Academic literature on the topic 'Georgian-Abkhazian conflict'

This paper analyzes the potential for maintaining the post-August War 2008 status quo in Abkhazia and explores possible transformation scenarios of the existing situation. The present study will attempt to investigate the remaining seeds of prospective conflict, as the current reality might contain some potential for the eruption of violence; namely: the construction of the Sochi Olympic complex which irritates Georgians and Circassians as well as portion of Abkhazians; the North Caucasian new policy line, initiated and followed by the central Georgian authorities: and Georgia's recognition of the Russian Genocide of Circassians in the 19th century, which should become leverage against the Russian Federation in the wider Caucasus region. All of these aspects make up the present security dilemma in the region. It is interesting to see whether changes in the Abkhazian-Georgian and Abkhazian-Russian relations could be expected in the foreseeable future.

This article is part of a research conducted as part of the Support Program for Doctoral Studies of Shota Rustaveli Georgian National Science Foundation.This article is part of a research conducted as part of the Support Program for Doctoral Studies of Shota Rustaveli Georgian National Science Foundation.Name of the research – "Interdisciplinary analysis of the complex system of the Abkhazian conflict by the method 4D-RAV-17" (grant number – PHDF‐18‐1147). The method is a combination of well-known and innovative approaches and techniques. This article is part of the abovementioned research. The complex system of the Abkhazian conflict in this article received a conditional definition – the Abkhazian crisis. The political component of the complex system is accordingly called the Abkhazian political crisis and is the main object of research in the framework of the article.The article is aimed at solving a specific scientific and applied task – at determining a scientifically based method for the positive transformation of the Abkhazian political crisis and the transition to a new level of political order – to the Abkhazian security community.The article considers the possibility of carrying out work on the development and implementation of a new, alternative to the existing, peacemaking process, which can be based on the policy of the transition of the Abkhazian political crisis to a new political order.Consecutive transition tools are the following:• building a model of the structure of the Abkhazian political crisis;• The concept of awareness of common threats;• The concept of the Abkhazian security community.The work can be attributed to the following studies: Abkhazian Studies; Conflicts and Peace Studies, Crisis Studies, Security Studies, Political Studies and International Studies.The practical significance of the work and novelty. As a result of a reflective analysis of the past and existing political and scientific discourse, the absence of holistic research and the dominance of reductionism in the perception and description of the Abkhazian crisis and individual conflicts – its components - were first shown. In scientific works, a mostly complex and multi-component conflict is taken down to a hybrid and scientifically unreasonable formulation – "Georgian-Abkhazian" conflict. This wording also dominates in political discourse and even in international documents.As a result of a thoroughful analysis and synthesis of the information received, for the first time a brief and conditional definition was given to the complex system of the Abkhazian conflict – "Abkhazian crisis".As a result of this research, for the first time, at a scientific level, security threats are considered as a resource for peacemaking and the Concept of awareness of common threats is formulated.Also, for the first time (in the case of the Abkhazian crisis), the well-known Theory of the Security Community for International Relations of Karl Deutsch was proposed. It was adapted to the specifics of this conflict, not only related to the dimension of international relations. The political component of the crisis was classified in the research and a model of the Abkhazian political crisis was proposed, which includes both the domestic and international components of the crisis. The presented definition – "mixed conflict" theoretically resolved the conflict between supporters to define this conflict as "internal, local" and those who consider it "international". This is a useful solution for other political conflicts of the post-Soviet Union space, in particular, for the "Donbas crisis".From a theoretical and practical points of view, attention was drawn to the fact that Security Studies are considered a subsystem of studies in the field of International Studies, which does not allow the effective use of existing scientific achievements in these fields for mixed conflicts.The article proposes specific innovative ideas for implementing these approaches and techniques. This article proposes solutions to the problems of increasing the effectiveness of the peacemaking process. The task itself has an innovative character, since basically researches conducted earlier in this area (around the Abkhazian conflict) is more focused on the Conflicts Studies, rather than Peace Studies. In particular, this concerns the lack of research aimed at studying the effectiveness of peacemaking processes.As a result of formalization of the results obtained, the article presents new political concepts – neologisms, which until now have not been used (or not sufficiently used) in relation to this issue. Among them the following may be outlined: "Abkhazian crisis"; "Mixed conflict", "secessionists of Abkhazia"; "unionists of Abkhazia"; "irredentists of Abkhazia"; "Internationalization of the peacemaking process"; "legitimacy of peacemaking formats"; "democratization of the negotiation process"; "Abkhazian Security Community".As a result of the conducted work, an algorithm of stage-by-stage actions is presented, which can lead to a way out of the crisis and a transition to a new level of management culture and political order. It also provides specific practical recommendations that can be used by the participants in the process.Research on improvement of this model is ongoing, the following articles are being prepared, and negotiations are conducted on implementation with representatives of the participating parties at the expert and political levels.This research may be useful for those interested in the Abkhazian issue, as well as for adapting and using the approaches and techniques described in this article to improve the quality of peacemaking processes to resolve other conflicts and crises.

The 2014 disturbances in the Ukraine occasioned renewed discussion of the 2008 Russo- Georgian War. As the situation continued to worsen in eastern Ukraine, US President Obama announced on a visit to Poland at the start of June that the US and NATO would strengthen ties even with the non-NATO-member-states of the Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. This last has aspirations of membership, even though it does not control the republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which most of the world nevertheless regards as integral parts of Georgia. As long as the Georgian-Abkhazian dispute remains unresolved, there will be problems regarding inter-state relations with/for western Transcaucasia. And there can be no resolution of the Abkhazian issue without a proper understanding of Abkhazia’s history (both ancient and more recent); it was to try to ensure that the debate is not based on misconceptions, unsubstantiated assertions or even plain errors that this article was written. It is grounded on a consideration of a range of materials (from Agathias’ Greek text through relevant discussions in Georgian, Russian and English). The toppling of Abkhazia’s democratically elected president (Aleksandr Ankvab) at the end of May 2014 makes the question of Abkhazia even more topical.

The Crimean conflict in 2014 followed in many respects the pattern of Russia’s previous interventions in a neighbouring state – e.g., the 2008 Georgian conflict. Yet its similarities with the forgotten Abkhazian conflict in 1992–1993 are not widely acknowledged. The principal aim of the study presented was to determine whether Abkhazia had the right to claim statehood and to examine Russia’s actions in support of the Abkhaz separatist forces during the conflict in 1992–1993. The author finds that the Abkhazians, similarly to the Crimean Russians, were not entitled to the right of external self-determination. The paper arrives at the conclusion that the fighting in Abkhazia in 1992–1993 may be categorised as an international armed conflict due to Russia’s direct military intervention.

This article is part of a research conducted as part of the Support Program for Doctoral Studies of Shota Rustaveli Georgian National Science Foundation.Name of the research – “Interdisciplinary analysis of the complex system of the Abkhazian conflict by the method 4D-RAV-17 (grant number – PHDF–18–1147).As part of the study, the task was to assess those political technologies that were not used in the process of resolving the Abkhazian conflict. The study identified that such a peacemaking resource as the recognition by the conflicting parties of “common threats” and the consolidation of common efforts to prevent or eliminate them, was not used to an adequate extent. Based on this, the Concept of Awareness of the Common Threat System (CACTS) were formulated and presented as a methodological basis for reinforcing the Security Community Theory created by Karl Deutsch.CACTS was described in the article “Abkhazian crisis: from the Concept of Awareness of Common Threats to the Building of an “Abkhazian Security Community”” published in the Scientific and Theoretical Almanac "Grani", Volume 23 №3, 2020.As a basis for creating an initial level of trust between the parties to the conflict, we take their policy of recognizing the system of common threats and identifying ourselves (and each other) with possible victims of these threats. The level of trust can grow as both parties gain satisfaction from the process of cooperation.In this article, which is the second of a series of articles devoted to the recognition of common threats and the construction of a security community by the parties to the conflict, we present one of the practical possibilities for strengthening the modeling process of a new multidimensional peacemaking format.In particular, this is the development of cooperation between the participants in the Abkhazian political crisis to reduce nuclear and radioactive threats. The research drew attention not only to physical, but also to psychological dangers posed by nuclear and radiation threats. Based on the analysis, a number of specific initiatives were identified for the possible development of cooperation between participants in the multidimensional Abkhazian political crisis.Particular attention in the article is paid to the role of scientific diplomacy in the positive transformation of the crisis and the integration into the peacemaking process representatives of natural sciences, in particular physicists, power engineers and ecologists.As one of the resources of the peace process, the prospects of cooperation between civil society institutions expressing the interests of victims of nuclear and radiation disasters from different sides of the conflict community are considered.The article focuses on the creation of common approaches on energy policy for the countries of the Caucasus region, especially, regarding nuclear energy. Despite the fact that the initiative is aimed at resolving the Abkhazian conflict, the measures to bring the parties closer, presented in the framework of this project, could positively affect the development of the level of trust in other conflicts of the post-Soviet space.The work is based on a holistic approach, which involves revising the reductionist approach that dominates the scientific and political discourses, distorting the real picture of the conflict and reducing its image to the quasi-scientific concept of the “Abkhaz-Georgian” resolution. Our vision of the complex and multidimensional structure of the Abkhazian political crisis is given in the first article of the mentioned cycle.The structure of this article consists of three main parts.The first part of the article is an introduction, which presents the idea of anti-nuclear and anti-radiation consolidation of participants in the Abkhazian political crisis on the basis of the Concept of Awareness of the Common Threat System (CACTS) and the concept of Karl Deutsch, adapted for the Abkhazian Security Community (ASB). One of the CACTS subsystems (in this article) is nuclear, radiation, and related to them information-psychological threats.The second part of the article presents an analysis of the situation associated with nuclear, radiation, information and psychological threats. This analysis aims to demonstrate the importance of the topic under consideration and the variety of real threats.Nuclear threats. The authors divide them into threats of a military nature, as well as threats associated with the construction, operation, conservation and liquidation of reactors and other nuclear facilities.Radiation threats. Statistics of incidents related to illegal operations in the transportation/sale of radiation/radioactive substances based on open sources are proposed. Examples of threats associated with the illicit trade of irradiated food products are given.Information and psychological threats. When considering information and psychological threats related to nuclear and radiation threats, special attention is paid to such a question as hiding of reliable information from citizens or manipulating information, which is the basis for the formation of distrust towards one’s own state and the psychosomatic problems arising from this.The third part of the article offers a model of a fragment of the peacemaking process to resolve the Abkhazian political crisis, in which a component is involved that includes a discussion of (CACTS) on nuclear and radiation safety and the construction of the Abkhazian Security Community as a subsystem of the Caucasian and Black Sea-Caspian Sea Security Community.

Both the Georgian-Abkhazian War of 1992-93 and the five-day War of 2008 led to the subsequent presence of the Russian Federation Armed Forces in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Both de jure internationally unrecognized states without any Georgian governmental administration executive power over them present a major conflict seemingly frozen in time. „Status quo“ is represented on the Abkhazian and the South Ossetia side supported by their Russian patrons and by Georgia on the other side. The Russian Federation military presence prevents Georgia to execute any rights and functions over breakaway states under the Russian protectorate. The military power of the Russian Federation projected in Abkhazia, including aid provided by Russia since 2008 until 2019, is the topic of the following article. Russia is ensuring its dominance over both regions not only through its military presence but also by providing financial and material aid. Approximately 45% of the state budget of Abkhazia provided by Russia in 2019 excluding material support is self-explanatory to understand the strategic importance of both territories located in the Southern Caucasus. Abkhazia is located next to the Black Sea and both close to the Caspian Sea, considered by the Russian Federation the predominant sphere of its strategic interests in this region.

Problems of Economic Development of the Unrecognised State – the Case of AbkhaziaSince its inception as a result of the victorious war with Georgia, the de facto independent Abkhazia has been struggling with a deep economic crisis characterised by war damage, economic blockade and the lack of international recognition. The aim of this paper is to analyse the main problems and challenges of unrecognised states in the field of economic development on the example of the Republic of Abkhazia. The article summarises the economic consequences of the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict, characterises the economic development of Abkhazia in the post-war period and analyses the effects of the economic blockade as well as the economic effects of the support of the external patron (the Russian Federation).

The main subject of this article is the presentation of the historical backgrounds of the contemporary conflicts over the Mountainous Karabagh, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The author describes the history of these regions from the beginning of the 19th century till 1992. The conquest of the South Caucasus by Imperial Russia in the 19th century resulted in the immigrations of Armenians to the Mountainous Karabagh, Ossetians to South Ossetia and Georgians to Abkhazia. These immigrations completely changed the ethnic compositions of these region. The Russian authorities supported the immigrations of pro-Russian Armenians and Ossetians.The political situation in these regions changed in 1918, when the independence of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan was declared. South Ossetia and Abkhazia were parts of independent Georgia, and the Mountainous Karabagh was dependent on Azerbaijan. Ossetians and Abkhazians resisted the Georgian authorities and Karabagh Armenians fought against Azerbaijan’s rule.After the conquest of the South Caucasus by Soviet Russia in 1920-1921, the Mountainous Karabagh remained part of Soviet Azerbaijan, and South Ossetia and Abkhazia remained part of Soviet Georgia. The Autonomous Oblast of Nagorno-Karabagh was created in the Mountainous Karabagh in 1923. The authorities of the Mountainous Karabagh were dominated by Karabagh Armenians and this region was practically independent of Soviet Azerbaijan. A similar situation was in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, especially after 1956.The development of Abkhazian and Ossetian national movements at the end of the 1980s led to the situation in which Abkhazians and South Ossetians claimed the political autonomy of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, and then the independence of these regions. The Georgian authorities were against these claims, as they considered these regions to constitute the historical parts of Georgia. The political hostility between Georgia and South Ossetia resulted in South Ossetian-Georgian armed fighting in January 1991, and South Ossetia proclaimed its independence in November 1991. Moreover, the political conflict between the Georgian government and the Abkhazian authorities in the first half of 1992 turned into open war in August 1992.Karabagh Armenians claimed the incorporation of the Mountainous Karabagh into Soviet Armenia because of historical, ethnic, cultural and regional connections between the Mountainous Karabagh and Armenia. These claims were very strong from the end of 1980s, but Azerbaijan’s communist authorities and the Azerbaijan anti-communist movement wanted to retain the Karabagh region in Azerbaijan. The hostility between the local Armenian and Azerbaijan population of the Mountainous Karabagh turned into armed fighting in 1989. The Mountainous Karabagh proclaimed its independence in December 1991.

У роботі визначені поняття «воєнний конфлікт» та «політична медіація», також окреслені їх особливості. Проаналізована політична медіація у воєнних конфліктах: палестино-ізраїльському грузино-абхазькому та карабаському, освітлені сильні та слабкі сторони політичної медіації у кожному конкретному кейсі. Розібрані передумови та чинники початку конфлікту на Сході України. Описані особливості політичної медіації у кейсі України. Надані рекомендації щодо мирного врегулювання конфлікту на Сході України.
The concepts and features of "military conflict" and "political mediation" are defined in the work. Political mediation in such military conflicts was analyzed: Palestinian-Israeli, Georgian-Abkhazian and Karabakh. Strengths and weaknesses of political mediation in each case were outlined. The preconditions and factors of the beginning of the conflict in the East of Ukraine were analyzed. Features of political mediation in the case of Ukraine were described. Recommendations for a peaceful settlement of the conflict in eastern Ukraine were provided.

The present study analyzes the historical background of the formation of the Abkhazian economy and geographical-resource potential and the economic situation of Abkhazia before and after the Russian-Georgian war of 1991-1992. Special attention was paid to the recognition of the international status of the Republic of Abkhazia by the Russian Federation, in gross violation of international norms, the results of which did not have a significant positive impact on the economic or social well-being of the local population. However, it confirmed Russia's imperialist intentions concerning occupation of Georgian territory with the status of “peacemaker” in 1992-1993 and the fact of misleading the international community. In the chapter, the criminal nature of the economy of occupied Abkhazia is substantiated. Also, the chapter analyzes the mechanisms/levers of economic pressure management in the Russian-occupied territory and its negative consequences for the population living in the area.