Last night's Georgian television quoted NATO spokesman James Appathurai as saying that the members of the alliance stand for the withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers from the conflict area, although they do not know at this point whether they will be replaced by NATO troops.
In simpler terms, this means that NATO has given the green light to Georgia's invasion of Abkhazia. If Russian peacekeepers are withdrawn from the conflict zone without any replacement, the corridor will be open for Georgian tanks.
This is what Tbilisi wants, but Brussels does not wish to spoil relations with Moscow over this issue. Moreover, NATO soldiers are very reluctant to move to dangerous places.
As a result, Mikheil Saakashvili received a public and very unpleasant reprimand. NATO accused Tbilisi of crudely distorting the facts. Today in the morning, Apparuthai publicly denied this statement. He added that nothing was said on this score in the NATO Council, either.
Let us leave the NATO Council alone. Georgia is prepared to lie greatly for the sake of war. When George W. Bush, who is not likely to be well-versed in Georgian history, visited Tbilisi, Saakashvili gave him a totally distorted account of Georgia's forced enslavement by Russia. There is historically documented evidence that Tbilisi (then called Tiflis) repeatedly asked Russia to protect it and save it from inevitable collapse. Georgia was a tiny Christian island amidst the stormy Muslim sea after the Fall of Constantinople.
Taking Georgia under its wing was a huge responsibility for Russia. Moreover, it would have to assume that position for centuries. This is why Russian Tsar Paul I turned down the request of Georgian King George XII in 1798. His son, Alexander I, did not want to shoulder this burden, but the State Council insisted that it was the duty of Orthodox Russia to help its brethren-in-faith.
The account of the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict is equally false. On each piece of land inhabited by man, every inch is covered by thousands of footprints of his predecessors - modern sneakers, military boots, women's shoes, jackboots, legionnaires from Rome, and bare feet. So, this eternal scream "This is my land!" must always be backed by evidence.
As distinct from many other nations, the Abkhazians are lucky - their connections to their land can be traced back many centuries. Abkhazia was independent since times immemorial, and was known to chroniclers as a land bordering Kolkhida.
However, this independence was repeatedly infringed on over the centuries. There were Greek colonies in Abkhazia, for one, but Athens does not claim its land. Mongols owned Abkhazia, but they never claim it either. Once, Abkhazia belonged to Mitridat. Abkhazians are still there, but Mitridat is not. They were colonized by Ancient Rome, but Berlusconi is not rushing to don the legionnaire's clothing. They were also conquered by the Turks in their long history, but Ankara does not claim the land either.
Abkhazia was part of Russia many times. On several occasions, it came under Russia's wing on its own free will, and in 1811 it was incorporated into Russia under the Treaty of Bucharest. But Russia is not planning to annex it by force.
Abkhazia's independence is older than Georgian, but it belonged to Georgia as well - for a historically short time; but Abkhazians were not particularly fond of Georgians.
Modern history is even worse. After Greeks and Armenians were evicted from Abkhazia on Joseph Stalin's orders, more than 100,000 Georgians had to move there against their will. This is how their compatriot resolved the ethnic issue. At the same time, Georgians were given Balkar lands and the Elbrus region; some of them were settled in Chechnya, from which they all fled later on.
Current bilateral problems started when the first Georgian President Zviad Gamsakhurdia came to power in Georgia. Posing as an intellectual, liberal, and democrat for the outside world, he was a fascist-like nationalist and extremist at home. Having left the big Soviet empire, he immediately tried to create a mini version in Georgia. But his attempt was rebuffed. Even tanks did not make their way to Abkhazia. His successors continue on the same course, but in new conditions, under the cover of new patrons and new demagogy.
I believe that the dispute over Abkhazia is pointless. By his actions, nationalist Gamsakhurdia gave Abkhazians a full-fledged license for independence.
Abkhazia has lost and regained its independence many times, and it is used to this. Abkhazians have enough patience. Since they managed to survive under Mitridat, Genghis Khan and Ancient Rome, they will cope with Saakashvili.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
