Menu
100 Days of President Badra Gunba
One hundred days of Badra Gunba’s presidency as an occasion to talk about the new government. About trends and plans both in domestic and foreign policy. About how the new team is working on the mistakes that, under the previous president, led to an acute political crisis, including in relations with Moscow. The editor of the newspaper Chegemskaya Pravda, Inal Khashig, discussed this with Leonid Chamagua.
Inal Khashig, journalist: Hello, this is Chegemskaya Pravda. Today we will talk about the first 100 days of Badra Gunba’s presidency in Abkhazia.
Using this topic as a starting point, we’ll discuss what has been done, what hasn’t, what trends can be identified in the current government, what their policies are, and what they focus on.
We’re speaking with Leonid Chamagua. Good afternoon. How do you feel about these 100 days? We had tough, extremely tense presidential elections, terrible in terms of atmosphere. Then the tension subsided. But the issues around which those elections revolved remain.
Some people were stripped of their Russian citizenship, some were labeled as foreign agents, including myself. Others were declared persona non grata in Russia. So, there are many different problems, and this burden still exists. What’s your impression?
Leonid Chamagua, public figure, former member of parliament: A hundred days is undoubtedly a significant period during which at least certain directions in domestic and foreign policy can be outlined. On the other hand, we’re all different, and perhaps some people need more time to “gain momentum”
Nevertheless, the head of state and his team must understand that they need to work here and now, starting from day one.
You’re right: the burden of problems, the tension, has indeed subsided. I think only temporarily. After all, it’s the holiday season, people are distracted. We were promised an “explosive” season, but apparently, it hasn’t been very successful. People are busy with their own affairs, and by autumn, I think things will start “boiling” again.
We elect the head of state, and no matter who voted for whom, we want him to work for the good of the people, to do everything possible—and sometimes even the impossible. That’s who we are; we want to see the state develop, for people’s well-being to improve, for stability.
But for all this, it’s necessary to assess the events that have taken place. For me, the number one question is whether the head of state agrees with the policy toward Abkhaz citizens who hold dual citizenship or sometimes have no other citizenship at all. Does he agree with subjecting them to repressive measures, let’s call things by their name?
I have certain suspicions. If the authorities neither reject nor deny this policy, nor express their viewpoint, I take it as tacit support for what’s happening. I’m left guessing. As an ordinary person, I don’t understand what’s going on.
Inal Khashig: These sanctions look like a continuation of a certain policy. They are linked to the same projects that were actively pushed under Aslan Bzhania (the previous president): the apartments law, investment agreements that were clearly disadvantageous for Abkhazia.
The new Kremlin curator for Abkhazia, Kiriyenko, admitted that this was a mistake. But right now, it’s not about us personally or about the individuals who suffered. What’s needed is an assessment of the political course followed during Aslan Bzhania’s presidency.
Leonid Chamagua: So, the question is: do we continue this course, or do we abandon it?
Inal Khashig: Exactly. Have any conclusions been drawn, are we rejecting certain approaches or not? So far, the only visible actions are ceremonial: laying flowers, cutting ribbons, greeting guests, watching planes land.
But there’s no conceptual vision – no understanding of how we lived, what lessons were learned from past mistakes, or even whether those were mistakes. None of this has been addressed.
This is the issue. And during the election campaign, there was never a clear statement that there are no anti-Russian forces in Abkhazia. A joint document was even prepared, the two main candidates met, but I never saw that phrase included in the document.
From what I know, the document was agreed upon, with edits made by the ruling party’s candidate as well. Yet the statement that “there are no anti-Russian forces in Abkhazia” never appeared.
The only one who says this now is the foreign minister.
Leonid Chamagua: Let’s give him credit for that.
Inal Khashig: Yes, he has voiced it. But you understand how fragile this is. It’s not the position of the entire government but just of one minister. He has charisma and a political background. In this technocratic administration, he can afford to make such statements, which the leadership may or may not like. It’s his personal opinion.
Meanwhile, we read different reports that former president Aslan Bzhania, who caused the political crisis, allegedly plans to return to Abkhaz politics. He is eyeing the position of Abkhazia’s ambassador to Russia.
These rumors have some basis. When anonymous channels attack Foreign Minister Oleg Bartsyts, it becomes clear that he is resisting this move. Essentially, the only thing preventing this appointment is Bartsyts himself. It’s not the Abkhaz leadership as a whole, but specifically him who stands in the way of Bzhania’s return to the political scene.
We see that the story remains unfinished, the chapter is not closed. The necessary conclusions have not been drawn.
We keep moving forward: cutting ribbons, congratulating people, awarding orders and titles. But conceptually stating what is happening in our country, what has happened, and why. This is something they do not address.
Leonid Chamagua: It’s hard to say why this is happening. There could be many reasons. Maybe they don’t want to change anything, or they don’t know how to do it. Maybe they’re waiting for the right moment to start making changes.
It’s difficult to speak for everyone, but I know one thing. It says a lot when the foreign minister publicly declares that there are no anti-Russian forces in Abkhazia. He made it clear that neither political parties, movements, nor public figures hold anti-Russian positions.
From what’s happening, it seems clear that the authorities have begun working toward bringing Aslan Bzhania back into politics, including through these social media comments.
I’ve heard about it but don’t follow it myself (on social media)
If the authorities are quietly fighting for this, it’s a return to the events of November 15 and earlier, when Aslan Bzhania was ousted from power.
I believe this will not benefit either the Abkhaz people or the authorities. Leaders must be farsighted and wise enough to understand that there is such a thing as a train that has already left the station. And there’s also a “trigger,” someone who might try to bring that train back to the same platform, God forbid.
For me, it’s clear: the leadership must have the intelligence and awareness to understand that there should be no return to the past.
But there are other points as well. We’re talking about the first 100 days in power. We would like to hear from the head of state on several critical issues: demographics, healthcare, education. There’s a massive problem in the economy, which we are only starting to grasp now.
Remember that public meeting in Gagra? For so many years, they supported every government. And suddenly, they come out with criticism, speaking about dumping prices set by Russian businesses.
We are witnessing the Abkhaz state starting to wake up. Some say it’s too late, that time has been irreversibly lost. But what should we do then – go drown ourselves? No. There is always a chance to change something, always a way to act and keep fighting.
We are now facing an enormous choice. We’re beginning to understand that the economy brings new challenges every day.
Tourism seemed to be developing dynamically. And then a giant monopoly from Russia steps in, which will simply ruin us all. And we are completely unprotected from this.
What should we do in this situation? I’m sorry, but I have to say this. Recently in this studio, we discussed with opposition figure Adgur Ardzinba the issue of five million tourists.
Inal Khashig: That was actually discussed with economist Akhra Aristava.
Leonid Chamagua: Yes, yes, sorry. We said that five billion was a ridiculous figure. The discussion was about a five-year plan to bring five million tourists to Abkhazia.
It reminded me of the time when Aslan Bzhania was president and prepared the ground for this. He traveled across the regions, talking about the need to “share sovereignty.” People, perhaps naively, applauded. It was a trial balloon, an initial push, and it was accepted.
Later, there was talk that it was the Abkhaz side itself that raised the issue of selling real estate. But back when I was in parliament (the fifth convocation), experienced politicians were already warning that external forces were pushing Abkhazia to allow real estate sales to foreigners.
Eventually, the narrative shifted, suggesting that Abkhazians themselves requested apartment construction and other developments.
Today, I see similar signs reappearing. Let’s remember: during Soviet times, with its infrastructure and a population of over 500,000, even with year-round tourism, Abkhazia hardly ever had 2–2.5 million visitors.
So, the figure of 5 million tourists looks like another trial balloon. Tomorrow, they might say: “Here is Abkhazia’s vision. To reach this target, we need investors to build massive hotels,” which will put us back on the same track we tried to avoid.
This would lead to monopolies and even land ownership transfers, destroying local businesses. Sure, we could end up working for salaries of 50–60 thousand rubles ($600–700), but that’s not acceptable to me. I’d rather earn 10–20 thousand less and remain the owner of my land.
An owner is someone who, if necessary, would take up arms to defend their land. Once you lose that feeling of ownership, you won’t defend it.
I see clear parallels between past events and what’s happening now. It looks like early groundwork.
Remember when Russian State Duma deputy Zatulin said that while Abkhaz authorities claimed those projects were for our benefit, he openly admitted they were designed to avoid alarming Abkhaz society? In the long term, he said, it would be like Sochi: there used to be 300,000 residents, and now it’s 1.5 million.
Abkhaz authorities denied such outcomes at the time, yet here came a Russian deputy telling the truth.
This brings us to today’s issues. Inal, you call him the Kremlin’s “curator of Abkhazia.” Out of self-respect, I’d prefer to say “coordinator of Abkhazia-Russia relations.”
But it’s not just him. Several Russian officials on national TV have admitted that previous agreements didn’t reflect Abkhazia’s interests.
Here’s my question. Among today’s ministers, there are people who signed those documents back then, insisting they posed no threat and were beneficial to Abkhazia. How am I supposed to understand what really happened? How can I trust these ministers if they failed to see the risks?
I won’t name names – you know who I mean. These same people are still in office, and their willingness to compromise then suggests they’ll do the same tomorrow.
I still haven’t heard them say that they’ve reconsidered their position.
The public understood the dangers at the time, and now even our Russian partners admit those agreements were a mistake. Yet these ministers haven’t acknowledged it.
I want to know what has changed in our government. If nothing has, if only one or two faces have changed, can these people truly build trust with the public?
Recently, the president said he’s ready to talk to the opposition if it’s constructive. But every government dreams of having a so-called “constructive opposition.” We all know what that implies.
I have another question: how did the previous administration behave when the current president was vice president? With all due respect, who was “non-constructive” back then? They said, “There’s no one to talk to,” dismissed the Council of Elders, refused to listen to intellectuals.
Veterans and war heroes sent letters – 92 in total, with over 70 signatures.
The government’s stance was completely non-constructive. Independent experts said the opposition at the time was a gift for the authorities, no radical demands.
Remember their statement: “Remove these issues from the agenda, elections are coming in 3–4 months, bring them up then. We’re not demanding resignations.” How is that non-constructive?
The government simply refused to listen or even acknowledge it.
And notice: did the current president make those issues central to his election campaign? No, they were quietly shelved, likely waiting for the right moment.
I suspect we’ll soon see another agreement involving major players.
This all says a lot. I truly want Badra Gunba to meet the expectations of our people and defend our interests.
International relations are never smooth, even between close allies. But a submissive stance, presenting foreign initiatives as our own, is unacceptable.
We all remember the apartment projects. Those plans are at least ten years old, and we know where they came from.
Sadly, this trend hasn’t been broken, and there are many more issues we need to discuss.
Inal Khashig: Perhaps that’s not even the main issue. The real problem is the total lack of public transparency on these matters. Let’s set aside the Foreign Minister. Everywhere else, it’s complete silence. No clear statements.
Take the case of those who fell under sanctions. We sent inquiries and were told they were forwarded to various agencies. Recently, the Presidential Administration replied that they too had sent some kind of requests. But what kind of requests?
We didn’t just want to know why it happened. We wanted to hear the government’s opinion: what do they think about all this? But we got no answer.
Yes, they now say they’re trying to change the situation, discussing things behind closed doors. They claim nothing depends on them, everything is up to Moscow, and so on.
But there are issues that are directly their responsibility. This entire crisis wouldn’t have happened if there hadn’t been willingness from Abkhazia to let it happen.
Aslan Bzhania – thankfully now the former president – deliberately fueled this situation.
Leonid Chamagua. Do you remember that letter supposedly sent from the Presidential Administration to Moscow, which they called fake? Every step taken by the Russian side afterwards only confirmed that the letter was real.
Inal Khashig: Aslan Bzhania, in his effort to cling to power, portrayed himself as Russia’s only ally, claiming that all other political forces were anti-Russian. During the election campaign, he branded them as supposedly “pro-Turkish” and so on.
At the time, the Foreign Minister and several other ministers openly declared that Western intelligence was operating here. They named names.
And after November 15, when Aslan Bzhania was overthrown, he claimed it was a coup carried out by foreign intelligence services, even while admitting he had no evidence.
The same was said by the then Minister of Justice, who is still in office. He insisted it was a coup, orchestrated by foreign agents. I would like to see an investigation – by parliament, the prosecutor’s office. Let them determine where these claims came from.
If there is real evidence – name names, present proof, put people in handcuffs and send them to prison. But if there isn’t, then this is a manipulation of public opinion and consciousness. The authorities are using fear to control the population.
The former leadership stirred things up, claiming that Abkhazia was a hotbed of anti-Russian sentiment.
Leonid Chamagua: Back then, remember, a word was used in the Abkhaz language – people were insulted. Reporting on your fellow citizens is a despicable act. If these citizens are guilty of something, they should be invited for a conversation – it might turn out that no wrongdoing occurred at all.
To inform on people who have done nothing wrong, without any supporting evidence or preliminary investigation – that’s a vile and disgraceful act.
Such things have happened in our people’s history. It was in the 1930s – not so long ago, historically speaking. And this has long been evaluated – such incidents occur across the world from time to time. Informing is slander and cowardice.
You mentioned your rounds among government officials. We’ve been doing the same – talking to people. We were aware of Oleg Bartsyts’s position (Foreign Minister). His approach is fair and appropriate.
Parliament has a mechanism – a parliamentary investigation. We discussed this. It is a very clear and weighty tool. What is its essence? During a parliamentary investigation, there can be no classified materials.
All ministries and agencies are obliged to provide the investigative commission with the documents that served as the basis for any conclusions – or to explain if conclusions were made without any materials at all.
The importance of such an investigation can’t be overstated. It’s one thing when a group of people look into the matter on their own initiative, and quite another when such a serious mechanism is activated.
It is the duty of parliament to protect the citizens of Abkhazia and their interests. Especially when it concerns a respected member of society – a veteran, a hero of the [Georgian-Abkhaz] war, a member of parliament, someone with a military reputation and more.
That’s why I don’t think there will be any members of parliament who will vote against such an investigation – out of respect for their colleague, if nothing else.
And once the investigation yields results, it will no longer be speculation, but an official document.
And if the conclusion confirms that there was no hostile activity of any kind, supported by no documents, then our colleagues and allies (in Russia) will also be obliged to take this document into account. It will be extremely important for all of us.
Inal Khashig: Of course, for a parliamentary investigation to begin, there needs to be political will. Lawmakers must make a collective decision.
Leonid Chamagua: Excuse me, but there is also such a thing as collegiality and solidarity. I don’t believe that his colleagues consider [MP] Kana Kvarchia to be anti-Russian.
Everyone knows him, no one has ever seen such tendencies in him. I worked with him. He is a decent person, he fought for his homeland. He has his own opinion – just like each of us.
I don’t think his colleagues will fail to support him. They have a duty to help restore his reputation in the eyes of our partners. Otherwise, it means they accept as fact that he has been declared an enemy of Russia. He does not deserve that. I believe his colleagues will support him.
Inal Khashig: Nevertheless, I think that beyond legal actions, there is also a moral aspect. When you understand that a person’s reputation has been damaged – it’s not necessary to launch a criminal case. You can simply quietly remove the person from their position. Because to initiate a criminal case – you need willpower.
Leonid Chamagua: But what if a parliamentary investigation is launched?
Inal Khashig: Yes, including a parliamentary investigation. After all, we live in a small, closed society based on kinship. That’s when these kinds of mechanisms start to work.
But I’m talking about something else – about moral responsibility. There were many passive people. But there were also those who actively facilitated this process – the baseless accusations of being anti-Russian.
Leonid Chamagua: There were those who directly signed the letters.
Inal Khashig: There are people who publicly claimed that anti-Russian forces and foreign agents operate in Abkhazia. If these people are still in power, they should be told: step down – you don’t meet the standards.
Leonid Chamagua: But that hasn’t happened.
Inal Khashig: Yes, but it must happen.
Leonid Chamagua: I agree. Or let them prove that Inal Khashig is an enemy.
Inal Khashig: They tell me: we’re doing everything we can (to have the “foreign agent” designation lifted in Russia). When my colleagues and I went around to officials, I saw people who genuinely wanted to help. And I know for a fact that they had nothing to do with that situation.
But those who were behind it – they are absolute cynics. They made a formal display: look, we wrote a letter, but it went unanswered. Just routine bureaucracy.
In fact, that person is just another informant, who also ratted people out. The authorities’ task is to first remove such people from their positions. I can live my whole life with the label of “foreign agent,” as I was called by the Russian minister.
But I want our authorities to stop being someone else’s agents. I want Abkhazia’s government to become ours – Abkhazian. They can smear others, but in the end, they are the ones making the decisions.
Leonid Chamagua: The trends of the past five or six years show that the Abkhaz authorities are starting to forget about the core interests of their people and their state. Who are they representing? When will they finally admit openly that all these papers and agreements are meaningless?
That there are the interests of specific oligarchs, and they were working for them. Our authorities swore that none of this was true. And then it turned out like this.
Inal Khashig: The only thing I want is for our authorities to do some real soul-searching, to remove from the system those who were involved in this. Then, quietly, we can move on to a new stage.
Leonid Chamagua: They won’t do this voluntarily. If they are forced by the people (through protests), then they’ll have to gather.
It doesn’t matter who is in power – me, you, or someone else. But the mechanism of a parliamentary investigation is effective.
I myself once represented a district in parliament and did my best. We all make mistakes. Let’s not pass judgment about who is good and who is bad. We are all capable of making mistakes within our areas of responsibility.
But this isn’t about a mistake – this is about treachery. They say there is a list of 120–130 people. That means a sword of Damocles is hanging over them. Our leadership knows that this list has already been handed over to the relevant agencies of a friendly state (Russia). At any moment, this mechanism could be activated.
What is the government counting on? Hypothetically, what could they hope for? That the next time there are agreements or bills disadvantageous to Abkhazia, this list will help silence the so-called dissenters?
Maybe everyone judges by their own standards. I think this won’t stop anyone. It’s a double game. They say they are writing letters, trying to stop it all. But at the same time, they don’t give any public assessment.
I want to see who is on this list. We’re talking about deputies, Heroes of Abkhazia, journalists – 10, 12, 15 people, I don’t know exactly how many. They are all different people. They have different last names, different political views, different professions.
But I suspect there is one thing uniting everyone on that list: these are people who sincerely fought for the interests of the Abkhaz state and people, whether they were right or wrong. That’s what unites them.
Not something else – not assignments from American intelligence, or Russian security services, or any other agency. There’s nothing stating they received tens of thousands of dollars, signed papers, and swore in blood to create problems for our friends and partners in Russia.
I’m sure of that. And we need to know who is on that list.
Inal Khashig: I’ll tell you this: this list of 120–130 people is basically an echo of the Abkhaz letter from 1937 (against Stalin), which was also signed by 130 people. They were figures of science, culture – all those who stood up for the interests of the Abkhaz people.
Leonid Chamagua: I suspect that in today’s list too, there will be cultural figures, creative people, members of the Academy of Sciences, and so on.
Inal Khashig: And if not them, then their children. It’s a kind of “genetic persecution”
Leonid Chamagua. And what is this act of intimidation actually connected to? I’m trying to understand when it emerged. It appeared during the period when anti-popular projects and agreements were being created, when a fence was being built around Parliament – the “fence of shame”
These ideas and documents arose during the confrontation with those initiatives, which today our allies (in Russia) recognize as ones that did not reflect the interests of Abkhazia.
However, the mechanism of suppressing the people’s will continues to function, the same mechanism that took shape back then when no such statements were made. This is nonsense.
Inal Khashig. I’ll continue that thought. The appearance of these lists means we are returning to the situation of those years, when our government stopped being Abkhazian.
Back then, the Abkhaz government was represented by the regional committee of the Communist Party of Georgia.
At that time they also used to say, “It wasn’t our decision – it was decided over there (in Tbilisi)”
And now we see the same situation. There are 120–130 of the most active people shaping the ideological and cultural character of the Abkhazian state – historians, scholars, and so on – and they have become an eyesore for the authorities.
They are starting to get in the authorities’ way.
When such a group of people becomes a burden, it means that this government has stopped representing the people’s interests.
The current authorities, including President Badra Gunba, should think carefully about this. What is the principle by which people end up on these lists? Who is putting them there?
Leonid Chamagua. I would like to see a constructive dialogue, if we’re speaking in official terms.
Inal Khashig. In any case, analysis is necessary, not only for internal use, but also for a political assessment. Because it allows you to publicly record your position.
If you don’t do this, any scenario becomes possible, including the worst ones for our state.
There needs to be some degree of openness in this matter. If the president himself feels uncomfortable doing this, there are various political organizations for that, there is the parliament, which also has its mechanisms.
Leonid Chamagua. I think we are moving toward a trajectory of parliamentary investigation. Because parliament cannot stand aside from what’s happening.
There are many worthy, educated, experienced people there, and they all understand perfectly well.
Yes, there is a certain inertia. We said: 100 days have passed since the presidential election. Maybe this is not a long time. But still, the inertia must end, and work must begin.
And there is one more point – I’m sorry to interrupt, but I want to emphasize it.
We see that the world is rapidly moving in a direction none of us, ordinary people in any country, would want. There are warmongers, instigators, aggressors, military blocs trying to subjugate everything.
Yet there is something else. Now many have become religious. Politicians stand in churches, and they think that the longer their candle, the closer they are to God.
But I think differently. God will judge us not by candles or by how we treat Him – but by how we treat each other.
And in this sense, I want to say this. Over the past three or four months, I have noticed a change in our people. Those who six months ago actively supported Russia, Putin, the military operation in Ukraine – they still support them. But today their eyes are very sad.
We were all hurt by what was done to us in the elections. Everything that is still being done now through various resources: television, Telegram channels, bots, and so on (I don’t know exactly what else, I’m not technically literate).
No matter how big a country is in today’s world. It can stand up to the entire world and still end up on the sidelines of history. We don’t wish that on Russia, or on anyone.
I respect the President of Russia, I enjoy watching his speeches. He is a farsighted, competent person. A few days ago, he said: “A just world order needed”
We often hear that phrase, but we don’t think about it. I started wondering: What is a just world order?
It is when justice applies to the weak. When powerful, great states demand justice for themselves – that is just dividing up the world pie. Europeans, Americans, Chinese have claimed their slices, and they don’t see us. But we, too, want to be among those who get a piece of that pie.
That’s how I see it. I hope that the head of the Russian state, when speaking of a just world order, understands that justice must also apply to small nations and small states like Abkhazia. Otherwise, there can be no just world order.
If it’s about something like, “Let’s split it among the three of us” – that’s not a just world order. That’s just a redistribution. I don’t think that’s what was meant.
What happened in Abkhazia was the failure of those agencies that oversaw this area. And that failure was covered up by what happened during the elections. This makes you think.
The pro-Turkish orientation of the Abkhaz, which existed in the 19th century and was written about by historians – was it really as it is now? People are re-evaluating.
You cannot speak to us this way if we are allies. If we are speaking about justice.
For all this time, the authorities categorically refused dialogue with their opponents. Listen, things are not perfect here.
For instance, there is a wonderful university in Abkhazia – clean, beautiful, pleasant to walk into. But why can’t a scientific conference be held on the university campus? Have you ever heard of the Abkhazian authorities holding scientific conferences? Not like Aslan Bzhania, who gathered his supporters, and where security service representatives spoke about supporting apartment construction (for Russians) in Abkhazia.
That is nonsense. They had no right to comment on that.
This is the kind of degradation we have seen in the state. We don’t hold scientific conferences; we don’t invite experts.
Every socio-political party and movement has lawyers, economists, and so on. Why not move these discussions off the streets and into the halls? Why not give them a scholarly basis? Why can’t our concerns be heard? Why must we always be portrayed as enemies?
Heads of state have many worries. But this is a failure of that magnitude. What was said during the election campaign still haunts us today. The hatred that was stirred up among many Russians toward Abkhazian citizens. And hatred only breeds more hatred.
Dear Russian friends, partners, colleagues – listen to us! You cannot afford to lose allies. Not even a year has passed since talk of the Turkic world, of Azerbaijanis as our brothers, of Georgians together with us.
But that is not how things are working out. Whether big or small, strong or weak – a real ally and partner is the one who stood by you in difficult times.
You cannot speak to us this way. Not because we threaten anyone. It is simply wrong toward Russia itself. Sometimes I start to feel that in Russia there is a deliberate campaign to discredit Russia in the eyes of its own allies. I cannot otherwise explain the behavior that affects us as well.
The tourism industry in Abkhazia is developing dynamically. Bringing in Russian giants means ruining the local population. I don’t care about someone else’s big salary – I want to be master on my own land. Why is that considered an anti-Russian position?
There are dozens of sectors in the economy that are not represented in Abkhazia. They either exist in embryonic form or don’t exist at all. These are technologies – production of solar panels, other technological things. We should decide: this is what we need, here is a tax exemption, go ahead and develop these sectors! Teach us, help us.
But no, every time it’s something else. They launched a ship – it was sold somewhere. They launched a train – same story. Planes – God forbid they stop flying in the fall. They’ll say it’s unprofitable; let them run only in summer.
All these one-off gestures just to trick us and take our land and resources. That is how we see it. Are we wrong? We weren’t the ones keeping the authorities off TV broadcasts – they kept us off.
We want a constructive approach from our government. That’s the issue. It will come back to haunt us. They set us against the Russian people for the sake of oligarchs.
You see – (Ukrainian) drones are reaching Moscow, the Urals, rockets and all that. And yet someone has tens of billions to “develop” Abkhazia. It should not be this way.
And finally, I’m addressing our audience in Abkhazia. I myself have made many mistakes in life. We all make mistakes. Admitting mistakes is not shameful.
Dear representatives of our government – this is needed even more by you than by us. This is needed by our children.
Think about what we are leaving them. We are only making the situation worse each time.
We have come to the point where we write denunciations against each other. Tomorrow it will come back. Someone’s son will ask someone else: “What did your father do?”
We must realize that sooner or later this will reach every one of us. I want my son, my daughter, my neighbors, their children, everyone in Abkhazia, to live in open, transparent relationships.
Yes, we may be in different camps, have different visions. But we are already on a path that leads to open betrayal. It has already happened. But it is not too late to realize this and turn back.
Don’t leave your children this destructive legacy. It only pleases our enemies.
It is astonishing that today, to stay in power, we talk about pro-Turkish orientation and so on. Listen, what socio-political force in Abkhazia doesn’t have in its platform the goal of rapprochement with Russia, alliance, partnership?
As an independent state, we are weak. But there are dozens like us in the world. Yet in our own time, we can be something – and we are. Let’s think about our children. Let’s not leave this to them. Because it could get worse.
Inal Khashig. And on that emotional monologue, I would like to end our broadcast. Time is still limited.
Leonid Chamagua. As always.
Inal Khashig. We talked about our present day, about events from a year or two ago. About how we need to sum things up.
Leonid Chamagua. We must figure things out and move forward.
Inal Khashig. Yes. We must analyze, call things by their names, and move on. Our guest was Leonid Chamagua. Thank you very much. Until next time. Goodbye.
