Journal articles 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.

The bilateral relations between Russia on the one hand, and the countries of the Southern Caucasus region on the other hand are examined in the article. The main directions of Russian policy in the Southern Caucasus region are examined there. The article focusses attention to the value of the Southern Caucasus region for Russia and also to the key role of Russia in the Southern Caucasus region. The overview of Russian-Azerbaijani, Russian-Armenian and Russian- Georgian relations is given in the article. Russian relations with unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and with partially recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia are examined in the context of above-mentioned bilateral relations. The Caucasian direction of Russian foreign policy is of great importance in questions of ensuring Russian national security. The Caucasian crisis of2008 showed potential conflictness of the region and safety hazard of Russia. Now other processes proceed already in the region. Armenian intention to join the Customs union, the change of Georgian leadership and signing of the agreement on association with EU by Georgia start new mechanisms of interaction between the region countries on the one hand and Russia on the other hand. The relation format between region republics can be changed. The main purpose of the article is to show Russian role in questions of the South Caucasus regional security. The region has the conflict territories, from which the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, the Abkhazian Republic and the South Ossetia Republic are distinguished especially. And Russia won't be able to keep aloof in case of escalation of the conflicts around above-mentioned subjects. The vital questions for the region are peace and stability. And Russia plays a key role in these questions.

The church of Georgia, ever since its foundation in the early 4th century AD, was quite closely related to the Antioch church. These relations were based not only on religious matters but involved both politics and religion. Patriarchs of Antioch, vicars of the Chair of St Peter, the chief apostle, had always aspired to the leadership over all the other chairs in the Eastern Diocese of the Byzantium not only Georgia but Jerusalem as well. At the time of the Joint Monarchy in the 10th 15th centuries, the Georgian hierarchs had to resort to the summits of eloquence and knowledge in order to be able to reject those claims. At the time of disintegration of the Georgian kingdom that entered the crucial stage by the middle of the 15th century, Antioch and its patriarchs had become in demand in Georgia. To them Georgia was one of the most significant sources of income in the conditions of Ottoman supremacy in the Middle East. Patriarch Michael III of Antioch was probably the most famous but by far not the only representative of apostle Peters chair in Georgia. He granted the feudal lords of Georgia what they had so much aspired for a chance to legitimate their centrifugal ambitions. In the conditions of an ongoing conflict with the weakening royal power in Tbilisi getting control of their own ecclesiastical structure virtually insured the former vassals with success in this confrontation. It was thanks to the resourcefulness and activity of Michael III that West Georgian (or Abkhazian) Catholicate gained independence from the Catholicos of All Georgia in Mtskheta in the 15th century, hereby also gaining independence from the Georgian kings in Tbilisi. The rendered text, a composition titled The Instruction in Faith and ascribed to Patriarch Michael, is the first translation from ancient Georgian into Russian and a heretofore unprecedented attempt to analyze it. An extensive glossary was necessary in order to give a general idea of the peculiarities of the canonical system of the Georgian church, i.e. coexistence of two Catholicates as well as reconstruct the historical context. Without it might be quite difficult to draw any relevant conclusions from the present document.Грузинскую церковь с самого ее основания в начале IV века с Антиохийским престолом связывали весьма тесные, можно сказать, интенсивные отношения. Они лежали не только сугубо в религиозной, но и в церковнополитической плоскости. Патриархи Антиохии наместники кафедры Петра, главы апостолов всегда имели претензии на главенство над всеми кафедрами в Восточном диоцезе Византийской империи, не только над Грузией, но и над Иерусалимом. В эпоху объединенной монархии (XXV вв.) грузинским иерархам не раз требовалось все их красноречие и знания, чтобы аргументированно отклонить эти притязания. В период дезинтеграции Грузинского царства, вошедшей в решающую фазу к середине XV века, Антиохия и ее патриархи стали востребованы уже внутри самой Грузии, для которых она служила одним из наиболее существенных источников дохода в условиях османского господства на Ближнем Востоке. Антиохийский патриарх Михаил III стал, возможно, самым известным, но далеко не единственным представителем кафедры апостола Петра в Грузии, который дал грузинским феодалам то, что им было нужно в тот исторический момент больше всего возможность легитимации своих центробежных устремлений. В условиях ожесточенной борьбы со слабевшей царской властью в Тбилиси установление контроля над собственной церковной структурой практически гарантировало бывшим вассалам успех в этом противостоянии. Именно благодаря ресурсам и активности Михаила III изпод власти католикосовпатриархов всея Грузии в Мцхета (а значит, и грузинских царей в Тбилиси) в том же XV в. вышел Западногрузинский (Абхазский) католикосат. Представленный текст приписываемого патриарху Михаилу сочинения под кратким заглавием Наставление в вере является его первым переводом с древнегрузинского на русский язык и первой попыткой его анализа в отечественной историографии. Столь обширный комментарий сделался необходим для того, чтобы в самых общих чертах описать особенности канонического строя Грузинской церкви (одновременное существование двух католикосатов) и попытаться воссоздать контекст эпохи, без чего весьма трудно сделать корректные выводы из данного памятника.

AbstractFrom the early 1990s through the 2008 “Russo-Georgian war,” waves of armed conflicts in the Abkhazia and South Ossetia/Tskhinvali regions of Georgia forced thousands of residents, mainly ethnic Georgians, to leave their homes. More than two decades of protracted internal displacement, marked by tough economic and social problems, led this vulnerable community to a common trap in reckoning with the past: an overwhelming sense of the fundamental ruptures between the idealized past and current, miserable reality. Failures of the displacement policy and “side effects” of numerous humanitarian aid projects hinder internally displaced persons’ social integration and leave them on the margins of Georgian society with almost a singular option: to constantly recall meaningful life in the lost homeland, which they remember as free of ethnic phobias and economic problems. In this article, we suggest that for persons who are internally displaced, memories are defined not only by their past lived experiences and present hardships, but also by the official historical narratives that argue that Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-Ossetian “endemic” unity and cohabitation was destroyed by Russian imperial politics. Living in constant pain also narrows the future expectations of the internally displaced persons. However, it is the past and the memories that are supposed to be useful in achieving the utopian dream of a return.

There has been established and promoted the strong belief in the Georgian public, however also in the international community, that despite significant human, territorial and state loss, as well as psychological damage and failure Georgia experienced as a consequence of the 2008 conflict with Russia, the smaller country gained victory over the bigger one in terms of the information war. There is attempt in the paper to find out if the above-mentioned view has been argumented sufficiently, taking into consideration two major factors: 1. The EU-backed “Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia,” known informally as the “Tagliavini Report”, blaming Georgian former government of Mikheil Saakashvili „to fire the first shot” in the subsequent confrontation; 2. The smaller nation-state syndrome as of the victim in the conflictual interaction with the bigger one, playing important role not only in the Russian-Georgian, but also Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-Ossetian relations.

War has been reflected in national cultures and literature of every country, as it is related to sharp and turbulent emotions. The fear of death, tension, heroic pathos and suffering, following every war, gives it esthetic value and certain romantic touch too. Georgian-Ossetian conflict, war in Abkhazia, civil war and Georgian-Russian war have clearly been reflected in the literature created at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries, both in prose and poetry. In the presented report I will discuss Georgian women’s poetry, in which war is a literary reception and poems are the space for the reflection of emotions caused by war. In 2020, were published 2 volumes of the Almanac – Without Limits – which include texts by Georgian woman poets and writers, dedicated to war. Accordingly, the main literary material when preparing the report was the first, poetry volume of the aforementioned Almanac. The thesis does not consider discussion of war reception in general, in contemporary poetry, but only in the works by contemporary woman poets. There are radically different opinions on whether or not anthologies must differ according to gender and that art and its creator – artist – do not have an art-gender. It is true that art is universal and stands above any ethnic, race, religious, gender or age affiliations; however, we cannot ignore the fact that all these criteria are revealed themselves in literary works. Therefore, women’s poetry is specific and woman is always seen in its invisible nuances. In view of the research, it appeared to be very interesting and essential, how the war topic has been accepted and processed by contemporary women’s poetry. Contexts of Russian occupation, Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-Ossetian ethnic conflicts, civil wars, formed as the new, post-soviet stereotypes, have clearly been reflected in Georgian women’s poetry; while postmodernism has appeared to be the favorable space for ignoring the Soviet clichés.

Theories of traumatic memory are uniquely topical in modern theoretical discourse, Collective trauma is a complex of psychological sensations, which is formed in witnesses or participants of tragic events, who have to deal with psychological stigma. Theoretical framework about the collective trauma is relevant to events that have taken place in Georgia, as the epochal tragedy has changed ethnic and cultural environment in Abkhazia and Tskhinvali Region. As the subject of research, we have defined the almanacs reflecting Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-Ossetian (provoked by the third force) conflicts: 14 Gigabytes and Halleluiah. Uniqueness of 14 Gigabytes is reasoned by the concept set by the editor (Nana Gaprindashvili) and the complier of the almanac (Tea Kalandia) – 14 narrators tell about the Abkhazian episode of Russian-Georgian war. Personal stories create the monumental canvas-reflection of the feelings of youth who have been deprived of childhood. Authors of the poetic almanac Halleluiah published in 2018, under the editorship of Mzia Khetaguri, are united under refugee stigma, pain caused by losing homes, trauma, which marks each of the texts like an unhealed wound. It must be emphasized that in none of the researched authors’ texts reflects hostility or aggression towards “conflicting sides” or even the main provoking power – Russia. The presented discourse allows us to confirm the research hypothesis: conflicts provoked by Russia have forced Georgian population of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali Region to leave their homes, to go through the horrors of war. Refugees have to deal with the stigma of being refugees and grave experience of collective trauma, which is creatively transformed, reflexed in the almanacs 14 Gigabytes and Halleluiah.