News

Statement of the Prime Minister of Georgia on Territorial Integrity: Responses from the Occupied Regions and Russia

2024 / 05 / 30

Author: Arsen Araqelov

On May 26, 2024, at a ceremony dedicated to the independence of Georgia, the Prime Minister of Georgia, Irakli Kobakhidze, said – „Our „promised land,“ the Georgian dream, is that 40 years after the restoration of Georgia's independence - in 2030, we will live in a united and strong Georgia together with our Abkhaz and Ossetian brothers and sisters.“ Russia and the occupied regions, Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region, responded to the statement.

Responses in Abkhazia

On May 27, the de facto Ministry of Foreign Affairs of occupied Abkhazia released a statement. „It is obvious that such populist statements are made on the eve of the upcoming parliamentary elections and are aimed primarily at a domestic audience. Any attempts by the Georgian leadership to return the Republic of Abkhazia to Georgia are futile. We consider it necessary to state once again that the Republic of Abkhazia is an independent state and continues to follow the path of strengthening its sovereignty. The people of the Republic of Abkhazia have made their final choice which is not subject to any revision.“

The Chairman of the so-called Security Council, Sergey Shamba, responded to the statement voiced at the ceremony on Independence Day of Georgia: „They (Georgians) have been wanting to bring us back for 30 years, they will want it another 300 years, it’s clear, who is surprised? This is their domestic political task and it is not news for us. Abkhazia has its tasks - building an independent state, developing and consolidating its statehood... We will discuss this only when the time comes. Now we don’t see such readiness and we are not going to discuss issues of confederation or any other relations with this state.“

In 1992, before the start of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict, a confederation model was considered for cooperation with the central government of Georgia, however, on the day of the discussion, the military conflict began, „a lot has changed since then, and now it is no longer reviewed“ – Shamba said.

Responses in the Tskhinvali Region

The occupied Tskhinvali region's de facto Ministry of Foreign Affairs also responded to the Kobakhidze’s statement.

„The people of South Ossetia have made their irrevocable choice in favor of building their sovereign statehood and strengthening friendly relations and integration ties with the Russian Federation - the only real guarantor of the republic's peace and security.“

The de facto agency noted that “we have to darken Mr. Kobakhidze’s dreamy mood once again and bring him and other “dreamers” back to reality which is the ongoing serious internal Georgian political crisis against the backdrop of the upcoming October parliamentary elections.”

“These are very serious factors, and the inability of the Georgian leadership to cope with them not only calls into question the time frame for fulfilling the “European dream” voiced by Mr. Kobakhidze, but can also become a real threat to stability and security in the region,“ the statement reads. The statement ends with a de facto agency note - "We consider categorically unacceptable any talks about the so-called joining of South Ossetia with Georgia. The Republic of South Ossetia is a state that won its independence in a long-term bloody struggle against Georgian fascism and paid a huge price for its freedom.“

The head of the Information and Analytical Department of the de facto President, Yuri Vazagov, also responded to Kobakhidze.

Vazagov called Kobakhidze's statement „medieval scholasticism“ since he believes that Kobakhidze uses the narratives of the time of Zviad Gamsakhurdia. Vazagov noted that there was no reason for the Tskhinvali and Sokhumi to give up statehood, which cost them a lot of sacrifices. He also stated that the de facto republic does not have the slightest desire to join the European Union or NATO with Georgia.

In addition, Vazagov reminded Tbilisi that the occupied regions are recognized by the „leading nuclear power ( „Derzhava“ in Russian) and voiced the usual Russian propaganda statements about sovereignty: „As for the status of Georgia itself, today the task of getting out of the state of colonial dependence is more urgent than the pursuit of mythical „integrity.“

„Instead of the path of Moses, which leads Georgia to the „promised land,“ as Irakli Kobakhidze spoke about in his speech, Georgia is still following the path of Noe Zhordania and Zviad Gamsakhurdia, and this is the path of self-destruction and another military conflict,“ Vazagov added. Vazagov's interview was published on the website of the de facto president, Alan Gagloyev.

Responses in Russia

Russian high-ranking officials responded to Kobakhidze's statement. Interesting are the statements of the persons who have connections with the occupied regions of Georgia.

Grigory Karasin, the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian Federation Council who periodically visits the occupied regions, also replied to Kobakhidze's statement.

„No one can prohibit discussions on how Georgia will live in 2030. They want to live together with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, or maybe with some other countries - these are discussions. Now, the most important thing for the Prime Minister of Georgia is that people who are financed by foreign states and engaged in political and informational activities should be defined by law. We must proceed from this, the rest is reasoning dictated by the devil,“ Karasin said and thus responded to the so-called law on foreign agents which the Parliament of Georgia adopted on May 28, overcoming the President's veto.

“In this rather difficult situation, I would highlight the fact that he (Kobakhidze) is in confrontation with Salome Zurabishvili, who, for obvious reasons, takes the position of the Western minority and, more specifically, the European Union and other Western countries to defeat the current government of Georgia,” Karasin stated and assessed the ongoing political processed in Georgia.

Konstantin Zatulin, the Deputy Chairman of the Committee for CIS Affairs, Eurasian Integration and Relations with Compatriots of the State Duma, was among the Russian high-ranking officials who responded to Kobakhidze's statement.

According to Zatulin, Kobakhidze's statement is due to the desire to demonstrate patriotism as well as to justify himself to the West.

„I don't know what the Prime Minister of Georgia was inspired by, other than the desire to demonstrate patriotism. I don’t quite understand how he intends to return Abkhazia and South Ossetia before 2030, which are developing as independent states, are under the protection of Russia, and therefore are recognized. I have the impression that in this way the Prime Minister of Georgia wanted to once again declare himself as a politician who will in no way yield to the opposition in his claims to join the European Union or the return of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.“

According to Zatulin, “the law on foreign agents plays a big role, which is connected with the internal political struggle that has escalated in Georgia due to its adoption. The desire of the Georgian government, despite the fact that it supported the law against the opinion of the West, still shows that it is not under the influence of Russia. We set goals for ourselves that contradict Russia, and you can rest assured that we are guided by certain priorities in our policy that is contrary to Russian interests.  Georgia justifies itself to the domestic opposition and the West,” he noted. 

Summary

Despite the responses of the so-called Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Irakli Kobakhidze’s statements about the restoration of territorial integrity by 2030 were not taken seriously in the occupied regions. Users in the Abkhaz Telegram channels responded to the Prime Minister of Georgia with irony and jokes, calling the statement a delusion.

At the same time, high-ranking Russian government officials sought appropriate explanations for the Prime Minister's statement, tried not to evaluate it radically, and explained it mainly by pragmatism and internal political struggle. These “non-radical assessments” of Russian high-ranking officials may be related to adopting the so-called law on agents, which Russian high-ranking officials and propaganda media representatives repeatedly supported.

Go BackGo Back