Moscow is actively continuing its disinformation propaganda campaign against the West, the North Atlantic Alliance, and its allies — including in the South Caucasus — artificially constructing them as an enemy image and frightening the population with non-existent threats. The purpose of all this has long been clear: to veil its own destructive actions, which often directly violate international law and human rights and freedoms; to redirect citizens' attention from a multitude of real problems toward illusory ones — deflecting the justified discontent of both Russia's own population and that of neighboring territories — and thereby prolonging the existence of Putin's power; and finally, to maintain influence over the post-Soviet space, the exclusive right to which the Kremlin believes belongs to it alone.

The recent statement by Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova — that NATO is "training Ukraine and Georgia for confrontation with Russia" — is from the same playbook. "NATO is drawing Ukraine and Georgia into its activities, training them for confrontation with Russia through joint maneuvers and exercises. Moscow is concerned about the buildup of NATO's military activity in the Black Sea. The region already has experience in maintaining security through coastal states. The appearance of a new player — one clearly not coming with the most benevolent intentions — is destabilizing regional stability and driving a wedge between neighboring countries," Zakharova declared, naturally without explaining exactly in what way the North Atlantic Alliance's intentions are "clearly not benevolent," or why its appearance should "drive a wedge between neighboring countries."

In reality, the intention to strengthen its presence in the Black Sea region is NATO's response to actions already taken — and announced for the future — by Moscow, not the other way around. "Moscow continues to build up its presence in Crimea and the Black Sea region as a whole. In response, the North Atlantic Alliance intends to increase its presence on land, at sea, and in the air," NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated recently.

Moreover, most experts expect that the announced buildup of NATO's presence in the Black Sea region will be expressed through the reinforcement of American military bases in Romania — and that the opening of such a base in Georgia should not be anticipated, even in the future after the country's possible accession to the alliance. "In none of the comparatively newly admitted NATO countries — neither Latvia, Lithuania, nor Estonia — are there American, Turkish, British, or other foreign military bases. These states were admitted to NATO with precisely that condition. So if Georgia is admitted to the alliance, no military base will be opened here," explains political analyst and former head of the NATO and EU Information Centre, Tornike Sharashenidze.

As for the updated version of Georgia's Cooperation Package with NATO, the details are still being worked out — but it is already known that Germany is prepared to help Georgia develop its military medical capabilities. And according to analysts' forecasts, the updated package will address only technical cooperation, which does not even constitute a counterweight to the threats created in the region following the second Karabakh war, let alone a threat to anyone in the region. Accordingly, Zakharova's statement is yet another propaganda move, calculated both for a domestic Russian audience and for the residents of the region — including Abkhazia — to frighten them and convince them of the "necessity of Russian protection," explains Tornike Sharashenidze.

Following Moscow's lead — as has become customary — alarmist anti-NATO statements are being voiced from Tskhinvali and Sukhumi. Representatives of Sukhumi, who had until recently been assuring their own population that "Abkhazia's security is reliably protected thanks to the strategic partner," have suddenly begun speaking again about "security questions remaining at the forefront." As Aslan Bzhania stated on December 3rd at a meeting with members of the Public Chamber: "Given that Abkhazia has no peace treaty, and that Georgia still considers Abkhazia its territory and a significant number of states share this view, the issue of military security moves to the fore." He pointed to the dire state of Abkhazia's armed forces and persuaded those present that "without Russia these challenges cannot be withstood, and therefore issues of military cooperation with the Russian Federation are becoming ever more pressing."

Later, on December 10–11th, within the same propaganda disinformation campaign, Russian representatives — and in their wake, the Abkhazian and Ossetian sides — once again raised, at the 51st round of the International Geneva Discussions, the issue of a joint document on the non-use of force, which has long been a stumbling block driving the negotiating process into a dead end. This — despite the fact that, firstly, such a document (a Memorandum on the Non-Use of Force) already exists, and secondly, as Sukhumi's own representatives have repeatedly emphad, "Abkhazia's security is reliably protected and this issue has not been pressing of late." To top it all, Georgia — which participates in the International Geneva Discussions — has unilaterally taken on an international obligation not to use force to resolve territorial conflicts, while Russia to this day refuses to commit to not using force against Georgia.

Upon returning from Geneva, the head of the Abkhazian delegation, Deputy "Foreign Minister" Irakli Tuzhba, laid out the essence of the problem as follows: "The problem with Georgia's refusal [to sign an agreement] lies in the fact that the Georgian authorities refuse to recognize a conflict between Georgia and Abkhazia, and accordingly between Georgia and South Ossetia. They speak of some conflict — invented, in our view — between Georgia and Russia, and call on the Russian authorities to commit to the non-use of force. Naturally, neither we nor our Russian nor South Ossetian colleagues agree with such an approach. This is the problem and the impasse in which we find ourselves." That is to say, the Abkhazian delegation recognizes that Tbilisi's refusal is not motivated by any intention to attack someone in the future, but is purely political — just as the arguments of the Russian delegation, and of the Abkhazian and Ossetian delegations acting at its behest, are also political. Sukhumi also acknowledges, as we see, that the Geneva Discussions are deadlocked because of this. And who finds this deadlock acceptable? Who has an interest in it? Clearly not Tbilisi, which is dissatisfied with the existing status quo and is seeking paths to dialogue and cooperation with Sukhumi both within the Geneva format and outside it. And clearly not Abkhazia, a significant portion of whose population — along with the current leadership — has understood what political and economic crisis the "strategic partnership" with Russia has driven the republic into, having addicted Abkhazia to its financial needle and dictating the rules of its own game in the service of Russian, not Abkhazian, national interests.

This deadlock suits precisely Moscow — which has major plans for Abkhazia that it has of late stopped concealing, having sent Sukhumi in December of last year the "Program for the Formation of a Common Social and Economic Space Based on the Harmonization of Legislation," and now openly drawing Abkhazia into some new "Union State" it is constructing on the post-Soviet space. With such plans, dialogue, cooperation, and the achievement of any agreements between the Georgian and Abkhazian sides is naturally of no use whatsoever to the "strategic friend."

This is apparently why members of the Russian delegation at the Geneva Discussions do not allow representatives of the Georgian and Abkhazian sides to remain alone together for a single moment — even in the "smoking area." And this is apparently why the pro-Russian Abkhazian opposition — consisting mainly of corrupt former officials who hunger for a return to the state feeding trough, filled for years with Russian money — protests so vehemently against Point 2.3 of the "Foreign Policy Concept of the Republic of Abkhazia" recently approved by Aslan Bzhania, which envisages the normalization of relations with Tbilisi. Opposition members are frightening Abkhazia's population with claims that if this point is implemented, "Abkhazia could lose its international mediators and formally revert to the period before international recognition." Can you guess whose "handwriting" is visible in all of this? — yes, that of the very same "strategic friend" of Abkhazia.

So who is really driving the situation into a dead end? Who, to quote Zakharova, is "driving a wedge between neighbors" and "destabilizing regional stability with clearly not the most benevolent intentions"?

The truth is that Georgia's partnership with NATO has never been, and is not now, directed against anyone in the region or beyond. Any interested party can easily verify that not a single document relating to this cooperation contains even a hint of aggression against anyone, or even of strengthening any offensive capabilities of Georgia. They speak exclusively of developing the country's defensive capabilities, as well as of supporting Georgia's European and Euro-Atlantic integration — including through the strengthening of Georgia's democratic institutions. And the latter is the direct opposite of what we all observe today in Putin's Russia: crude interference in the internal affairs of neighbors; lawlessness and arbitrary rule toward both its own citizens and the populations of neighboring territories; the violation of rights and freedoms — in short, aggression, authoritarianism, and dictatorship. It is precisely from this grim reality that the current Kremlin rulers need to divert the population's attention — cultivating the images of non-existent enemies and threats so characteristic of Russian propaganda. And it is precisely from the prospect of returning to all of this that Georgia is fleeing by taking a course toward the West: the country's rapprochement with the North Atlantic Alliance means that Georgia is strengthening its democratic institutions and the rule of law alongside the modernization of its security sector — with the goal of becoming, on the one hand, more developed, and at the same time more responsible. Therefore, residents of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region should perceive the emergence of Georgia as a modern European democracy not as a danger, but on the contrary as a positive development creating hope for a better future.

In the view of Sergi Kapanadze — one of the leaders of the pro-Western movement European Georgia and former Deputy Foreign Minister — if anyone creates a real threat to the future, identity, and distinctiveness of the Abkhazian people, it is precisely the "strategic partner" Russia — as expressed, among other things, in Moscow's recent steps toward Sukhumi — but certainly not Tbilisi or its Western partners.

"If there has ever been destabilization anywhere in our region, historically, Russia has always been its author — while pretending to be a peacemaker and mediator in the conflicts it itself creates. This is precisely why Russia remains, to this day, Georgia's primary security challenge. And Moscow is displaying its destabilizing role quite clearly toward its supposedly strategic partners — Sukhumi and Tskhinvali: all the steps it has taken of late are directed at absorbing them, further strengthening its influence, and ultimately annexing them. Our Abkhazian and Ossetian friends would do well to reflect deeply on this," Kapanadze concludes.

Diana Muselyani

The material was prepared as part of a joint project of the Accent news agency and the non-governmental organization GRASS, implemented with the financial support of the Open Information Partnership (OIP).