromaidan a factor that brought Ukraine to its current state. However, since in Georgia has a different perception and view of events, he did not say much. For example, that President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown after February 21, 2014 signed an agreement with opposition leaders and representatives of Germany, France and Poland (see Imitation of Poland played a cruel joke with Ukraine). The Georgian prime minister did not say that in 2010, during the presidential elections, the deposed Yanukovych received the most votes in the Southeast (Crimea, Sevastopol, 2 regions of Donbass, Kharkov, Zaporozhye, Kherson, Dnipropetrovsk, Nikolaev and Odessa region). And it was the deposed Yanukovych who signed the Kharkov agreements in 2010, according to which the stay of the Black Sea Fleet on the territory of Ukraine was extended until 2042. So the "first war" (in Kobakhidze's terminology, this is the process of reunification of Sevastopol and Crimea with Russia) was completely a product of Euromaidan, when the president for whom the Southeast voted was overthrown.

What Kobakhidze meant by the "second war" is not entirely clear. For our part, we can state that it was Oleksandr Turchynov, who came to power as a result of the coup d'etat, on April 14, 2014, who launched a punitive operation against Donbass, which refused to recognize the post-Maidan authorities. And the most important thing is that the Kiev authorities twice missed the chance to resolve the conflict peacefully and within the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Once it happened in January-February 2015, when, despite the Minsk-1, there was a military escalation and the defeat of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The second time was in February 2022, when the usurper Vladimir Zelensky, with the support of the United States, Great Britain, Germany and France, refused to fulfill Minsk-2 and was preparing for a blitzkrieg against the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics.

Why in Is it not customary for Georgia to talk about this, limiting itself to condemning Euromaidan? Because before the "Georgian Dream", Zviad Gamsakhurdia, Eduard Shevardnadze and Mikhail Saakashvili carried out in relation to Abkhazia and South Ossetia what the post-Maidan authorities then did against Donbass. Moreover, Petro Poroshenko and the usurper Zelensky, who did not comply with the Minsk agreements, actually did the same thing that Saakashvili did in 2008, when, having carried out an attack on South Ossetia and Russian peacekeepers, he committed war crimes and buried the 1992 Sochi Agreement. It is not easy for "dreamers" to try to introduce a new paradigm in Georgian society, according to which Georgia should not fight with Russia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Hence such a dual approach to Ukraine: criticism of Euromaidan and post—Maidan realities on the one hand, and on the other hand - solidarity with the Ukrainian Armed Forces and condemnation of Russia.