3 ms·

Abkhazia is a Georgian territory occupied by Russia. Russia is the #1 reason for poverty in the region.

refraincomment 6y ago
Mind to explain? Russia uses electromagnetics do diminish the rate of ideas of the population?
SXX 6y ago
I'm in no way supporter of Putins regime and I totally agree that he'll do everything to keep all countries around poor and unstable, but come on. Original war in Abkhazia happened when USSR crashed and it was your usual ethnic conflict. Not some orchestrated hybrid war like in Ukraine, but real civil war. I've been in both Abkhazia and Georgia and people of both countries relise that and count themself the righteous side. Yeah it's obvious that Russian establishment have all reason sto keep this conflict unresolved as it's prevent Gerogia from joining NATO or EU. But even if regime in Russia gonna change there is no easy solution because ethnic conflict didn't go anywhere.
- varjag 6y ago
  Yeah no, that's not quite the full story. Abkhasian regime persists largely due to continued presence of Russian troops. Much of the residual economy in the break-off region revolves around the Russian bases as well. The rest of it is the lowest tier Russian "visa free" tourism, also guaranteed by Russian military presence. Same goes for South Ossetia and Transnistria: these conflicts would long be history without Russian military footholds.
  - levosmetalo 6y ago
    > Same goes for South Ossetia and Transnistria: these conflicts would long be history without Russian military footholds. You mean "history" in a sense that the local population would be ethnically cleansed from the Georgian majority and the ones that survive relocated to Russia? And then they would be marked as aggressors because they dared to try protecting themselves with arms, and refused to just disappear from the territory where they have been living for centuries. Yeah, we saw that many times, and the only criteria that leads to the "correct" conclusion who is right and who is wrong, who is aggressor and who defends himself, who is the victim and who is villain is whether US/NATO or Russian/Other troops are involved on one of the sides.
    - varjag 6y ago
      No, I mean they would continue to live on the territory they lived for centuries (somehow without apparently being ethnically cleansed by Georgians all that damn time). And without Russian involvement it would have long since went into participatory politics. And it's not just a speculation, there was a perfect A/B test. Ajaria, another autonomous region of Georgia, long since had independence ambitions too. However that conflict fizzed out without notable violence. The difference from Ossetia? It does not border Russia and there weren't substantial troops stationed at the time of USSR dissolution.

Mind to explain? Russia uses electromagnetics do diminish the rate of ideas of the population?

SXX 6y ago

I'm in no way supporter of Putins regime and I totally agree that he'll do everything to keep all countries around poor and unstable, but come on. Original war in Abkhazia happened when USSR crashed and it was your usual ethnic conflict. Not some orchestrated hybrid war like in Ukraine, but real civil war. I've been in both Abkhazia and Georgia and people of both countries relise that and count themself the righteous side. Yeah it's obvious that Russian establishment have all reason sto keep this conflict unresolved as it's prevent Gerogia from joining NATO or EU. But even if regime in Russia gonna change there is no easy solution because ethnic conflict didn't go anywhere.

varjag 6y ago
Yeah no, that's not quite the full story. Abkhasian regime persists largely due to continued presence of Russian troops. Much of the residual economy in the break-off region revolves around the Russian bases as well. The rest of it is the lowest tier Russian "visa free" tourism, also guaranteed by Russian military presence. Same goes for South Ossetia and Transnistria: these conflicts would long be history without Russian military footholds.
- levosmetalo 6y ago
  > Same goes for South Ossetia and Transnistria: these conflicts would long be history without Russian military footholds. You mean "history" in a sense that the local population would be ethnically cleansed from the Georgian majority and the ones that survive relocated to Russia? And then they would be marked as aggressors because they dared to try protecting themselves with arms, and refused to just disappear from the territory where they have been living for centuries. Yeah, we saw that many times, and the only criteria that leads to the "correct" conclusion who is right and who is wrong, who is aggressor and who defends himself, who is the victim and who is villain is whether US/NATO or Russian/Other troops are involved on one of the sides.
  - varjag 6y ago
    No, I mean they would continue to live on the territory they lived for centuries (somehow without apparently being ethnically cleansed by Georgians all that damn time). And without Russian involvement it would have long since went into participatory politics. And it's not just a speculation, there was a perfect A/B test. Ajaria, another autonomous region of Georgia, long since had independence ambitions too. However that conflict fizzed out without notable violence. The difference from Ossetia? It does not border Russia and there weren't substantial troops stationed at the time of USSR dissolution.