Menu
In the latest Apsny Khabar talk, Levan Mikaa and Eshsou Kakalia discuss the presidential election in Abkhazia and the challenges facing the new president, Badra Gunba.
Full text of discussion:
Levan Lagulaa:
Hello, dear viewers! Apsny Khabar is back in our studio discussing the current socio-political agenda in the Republic of Abkhazia. I’m pleased to welcome our regular experts, my senior colleagues Levan Mikaa and Eshsou Kakalia. Welcome!
Before we begin our conversation, I’d like to mention that today is March 15th (the days of the March Offensive of 1993). I want to once again express our gratitude to all those who gave their lives during these days and brought us victory, and to those of you who remain with us today, dear veterans. Thank you.
Now, let’s get started. As you know, we have quite often discussed pressing public issues in this studio. And it must be acknowledged that our analytical forecasts and reports have consistently been borne out by reality.
When we said that the apartment bill would not pass – that’s exactly what happened. We predicted that the former administration’s policies would lead to confrontation with the people – and that, too, came to pass. We said the investment agreement wouldn’t go through in its current form and would lead to a serious crisis – and so it was.
So today, once again, we want to attempt a proper analysis, to discuss the current state of affairs and how we see the situation unfolding. In this context, of course, the number one topic is sanctions – personal sanctions that have been imposed on political figures, journalists, and even members of the Abkhaz diaspora.
Let me remind you that there were hearings in parliament, after which the ombudsman made, in my opinion, a very important statement. This was followed by a statement from the political party and public organization Aruaa. In all of this, we have not heard any reaction from the executive branch. Today I’d like to talk specifically about why you think that reaction is lacking – after all, every other figure has already expressed their opinion. And let me remind you that the head of the parliament’s legal committee, Daut Khutaba, said that another escalation, another tightening of measures, would follow.
Eshsou Kakalia:
First of all, hello. You laid out the situation very clearly and thoroughly. I think it makes sense to begin with what happened in parliament – specifically, the committee hearings to which participants were invited. These hearings were related to the fact that, no later than December of last year, if I’m not mistaken, the Russian Federation made the decision to revoke the citizenship of two Abkhazian citizens – Levan Mikaa, Hero of Abkhazia and recipient of the Order of Leon, and Kana Kvarchich.
After that, there were several more instances of personal sanctions being applied against the Republic of Abkhazia. Namely, the Russian Federation designated journalist Inal Khashig a foreign agent, and certain deportation decisions were made against repatriates – in particular Baras Kudzhba, whom we had recently been proud of, proud that he was one of our compatriots.
Eshsou Kakalia:
Today a certain segment of our society has been deported from the Russian Federation. You see, this is exactly what was discussed in parliament. We went there to hear the opinion of the executive branch — of the heads of the agencies responsible for foreign policy — in this case, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the State Security Service, and the Prosecutor General’s Office. How is the Prosecutor General’s Office reacting? It remains a mystery how they plan to proceed.
In parliament, questions were raised about these events, but the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Abkhazia, and the investigative authorities did not respond — no decisions were made. The Russian Federation has realized its course of action. But how the Prosecutor General’s Office of Abkhazia plans to react is a very important question. And the fact is, none of these officials, according to the committee’s website, showed up or deemed it necessary to respond.
In parliament we were asked: what are we waiting for and what do we want?
We answered that we want the parliament to fully carry out its oversight functions. When asked about our expectations, we said we want to see the state authorities of the Republic of Abkhazia take all necessary measures to protect the rights of our citizens and defend the country. So far, we haven’t seen that. And until we do, we cannot live in peace. And we won’t allow them to live in peace either.
To put it simply, that’s how our conversation ended. Now, what are the forecasts for the future? What might all this lead to? Nothing good. If anyone thinks we’re just making noise and will go home quietly, and that the citizens are content with what’s happened and will calm down after receiving some vague half-answer — they are mistaken. That is a dangerous illusion. That won’t happen.
This issue is very complex and fundamental for us, and we will be uncompromising about it. As you rightly pointed out, after our visit to parliament, the Ombudsman made a clear and unambiguous statement expressing her negative position on these developments. If I remember correctly, the President’s representative tried to cut her off, claiming it wasn’t relevant to her report, and so on. But I want to state clearly as it is directly relevant. While many remain under illusions, from time to time you will see people gathered under your windows staring wide-eyed. And that will happen more and more often.
Levan Lagulaa:
Before turning to Levan, I’d like to note: when such personal sanctions are imposed within the Russian Federation on its own citizens, that’s one thing. But when it happens to us, within our society, it’s entirely different. We have a different society, a different relationship between the government and the people.
For example, Inal Khashig, who was declared a foreign agent — five days later he was inside the parliament building defending his rights. And not just for himself, he was defending the rights of others. Seeing something like that in the Russian Federation is practically impossible. I say this because if anyone believes that personal sanctions can stop or slow down the fight for the interests of Abkhazian society and the state, they are deeply mistaken. That simply doesn’t work here. It can’t work here.
Eshsou Kakalia:
Excuse me, but let’s be honest — why did we go to parliament? What’s the point? Today we’re trying to make those who lobbied for these personal sanctions start dealing with the consequences of their actions. All of this happened before the people asked them to leave the building. These are the consequences of their actions. And the main idea was to create a situation in Abkhazia that mirrors the one in the Russian Federation.
But, you understand, that’s unrealistic. This is a different place, a different people with a different history, and with entirely different traditions in their relationship with the authorities. Completely different traditions. That’s a fact. It’s been tried many times before, even during the Soviet Union, when people who didn’t know their own history tried to apply such approaches in speaking with their people. That is absolutely unacceptable.
Levan Lagulaa:
So it is. I’d like to once again draw attention to the fact that members of parliament have suggested going to court and fighting for our rights through legal means. In response, you said that what we want is for our state, the one we’ve built together, not to remain indifferent. We want it to take, let’s say, guardianship, patronage, and begin to fight. I’d like us to elaborate on that thought. Why is this important? Because state institutions should not only initiate measures but also fulfill their duties to the citizens. We want to see that our state genuinely cares about us.
Levan Mikaa:
Thank you. But I think it’s important here to add some broader context to help people understand the situation more clearly. We need to acknowledge that the Russian Federation is currently in a state of war, and only in the last month, with the arrival of the new administration in the United States, have high-level negotiations taken place. Yes, talks have occurred, and we expect upcoming high-level meetings where Russia will be able to address and discuss various issues.
So to say that everything is the same here as in Russia isn’t entirely accurate; our situation is completely different. I also want to emphasize that none of the individuals affected by the personal sanctions acted in a confrontational manner.
No one stated they were going to act against Russia. Everyone took a constructive approach, understanding the situation within and around Russia. When a state is at war, its attitude toward certain matters becomes more acute. That’s why our position has been and remains one of understanding, unlike the previous government and president, who provoked the Russian Federation by going on federal TV channels and declaring that there were anti-Russian forces at play. By the way, those were empty accusations, with no factual evidence whatsoever. Purely baseless claims.
We said then and say now that those so-called concerns for Russia masked personal interests, alliances with oligarchic groups. Now it’s being pointed out that a new agreement could be reached in an entirely different way. I’m just trying to paint the full picture here. On the part of our diaspora and our repatriates, there is no hostility — everyone is trying to understand the situation and figure out what happened. We understand that it was the former president who expressed these things, and behind that stood a certain mechanism, one that I believe involved active participation by the State Security Service (SGB). Someone is behind those Telegram channels that were pouring out all that filth.
There are indeed people behind it, different people. This is all being done deliberately. Our task now is, having dealt with our internal issues, to demonstrate to the Russian structures — and specifically to people like Sergey Kiriyenko (from the Russian Presidential Administration), who are now actively involved in our internal affairs — that the factors which led to this crisis have specific names and motivations. The most important point is that these individuals, beyond their private business interests, have motives that are far removed from the state, from the interests of both our countries, and from their relationship. That’s why we’re proposing — as you mentioned, and as our ombudsperson very professionally and intelligently proposed — that we move forward in a coordinated, legal way.
We expect the political forces and institutions responsible for defending citizens’ rights to work with lawyers to overcome the current situation. We, too, will work with legal experts and so on to resolve this. What happened under the previous administration needs to be cleaned out like the Augean stables. We’ve always said: the first person who harmed Abkhaz-Russian relations was former President Aslan Bzhania. What we’re seeing now is the direct result of his actions.
Levan Mikaa:
For example, Inal Khashig — a journalist whose focus is solely on Abkhazia’s domestic politics — has never strayed beyond those boundaries. As for our diaspora, we’ve said many times before that our familial and close ties were unfortunately broken, and we’ve worked hard to restore them. Now, representatives of the diaspora are being denied the opportunity to communicate with their relatives and with their homeland. Such a move causes tremendous damage to domestic policy, demographics, and the nation’s development. It’s no accident that one of the main political priorities in Abkhazia has always been repatriation.
The State Committee has always existed with a budget and a program for this very purpose, even during the difficult post-war years. It was in this direction that consistent efforts were made. I believe we’re now in a post-election period, with a newly elected president, and the questions for him and his team are especially pressing — because it is they who will have to overcome the crisis that’s been created. They must understand the dead end the former president led us into and figure out how to get out of it. They’ll have to find that way forward. What is their agenda on this issue? What steps do they plan to take? That’s important to know.
Levan Lagulaa:
These are very difficult questions, especially since many of these people were part of the former president’s team and so share responsibility for domestic policy.
Levan Mikaa:
Yes, but there’s a sort of “advance credit” that society has given them — that’s how I see it.
Levan Lagulaa:
Sorry to interrupt, I just want to say that the newly elected government is in a very difficult situation.
Levan Mikaa:
I just want to stress that they’ve been given an opportunity to fix the situation. It’s a fragile one, but it must be corrected. We all understand that the situation requires change. Everyone I’ve spoken to in the public sphere is saying: “Everyone’s waiting with bated breath to see how this will unfold.” So I don’t think the issue is about admitting past mistakes — it’s okay to admit a mistake and say: “We’ll fix it.” But I fear that might not happen.
Eshsou Kakalia:
But the “advance” granted to the current winners of the election wasn’t from the whole of society — it was 54%. I doubt that those who came here on buses understood that they would be expected to wait and hope for something. They were simply told: “Go and vote” — and they did. Now we’re left with 43% of the population sitting and waiting to see how it will all end and what the result will be.
I hope and want to continue hoping that, having taken on full responsibility and authority, he will make decisions that convince me, and not just me, that he is determined to defend the interests of the citizens of the Republic of Abkhazia, strengthen sovereignty, and advance the international recognition of the republic. In my view, these are the key things we should expect from our president. And if he confirms them not just in words but in deeds, the political situation will stabilize, and we will begin the steady, forward movement we’ve talked about so often and waited for so long.
You have mentioned more than once in the studio that we need to return to the matter of building the Abkhazian state. But what the former authorities did and what the current authorities are allowing will return us to the path of state-building in Abkhazia. This is very important to understand and discuss.
Levan Lagulaa:
Regarding that, I would like to touch on one issue. But perhaps my trigger question is the investment agreement. Why is the situation with personal sanctions and the potential future investment agreement a litmus test for the current authorities? If we consider all the actors involved in the agreement — this includes the Russian side, the Abkhazian executive authority, the Abkhazian legislative authority, and Abkhazian society — they all expressed their position unequivocally. Abkhazian society came to the decision to tear down this fence.
The Russian government also made its position clear — we remember the very detailed and in-depth comment by Sergey Kiriyenko, which showed a full understanding of the processes related to the investment agreement. Then the Abkhazian parliament made, in my opinion, one of the most significant decisions in modern Abkhazian history. By the way, Badra Gunba did not withdraw this agreement; the former president, as expected, resigned, and the Abkhazian parliament did not ratify the agreement. This is a clear sign of the strengthening of Abkhazia’s sovereignty and our sovereign rights.
Later Sergey Kiriyenko and, if I’m not mistaken, Alexander Novak, confirmed this, which speaks to the correctness of the decisions made by Abkhazian society and the justification of their position. The only body that still has not adjusted its position — is the Abkhazian executive authority. Back then it was under Bzhaniya, and now Badra Gunba. The comment he made to TASS, in my opinion, is not encouraging, as he stated that the authorities did not do enough to reveal all the advantages, to explain them, and that the agreement was overly politicized, so in its current form, the agreement would not be signed. In my view, this is insufficient to fix the position of the current Abkhazian authorities and to understand how they plan to handle the investment agreement. I think this is a very important issue.
Levan Mikaa:
What you’re saying, Levan, shows that Abkhazia has once again affirmed its sovereignty. That is, decisions concerning internal politics and fundamental issues that define the future are made independently by the Abkhazian people. Any insinuations or pressure are very difficult to implement when such issues arise. I believe that a course towards the sovereignty of the Abkhazian people remains and will not disappear. Personal sanctions can be imposed, other things can be invented, but the course toward sovereignty remains. Our history tells us this. During the Soviet era, when many peoples were afraid to fight for their rights, we fought.
And it was an immensely powerful system of suppression. Yes, we fought, we went through a bloody war where the question was to be or not to be. Either we survive as a people, preserving the nation, or we die. That was the question. That is why the post-war blockade is also not forgotten — it was a trial for us. Perhaps even more difficult for the people. This part of our history, especially the more recent, says that our national interests will not disappear; our nationhood will be preserved.
Who can continue this line in the face of the current authorities, preserving and defending our national interests? We have said many times that if we can convey our problems to the highest authorities in Russia, to Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, who has always expressed his opinion on small peoples and small states, we could explain our situation. Now, in my opinion, there is a wonderful opportunity for the current aut
This is not farce, this is reality. The youth, as the main driving force, are talking about continuity. Our goals and objectives as the Abkhaz people remain unchanged. Every president has a chance to go down in history not as an exile, but as someone who led the process. The people will always remove from power anyone who does not align with the interests of the people. This has been proven time and again.
Levan Lagulaa:
I want to turn back to you, Eshsou, and emphasize one important point. You began to express it, and then we interrupted, as we often do. The thing is, electorally, you could say things split roughly 50/50, to simplify. And here, in my opinion, the elected president has a great opportunity to continue this course, if he relies not only on those who voted for him, but also on the opinion of those who voted against him. Today we have a protest vote. I think finding the key to these 44% is the most important task for the elected president, in order to calm the situation, balance it, and not escalate it.
Eshsou Kakalia:
Key issues must be resolved. Elections are an opportunity to become the president of the people of Abkhazia, and to become that, one must meet the expectations of these people. It is very difficult and at the same time very simple. I’m not saying anything new here.
As for the investment agreement, you’ve mentioned it many times, and I want to affirm: the agreement being proposed to us is an attempt to bypass the norms of our legislation laid down in the post-war period. Thinking back a bit, what we were accused of — they tried to box us into a certain political movement, accused us of wanting to return to the old ways, and so on.
They tried to scare us, said we were anti-Russian, and then when that didn’t stick, they added that we were pro-Turkish. They came up with all sorts of things. But in the end it turned out we are neither anti-Russian nor pro-Turkish. November 15 confirmed that. Now you’re talking about what relation the executive branch has to this agreement. Today we’ll sort out this agreement and the sanctions, and tomorrow new problems will arise — that’s an axiom. If the authorities, headed by the president, decide to shut themselves off from the people and not count on its oversight, that is a serious delusion.
In Soviet times, when the apparatus of repression was extremely powerful, our people still defended their rights. Now more than ever we will achieve results. If someone thinks that if the Russian Investigative Committee comes to carry out investigative actions against certain individuals and we will silently accept it, they are deeply mistaken. For everything that happens on the territory of Abkhazia, the Prosecutor General and his subordinates bear responsibility. It is important that everyone understand that we know this and are informing the people about it.
Levan Mikaa:
A few more words about the agreement. I’ve spoken on this issue several times already. Just about the agreement itself — what was the reaction to it? But I also want to mention another interesting point — the explosive growth in budget revenue. Last year the budget of the Republic of Abkhazia grew by 20%. Such economic growth is not because we created a new administrative authority, as happens in Russia, where they introduce new tax measures. No, this shows that small and medium-sized national businesses have begun actively expanding their capabilities and operating in our market.
Almost 80% of budget revenue comes from it. The agreement we opposed was meant to push aside small and medium-sized businesses, allowing large businesses to enter Abkhazia without paying taxes. We’re experiencing explosive growth of national business, which is engaging labor and creating new business owners. People are investing their money into development, expecting returns. We’re seeing a chase after big business, which was supposed to come with huge investments but would have ruined our economy — and they wouldn’t have contributed to the budget. It’s no longer possible to ignore society’s demands.
Society demands the development of the national economy, and small and medium-sized businesses need additional tools — credit, leasing — to protect their interests. I believe that the new agenda, developing our own business, is extremely important. If you don’t have your own agenda, they’ll say you don’t know where to go, but we’re giving direction. If the authorities are interested in corrupt schemes, in investment agreements, then they’ll push them with such zeal and pressure that small and medium-sized businesses will be left unprotected and turned into mere agents. But now all the cards are on the table.
Eshsou Kakalia:
There’s a serious problem with what you’re saying. Everything is logical and correct, but what you’re proposing, Levan, is something that will bear fruit in 10, 15, 20 years. Not within one presidential term. Sure, what he (the circle of oligarchs) is offering — you can take it in a suitcase today and carry it away tomorrow morning, I get it.
Levan Mikaa:
The point is that the hand they were playing was seen by the people, and they understood where their interests lay. It’s better for a person to develop their own business rather than rely on foreign investments, which may lead to bankruptcy and working for some outsider. Now those cards are on the table, the people understand this. If the former authorities continue down this road and keep saying that the priority is foreign investment — it won’t work anymore. We are not an African country where deals can be made like that.
I understand there are regions that have not yet been reached by the processes of developing small and medium-sized businesses, but those processes are underway. For example, in Ochamchira, Tkuarchal, Kyndyg — businesses have already started to develop. More and more people are getting involved in this process, and it’s much easier to manipulate those who are not involved. But it’s obvious the situation is already different. What I’m saying is that the successes of Abkhazian resort businesses, the successes of the tourist season, will show us a different reality — one that demands a domestic agenda for the development of the economy, energy, and the future.
This will multiply many times over. We’ve already written that this is the task of the new authorities. This is not the task of just one or two people; all potential opportunities must be gathered and implemented. Society has already demanded.
Levan Lagulaa:
To conclude our discussion, I want to note the points where I disagree with your argument. In my opinion, it’s not about how quickly the money ends up in someone’s pocket or not, but about the fact that it ends up in the hands of a small group of people. Corruption schemes are what the former authorities had planned, and the result is that the people realized: even under pressure, they can cope better if they see a prospect for development. That’s precisely why I emphasize that the 44% of the population who are future-oriented and not chasing immediate benefit can become a point of support.
I had a conversation at the Russian-Abkhaz border: they asked if I had been to Turkey, I said yes, and a representative of the security services asked, “Are you anti-Russian?” — to which I replied, “No, I am not anti-Russian.” Then he asked, “So you’re pro-Russian?” But I clarified, saying, “I am pro-Abkhaz.” I think the times demand that if we behave in a pro-Abkhaz way, it will be reflected in both strategic matters and in supporting the pro-Russian position.
Eshsou Kakalia:
We need to be honest here.
Levan Lagulaa:
As you said, being pro-Abkhaz is the hardest path. I hope our conversation today was just as pro-Abkhaz as usual. Thank you.
Eshsou Kakalia:
That’s exactly why we gather. Honestly, I don’t understand why this bothers anyone.
Levan Lagulaa:
We are shaping a pro-Abkhaz position. Thank you for the discussion.
