open Democracy News Analysis - Human Rights - Comments

Sanne on "Romanticising Stalinism"

Sanne — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:37:49 +0000

It's funny that the western world supporting Stalin's illegal borders for Georgia (Stalin's homeland). Western leaders and Stalin hand to hand.

Hermit King on "Romanticising Stalinism"

Hermit King — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:57:37 +0000

Whether the Stalin's era was really a "darkness at noon" kind of period or not - that itself is controversial. Khrushchev manufactured a lot of lies and propaganda against the Stalinist regime.

I remember Gorbachev later saying that we should re-evaluate the post-Stalin evaluations of Stalin and his era, as they were just manufactured and not realities.

The Russians as a race were not disciplined at all - and the regimentation during Stalin's regime helped them creating discipline in thoughts and actions, and also the new men and women.

USSR became a stronger nation both industrially and politically during his regime and at least in the WWII it was Stalin and his comrades who saved the world :-)

Also - to note that the current leadership is quite pragmatic. Don't forget that the soviet high command during the cold war era had reserved a huge chunk of money in the Swiss banks so that later counter-revolution could be resisted. And that money helped today building the new Russia after the pathetic leadership of that corrupt and inefficient monkey Yeltsin.

Babeouf Junior on "Romanticising Stalinism"

Babeouf Junior — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:14:30 +0000

"Stalinism" .. "the totality of specific political practices of the political Leadership" . Hey what do you know circularity. What was Stalin-ism? What the Stalinist did.
Tyranny in the USSR was real Socialism was illusory.
Now that the curtain has been raised millions across Russia know the truth of what they previously classified as propaganda. Western democracy is entirely bogus.
It does not constitute a self governing society rather it is a varnish on the rule of Capitalism. A system so perverse it is actually in the process of eradicating its host species.
The re branding of Stalin ism is a reaction to the new political economy of Russia, authoritarian capitalism. All of
the freedoms of Liberal Capitalism may be derived from the fullest development of the Commodity form. The annihilation of both its supporters and opponents
will follow from the application of this form to every technology. If you want to suck on a humbug try Eternal Verities.

Losmira on "Zugdidi: Will I ever go back? "

Losmira — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:55:24 +0000

To talk about the war or to write about it especially when the authors of the articles have never seen it with their own eyes , and let God bless them , they are just lucky .
But when journalists show the tragedy of some , they must think that the war and its consequences were not a festival or a nice party for Abkhazians or South Ossetians , last August.
During the war in 1992-93 the Amnesty International published a letter to Shevarnadze accusing him in ethnical cleansing of Abkhazians and unfortunately , now I could not find it in the internet, the fact is also very interesting , by the way , why it has disappeared ?
Or one just can guess why and who is behind of such things which speaks itself that impartiality is just far away in the air , but not in the reality ?
Iam very sorry for all the innocent people who suffered during the war which Shevarnadze broke out on my land , Abkhazia , and people instead of living in peace were fighting with each other , killing as though life is endless.
It is easy for yu to judge Glenn , who was born from so far away from his own Motherland , and has never seen it , who will ever think about it ?
Which of the authors , like this one and you especially who think about some as victims and others as the happiest ones ?

Babeouf Junior on "A dissident in the USSR, a dissident in Putin's Russia"

Babeouf Junior — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:09:03 +0000

Those that dam everything about a given period of the past are likely bring out the periodic potential of every moment. I would like to see Capitalism transcended not eradicated as though it had never been. Now that the old USSR has gone there are no longer grounds for the multiple illusions about representative democracy. It is not representative unless you employ the metaphysics of the soul liberally to create a national interest that can hover above a given geographical mass. It is not democratic as professional politicians turn self government into other government. And make a nonsense of the notion of self governing community. It is the current sum of past struggles with their all to obvious failures. Personally I am sorry that the Russian Revolution did not generalise. It would have spared Russia from Stalin-ism. Europe from the Second World War. And humans from approaching extinction.

Babeouf Junior on "A dissident in the USSR, a dissident in Putin's Russia"

Babeouf Junior — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:07:17 +0000

Those that dam everything about a given period of the past are likely bring out the periodic potential of every moment. I would like to see Capitalism transcended not eradicated as though it had never been. Now that the old USSR has gone there are no longer grounds for the multiple illusions about representative democracy. It is not representative unless you employ the metaphysics of the soul liberally to create a national interest that can hover above a given geographical mass. It is not democratic as professional politicians turn self government into other government. And make a nonsense of the notion of self governing community. It is the current sum of past struggles with their all to obvious failures. Personally I am sorry that the Russian Revolution did not generalize. It would have spared Russia from Stalin-ism. Europe from the Second World War. And humans from approaching extinction.

stavropigian on "A dissident in the USSR, a dissident in Putin's Russia"

stavropigian — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:32:16 +0000

I think the problem with the view taken of Mr Podrabinek and his opponents in this article is reflected in the selective quotation of Mr Podrabinek's article.

Mr Podrabinek did not limit himself to condemning the illegal conduct of Moscow City officials who exerted pressure on the restaurant owners to change their name.

Mr Podrabinek went much further, and claimed that all Soviet-era veterans are, when they are defending their past, justifying Stalinism, and that all Soviet-era veterans were in fact defending Stalinism when they fought against Germany and its allies in WWII. This is plainly not true, and yet Mr Keselman does not quote this passage of Mr Podrabinek's article. The soldiers of the Soviet Army fought to defend their people against physical elimination by the Germans. By falsely tying all Soviet veterans to former high-ranking Communists such as Vladimir Dolgikh, Mr Podrabinek is guilty of a scandalous lie, and Mr Keselman has decided to abet him.

Furthermore, Mr Podrabinek goes on to claim that the real heroes are the former forest brothers in the Baltic States, the OUN in Western Ukraine, and their counterparts in Central Asia, who fought against the Soviet regime in the 1920s and 1930s, because he claims that they fought against both Nazis and Communists, and thus can behonoured for having resisted totalitarianism, and backed democracy. Again, this is not true.
None of those groups fought for democracy. They fought theocracy in Central Asia, radical, ethnically based nationalism in the Western Ukraine, and the restauration of pre-war, soft-authoritarian Baltic States. Nor did they fight against Nazism. The OUN and the Baltic nationalists cooperated withe Nazis, the bakhmachi had already been wiped in the 30s. They wre not, as Mr Keselman falsely calls them, 'anti-Soviet dissidents'.

The point of my comment is that it was the points I have just mentioned, not Mr Podrabinek's view of the whole 'AntiSovetskaia' thing, that provoked so much outrage in Russia, and not only from the Nashi. Mr Keselman, however, does not trust his readers to draw the 'right' conclusions on their own, and so not only removes the core passages from Mr Podrabinek's article, but put up some of the most absurd comments from Mr Podrabinek's opponents, not nearly all of whom are pro-Soviet, but who wish to merely honour the courage of their fathers. I mean, who is this former Communist parliamentarian, and whom does he speak for? Not for Russia, judging by the fact that she hasn't been re-elected. Nor does Mr Keselman

Babeouf on "A dissident in the USSR, a dissident in Putin's Russia"

Babeouf — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 12:32:34 +0000

In Russia those that crap on about the freedom of enterprise may be dissidents. In the West they are either morons or functionaries. Many people have gone to prison for actions in accordance with their beliefs , including Hitler. It doesn't add value to their opinions. Currently the emerging challenger to American hegemony is China. It describes itself as communist. Though of course it is an authoritarian capitalist society. But nominalism has replaced patriotism as the last refuge of the scoundrel.
Vaclev Havel also went to jail. Since release from jail he has said that Karl Marx was a lunatic and that global warming doesn't exist. The old USSR was famous for its scientists, Mathematicians and the worlds worst Marxists.
I don't normally advocate shooting fish in a barrel but for lovers of Free Enterprise I'll make an exception. Russia at the moment seems to be a collection point for ideas that are currently be deconstructed by events.

Deiko on "Zugdidi: Will I ever go back? "

Deiko — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:11:30 +0000

@ Glenn-G and others

This story is about a tragedy of a person...it is a personal tragedy and there is not place for discussions here who were first settlers of Abkhazia or who started the war....regardless of anything, there are people who suffer...so think about this lady and realized how would you feel if you were in her place....this is a tragedy which has no justification....after all, its not all about statistics...i am in shock how cold-blooded people can be.....it is unfortuante

@author...
very nice article with all its comparisons...thank you

Alyssa Moxley on "Freedom for Sale"

Alyssa Moxley — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:59:25 +0000

Freedom allows creativity, which is a destabilizing as well as generative force. The changes brought with introducing freedom are not guaranteed - one's access to the necessities of life are not guaranteed.

Any business relationship is a bargain - perhaps those without established access to resources have only their freedom to trade. If the only work available is for a criminal, do you starve or obey?

On another note, I don't think freedom of expression is only expressed in the form of criticism of the government - it is evident in the diverse forms of social creativity - forms that are considered subversive and threatening to established hiearchies of power. That "small cabal of politicians and their business associates" that "systematically curb public freedoms" do so by injecting fear and paranoia, and thus dull creativity in all genres, not just pointed political critiques.

Bryllars on "Freedom for Sale"

Bryllars — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:43:00 +0000

Why are the middle classes so easily bought off?

The answer is fairly simple. They live in a world where for the most part if they lose the position they have which provides their livelyhood then nobody is going to offer them another. It is Be Safe - or have no way to survive at all.

Glenn-G (Metin Sonmez) on "Zugdidi: Will I ever go back? "

Glenn-G (Metin Sonmez) — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 17:36:42 +0000

There is constant misrepresentation in the West or pro-Georgia propaganda that Abkhazia is led by a gang of separatists. I would reccomend those people to tell a fable to their kids: "There is separatist country ruled by separatist government and there are separatist children drinking separatist milk and separatist old people in the streets and they drive separatist car. Everything could be Ok with them and they could look like us but there is one thing that distinguish them from us - they are separatists, they are not people so we have to kill them all".

As for the government, it was installed right after the war with Georgia - Putin was not there or even on the political horizon. There was pro-Georgian Yeltsin who together with Georgia put Abkhazia under sanctions and Yeltsin actually gave Shevardnadze the green light to attack Abkhazia on 14th August 1992.

Refugees is always a big problem and it was NOT Abkhazia who bare responsibility for them - it is Georgia that STARTED the war and created huge humanitarian catastrophy. And yes, Georgian population fled before Abkhaz Army entered the occupied territories.

[ THE MAJORITY OF GEORGIANS, HOWEVER, FLED BEFORE ABKHAZIAN AND NORTHERN CAUCASUS TROOPS ARRIVED] - UNPO: http://www.unpo.org/downloads/Abkhazia_Georgia_report_1992.pdf

If continuing your logic and letting all former Georgian popultion (Do you mean those who fought against Abkhazia on the Georgian side? Or do you mean those who were resettled to Abkhazia in Stalin & Beria & Shevardnadze time in order to assimilate Abkhaz population?) to return will you guarantee that this mass return will not cause severe consequences and new war. Even if they all return and become majority again and vote for incorporation into Georgia will you guarantee that Georgian nationalistic policy will allow any Abkhaz in Abkhazia? I think not and there is no need to experiment with this because all non-Georgian population perfectly remembers from the past history how Abkhazia was part of Georgia. For Georgians there is a country called Georgia their motherland where they may live but Abkhaz have no other home. If Georgian Army enters Abkhazia they will not mercy anybody non-georgian. (No need new experiences) But when it will be happening you will be watching cenic news about restoring constitutional oreder over rebels and again separatist children women and old people. So it is better to be alive and not recognised then dead and part of Georgia.

David Galaridze expressed well-founded doubts about the mass-return of these Kartvelians to Abkhazia in the newspaper “Akhali Taoba”: “What do we want in Abkhazia, to kill everyone and live there?”

By the way, in the 1st Chechen war Shevardnadze allowed Russian bombers to take off from Georgian bases/air-space to bomb Chechenia.

Georgians may see themselves as natural leaders for the Caucasus -- what those who think this way should ask themselves is why their neighbours do not accept them as natural local leaders and in fact see this attitude as one of the reasons NOT to award them this leadership-role.!?

avaliani on "Zugdidi: Will I ever go back? "

avaliani — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:31:31 +0000

read above and go back to school.

avaliani on "Zugdidi: Will I ever go back? "

avaliani — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:27:13 +0000

Right. It was Georgia started the war in 1992. At the time, On 14 August 1992 Abkhazian Parliament was discussing a draft proposal for a Federation with Georgia but Georgia prefered the war and invaded Abkhazia.

Glenn G (or another disguised Dr Hewitt). The way you tell the story is like a hollywood movie and has nothing to do with truth. Hence you ignore most of the facts, I will put it straight:

For last decade before the war, the tensions between Abkhaz and Georgian populations were raising in the region. A part of Abkhaz society, "titular citizens" of the Region saw Georgian upcoming independence as a threat to their identity and signed a request to be TRANSFERED TO RUSSIA (no federation was discussed then). While being 17% of the population they still had a positive discriminatory parliament, with majority of the seats on their side. This demands met harsh reaction on the other side, where Georgian, Greek, Estonian, Russian and part of Armenian populations had signed an opposite request. On 15-16 July 1989 intercommuncal violence had spread in Sokhumi over the establishment of a department of Tbilisi State Unviersity in Abkhazia. Armed abkhaz groups attacked the Georgians and clashes left several dead. There was a chain of violence that had affected many and had created very strong chauvinistic feelings on both sides. The July events in Abkhazia left at least eighteen dead and 448 injured, of whom, according to official accounts, 302 were Georgians.

In the same chain of events, Kodori Svans clashed with Tkuarcheli Abkhaz leaving several dead. The economic problems of the USSR in decline had lead to strong nationalisms and pulled to the first stage some of the hidden agendas that were not addressed during soviet times. Simultanously ethnic conflicts rose in many regions, North Ossetia and Ingushetia clashed, Azerbaijan and Armenia had an open war on Karabakh, Georgia was torn by a civil war between Zviadists and New government and ethnic conflicts all at the same time.

Mr Ardzinba, a nationalistic georgian-hater president of Abkhaz SSR, decided to take advantage of the political instability and push Abkhaz independence question on the first stage. At this moment of instability this was the most unconstructive stupid move one could make. The Georgian government, no brighter then its abkhaz counterpart, was not doing anything to attenuate the problems either. While Georgian voted in referendum for independence, Abkhazians voted for conservation of USSR in another Kremlin lead referendum. There was no communication anymore between parties.

The latent war had already started. The wide spread armed conflict indeed arose after Georgian Troops entered Abkhazia on august 14th 1992 to protect the railway on the request of Boris Eltsin himself and Ardzinba was perfectly aware of it. Then the first shot was fired, and followed the tragedy for both peoples. This war has many responsibles. Many on The Georgian but as many on the Abkhaz sides.

So, it is Georgia that started the war and created huge humanitarian catastrophy. And Georgian population fled before Abkhaz Army entered the occupied territories. You can read it UNPO's Abkhazia report.

You have to decide Dear Glenn: if Georgians left before the war how can they be accused of having fought in the conflict and by thus refused the right to go back?

You say yourself: Abkhazian society can allow the return only of those Kartvelians who did not fight on the Georgian side and only after they recognize Abkhazia as an independent state.

First of all who is Abkhazian Society? 82 % of Abkhazian society were Georgian, Russian, Estonian, Armenian, Greek and others. The ethnic cleansing was confirmed by both Budapest and Bucharest summits of European Union as Ethnic Cleansing and nothing else.

Another important fact to consider on the question of Kartvelian displaced persons is that their number is regularly exaggerated by the Georgian authorities. Some of them have never left Abkhazia and others never lived there.

According to the 1989 census there were only 239,872 "Georgians" living in Abkhazia. As i said, some of them never left Abkhazia and over 50,000 refugees back to Abkhazia. The questions is how possible 350,000 - 400,000 or 450,000 (as Saakashvili's claim) figures?

Another chauvinist reflexion Glenn. When 350 000 Georgia authorities include IDP's of all nationalities, including Abkhaz themselves. As for the number of 239.782 - that is a large number enough to consider Abkhaz authorities hands in crime against humanity.

It is important to note here that a great many of those who fled from Abkhazia were recent immigrants. They were partly victims of the compulsory resettlement organized by (Georgian) Stalin and his Abkhazian-born Mingrelian lieutenant Lavrenti Beria.

So you claim, these people were victims of Beria and not Abkhaz-Russian ethnic cleansing ? It would be the same if you said that Holocaust Jews were victims of Roman Empire and not Nazi Germany, as they were in fact resettled to Europe after Roman Empire had expelled them from their lands.

Good for you Mr Glenn, keep on going that way, it's straight to Nazi paradise.

Glenn-G on "Zugdidi: Will I ever go back? "

Glenn-G — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:35:30 +0000

It was Abkhazia which unilaterally decided to open the gates for the refugees to return to Abkhazia from Georgia in 1999. Georgia at that time was actually accusing these refugees of being traitors to Georgia.

By the way, some Georgians fought against to Abkhazians in Georgian side. According to the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, those who use arms in an armed struggle and then flee do not fall under the international definition of refugees. The responsibility for these people fell and falls solely on the Georgian authorities. It is important to note here that a great many of those who fled from Abkhazia were recent immigrants. They were partly victims of the compulsory resettlement organized by (Georgian) Stalin and his Abkhazian-born Mingrelian lieutenant Lavrenti Beria.

Abkhazian society can allow the return only of those Kartvelians who did not fight on the Georgian side and only after they recognize Abkhazia as an independent state. And same right for return should be given also to descendants of Abkhazian refugees from the Caucasian War of the XIX century, who live mostly in Turkey.