Georgia-Abkhazia/Azerbaijan-Armenia

Under the auspices of US President Donald Trump, Baku and Yerevan have effectively reached a full-scale peace treaty. As a commissioner, the US will participate in the construction of an important transit route from Azerbaijan to its autonomous region of Nakhichevan through Armenia and on to Turkey.

With the Azerbaijani-Armenian reconciliation, and the way it all came about, the configuration of zones of influence in the South Caucasus is significantly changing.

How will the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict develop within this changing landscape of regional interests and what are the prospects for its resolution? Inal Khashig, editor of the Abkhaz publication Chegemskaya Pravda, discussed this with historian and political scientist Astamur Tania.

Inal Khashig: Hello

we had a short summer break, and now we’re back.

In fact, back to the same topic we left off with before the holidays.

Our guest today is Astamur Tania. Last time, we discussed the prospects of the Zangezur Corridor.

And while we were on vacation, something happened.

Trump brought the President of Azerbaijan and the Prime Minister of Armenia to Washington.

Essentially, a peace agreement between these two perpetually hostile countries has been announced.

That’s where we’ll begin – and then move on to other topics.

A lot has happened in the meantime.

Notably, Trump’s “peacemaker laurels” seem to have become his permanent state.

Now he’s trying to do the same in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

Another important and memorable event took place on August 14.

The anniversary of the start of the Georgian–Abkhaz war,

when the troops of Georgia’s State Council entered Abkhazia and started the war.

In this context, there were several statements from the Georgian government, which we’ll also discuss.

But first, let’s start with Armenian-Azerbaijani reconciliation.

Where could this ultimately lead – to stability, or does it have some other prospects?

Astamur Tania: Good afternoon. We discussed this issue during our previous meeting.

In my view, nothing fundamentally new has happened in this trend.
It’s just that the meeting in Washington under Trump’s auspices has now become a fact.

Though, to be precise, it wasn’t a peace treaty that was signed, but a memorandum.
It has no legal force.

It merely outlines the intentions and action plan of the parties for further settlement.

Armenia still has to carry out certain internal legal procedures, as Azerbaijan insists,

before a peace treaty can be concluded

Russia has met this process with some tension,

although official statements have welcomed the peace initiative..

Are there reasons for concern?

There are precedents, of course, as we discussed earlier
For example, the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan project.

If Trump and Erdoğan actively promote this process, it will be difficult to stop.
It might slow down or face obstacles, I don’t think everything will proceed smoothly.
Still, I believe there is now a steady trend toward opening this corridor.

The only way to offset the risks is what we’ve been talking about for many years.

We need to reduce mistrust and tension in relations between countries,

between major and mid-level players, both regional and extra-regional.
We need to revive the entire network of communications

passing through the South Caucasus
Only then will the strategic interests of all participants be satisfied,

and no one will suspect others of seeking geopolitical advantage.

I’m moving from one topic to another, but it’s all part of the same process.
We live in a very interesting time.
We’re not that old, you and I,

especially me.

And yet before our eyes, the Yalta-Potsdam system essentially collapsed

with the fall of the Soviet Union.
Then came the post–Cold War period of liberal romanticism..
Everyone thought it was time to live as brothers, in a calm and just world.

If disorder broke out somewhere on the fringes of this world, disrupting that romantic picture,

everyone was supposed to act together,

using the UN, and sometimes even military force to solve those problems

For a time, idealism prevailed over practical, sometimes cynical, interests.
But that couldn’t last long.
Just as communist ideology once came into conflict with real life,

the same has happened here.

Now, I think Bismarck’s words best describe how the world is developing:
“The main thing is not intentions, but potentials”.

He meant the military, political, and economic potential of countries.
In other words, intentions can be anything.

But if a country has potential, it will inevitably use it.

The world has now rid itself of illusions, even those dear to our hearts.

It has become more cynical, harsher,  in some ways reminiscent of the 19th century.

But a direct comparison doesn’t fit either,

because now we have modern technologies, digital systems,

and artificial intelligence developing rapidly.

We are entering a new level of global confrontation.
This carries the risk of major conflicts.

Though it’s impossible to predict whether they will actually happen.
Let’s hope it leads to the formation of a new balance of power.

Inal Khashig: What do you mean by a “new balance of power”?

Astamur Tania: Ukraine, the talks in Alaska.

The main topic publicly presented there

was the normalization of relations between Russia and Ukraine

and the cessation of hostilities.

But in fact, the discussions were about something much broader.

Inal Khashig: It’s about global security, including European security.

And in this context, we face the question: how will we fit into this picture?

Astamur Tania: Fortunately or unfortunately, not much depends on us.

We can only adjust policies within our own section of the South Caucasus region.

What can we do?

We can put forward public initiatives

that would help remove obstacles to reopening transport routes through our territory

and to implementing such projects.

We could put forward such initiatives in the public sphere.

In today’s world, first comes publicity, then concrete action.
We need to engage actively in public relations.

Because of our mentality, we’re not very fond of hard work.

But the current situation requires initiative.

We must do everything within our power to ensure our security,

including strengthening unity in society around shared values

that support the preservation and development of our state.

This must be promoted.

That doesn’t mean we can avoid danger.
God willing, it will pass us by.

But we must be prepared for difficult situations and take steps to prevent them.

Inal Khashig: Do you mean war?

Astamur Tania: One can’t rule out anything.

We don’t know how far the contradictions between states in the South Caucasus might go.

A dividing line of tension could appear in the region.
We need to promote initiatives that would help peacefully resolve conflicts.

It was said in one of our earlier programs.

When the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline project was implemented,

it became the main route instead of Novorossiysk.

In 1997, Yevgeny Primakov, then Russia’s foreign minister,

proposed the idea of building a reverse pipeline through Abkhazia.
This branch was supposed to connect the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline with Novorossiysk.

That initiative encouraged talks on a political settlement of the conflict.

We were very close to that at the time..

But the Georgian side, as always, wanted to gain more.

We then came to the idea of an equal union state.

The idea was being discussed.
The Georgian side, as always, relied on external forces to keep pressuring Abkhazia,

hoping that we would eventually agree to return as part of Georgia.

But we could not agree to autonomy.

Why would we agree to commit political suicide?
So it all ended in nothing back then.

But I’m talking about the principle itself.
The idea was to reconcile conflicting interests.
Now a similar situation is taking shape
If the system of communications develops only in the eastern part of the South Caucasus,

a conflict of interests is inevitable.
That benefits no one

If the situation continues in that direction, it could lead to unpredictable consequences.

The region is volatile, both by mentality and by the nature of the players involved,

each with ambitions rooted in a long history of interaction.
They’ve been dealing with each other for centuries.

To prevent this, that earlier idea could still prove useful:

if a framework can be found to restore these transport links.

Recently, the Georgian authorities once again made statements

about the possibility of a peace agreement.

Something to that effect.

Inal Khashig: This was said on August 14, on the anniversary of the start of the Georgian–Abkhaz war.

Prime Minister Kobakhidze and other leaders of Georgian Dream made several statements.

Kobakhidze said that they would not sign a peace agreement with Abkhazia

guaranteeing non-resumption of hostilities.

It is what the authorities of both Abkhazia and South Ossetia

have been proposing for many years.
At the same time, Kobakhidze stated that there is no other option

but to peacefully reintegrate Abkhazia and South Ossetia into Georgia.

However, his tone and language were quite different from what he said on May 26, 2024.

Then, on Georgia’s Independence Day, he declared that by 2030 Georgia,

together with its Abkhaz and Ossetian brothers, would join the European Union.

This time, there was no mention of the EU at all.

Astamur Tania: India will probably join the EU before Georgia.

Inal Khashig: Back then, there even emerged an unofficial idea

about the possibility of some kind of confederative relationship

between Georgia and Abkhazia.

It appeared as part of an informal negotiation track between Moscow and Tbilisi.

But by the end of 2024, hopes that something could come out of it had faded,

since the idea turned out to be extremely unpopular in Georgian society.

They tested it, saw it wasn’t supported, and abandoned it.
The topic didn’t gain traction among the Georgian public.

Astamur Tania: Nor did it find any response among the Abkhaz public.

Inal Khashig: Yes, but I’m talking about Tbilisi.

They had this notion, I don’t know on what it was based,

that Moscow would one day hand over Abkhazia and South Ossetia to Tbilisi

“on a silver platter” under some pretext.

But that illusion, I think, has now completely disappeared.
They no longer maintain this optimism toward Russia.

(As a result), on August 14, all statements by Georgian government politicians clearly emphasized that Russia has occupied these territories.

Astamur Tania: Well, they’ve never really omitted that.

Inal Khashig: True, but over the past year and a half,

they tried to avoid using the word “occupation”.

Now it’s being emphasized again.
At the same time, as I noticed, they don’t seem to have much hope for Trump either.

Trump has already earned political capital from the Armenia-Azerbaijan deal

by exercising control over the Zangezur Corridor

He’s now focused on a different track.
I don’t see any particular interest from him in the South Caucasus.

On the other hand, Georgia’s ruling political elite are actively accusing their opponents –

Saakashvili, the United National Movement, and the entire opposition –

of starting the war in South Ossetia

and of acting as puppets of the ‘deep state’..

Astamur Tania: There’s nothing new in those statements

Perhaps only the frequency changes.

The topic of the peace treaty comes up regularly.

It’s a long-standing issue .

The Georgian Foreign Ministry repeatedly says:

“We won’t sign anything because these are occupied territories”.

The Abkhaz side responds: “They don’t want peace, so we insist on guarantees” .

And that’s it.

Inal Khashig: But that shows they’ve essentially gone back to the mindset of 2008.

Astamur Tania: I think it’s all inertia, devoid of real substance.

The substantive part hasn’t even been formulated in their minds yet.
So by inertia, the old propaganda rhetoric will continue, from both sides..

We’ve said this probably a hundred times already,

our viewers are probably bored of hearing it

There are big questions.

Key questions include:

What the nature of political and legal relations between Abkhazia and Georgia would be?

Whether Abkhazia’s independence will be recognized?

And whether a peace treaty will be signed?

They remain unresolved.

In our world, talking about “security guarantees” is almost laughable.

Bismarck’s principle applies: intentions don’t matter – what matters is potential

If a country has potential, it will use it.

No guarantee can stop that.
No document can prevent such developments.

When contradictions arise that threaten national interests, national interests always prevail.

No one even tries to hide that anymore.

I think we should take a more practical approach before talking about “peace guarantees”.
How can Georgians sign any agreement with us if they consider us occupied territory?

The first step should be the revival of a negotiation platform.

For that, Georgia would need to make legislative changes

to remove existing obstacles to such discussions.

We have years of experience with this kind of work,

when we participated as parties to the conflict.

Many issues were resolved then while we left political disagreements aside.
That included issues like cross-border trade

or the living conditions of people on both sides of the border

who want safe and free movement.

The next stage could involve considering transit routes through our territory –

railways, highways.

The same applies to the Zangezur Corridor.

It requires enormous investment.
Building a modern infrastructure there can’t be done with a snap of Trump’s fingers.

Agreements have to come first.
That’s why I don’t think everything is predetermined or clear-cut.

Major infrastructure transformations will be needed along that route.
The same applies to Abkhazia.

We must create conditions for investments to come into this sector.

Without an intermediary mechanism –

like the Coordination Council that once existed between the Georgian and Abkhaz sides –

this won’t work.

The Council took responsibility for practical issues –

economic, humanitarian, and the daily needs of the population.

We solved those matters without touching political claims against each other.
Such an “intermediary cushion,” in the form of an international format, is needed again.

This should be treated as a top priority.

Otherwise, we’ll keep issuing statements.

They are necessary, of course, but ultimately leading nowhere.

It’s practical issues that need to be addressed.

They’ve long been overdue.
This could have been done years ago – through Russia’s Foreign Ministry, the Geneva talks,

Russian institutions, informal meetings, expert forums, and the media,

if certain ideas were pursued consistently.

But we often act as if we’re the center of the universe.

We think the whole world is watching and wondering

what the Georgians and Abkhazians are doing.
For the West and the US, we are the periphery.
For Russia, Turkey, and Iran this region lies close to their strategic interests.

As for the US and the EU, especially the US, which clearly has more leverage.

We can see how Trump speaks to his European partners

as if he were a Roman emperor summoning his vassal princes of the Holy Roman Empire.

He sits on the throne, and they sit at his sides.

That’s the impression those meetings leave.
The EU has enormous economic resources but very limited military and political capabilities.
That explains the current situation.

So, perhaps the US will be more active in this region.

But it won’t create problems for itself with Russia or Turkey.

.
The fact that the US and Turkey are both in NATO doesn’t mean their interests always align.

And Iran shouldn’t be forgotten either.

It’s weakened now but still highly ambitious.

We must understand how complex the global situation is

and find our own “lottery ticket” so to speak.

Then there might be a chance to win this dangerous game.

This doesn’t require major resources,

only the development of a short- and medium-term strategy,
an understanding of what we want to achieve.

And consistent work toward that goal.

I think this fully fits within our alliance with Russia.

We just need to discuss it more openly, including at the official level.
Perhaps such discussions are happening,

but nothing about them is being said publicly.

Inal Khashig: I remembered an old joke about Abraham, who every day asks God,

“Make me win a million in the lottery” .

Day after day he keeps asking.

Finally, God couldn’t take it anymore and from above said,

“Well, at least buy a ticket”.

Astamur Tania: Yes, that’s exactly the joke I remembered.

The Abkhaz have had moments in history

where they won without even buying lottery tickets.

But that was just a coincidence.

Inal Khashig: I think our authorities must have some kind of action plan,

on how this will unfold in context.

Astamur Tania: I remembered the cartoon Around the World in 80 Days.

The hero stockpiled certain materials, anticipating how to counter malicious plans.

Inal Khashig: We’re talking about some kind of global security plan.

Yes, it may not be Yalta or Potsdam,

but there is some movement toward creating a new world order.

We need to fit into it so that things remain peaceful, the country develops,

and our independence isn’t threatened.

That’s where we’ll end.

Astamur, thank you very much.

Astamur Tania: Thank you.

Until next time, goodbye.

Inal Khashig: Goodbye.