Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

Turmoil in Georgia?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Turmoil in Georgia?

    Today I talked to my friend who is in Georgia now; he told me that he can’t return because of political turmoil their. He said that opposition took the public TV station.

    What’s going on there? Does someone know any additional details about the situation in Georgia?

  • #2
    Re: Turmoil in Georgia?

    You live in Armenia(?) you should know more than us...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Turmoil in Georgia?

      Georgia opposition calls for Day of Rage protest



      (Reuters) - A Georgian opposition party called for a "Day of Rage" Wednesday to try to force President Mikheil Saakashvili to resign after police used teargas and rubber bullets against protesters in the capital.

      The protesters, who numbered around 10,000 Saturday, accuse Saakashvili of imposing autocratic rule on the former Soviet republic that sits on energy transit routes from the Caspian to western Europe.

      Echoing language used to rally protesters in the uprisings in the Arab world, Sozar Subari, chairman of the opposition Georgian Party, said: "We are calling our supporters to come to the rally on May 25 and we call this day 'Day of Rage'."

      He told a news conference Sunday the state was using its power against its own people.

      An Interior Ministry spokesman said the police had intervened when a group of 10 protesters started smashing the windows of a police car with metal poles. Protesters had camped out in Tbilisi overnight.

      "Police used teargas and rubber bullets against that aggressive group of protesters ... There was no intention to disperse the rally," spokesman Shota Utiashvili said.

      Protesters said a group of them attacked the police car because they wanted to release an activist who had been detained. Independent Maestro television reported that one woman was taken to hospital.

      By early evening, 2,000 people gathered near TV building in Tbilisi to hear about what further action was planned.

      "Our doors are open to other opposition political parties. We expect that more people will join our protest and this regime will be over very soon," Nino Burjanadze, former Saakashvili ally and parliament speaker, told the crowd.

      Former defense minister Irakly Okruashvili -- who is wanted by Georgian authorities and is in exile in Paris -- promised to return to Georgia on May 25 to join his Georgian Party colleagues.

      "I can promise you two things -- that I will be in Georgia on May 25 and that this day will be the last one for this government," Okruashvili told Maestro television.

      The rally would be on the day before Georgia marks its 20th anniversary of independence Thursday.

      Opponents of the pro-Western Saakashvili accuse him of monopolising power since the 2003 "Rose Revolution" that ousted the post-Soviet old guard in the Caucasus state.

      Weakened by the brief war with Russia in 2008, Saakashvili has since reasserted control, aided by an ineffective and patchy opposition.

      (Reporting by Margarita Antidze; editing by Alison Williams)

      Azerbaboon: 9.000 Google hits and counting!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Turmoil in Georgia?

        Please kick out Saakashvili and the US puppet government - it's so stupid to be an outpust of the US, and be on the doorstep of Russia. Hopefully, there can be a government that becomes warmer with Russia.

        Մեկ Ազգ, Մեկ Մշակույթ
        ---
        "Western Assimilation is the greatest threat to the Armenian nation since the Armenian Genocide."

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Turmoil in Georgia?

          Sakashvillies' regimes days are numbered. Going against russia will have serious consequences. They have already lost south ossetia and abkhazia, perhaps forever.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Turmoil in Georgia?

            It would be so good for us, if Georgia is pro-Russia. More than you can imagine, we need a reasonable government in Georgia, not a leader who is under the spell of the American neo cons.
            Մեկ Ազգ, Մեկ Մշակույթ
            ---
            "Western Assimilation is the greatest threat to the Armenian nation since the Armenian Genocide."

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Turmoil in Georgia?

              GEORGIANS DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION ABOUT ABKHAZIA
              by M. Gagua and L. Tughushi

              Democracy & Freedom Watch
              There is a deficit of knowledge about what is going on in Abkhazia, says Alexander Cooley, professor of political science at Barnard College, Columbia University in New York. Cooley sat down with D…

              June 22 2012

              There is a deficit of knowledge about what is going on in Abkhazia,
              says Alexander Cooley, professor of political science at Barnard
              College, Columbia University in New York.

              Cooley sat down with DF Watch and told us about a researcher doing
              public opinion surveys in Abkhazia who was frowned upon by the
              Georgian government..

              How do you see the dynamic of the situation in Georgia politically
              generally?

              The general view of Georgia is that we've now reached the second term
              of this government that presented itself as a revolutionary government
              and now the question of how it either transitions or how it gives up
              power becomes the central question. We can no longer talk that this
              is a young government. It's not. Like in 2003, 2004. We of course
              have the presidential term limits. And I think there is couple of
              distinct trends. One is that the government has been very good at
              the modernization project of Georgia. And what do I mean by this?

              Presenting Georgia as a modern dynamic society, changing its image
              abroad, aligning it with the west, incorporating this language
              of values of the west and so on, very good at that; improving its
              investment image abroad and so forth.

              It's also been extremely effective, and is viewed as a role model on
              the petty corruption issue and reforming the police and so forth.

              Having said all that I think we've now reached, in parts, the limits
              of the modernization program, and you've seen the tension between
              modernization and democratization that the steps on the democratization
              side have stopped, and that you see clearly now a government that's
              convinced it has the best interest of the Georgian people on mind,
              the state, but is increasingly resorting to undemocratic tactics
              and procedures to try and extend its time in power and to paint its
              political opponents in an unfavorable light. So I think it's very
              important that we disentangle the issues of this government as a
              modernizer, versus the government as democratizer. I think this
              government has modernizing credentials, but it has stalled on the
              democracy front. And even though I think it wants to conflate the two,
              we need to keep these separate.

              You mentioned that democratization process was stopped. When exactly
              did you notice this turning point, which year, which event indicated
              this?

              I think most people would point to the events of 2007 and the crackdown
              as crystallizing the stall. Now I think when you look constitutionally,
              there were moments before, like the failure to enact the constitutional
              reforms, that were meant to come into force shortly after the rose
              revolution. I think there were also some strategic mistakes made
              by the US in response. For instance after this new government came
              to power we stopped viewing Georgia as a country in transition, and
              viewed it as a fully-fledged democracy. So for instance we withdrew
              media founding for promoting the media, and then in 2005-2006 you saw
              this government assert its control over the media. So I think that
              was a mistake on our part. So I think there were some sides from
              2005 to 2006, but I think 2007 is when in terms of Georgian image
              more broadly you saw real chinks in this democracy image.

              We have had two interviews with Lincoln Mitchell, and he mentioned
              that for several years, the USA was somewhat suspicious towards the
              democratic opposition, but what is the situation now?

              I think it has evolved, I think it has improved. The thing we have
              to realize about the US, especially when it looks at this part of
              the world, it's not very much the Cold War mentality. Even so-called
              experts, analysts, foreign policy people, senators or representatives,
              who are engaged with the region, still view the US policy as being one
              where they should strengthen the sovereignty and independence of the
              former soviet states. That's a code word for saying we should lessen
              their dependency on Russia. We put it always in those term. That's
              been the strategy in this part of the world for long time. So I think,
              A) the government here has been very good at labeling all political
              opponents, all political concerns as playing into the Russians, whether
              they were or not, this is a different issue, and that in turn found a
              real audience in the US, this kind of binary choice. You know, you're
              either with us or with Russia. It clarifies things, it clarifies the
              policy. You know, we wanna be with the good guys. Now, I think you're
              seeing more nuance. I think you're seeing some reflections about what
              happened in 2008. You see that question of the war, its origins is
              not is as not as clear cut as it was first portrayed to be. I think
              actually Vladimir Putin has been incredibly important in this and I'll
              say why. As negative example, because doing what he did, this idea that
              not only did he make the transition to Prime Minister, but he had it
              all planned out beforehand. And then to come back as president, this
              strikes us as being just wrong, from a democratic process. So that now
              I think any such plans here, to sort of engineer a primeministership
              or changing duties is going to be looked up in the states in the more
              negative manner, because of what happened in Russia. Perhaps that's
              an unexpected Russian example, but I think that's an issue too. Then
              a third factor is I think you see more openness now in terms of the
              media environment and lobbying environment in the US, because Georgian
              Dream now is making its positions felt in certain parts of Washington,
              whereas before, the Georgian opposition really had no representation
              in this part. So I think this convergence of factors puts us in a
              different position then we were, I would say, three or four years ago.

              Very interesting point about Putin precedent, him becoming Prime
              Minister...

              Yes, it's harder to criticize this in Russia, than accept the reasons
              for it somewhere else.

              Many people here expect the same scenario in Georgia too - Saakashvili
              becomes Prime Minister, because the new constitution gives all
              powers to the Prime Minister from 2013. What will be the response
              from Washington?

              I'm not sure that Washington can do to respond, to tell you the truth.

              I think there are messages that have been made in private and delivered
              that we expect an orderly and constitutional transition of authority,
              I think there have been private messages delivered trying to persuade
              president Saakashvili to think about your legacy and your image here,
              your place in history, if you were to voluntarily cede power. But the
              reality is that Georgia is going to continue to remain - for many
              a friend, for many an ally - regardless of whether this happens or
              not. One thing that I would like to see is much more public call about
              this issue like going on the record, talking about expectations about
              what we consider to be democratic progress and democratic development
              in Georgia. But in reality I don't think that if this is engineered
              and this happens after-the-fact, what can the US do? I don't think
              it can do too much, to tell you the truth.

              Let's turn to the Chicago Summit. It was seen as very important here.

              The government had been outlining the progress, while others considered
              no steps were taken forward. What are your views?

              I had the opposite reaction in terms of the message in Georgia. I
              saw this as a very strained indicator of Georgia's NATO aspirations
              and importance. I think the Georgian government tried to play up that
              somehow there was a meaningful progress on the NATO issue, because it
              feels like it has to demonstrate progress, because it all the time has
              to prove that its strategy is working. In reality Georgian membership
              in NATO is a very low priority at the moment for the member countries.

              They are very much concern about one issue only - that's Afghanistan
              getting out of Afghanistan. Everything else is of secondary importance.

              This fall we have a parliamentary election which is seen as very
              important for many people here. What do you think, does there exist
              any red line, the crossing of which would cost Saakashvili and Georgian
              authorities their image as pro-western and democratic?

              It's hard to think in hypotheticals, so I'd rather not come up with
              imaginary scenarios. There is an international expectation that
              the elections should be reasonibly fair, that the process should be
              transparent, that all candidates who want to run, should be allowed to
              run, that there shouldn't be obviously the problem of administrative
              resources, but that this use of the media power and media control,
              that sort of block certain oppositional channels from cable packages,
              and so forth, this should also be denounced as unfair. I think former
              ambassador Bass commented on this issue. So I don't think there is
              any one red line. I think there should be an expectation that this
              is a mature government now, they certainly know about rules and
              institutions, that the run up to the election should be as open and
              as transparent, conforming to international norms as the conduct of
              the election itself.

              But what if it doesn't, what if elections are still unfair, despite
              all those criticism and recommendations?

              I think you'll see a lot of international criticism. To what ends,
              I don't know. I would be speculating, so I don't want to speculate
              scenarios, but I think, one thing, and I know Lincoln agrees with me
              on this, elections always seem to be tests of Georgia's democratic
              status. And it keeps receding for the tests. It's a sort of exam that
              you keep taking and taking and taking until eventually you get it
              right at some point. But the image of this government if it somehow
              interferes will be deminished. So I think this is why things now are
              in a different place than they were four or five years ago. Now we
              are at the end of a second cycle, and that's a quite pivotal point
              in terms of the perception of governments.

              You published an opinion piece together with Lincoln Mitchell in the
              New York Times last year about the Abkhazian elections. You touched
              several important points, including the Georgian authority and how
              they treat these breakaway regions. How do you view Georgian policy
              towards those regions?

              I think that the policy is one of isolation, and one of wanting to
              speak on their behalf, and I think it's been very counterproductive. I
              fear that Abkhazia is already lost now to Russia, because of the
              policy, that there was an opening perhaps right after the war. This is
              one of things we wanted to do:if there is obvious distrust between
              the Abkhaz government and this government, and if there is genuine
              concern in Abkhazia about being observed by Russia, which there is, you
              must offer a third way. You must offer some other set of processes,
              institutions, areas, where you can facilitate some dialogues and
              contacts, and this is sort of the regional third way, this is what we
              advocate, engagement. No recognition, but international engagement,
              and also it's becoming the basis of EU policy, although in the
              implementation phase it hasn't gone that way. Because given just
              a stark binary choice between Georgia and Russia, you see the turn
              to Russia. And not everyone's necessarily happy about it, there are
              concerns. Again, some of the Abkhaz say, what for? We are autonomous or
              de facto independent, but not formally recognized. Now we're formally
              recognized but we're not independent. Now we're formally recognized,
              but we're not independent. So there is a tension between the legal
              recognition and the material consequences.

              I think the other thing here is that the central government here is
              not given a set of matrix or indicators or standards through which we
              would be able to judge as external academics or analysts, the success
              of their strategy. So, how do we know, when we hear statements from
              senior officials that the strategy is working? Working to do what?

              What should we look at? Should we look at the number of grey passports
              that were adopted? Should we look at the number of hospital visits
              by Abkhaz here in Georgia? What should we look at, just tell us,
              otherwise this just your word. The final part that I have found very
              troubling is that it is clear that there is a deficit of knowledge
              about what is going on in Abkhazia. So this is why we have researchers
              committed to make public opinion surveys in Abkhazia trying to get a
              sense of what are the issues, what are the political attitudes. And
              this type of work is very frowned upon by central authorities here.

              One permanent researcher who entered via the north has now subsequently
              been banned here, but his work is very important work about political
              attitudes in Abkhazia. So I think the point is we can't keep talking
              about what the Abkhaz really think as if it's just some hypathotical
              thing. We have the tools to find out what the Abkhaz do think,
              and I think the sooner that Tbilisi starts dealing with realities
              and political attitudes there and acknowledging them, that signals
              itself to the Abkhaz that you are taking these issues seriously. Now
              the question I said was, the Russians would never allow. How do you
              know? You need to start putting this process in place of real dialogue,
              of taking opinions seriously that if the Russians intervene, it changes
              Abkhaz perceptions of the political equation and the tolerance issue
              and so forth. So I actually think forcing Russia's hand would be good
              outcome of this. Not a bad one.

              Can you maybe predict about current situation in Karabakh [a disputed
              region claimed by both Azerbaijan and Armenia, and currently controlled
              by Armenia], because the situation is quite difficult there.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Turmoil in Georgia?

                Very difficult. I can't predict and I'm not sure I want to. All I
                would say is that of course these recent skirmishes are part of a
                broader tension that you've seen over the last two three years. I
                think the question is, is there a destabilizing window at the moment,
                is every government that is now flushed with new wealth, that seems
                self-confident, whether it sees a window of a possible military
                operation in a way that it won't be able to in five or ten year's
                time. From a strategic point of view, that's the question I would ask.

                But in terms of what will happenn I don't know.

                Is there a possibility of involvement by some regional big powers,
                like Russia or Turkey, Iran?

                There's a lot of talk about involvement of big powers, there's lot
                talks about also the ramifications of the campaign against Iran, on
                the Karabakh issue. These are some second order consequences that need
                to be talked about in relation to the discussion of what a military
                operation on Iran will do. Not only for the Middle East but in the
                Caucasus itself. Would it set in emotion a set of other dynamics? I
                just can't predict with any certainty, what would or wouldn't happen.

                But yes, is there a relation there? Absolutely. Are relations between
                Iranians and Israelis very tense? Yes, very much so. I can't say
                anything more without just speculating.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Turmoil in Georgia?

                  Did Saakashvili's Government Recruit and Train Chechen Islamist Militants?
                  September 5, 2013 ,
                  by Joshua Kucera

                  A year ago last week, Georgian troops carried out a military operation against what it called "armed subversives" infiltrating the country from Russia. The operation, in the Pankisi Gorge where Georgia's small Chechen minority lives, reportedly killed 11 people. And President Mikheil Saakashvili, then in the heat of a parliamentary election campaign with Bidzina Ivanishvili, called the alleged incursion a "provocation" by Russia aimed at influencing the vote.

                  But a year on, evidence has emerged to cast serious doubt on the government's original claims, and there are credible suggestions that the operation was in fact the botched result of an attempt by Saakashvili's government to train Chechen rebels to destabilize Russia. The crux of the issue seems to be, as the headline in a recent piece by Open Democracy put it, "Is Georgia a terrorist state?"

                  Questions about the official version of events arose soon after the events. But the really damning counterallegations came in an April report by Georgian human rights ombudsman Ucha Nanuashvili, who concluded that:

                  [T]he Chechens had been recruited in Europe by Georgian Interior Ministry officials, brought to Tbilisi, and trained over a period of several months in the use of weaponry with the intention of enabling them to cross the border from Georgia into Chechnya to join the ranks of the Islamic insurgency.

                  In addition to the young Chechens living in exile in Europe, the organizers of the operation also recruited several Kists (Georgian Chechens) from the Chechen community that has lived for several centuries in Georgia's Pankisi Gorge.

                  Now, RFE/RL reports in a comprehensive piece on the controversy a year on, new allegations suggest that it may have been the defense ministry, not the interior ministry, that was behind the scheme. And there are claims that the Chechens may have been intended to attack Ivanishvili himself, or to create a terror attack in Georgia that the authorities could blame him for. And it notes:

                  The ongoing official investigation into how, why, and by whom the Chechens were co-opted has apparently stalled, although Ivanishvili, who is now prime minister, said in late April that it would be completed "in the near future."

                  To sum up: there are credible allegations that the Georgian government recruited and trained Chechens to take part in Islamist militant movements. Obviously, there could be some political element to the allegations. But when I've asked Georgians about this, none of them say the claims are ludicrous, they tend to shrug their shoulders and say some version of "Who knows?" Why has this not been a bigger story?

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X