Tweet
GEORGIA WILL GO TO ANY LENGTHS TO UNLEASH WAR
RIA Novosti, Russia
April 29 2008
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Romanov) - Fanning
up tensions on its border with Abkhazia, Georgia has worn out even
its potential allies.
Last night's Georgian television quoted NATO spokesman James Appathurai
as saying that the members of the alliance stand for the withdrawal
of Russian peacekeepers from the conflict area, although they do not
know at this point whether they will be replaced by NATO troops.
In simpler terms, this means that NATO has given the green light to
Georgia's invasion of Abkhazia. If Russian peacekeepers are withdrawn
from the conflict zone without any replacement, the corridor will be
open for Georgian tanks.
This is what Tbilisi wants, but Brussels does not wish to spoil
relations with Moscow over this issue. Moreover, NATO soldiers are
very reluctant to move to dangerous places.
As a result, Mikheil Saakashvili received a public and very unpleasant
reprimand. NATO accused Tbilisi of crudely distorting the facts. Today
in the morning, Apparuthai publicly denied this statement. He added
that nothing was said on this score in the NATO Council, either.
Let us leave the NATO Council alone. Georgia is prepared to lie
greatly for the sake of war. When George W. Bush, who is not likely
to be well-versed in Georgian history, visited Tbilisi, Saakashvili
gave him a totally distorted account of Georgia's forced enslavement
by Russia. There is historically documented evidence that Tbilisi
(then called Tiflis) repeatedly asked Russia to protect it and save it
from inevitable collapse. Georgia was a tiny Christian island amidst
the stormy Muslim sea after the Fall of Constantinople.
Taking Georgia under its wing was a huge responsibility for
Russia. Moreover, it would have to assume that position for
centuries. This is why Russian Tsar Paul I turned down the request
of Georgian King George XII in 1798. His son, Alexander I, did not
want to shoulder this burden, but the State Council insisted that it
was the duty of Orthodox Russia to help its brethren-in-faith.
The account of the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict is equally false. On
each piece of land inhabited by man, every inch is covered by thousands
of footprints of his predecessors - modern sneakers, military boots,
women's shoes, jackboots, legionnaires from Rome, and bare feet. So,
this eternal scream "This is my land!" must always be backed by
evidence.
As distinct from many other nations, the Abkhazians are lucky - their
connections to their land can be traced back many centuries. Abkhazia
was independent since times immemorial, and was known to chroniclers
as a land bordering Kolkhida.
However, this independence was repeatedly infringed on over the
centuries. There were Greek colonies in Abkhazia, for one, but Athens
does not claim its land. Mongols owned Abkhazia, but they never claim
it either. Once, Abkhazia belonged to Mitridat. Abkhazians are still
there, but Mitridat is not. They were colonized by Ancient Rome, but
Berlusconi is not rushing to don the legionnaire's clothing. They
were also conquered by the Turks in their long history, but Ankara
does not claim the land either.
Abkhazia was part of Russia many times. On several occasions, it
came under Russia's wing on its own free will, and in 1811 it was
incorporated into Russia under the Treaty of Bucharest. But Russia
is not planning to annex it by force.
Abkhazia's independence is older than Georgian, but it belonged to
Georgia as well - for a historically short time; but Abkhazians were
not particularly fond of Georgians.
Modern history is even worse. After Greeks and Armenians were evicted
from Abkhazia on Joseph Stalin's orders, more than 100,000 Georgians
had to move there against their will. This is how their compatriot
resolved the ethnic issue. At the same time, Georgians were given
Balkar lands and the Elbrus region; some of them were settled in
Chechnya, from which they all fled later on.
Current bilateral problems started when the first Georgian President
Zviad Gamsakhurdia came to power in Georgia. Posing as an intellectual,
liberal, and democrat for the outside world, he was a fascist-like
nationalist and extremist at home. Having left the big Soviet empire,
he immediately tried to create a mini version in Georgia. But
his attempt was rebuffed. Even tanks did not make their way to
Abkhazia. His successors continue on the same course, but in new
conditions, under the cover of new patrons and new demagogy.
I believe that the dispute over Abkhazia is pointless. By his actions,
nationalist Gamsakhurdia gave Abkhazians a full-fledged license for
independence.
Abkhazia has lost and regained its independence many times, and it
is used to this. Abkhazians have enough patience. Since they managed
to survive under Mitridat, Genghis Khan and Ancient Rome, they will
cope with Saakashvili.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not
necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
RIA Novosti, Russia
April 29 2008
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Romanov) - Fanning
up tensions on its border with Abkhazia, Georgia has worn out even
its potential allies.
Last night's Georgian television quoted NATO spokesman James Appathurai
as saying that the members of the alliance stand for the withdrawal
of Russian peacekeepers from the conflict area, although they do not
know at this point whether they will be replaced by NATO troops.
In simpler terms, this means that NATO has given the green light to
Georgia's invasion of Abkhazia. If Russian peacekeepers are withdrawn
from the conflict zone without any replacement, the corridor will be
open for Georgian tanks.
This is what Tbilisi wants, but Brussels does not wish to spoil
relations with Moscow over this issue. Moreover, NATO soldiers are
very reluctant to move to dangerous places.
As a result, Mikheil Saakashvili received a public and very unpleasant
reprimand. NATO accused Tbilisi of crudely distorting the facts. Today
in the morning, Apparuthai publicly denied this statement. He added
that nothing was said on this score in the NATO Council, either.
Let us leave the NATO Council alone. Georgia is prepared to lie
greatly for the sake of war. When George W. Bush, who is not likely
to be well-versed in Georgian history, visited Tbilisi, Saakashvili
gave him a totally distorted account of Georgia's forced enslavement
by Russia. There is historically documented evidence that Tbilisi
(then called Tiflis) repeatedly asked Russia to protect it and save it
from inevitable collapse. Georgia was a tiny Christian island amidst
the stormy Muslim sea after the Fall of Constantinople.
Taking Georgia under its wing was a huge responsibility for
Russia. Moreover, it would have to assume that position for
centuries. This is why Russian Tsar Paul I turned down the request
of Georgian King George XII in 1798. His son, Alexander I, did not
want to shoulder this burden, but the State Council insisted that it
was the duty of Orthodox Russia to help its brethren-in-faith.
The account of the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict is equally false. On
each piece of land inhabited by man, every inch is covered by thousands
of footprints of his predecessors - modern sneakers, military boots,
women's shoes, jackboots, legionnaires from Rome, and bare feet. So,
this eternal scream "This is my land!" must always be backed by
evidence.
As distinct from many other nations, the Abkhazians are lucky - their
connections to their land can be traced back many centuries. Abkhazia
was independent since times immemorial, and was known to chroniclers
as a land bordering Kolkhida.
However, this independence was repeatedly infringed on over the
centuries. There were Greek colonies in Abkhazia, for one, but Athens
does not claim its land. Mongols owned Abkhazia, but they never claim
it either. Once, Abkhazia belonged to Mitridat. Abkhazians are still
there, but Mitridat is not. They were colonized by Ancient Rome, but
Berlusconi is not rushing to don the legionnaire's clothing. They
were also conquered by the Turks in their long history, but Ankara
does not claim the land either.
Abkhazia was part of Russia many times. On several occasions, it
came under Russia's wing on its own free will, and in 1811 it was
incorporated into Russia under the Treaty of Bucharest. But Russia
is not planning to annex it by force.
Abkhazia's independence is older than Georgian, but it belonged to
Georgia as well - for a historically short time; but Abkhazians were
not particularly fond of Georgians.
Modern history is even worse. After Greeks and Armenians were evicted
from Abkhazia on Joseph Stalin's orders, more than 100,000 Georgians
had to move there against their will. This is how their compatriot
resolved the ethnic issue. At the same time, Georgians were given
Balkar lands and the Elbrus region; some of them were settled in
Chechnya, from which they all fled later on.
Current bilateral problems started when the first Georgian President
Zviad Gamsakhurdia came to power in Georgia. Posing as an intellectual,
liberal, and democrat for the outside world, he was a fascist-like
nationalist and extremist at home. Having left the big Soviet empire,
he immediately tried to create a mini version in Georgia. But
his attempt was rebuffed. Even tanks did not make their way to
Abkhazia. His successors continue on the same course, but in new
conditions, under the cover of new patrons and new demagogy.
I believe that the dispute over Abkhazia is pointless. By his actions,
nationalist Gamsakhurdia gave Abkhazians a full-fledged license for
independence.
Abkhazia has lost and regained its independence many times, and it
is used to this. Abkhazians have enough patience. Since they managed
to survive under Mitridat, Genghis Khan and Ancient Rome, they will
cope with Saakashvili.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not
necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.