Who shot down the drone?
April 25th, 2008 by jibs
This week yet another incident in the Abkhaz conflict zone made the headlines. The official Tbilisi claims its drone was shot down by the Russian MiG 29 — the accusation Moscow rejects. The Abkhaz, on the other hand, claim their air force downed the Georgian spy plane. 
Interestingly, the Abkhaz side was first to go public showing the debris from the Georgian plane. Initially Tbilisi denied having lost its unmanned aircraft, pointing out that the Abkhaz don’t have such a military capability.
Roughly 24 hours later, on April 21 the Georgian side confirmed losing the aircraft and pinned responsibility at the usual suspect Russia.
Subsequently, Tbilisi pushed for UN Security Council meeting to prove its case. As a result of the meeting all sides except Russia expressed “concern”, “called for stability”, “reiterated support for Georgia’s territorial integrity” etc. but did not adopt a stance with regard to the airplane incident. Strangely, members of the Security Council reacted to a different issue — Moscow’s decision to legalize ties with Georgia’s breakaway republics.
Only the USA in a separate communiqué said it was “deeply concerned by the shooting down of an unarmed Georgian UAV, by a presumably Russian MiG-29”.
The highlight of the Security Council session was that Russia stood alone claiming its benign neighborly intentions towards Georgia, while other members raised concern to Moscow’s latest initiatives to establish closer ties with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. On the other hand, the aircraft incident was left out.
Prior to the meeting, Tbilisi claimed it had video footage and radar information that clearly proved Russia’s involvement in the incident.
Although Tbilisi expressed delight for “unprecedented” Security Council meeting and thanked all sides for support, questions remain to be answered.
1. If Tbilisi’s evidence was unquestionable, then why was the issue left unanswered?
2. Last month, NATO began sharing the radar data with Georgia within the framework of Cooperative Airspace Initiative. The idea was “to establish connections between their [Georgia’s] radar pictures of their airspace and ours [NATO’s].” If this sharing of radar data can’t confirm who shot down the drone, then what is its purpose?
3. On March 18, the Abkhaz side went public with almost identical information on downing the Georgian spy plane, which Tbilisi flatly denied. Abkhaz side released information on the type of the drone it claimed to have shot down in March which closely matches the latest drone type. Assuming that last month drone was indeed shot down, why was Tbilisi silent? Moreover, if the Abkhaz side does not have such a capability, then who and how shot down the first drone?
4. To be fair, the Abkhaz side has repeatedly claimed that Georgia was consistently sending its aircrafts into the conflict zone, allegations that Tbilisi consistently denied. If true, this would violate the 1994 Moscow agreement on the military presence in the conflict zone.
The truth could be found out rather simply: if Abkhaz say they shot down the drone with a different aircraft than MiG 29 (they don’t seem to have such planes), then a simple expertise could tackle the issue — can that type of airplane shoot down drones? If yes, then why is it out of question that indeed the Abkhaz are the “culprits”, as they openly agree?
Or do the Abkhaz have a MiG 29? Tbilisi is worried about Abkhazia’s growing weapon supplies. Probably the issue could have been better articulated in terms of Russia supplying the Abkhaz with military equipment, rather then getting involved itself — given that evidence was not enough to convince Georgia’s “friends”.
Unfortunately, the issue is likely to remain as an “allegation” or “presumable fact”, as many incidents in the conflict zone have in the past. Investigative groups are usually formed, then forgotten, and if they do find out something, the wording of the results is open to interpretation in 99% of times.
In this way, the incidents in the conflict zones usually serve the purpose of diplomatic sabre-rattling. If tomorrow another similar incident takes place, the story will develop in the same way – loud words, accusations, investigations, and ….bleeeep…. — wait for another scandal in a week or so.
Given that Russia is definitely not a neutral side in the conflict — its open support to the breakaway regions is unquestionable — and if at least someone cares about what is happening in Abkhaz conflict zone, then such incidents must be INVESTIGATED, CONFIRMED and PROPERLY ADDRESSED. How is it that in the 21st century, it is impossible to identify who is shooting down the planes?!
If Russia is found guilty, then hit it hard. If Georgians are fabricating something, hit them hard. Anything but leaving the issue on the shelf.
This simply creates incentive to continue violations along the same lines. And one day it won’t end with a diplomatic row, but something far more serious.
jibs Says
Another important point — that Russia shrugs off calls to share its radar data is a good reason to believe that they have something to hide.
Apr 26th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Eistein G. (Writer'n) Says
For NATO to side with Georgia, means an open conflict which NATO doesn’t want. Neither do the US. At the moment they are increasing their activity in the north, with the French Airforce surpricingly offering to patrole Island and and the northern territories together with the Danes, the Americans, the Norwegians and soon to be the Canadians. this is due to a lot of near-violations of airspace from Russian fighters and tactical bombers. The past year Norwegian F16’s have identified and cut off approx. 100 Russian fighters/tactical bombers meters from Norwegian airspace. You need to observe the Russian activity in a broader scale and include the Baltic states and the northern territories of Norway/Russia.
I don’t think NATO has any doubt about the Russian agression in Caucasus. They just believe in dialoge, because the member countries (including EU) is dependent of Russian gas/oil (Germany import 30% of it’s gas from Russia). Besides they are tied up in other operations. A conflict with Russia would be, put mildly, demanding and costly.
The reason for not debating the drone incident is also because it might lead to a debate diverting from the main issue: Troop displacement into Abkhazia, and further..a more practical issue: The incident is so recent that it cannot be properly investigated to prepare the ground for a debate before the meeting was held.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
jibs Says
there is also another dimension, which you don’t address — the parliamentary elections in Georgia. The grounds for a bust up with Russia are always there, yet, before every election there a major international conflict brewing with Russia. Is that a coincidence?
I was not aware that Russian jets have been intersected well into the European zone, and if that is so, there hasn’t been a major international conflict over that, has there now? The point I am making is that the Georgian authorities benefit from the conflicts with Russia/breakaway regions to boost their election chances (at least that’s one dimension of it). Notice how the pro-Government TVs have been consistently critisized for spreading disinformation (burning of the Georgian houses in ABkhazia during the January elections, or claiming that NATO is against Russian peacekeepers’ presence in the conflict zones).
What i am baffled by is that if it is 100% that Russia shot down the drone — it would be addressed properly. But that “supposedly” is used to address the “fact” is simply not good enough, therefore it lacks the 100% certainty. Interestingly, Georgia’s president Saakashvili also claimed that he had an undeniable facts that Russia was behind the November 2007 demonstrations — something that he completely failed even to push western press to speculate on. So when the Georgian authorities cry wolf when there is none, don’t you think next time their credibility plummets? Also, the Abkhaz side is almost daily reporting on shooting down the drones and showing similar evidence — should we expect that Russia once again was behind this, or should we think there were no shot down drones at all? Why couldn’t it be simply Abkhaz side behind all this?
May 5th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Eistein G. (Writer'n) Says
Jibs: I commented that (the parlamantary situation)on my blog as an answer to your post the other day.
www.writern.blogspot.com
I will now post it here:
Hi, Jibs. First: The Russian strategy is to destabilize and dicipline bordering countries. At least in the south ( Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova). The best time to do this is during an election,especially there already is a pressure against Saakashvili. Like in the Yutchenko incident in Ukrain. Another reason is that an “invation” ( annexation) follows the natural events leading up from the recognition of Kosovo, the question about missile defence in eastern europe, Georgias application for MAP, and finally establishing a base for the Sochi Wintergames. Of course it is also a pure economic matter of gaining territory. “To protect our investments” an official russian source also said.
All together it is the perfect timing for Russia, and the west is devided. Oil gas, business ( France and Germany mainly)
The Georgian oppsosition claims that Saakashvili uses the tension in Abkhazia to win the nation. In fact it is the oppsosition that actively try to use the tension to its advantage. That works FOR the Russians, and if they succeed Georgia might get a president more Russian friendly, or like it seems, more occupied with gathering a fragmented group of people without any clear politics. Divide and rule is a good strategy for the Russians.
As for how organized the Russians are, I am not sure. In Norway they practiced attacks on our oilinstallations just 500 meters away with SU fighters and carriers. All Norwegian civil airtransport had to stop during this incident, which “was a mistake”. We have also been subjected to embargo on fish, and in december Russia demanded that Norway officially devclared Russia as not a threat. To me they seem like a capo regime. Threatening, bullying and with occational hits.
To the incident with the drone: It doesn’t matter, because it is only a minor incident. I have seen the footage, and it seems legit. What matters is that the Russians launches new troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Thats the real threat and sign off serious business. The Sweedish forriegn minister Carl Bildt is running the case in big letters on his blog by the way.
I hope that clarified my stands.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
jibs Says
About using Abkhazia to win the nation:
During the January presidential election, Rustavi2 has been reporting on the tensions in the conflict zone, alleging that the Abkhaz separatists are burning down the Georgian houses. According to UNOMIG, most of those reports were fabricated. So, why would an openly pro-Saakashvili TV report on the tensions that are not there?
Let’s take a look a look at the neighborhood how the conflicts are used there. After the election demonstrations in Armenia and the crisis that followed, the tensions suddenly shot up in the Nagorno Karabakh conflict zone. The Armenian side claimed it was Azerbaijan trying to take advantage of Armenia’s internal problems, while Azeris claimed it was the Armenian authorities that try to shift attention from internal crisis.
In other words, the argument you present — that Russia is using Georgia’s weak spot (elections) — can also be viewed in other way, such that Saakashvili uses these tensions for personal gain. A comical example: after the demonstration was dispersed in Tbilisi last November, fliers with “Saakashvili is not afraid of Russia” were spread around the city. That was to be the official story: Russia tries to undermine the pro-Western Saakashvili through a Russian oligarch (now deceased Patarkatsishvili) and through financing demonstrations. Does anyone seriously believe this had anything to do with reality?
The opposition is another subject, but I would say tensions in the conflict zones don’t help them at all. Saakashvili in fact uses this opportunity to tell the opposition, “come and let’s think together what we can do to stop the enemy”. This makes him look like a constructive democrat. If they reject the opportunity, the oppositions’ patriotic credentials come into question. Naturally they reject Saakashvili’s appeal, as it seems he only needs the opposition when it is beneficial to him. It’s sad that when it comes to sharing governance, Saakashvili goes an extra mile to make sure his opponents are marginalized.
The opposition has its own shortcomings — and at times way too many — normally many of them would simply evaporate from the politics, only Saakashvili managed to unite them all. Even with such “weak opposition” (argument used by the National Movement at every turn), Saakashvili had to close eyes to considerable “irregularities” to win the presidential elections in January. This just tells how much his popularity (or principles) has plummeted since the Rose Revolution.
So when on one hand the opposition is consistently pushed to its limits, and on the other the nationalist rhetoric is blasted by Misha, I think one could safely say he is in it for the elections points. That is of course one dimension of the situation.
Russia is naturally an aggressive neighbor and its not easy to live with them, especially on the background of supporting breakaway Abkhazia and South Ossetia. But somehow they do find their way into controlling Georgian strategic business or economic objects. Also, in my opinion, Saakashvili has entered in too many non-profitable spats with them, and therefore every time he speaks of Russians now, he is simply less credible. Like you said, Russians flew close to Norway, etc. If that were Georgia, Saakashvili would accuse Russia of Genocide, fly to UN headquarters and demand resignation of UN representative to Caucasus for not following up on his reactions. This is a bit exaggerated, but not too far off.
In other words, he has overplayed his “Russian card hand” so many times, that it’s simply not as effective. Even from the drone instance,– in addition to shooting down the drone the MIG29 actually bombed a Georgian village (from Saakashvili’s direct quote). So, was the village bombed too/???? Probably not, overplayed once again.
My opinion is that concentration on domestic issues and strengthening institutions would be a better strategy. Better open Imedi, stop election violations, share governance with people with different opinions, have transparent decision-making process and things will fall into their places — at least this was the plan right after the rose revolution… Maybe this way, the Abkhaz would be unhappy that the Russian troops are moving in. But, when they genuinely are afraid of another war with Georgia, Russian troops are more than welcome.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Eistein G. (Writer'n) Says
Some problems yesterday with the blog..
The Russian influence in Georgia..and in Europe too..is due to their natural resources and as a large market. It has always been the number one trading partner for Georgia. Businessmen in Tbilisi which I have been discussing the matter wit, is pro-Russian when it comes to trading, but struggles with the obvious downside of this trade. And Putin is also playing that card: “Normalizing trade relations with Georgia” on the one hand, and annexing Abkhazia/S-Ossetia on the other. Split and divide once more.
When it comes to Misha and Georgian politics, I find it difficult to follow it close enough to have something meaningful to say about it.I can’t follow Georgian media because of language.. I think you are right when you say that Saakashvili is shouting a lot, but the opposition clearly needs some PR advisor, because calling for demonstrations against the Government facing the threat from the Russians is nearsighted. That way they look irresponsible, even pro-Russian and without any serious politics. So in fact they let Saakashvili score points easily on that one. Regarding the media: If a TV station had broadcasted the same message (as I have been told by social scientists in Tbilisi) it would have been shut down too. But I see the problem with Rustavi as the prime channel.
The Abkhazians…difficult. When I speak with refugees they say that there was never a problem living together with the Abkhaz (in fact 87% of the Georgians say they have no problems being friends with an Abkhaz), but this is also a matter I have to look at from some distance, not knowing the internal structure of Abkhazia and the different political “tribes”. My stand is as follows: Abkhazia is Georgian territory which Georgia rightfully should defend. There is no precedent regarding Kosovo, because in Abkhazia the majority population have been driven out through ethnic cleansing supported by Russia.
But to me it looks like the Abkhaz really don’t know what they are doing. To get into bed with Russia won’t bring them bread on the table. They can forget about tourism right now.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:47 am
jibs Says
About Abkhazia’s Russia choice:
I think the Abkhaz know exactly what they are doing with regard to Russia. For them, Russia is the only way out of Georgia. Although the Abkhaz have historical grievances towards the Russians — the ethnic cleansing in the 19th century — and many of them are aware of Russia’s growing grip, they see it as choosing the lesser evil.
The way things look from Abkhazia, based on media reports and overall arguments the Abkhaz present, the Georgian side has done much to rebuild its army and promise them that one day they will be back under Tbilisi’s control. Given that 4% of the Abkhaz population died during the war, a promise to reintegrate Abkhazia back into Georgia one way or another, is not as attractive as Russia’s investments, military support and hundereds of thousands of tourists a season.
In fact, the Abkhaz have always been uneasy towards Georgians (historical reasons), and have been conciouss of growing Georgian influence on “their land”. In 1989, their proportion was 17% of the total population of Abkhazia. While you can interpret this as you wish, for the Abkhaz that was one of the axioms that self-determination was neccessary to retain their identity. Then comes the war, for which they pin responsibility on Georgia (notice Russians were their best friends for supporting and sheltering their ambitions to shake off the Georgian control). So its quite clear to me why they would choose Russia — besides, i think their tourist season will be just fine, as long as military activity doesn’t raise.
On the other hand, there is a potential for Georgian_abkhaz reconciliation, and it needs time and efforts. Saakashvili’s government has unfortunately done nothing for the reconciliation itself, but has done a lot to Abkhaz turning away even from the dilaogue. Diffrent vision I suppose…
May 6th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Eistein G. (Writer'n) Says
You know we had the more or less same conflict in Norway with the sami people in the northern part of Norway. The conflict was settled with rather harsh means early in the last century, but they now have their own parliament and certain priveledges inside Norway.
I saw that Kosovo also was to put their effort into tourism. The problem is that the small entities have few resources and no valueproduction that can finance healthcare, roads, infrastructure and beuraucracy etc. Tourism is only good for a short period during the year,and will not generate enough money. And I guess most Russians would prefer Sotchi in the winter for obvious reasons after 2014. To me Russia is not known as a country that spends much money on welfare either.
Besides ..for me..separatism in totally unacceptable. To hire in Chechen terrorists like Basajev and invite the Russians to fight their war is difficult to accept as legitimate also for most Georgians I guess. So do you think it is right that 17% of the population should have the right to destroy the lives for the rest because they feel “special”?
May 6th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
sephia karta Says
Eistein G. (Writer’n), things are not as simple as you state them.
But to me it looks like the Abkhaz really don’t know what they are doing. To get into bed with Russia won’t bring them bread on the table. They can forget about tourism right now.
As jibs pointed out, tourism is actually doing very well again. It is true that reintegration into Georgia could further improve Abkhazia’s economy, but who is to say the Abkhaz, who now control the economy, would profit from that? They might get marginalised.
Besides ..for me..separatism in totally unacceptable.
Is it? Do you disapprove then that some hundred years ago, Norway separated from Sweden? If you look back far enough, almost every country came into existence through an act of separatism. I think that in some cases separatism is justified while in others it isn’t, it just depends on the situation, separatism isn’t evil by itself. To me it is not at all clear why the Abkhaz separatism from Georgia should be less justified than the separatism of Georgia from the Soviet Union.
To hire in Chechen terrorists like Basajev and invite the Russians to fight their war is difficult to accept as legitimate also for most Georgians I guess.
The Abkhaz hardly ‘hired in’ “Chechen terrorists like Basajev”, firstly I don’t think they had the money to do much hiring apart from Russian specialists which were needed to operate machinery, secondly Basajev didn’t exactly have the reputation back then he has now.
There is no precedent regarding Kosovo, because in Abkhazia the majority population have been driven out through ethnic cleansing supported by Russia.
Not a majority, but my actual point is that the exact numbers shouldn’t matter. Ethnic cleansing is deplorable regardless of the exact numbers and the victims should be offered the chance to return. That said, in Kosovo Serbs were ethnically cleansed as well and most of these still haven’t been able to return. This used to be a condition for Kosovar independence, what happened to it? So how exactly do Kosovo and Abkhazia differ on this point?
May 7th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Eistein G. (Writer'n) Says
Actually Norway became independent from Sweden in 1905, and I think you will find that things have changed fundamentally in the world since then.
We have moved on: A modern democracy is based on the principle of majority rules the minority. Then..what you say is that if the minority feels “special”, it should invite a forreign state to help them kill or get rid of the majority? Then invite other “special” groups from Turkey to live in the ethinc clensed majoritys houses? What do you tell the refugees that were forced from their homes by this separatists? I really think you have to explain this to me, Sephia.
The ethnic Abkhaz has been living together with a majority mix of Georgian, Armeninas and jews. Now a population of 120 000 have managed to drive 500 000 others away. Do you find this acceptable? Do you also find it acceptable that the Abkhaz leaders beg Russia to occupy Georgian territory?
Regarding tourism…Who, even Russians, would go to a warzone on vacation. What should they be living off in the winter? I think most countries including Georgia have FAR to high expectations about what tourism will bring in terms of money. You need infrastructure, highly educated hosts, an attitude that must be learned through practice, and tolerance.
But please continue your arguments. But I would like you to clearafy your position regaring Abkhazia and Georgia.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:47 am
sephia karta Says
“Actually Norway became independent from Sweden in 1905, and I think you will find that things have changed fundamentally in the world since then.”
Well, that is true, but if this is your arguments then I think we agree: Separatism isn’t inherently evil, it is the particular circumstances that determine how justified it is in a specific situation.
“We have moved on: A modern democracy is based on the principle of majority rules the minority. Then..what you say is that if the minority feels “special”, ”
Again: not a majority. Georgians formed some 46% of Abkhazia’s pre-war population. If you are so keen on majority over minority rule, then also consider that a majority of Abkhazia’s citizens (that is more or less everyone except the Georgians) voted to remain part of the Soviet Union, and only a minority (the Georgians, in a separate plebiscite) supported Georgian independence. But then again the margins were extremely small and this is one of the big problems of the conflict, that basically, Abkhazian society is divided into two halves that want fundamentally different things for Abkhazia.
“it should invite a forreign state to help them kill or get rid of the majority?”
That is not what happened. The foreign volunteers came with the purpose to help the Abkhaz defend themselves against what they saw as a Georgian invasion.
“Then invite other “special” groups from Turkey to live in the ethinc clensed majoritys houses? What do you tell the refugees that were forced from their homes by this separatists? I really think you have to explain this to me, Sephia.”
I think if you read my previous post you will find that I did explain this to you. The refugees must be given the opportunity to return to their houses.
“The ethnic Abkhaz has been living together with a majority mix of Georgian, Armeninas and jews. Now a population of 120 000 have managed to drive 500 000 others away. Do you find this acceptable?”
Please, Abkhazia’s pre-war population was around 550.000 and Georgians constituted some 46% of that. Not all fled Abkhazia and some have since returned, which leaves us with 200.000 - 250.000 refugees. Do I find this acceptable? No, of course not. Nor do I find acceptable the ethnical cleansing carried out by Georgian side, which is far less often mentioned because the results are less visible.
“Do you also find it acceptable that the Abkhaz leaders beg Russia to occupy Georgian territory?”
If by this you mean the Abkhaz offer to have Russia take care of its security, then yes, I find it acceptable, if unwise.
“Regarding tourism…Who, even Russians, would go to a warzone on vacation. What should they be living off in the winter? I think most countries including Georgia have FAR to high expectations about what tourism will bring in terms of money. You need infrastructure, highly educated hosts, an attitude that must be learned through practice, and tolerance.”
Yes but we are not talking about future prospects, Russian tourists *are* coming to Abkhazia again in great numbers. I agree with you however that tourism alone is not a sustainable basis for a country’s economy.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Eistein G Says
Hello, jibs & sephia.
In stead of me spending time repeating my self I want to share an article which pretty much states my position also in this conflict. It is posted in Carl Bilt, the Swedish forreign ministers blog, and represents his view on the matter. The article is written by Alex Rondos, and was published in the Herald Tribune yesterday.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/08/opinion/edrondos.php
May 9th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
jibs Says
Hello writern,
I don’t think Europe is facing a Sudeten land crisis today. That would make Russia a Nazi Germany and europe a folley of appeasement policy - which is totally off the mark pretty much by any standard I can think off.
Second, there will be no war on the Abkhaz territory unless someone losses his mind. Moreover, why would Russia want to occupy Georgia - they would not be able to sustain such a plan, they already have chechnya that drained their resources and international image and what would that bring to them?
I think the Western help would be more welcome in terms helping Georgia establish democratic values. Diplomatic help against Russia should of course be there, but, spats with Russia should not lose the focus of what is happening in the country itself. Look at the judicial system, look at the media, look at the latest elections in January — I don’t think problems here take place because of Russia.
Overall, once the elections will be over in Georgia and the clash with the opposition is abated (opposition will challenge the results unless they win a majority), the tensions in the conflict zone will drop.
From a bird eye view, not much has changed in the conflict zones over the last one month that talks about “war” are heard. Well, there is of course elections, and the louder and bolder will get the points.
But that Russia moved to legalize ties, is in fact yesterday’s news — of course Russia always supported Abkhazia! Of course Russia has been economically and militarily helping them — and that has been taking place for almost 20 years!!! So what’s with the alarm and we should go to war, as Russia is openly anexing Abkhazia?
Russia will never recognize Abkhazia or South Ossetia, as it’s not in its interest. The latest moves are an answer to Kosovo’s recognition by the West — just to show that Russia also is cable of taking actions. But think who would support Russia’s declaration of Abkhazia’s independence?
I am more interested in why the Russians provocatively moved to “legalize” already de facto relation with Abkhazia 1 month before the elections in Georgia? If they hate Saakashvili’s western surges, they could wait for a month and not pitch him a major scandal he could use to mobilize popular support. Notice, once numerous irregularities will be noted in the elections, the argument will be that — “we are close to a war with Russia, so how can you make us look weak in such a crucial moment?” “You are scoundrels and betrayers” will be told to anyone who voices concern to election violations.
May 11th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Eistein G. Says
I think Russia primarily is concerned about NATO expansion, second the need to make a statement over Kosovo, and third destabilizing Georgia. Note which argument you use your self. Thats a good responce to the Russian tactics
“It’s only Saakashvili crying wolf once more”. The facts are that the Russians have followed up their rhetoric with displacement of more troops in Abkhazia. That’s the difference from earlier situation. Also the formalization of ties. But figure this one out: They also want to restore situation with Georgia to “normal”. I can think of only ONE thing behind that one: Georgia vetoes the entrance to the WTO at the moment. So tactics..well I think maybe the Russians are more street smart than educated in their approach to all political matters, and therefore should be dealt with according to that. There is clearly a need for the west to draw some lines for this enfant terrible, also considering the negotiations over a common ground for EU and Russia in formalization of trade relations, an a new legal base etc…something Lithuania currently vetoes.
Still, I don’t understand the opposition in Georgia. Why not play a safe card, state their support to the sitting government over the Russian agression, and gain some extra support? Then afterwards the debate over the democratic issues might begin. Afterall, the possibility of loosing parts of Georgia should be priority number one. Internal fighting will only benefit Russia at the moment. In that I don’t say that it is a perfect democracy in Georgia, only that timing is important in every battle. Now think what would happen with the opposition if there WILL be a major conflict, and they have been busy destabilising the current regime? Then it is definitely goodbye opposition, and welcome Misha. And yes, I have spoken with people that worked in the polling offices during the presidental election who confirms some degree of sabotage in favour of the sitting president.
May 11th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
jibs Says
Writern:
Russia will not recognize Abkhazia - it can’t and won’t do it. Georgia will not be occupied by Russia, because it can’t and won’t do it. Concerning the article that you cite, — that Russia a Nazi Germany that needs to be stoppped or Europe will be overan again, I think it’s just a fantasy.
Russia does act aggressively to Georgia, and it has always acted this way. It is of course a matter of concern that additional troops are being moved in and that relations with separatists are being lagalized, but you are missing a very important point: these things have been taking place for 20 years, and I don’t see what the Georgian authorities plan with regard to military option. This can’t happen and won’t happen. I see elections here as a key to understanding what is going on.
Just an off hand remark: relations with Russia were supposed to improve after Saakashvili visited Moscow a couple months back. So many promises I heard after his visit, I was stunned that things can improve so fast. Well, it turns out that not everything is exactly how Misha would want everyone to see.
About crying wolf: when November 7 demonstration was forcebly broken up, do you know who was blamed for this? It was assereted that Russia stood behind organizing the popular uprising — later Saakashvili himself said Russia had little to do with this, despite having said from the start that “irrefutable evidence” exists of this link. This is crying wolf, and, honestly this is outright lie for which no one paid any responsibility and only with a half laughter later on reponded, no, Russians were not behind this.
Remember also, before the elections in 2006, Russian spies were caught masterminding the gvernment overthrow - with a big scandal Saakashvili pointed finger to the north again. While he did fine in the elections, the relations between the countries soured considerably (tahts when the embargo was imposed). While those might have been genuiune spies, they could have been sent back to Russia without an interview to Financial times on how Russia tries to conquer back Georgia.
This is not to say that Russia is an angel, far from that. They do break rules of the game, they do impose deplorable sanctions and do mistreat ethnic Georgians. All these things will catch up with them. but over-playing with this factor, simply diminishes Georgia’s chances to stand its ground. Interestingly, pro-Saakashvili media reported on the situation in Abkhazia daily during the elections this winter. Supposedly Georgians’ houese were burned down, the population terrorized, troops moved in to Gali region, etc. The UNOMIG mission later responded that these reports had little to do with reality. This is also crying wolf.
About the opposition: the biggest part of the opposition does not recognize Saakashvili as a legitimate president, as they allege he stole the elections in January. If you spend some time reading the OSCE report on the elections, you will see why how numerous violations noted in the report could have changed the outcome. His erratic style of ruling has made it so that most of his former allies are now united against him.
When he says, come, my dear opposition, let’s think what to do with these bloody Russians, and on the other hand unilaterally changes the constitution to undermine and marginalize the oppositions’ chances to win the parliamentary elections, it is simply out of question that the opposition would accept his invitation. Even if they did, there would be a few handshakes, declarations on the seriousness of the situation, and Misha would go about doing things as he used to. Basically, its a PR trick that everyone in the Georgian politics knows. It is, therefore, result of his own maneurs that the opposition so sharply opposed to him.
When the debates on the democratic issues will begin, if they begin I mean, it will be afer the elections, and when the opposition will not be able to have any impact whatsoever. Yes, internal fighting might benefit Russia, but, if the elections are clean — which they should be given that Georgia is a flickering beacon of democracy or smth of that kind, than there should be no problem. But what do you want to do when the authorities risk to rig the elections, point to Russia and say, look, lets talk about this later, we are in danger. I think a more *responsible* approach would be not to rig the elections in the first place. Unfortunately, there are so many signs that things are going wrong with these elections, that i am far from convinced that they will be fair.
Now, wouldn’t that be suspicious that elections are rigged and discussion on Russia’s 20 years of aggression all of a sudden surge? Don’t you see how the elections come into this play?
May 11th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
jibs Says
just to add: it is also close to truth that Saakashvili is probably the most potent politician in Georgia. Under him, a lot of positive trnds have taken place. Others would probably eat each-other up before they did anything.
Although, a lot more was expected from him - at least in terms of strengthening institutions and not his personal power. After coming to power through demonstrations over rigged elections, it is shameful that so many “irregularities” took place four years on (please, read the OSCE report for objecitivity of this claim).
Still, it would be not a bad arrangement if the opposition takes over the parliament — this way, Saakashvili would be a better president and more transparancy would be ensured.
But again, nothing was done to improve confidence of the players in Georgian politics — nothing. There was a list of demands the opposition put on the table as a precondition to fair elections in May. Close to nothing was compromised on, despite the authrities’ repetative “let’s sit down and talk about these things, stop protesting”.
May 11th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Eistein G. Says
Hi, jibs..some comments:
“— that Russia a Nazi Germany that needs to be stoppped or Europe will be overan again, I think it’s just a fantasy”
He refers to the process that led up to the WW2, when all the European leaders wanted to negotiate and was fooled by Hitler. I see the parallell. i think the west really need to draw a line somewhere, and stop being naive about Putin. He is running a capo regime, or “souvereign democracy” as he says. An other word for oligarcy, in my head. This man is the Eastern Europe’s Napoleon on stereoids.
Anyway it is interesting to discuss Saakashvili. I fully agree with you. What would be the alternative to Saakashvili is probably the most interesting question. And as I have seen: Without Ilia III there will be no victory for anyone. I think Patrakashvili really f**** up when he claimed he had his support, and Ilia denied it publicly. Such opportunists like Patrakashvili creates doubt about the opposition, and thats bad, because any democracy is dependent of a strong opposition to function.
Basically I think the Russian “project” is about establishing a general strategic strong position than making a mess of Gerogia. The important thing is to look at the wider perspectives: How they act in the northern territories, Balkan and, among other republics, Checheny. Its all about securing development of oil and gas fields, controling pipelines for distribution of oil and gas. Energy is power, and the tool is Gazprom. And it is also nice to control the shores of Abkhazia for recreation and tourism, allthough what I saw in a Russian documentary last night: I would be ready to pay to NOT having those “animals” in my backyard.
But I am sure that the one thing irritating Putin most at the moment regarding Georgia is the WTO veto.
Anyway, jibs. Do you live in Tbilisi?
May 12th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
jibs Says
here is a nice article on “After Misha” if that’s possible at all
http://www.georgiatoday.ge/article_details.php?id=5001#
About your previous comment that Europe faces a similar situation as before the WWII, I can name you dozens of reasons why the parallel fails. For the sake of simplicity, the world is not polarized by aggressive ideologies and dicatators. Nor are half of the countries seeking revision of the new world order. While Russia does want some attention, I don’t think they would seriously consider going to war to prove a point. They simply don’t have resources for that… and have all the odds against them. They are in fact not as powerful as many ppl think.
That Gazprom is a powerful Kremlin tool, I think is natural. It is the most potent leverage Russians hold - and I think it works just fine for them (imagine if Gazprom was sold out like classical economics dictates –to increase efficiency, bring know how, etc).
There is a common ground to elaborate on with the Russians — and it is foremost in Georgia’s interest to have good relations with them. It’s a natural market, source of raw materials, destination for immigrant workers, toursist visitors, etc. but politics and short term vision overcomes pragmatism. Now, do you think Putin would have seen a “KOsovo precedent” in Abkhazia had Misha not been so blatantly anti-Russian? I think less incidents would take place alltogether — unfortunately, all these incidents and war moggering is loaded with PR purposes, usually for more than 1 actor.
Anyways, I think once the elections are over in Georgia — and nothing happens in the meantime (like series of mass protests against the elections violations that grow into smth else), then everything will fall into its place: Russia keeps integrating Abkhazia, while Georgia will keep on wagging a paper that Abkhazia is a de jure Georgian territory. I think more should be done in terms of soft power offensive — but again, its easier said than done…
So it is. no, I am not in Tbilisi, i am in hu.
what is your business in Georgia btw?
May 13th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
jibs Says
this is funny:
Georgian Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) released on May 12 footage shot by its unmanned reconnaissance drone showing, what it said was, movement and deployment of the Russian troops and their military hardware in breakaway Abkhazia.
“Our drones are conducting reconnaissance of the Abkhaz territory to identify where the Russian and Abkhaz armed forces and military hardware are concentrated,” Shota Utiashvili, head of the Interior Ministry’s information and analytical department, told Mze TV.
He pointed out that the footage was recorded on May 8, when the Abkhaz side claimed that they shot down the Georgian drone. “But as you see the drone has returned and brought very valuable information,” Utiashvili said.
The drone that was shut down was also able to record its last few seconds in the air, but didn’t return. This recording however, is a proof that the drone flew back. Inresting logic
May 13th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Eistein G Says
Ah, jibs. But now look at this: Both NATO and EU is now taking this incidents and the Russian deployment of troops very serious. The visit in Tbilisi of the four EU forreign ministers is interpreted as a sign of support. Lithuania have lifted the veto against netotiations with EU-Russia trade/legislation IF EU grants that the frozen conflicts in Georgia, Moldova are a major theme, together with the treat of closing down the Druzba pipline to Lithuania.
I don’t think you are correct in your analysis of Saakashvili only is doing propaganda. There is a serious concern over violations of Georgian territory, like UN also stated. The situation is therefore different than before. It is an exalation which started in 2006.
And drones sends footage directly. Therefore the shoot down could be recorded and shown..heheh You are right.
Oh, I found some interesting things on the Abkhaz official website. During 2007 the Russians have invested 200 million dollars in Abkhazia, that amount to 1,6 million dollars per capita. Of course the separatists favour Russia!
My business in Georgia..long story. I spend all my summers there. Last summer I experienced the Russian missile landing outside Tbilisi. Oh..and Norways great writer knud Hamsun spent much time in the region wheile he wrote his masterpeace “I Æventyrland”. Tbilisi is an exiting city. The same goes for the whole country. I hve never been received by such friendly people..ever. Therefore I like Georgia, it’s culture and people very much. How about you? Being in hu, I guess means Hungary. What’s your story? In “exile”, or just interested in Caucasus in general?
May 13th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Eistein G Says
I should add that I am generally interested in Easter Europe and international politics regarding the “new countries”. I also study social science, and have done some work on migrants from Eastern Europe that migrates to Norway.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:10 pm