Abkhazia – the Kremlin's Caucasian springboard?

As we have mentioned in our previous articles discontent towards colonial politics of Russia, which the latter is pursuing shamelessly in one form or other, is growing in the Abkhazian population and especially in its sensible part. Future colonizers raised a question of transfer of the village of Aibga of the Gagra district to the Krasnodar Krai back during the rule of Ardzinba but they failed due to a stir that was raised in Abkhazia. And what is more important they could not break Ardzinba. After this it seems that they postponed it for "better days". Today the Kremlin believes that the time is suitable for persuading Abkhazians with the approaching Sochi Olympics and expectations coming from it. And it introduced an issue of delimitation of the so-called state border adding interest of Aibga and upper zone of the Gagra district at that.

Of course, the Kremlin definitely expected opposition from the Abkhazian society due to their growing and, to say mildly, critical attitude towards its politics. But the Kremlin did not expect at all that it would put its favourite puppet leader in an impasse and decided to temporarily make a concession. The issue of Aibga that was hanging like a Damocles' sword over the head of the Bagapsh regime was postponed again. To calm the stir in the population head of the delegation and member of the so-called Abkhazian parliament Valery Kvarchia gave an exclusive interview to reporter of the Respublika Abkhazii newspaper upon his arrival from Moscow. According to him, the Russian and Abkhazian delegations that gathered in Moscow to solve the issue of the border delimitation "came to a conclusion that it is necessary to get back to discussing this section of the border separately, at the next meeting". Head of the delegation Valery Kvarchia proudly announced that "both parties will be guided by legislative acts of the former Soviet Union, on the basis of which the borders were formed, backed up by data of maps - administrative, forest, topography, etc, which clearly places the line between Russia and Abkhazia, and it cannot be questioned". By the way, we should remind Mister Kvarhia that that legislative acts and maps of the former Soviet Union first of all, show the Abkhazians section of the Georgian-Russian border that passes on the River Psou and which after the collapse of the Soviet Union became the Russian-Georgian state border. And indeed inviolability of this very border is recorded on all international levels and first of all in those documents that were resented to the above committee.

It seems that Bagapsh will try his best to strengthen his quite shattered positions and to stop his ratings from further fall. Lately, against the backdrop of events that are unfolding in Sukhumi, among other spineless attempts of Bagapsh regime was organization of a round table "Abkhazia after the recognition: international aspect" where political scientist and secretary of the public chamber Natela Akaba gave a speech. "As expected, our Georgian opponents with an enviable promptness react to any perceived or real Abkhazian-Russian confrontation or conflicts of interests and just fall into the euphoria" – said Akaba.

We would like to say not just for Natela Akaba but others to hear that indeed we have been and will always be opponents of the Kremlin and its puppet regimes of all times since the first and foremost Abkhazia is our homeland and an integral part of Georgia and we will unfalteringly fight for its return to Georgia. Secondly, we do not fall into the euphoria but are sorry that in these very hard times for the Abkhazian ethnos when its identity is in danger, Georgians who for centuries have been the most close and most ardent sympathizers of Abkhazians are unable to fight side by side against the real enemy. Despite this and whether or not anyone likes it, we still make every effort as much as we can to disclose and bring to the population of Abkhazia intentions and goals of the Kremlin leaders and their puppet regime.

Here we will allow ourselves to offer a short analysis to Natela Akaba as to why this happened. First of all, this was because a significant part of the Abkhazian society that possessed power leverage was busy counting millions received from Russia "in exchange for independence"; And secondly, no less influential opposition part was busy criticizing the authorities and with their attempts to check expenditure of the received millions, and thirdly - the most numerous - ordinary people who are devoid of any power are only remembered by everyone and everywhere only during the elections and their opinion are not taken into account. But most importantly, all the above – small or big – as opposed to Natela Akaba have forgotten the unsolved conflict as majority of them are convinced that with the help of Russians everything is clear with Georgia and the Georgian population that had been expelled from Abkhazia and they are no longer in "danger" of their return. They do indeed live in euphoria and believe in Russia as a security guarantee so much that do not care a bit about three hundred thousand refugees and consider their demands for nothing. More, they nurtured hatred towards Georgians in today's Abkhazian youth and did not even think that even virtual love for Abkhazia can make similar young people only those expelled from Abkhazia take drastic steps in future. Let no one forget that if anybody preserves Caucasian traditions Georgians are among those and we, Georgians, no less than others, if not more, pay respect and pass love for our land and respect for memory of our fathers from generation to generation. Therefore it is better for both people to search for ways towards each other rather than to deepen confrontation and hatred. We see the resolution of the conflict only in this and it has no other alternative. And if by solving the conflict Natela Akaba means the same we can only welcome this. But we doubt that it is so. It seems that today they in Abkhazia struggle to grasp a simple truth that we ask for what is ours by law.

A clear example of this is an article by Anaid Gogorian published on March 22nd in the Sukhumi-based Chegemskaya Pravda newspaper which resents results of the survey conducted by one of the international organizations among the Georgian internally displaced persons. It is not the survey that surprises but an attitude of political scientist Irakli Khintba towards unresolved problems that arose more than 18 years ago and which needs solution. One would wonder but it seems that if not for the above-motioned survey one would get an impression that Mister Khintba has been on another planet or has been sitting in a deep hole all this time and he did not see what was going on around him. Why does he or do we (meaning population of Abkhazia as well) need survey of foreigners on this issue? If he really does not know then he should ask Abkhazian aksakals (elders) who, I am sure, will tell him that even if more than half of those three hundred thousand refugees think in a way that is beneficial for him or his kind (are integrated in the Georgian society, refuse to return to Georgia, have no property claims, etc), the remaining one hundred thousand refugees still would not solve the problem. But no one should try to convince us that refugees are a problem fro the Georgian state only. We reiterate and say that a Georgian will never accept loss of the land. No one intends to give up anything. Nobody should forget this.

After this small passage let's get back to statements made by Natela Akaba in the format of the round table. According to her, "false stereotypes are particularly strong among the liberal side of the Russian intelligentsia, judging us through the prism of the Georgian ideological myth that demonstrates the ongoing success of Georgia's information war against Russia and Abkhazia. There are those among the Russian expert and journalistic community who seriously believe that Abkhazia is a Russian-occupied territory. But then, how would they know the truth! We, who live in Abkhazia, have not even tried to explain to the world what we expect from Russia - patronage or partnership".

So that's what is going on here. With all due respect but considerations of this lady are still are trapped in conscience of an Abkhazian poisoned by incurable separatism – we have driven you out, burnt and destroyed your homes, put you through genocide, declared you a guilty people. What else is there to do to get us off our back? When you saw that you cannot enter here by force as we are protected by the Russian Army you started an information war. And though you and some members of the liberal Russian intelligentsia that follow your suit, declared Russians occupants (she forgets that a part of the Abkhazian society also calls Russians occupants) but it is not so. We will try to explain the world that we only expect partnership from Russia, not patronage.

Interesting to know what would they be doing if they were not busy counting and distribution of Russian-granted millions? Who was preventing them from explaining to the world what they expect of Russia? And if Natela Akaba really hopes that after they explain to the world what they expect of Russia everything will fall into place and what's important, Russia, as Akaba notes, "will teach them to use the net so they can catch a fish themselves" she is very much mistaken. Russia is not at all interested in economic revival of the occupied territories, especially of the separatist Abkhazia which too rarely have demonstrated nature of a "prodigal son". What one can say, they make a pair.

There is also another matter which was unambiguously voiced by M-me Akaba. She is offering Russia to use Abkhazia in the format of the strategic partnership as a springboard to retain its influence in the Greater Caucasus – " It is time Russia to decide in which form Abkhazia is more beneficial to have - a strategic partner and a grateful ally that could help it maintain its political influence in the Greater Caucasus, or object to implement Russian business interests in". Everything is clear here. Let North Caucasian peoples draw their own conclusions.