83
Collapsing Empire: Georgia and Russia Restore Relations
(www.kitklarenberg.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
83 points (97.7% liked)
World News
2304 readers
169 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Not if you are a socialist or communist.....you should really look up who founded, funds, and runs the Georgian Dream party.
Really makes you wonder why the author of this particular piece of "journalism" decided to omit the role of the most powerful man in Georgian politics in the last 30 years.
geez would be much better if georgians aligned themselves with the very communist NATO.
I'm not familiar at all with Georgian politics, but if what you say is true, I do kind of agree that the author should have included some discussion on the matter. That being said, I don't see how this makes it not "great news". Regardless of who holds power in Georgia, do you think that having better relations with Russia, its neighbor with which they share a border, will be a bad thing for Georgians?
The author is criticizing the rose revolution, Ivanishvili funded the rose revolution. Ivanishvili represents like half of Georgia's GDP. This isn't about Georgians befriending their neighbors, it's about ivanishvili establishing a regime.
As others have said, the article is about Georgia's decision to strengthen its relationship with Russia at the expense of its relationship with the west. The rose revolution is important to understand Georgia's current position on this.
Has IvanishviIi not already established a regime? In what way does improving relations with Russia allow him to further consolidate his power? While I certainly don't support oligarchy, Georgia's struggle against western imperialism is surely worth critical support.
I mean part of critical support is actually evaluating what you are supporting. If you had, you would know that ivanishvili has a long history of playing both sides to further his own wealth and power. However, he ultimately is a reactionary puppeteer who always lands on the side that lets him keep his grip on Georgian politics.
This is just a play to further establish his regime with authoritarian means. He is hoping that if he can make the west fear that he will switch sides, they will let him get away with anything.
I'm supporting the decision of the Georgian state to improve relations with Russia, its neigbour and the regional power. I support this because improved relations can lead to security and trade agreements that improve the material conditions of the Georgian working class. If the state ultimately backs away from this decision due to it being a ploy to gain leverage over the west, then I will absolutely be critical of such a move. On the other hand, I can imagine how following through can be beneficial for the ruling class as well and I don't think that your conclusion is a guaranteed outcome.
Well yeah, who wouldn't in that position? And so why exactly wouldn't such a person choose to realign back towards Russia, or at the very least hedge their bets and try to play both sides, considering that the West has been orchestrating protests and riots aimed at overthrowing this government and Russia has not? This is pretty elementary stuff.
Once a puppet outlives their usefulness for the US they usually discard and replace them. If that puppet is smart and has any self-preservation instinct they will see it coming and know when it's time to switch sides.
The fact that such a switch is even possible is what's interesting here. Twenty years ago the US was the only game in town. Now no longer.
Why wouldnt a socialist or communist at least tactifully support a man who was alive during the USSRs soviet era, who wants to normalize relationships with a country alligned with communist ones? (Russia > China)
The EU is clearly not friendly to communists, half the countries there ban communists from running!
He is one of the "seven bankers" employed by Yeltsin to destroy and sell the communist government..... He literally has made billions destroying communism.
And who do you think was the person most responsible for Georgia joining the EU?
This is greviances from the 90s, im taking the actions as they are now. We can agree Putin, this billionare are likely opportunistic captialist butchers while still seeing this as a move that benefits communists.
Im taking the actions as they are now, even if for cynical reasons breaking up the EU further and moving towards a direction that communism is permitted, and of which the most powerfull member of that bloc is a communist country is progressive.
How? The communist/socialist parties in Georgia are part of the opposition groups opposed to the Georgian dream party.
I don't buy into the false dichotomy that anything that seemingly opposes western imperialism is automatically a win for communist. Nothing is as black and white as theory supposes it to be, and we have to be vigilant about empowering the kleptocracy that are so common among political bodies run by the rich.
Right, but what makes you think they are actually going to leave the EU? He's just emulating countries like Hungary, turkey, and India, who are utilizing geopolitical schisms to consolidate authoritarian regimes while staying plugged into the western capital apparatus.
Im not sure, if they do would you eat your hat and support it?
Do the communists in Hungary support removal from the EU also?
Breaking up a bloc that was setup to counter communist infulence, is in fact good.
If ivanishvili has actually changed his stripes and this wasn't a conservative ploy to establish an authoritarian kleptocracy, I would gladly eat my hat and yours. But that would be as likely as bill gates donating all his money to Linux developers to create open source programming.
Hard to tell since Orban has basically done all he can to remove opposition parties. I don't have a problem with nations decoupling from NATO or the EU, what I have a problem with is empowering social and fiscally conservative political parties who claim to want to decouple as a way to consolidate an authoritarian kleptocracy.
Right, but who has actually broken away from the bloc? Kinda seems like they're just utilizing that as a scapegoat to consolidate power without ever actually breaking up the bloc.
Not sure why you always have to specify "conservative". Would it be better if it was liberals doing it?
And "authoritarian kleptocracy"? How much liberal media have you been consuming? They always love using these terms when refering to Russia but they never actually explain why Russia's capitalism is so much worse than the West's. Don't western states have police that they use to crack down on serious dissent? (Have you not been paying attention to the Palestine protests?) Don't their capitalists bribe the government and steal from the working class?
This isn't "authoritarian kleptocracy" (or whatever other newspeak liberal media comes up with next so they don't have to reveal their orientalism/chauvinism and just say what they mean which is "eastern barbarism"). It's just capitalism doing what capitalism always does.
Liberals are conservative, I was speaking about economics.
It's just a political term for capitalism but with a more structured hierarchy of distribution and control to a smaller amount of people. I can let you come up with an excuse why it's not worse.
I'm not defending "the west". If it's bad when america does it, it's also bad when Russia doesn't. Not everything has to happen in the vacuum of a false dichotomy.
Lol, as an Asian person it's kinda hilarious that you think Russia is considered an "eastern country", when they and anyone actually in the east consider them a western nation.
Georgia is not in the EU.
So "communists" are aligned with western backed and funded opposition groups? That's kind of sus don't you think? I mean come on, it's gotta raise some red flags for you about what kind of "socialist parties" these are that associate with liberal NGOs and participate in color revolution attempts.
Again with this word "authoritarian". Funny how it's always used against governments the West doesn't like. It's a very unserious word used by unserious people.
Now, the undoubtedly reactionary nature of these governments aside, isn't it objectively a good thing that they are behaving that way? That they are undermining the western hegemonistic order for their own selfish interests? Hungary for instance has been a real thorn in the side of the pro-Ukraine warmongers in the EU and NATO. As much as i hate Orban, it's been frankly pretty entertaining to watch. Don't you want dissent and disunity in the imperialist camp? I certainly do.
Maybe learn about the politics of the state before you make your judgments? The communist party is a small part of the coalition of parties attempting to block the Georgian dream party. I highly doubt they are receiving any help from any foreign NGO, they align themselves with those who do because they understand the threat that ivanishvili poses.
Lol, you do know that the Georgian dream party is made up by the leadership of the rose revolution, right?
Be mad at the dictionary I guess? I don't control how governments arrange their hierarchical structures. Also, the US is friends with plenty of authoritarian countries.
Not for the Georgian people....
I think that's a highly reductive interpretation that relies on oversimplified concepts of global politics, and political language.
Have they really stopped anything, has this benefited Russia or the people of Hungary in any meaningful way? Also, I'd hardly call countries defending against an invasion the "warmongers" of the situation.
Which imperialist camp?
So if it's acceptable for those "communists" to join forces with western backed color revolution agents, then surely it is not a big deal for other communists to critically support the Georgian government in its suppressing of said color revolutionists and reconciliation with Russia. Since we have abandoned any pretense of moral purity anyway...
If that's what you think is happening you haven't been paying attention. You're just regurgitating the western mainstream media's propaganda narrative, which as usual is the exact opposite of reality.
Yes they are the warmongers, they are the ones who purposely engineered the conflict and who continue to needlessly prolong it to Ukraine's detriment, all while their reckless and desperate escalations risk widening the conflict and put us all in danger.
They are not defending anything, they are merely using Ukraine to try and harm Russia. When just like Georgia, Ukraine's interests would be best served by refusing to continue to be a western puppet and mending ties with Russia instead, that's just a fact.
So far they've prevented Hungary being drawn into to the conflict. Hungary has wisely refused to send weapons to the conflict zone, recognizing that by doing so it only prolongs the conflict and gets more Ukrainians and Russians killed.
Of course it has benefited the people of Hungary. While other NATO and EU countries ruin their economies and impoverish their people with anti-Russian sanctions and billions flushed down the toilet in the corrupt black hole that is Ukraine, Hungary has looked out for its own people's interest and kept energy prices and inflation low.
When other NATO countries send their soldiers to die in Ukraine, Hungarian soldiers will still be safe in their own country. And when Russia strikes back at other NATO countries that have made the mistake of making themselves a co-belligerent in the conflict, Hungary will remain untouched.
Turns out having good relations with and refusing to be drawn into conflict against a nearby major power is good for your people. I know, what a shocker!
There is only one imperialist camp
So in your theory, the opposition parties are committing a color revolution.....in a country that has had the same government since the Georgian Dream party did a color revolution?
Do you know what a color revolution is?
Also, it is quite arrogant of you to assume you know more about what's good for Georgian communist than Georgian communist.
I could lay the same claims at your feet? However, my argument is pretty well bolstered by the fact that only one nation is actually on someone else's sovereign territory.
Lol, you don't think the people ordering bombs being dropped on civilians may have something to do with Ukrainian's detriment?
Next you're going to claim that Palestine engineered their own genocide....
Only if narrow the definition of imperialism to the point where it looses its inherent meaning.
They certainly tried. What else would you call it when western backed NGOs organize astroturfed protests and violent riots aimed at toppling the elected government because the government is trying to pass a law that would expose foreign funding of said NGOs? When western politicians shamelessly go to Georgia to participate in and support the protests, just like they did in Ukraine on the Maidan in 2014?
It doesn't get much more transparent. Next you will claim that the Maidan coup was just a "peaceful revolution", or that the violent western-funded mob in Hong Kong were just "pro-democracy activists"?
NATO has been in Ukraine since 2014 and Ukrainian troops have been on Russian territory since 2022 when the new oblasts voted in a referendum to join Russia. And is a country really sovereign if their government is a puppet for foreign powers?
I do think that, which is why i said that the Nazi Kiev regime that was put in place by a western orchestrated coup is harming Ukraine.
They are the ones who have been dropping bombs on civilians in Donetsk and Lugansk since 2014. Them doing so forced Russia to intervene to protect those people and as a result there is now a larger conflict in Ukraine.
Comparing Palestinians with Nazis who want to commit ethnic cleansing is grotesque genocide apologetics and literally a Zionist talking point. This shows to me that you are not engaging in good faith. Good bye.
Well typically a revolution would require a change in the status quo, not a protest against the government rapidly shifting policy.
They aren't trying to create a revolution, they are trying to preserve the status quo. The reason they are upset is because it's the same policy Orban used before cracking down on independent journalism.
Lol, invited of course. That's not invading someone...
Lol, and now it's okay for foreign governments influence voting.....
Color revolution bad, Russia funding and arming separatist groups all over eastern Europe good.
Those people Russia armed and agitated against the government in the first place? How many of Russia's neighbors actively have armed separatist regions being bolstered by Russian troops? Surely it's just a coincidence, and surely Russia has a long history of being very empathetic towards minority groups.......
My dude, you are literally repeating nationalist talking points. Maybe take your own advice and consume sources that aren't funded by the Russian state.
I very much doubt you ever engage with anyone in good faith.
Are we still talking about Georgia or are you referring to a different country now? Is this a hypothetical scenario in an alternate reality?
Because in this reality Georgia isn't in the EU, never has been, and, inshallah, never will be.
Putin was also america's guy, see how that turned out.
Yeah.... How did that turn out?
I don't particularly believe that Russia is anything but the first western state to evolve from capitalism to an authoritarian kleptocracy. They aren't trying to end western hegemony, they're just trying to change where they're at on the ladder.
How does it materially help workers if Russia does fight off NATO? It's just exchanging one capitalist hierarchy for an even more authoritarian capitalist hierarchy. Their resources and labour are still being extracted from their country into the hands of billionaires.
capitalism in the west is fair and free but in Russia is ruthless and authoritarian.
Correct. The natural progression of late stage capitalism is a move further towards authoritarian capitalist kleptocracy.
How do we tell if a nation is antithetical towards western imperialism, or if we're just witnessing the beast eating its own tail?
I would argue that we should look at the material motivations, and how capital is distributed within the nation. But I guess the enemy of my enemy is more catchy....
The enemy of our enemy is our friend, it is as simple as that. When the west focuses it's resources on fighting Russia, it gives the rest of the world breathing room, thus we have seen progressive movements grow in many places that would've been immediately crushed under other circumstances.
I mean that's a nice saying, but I'd hardly say it's been proven over the course of History. It didn't work out very well for the native Americans.
Or it just empowers the capital holders of the military industrial complex and makes America even more aggressive. I hardly think America would be a more agreeable nation under a wartime economy.
Examples? Because in the last 2 decades we've seen a huge upswing of conservative authoritarian governments being established across the globe.
There are 2 sides to this coin, and in bad faith, you use the side that supports your views. The americans also used the very same strategy, but it worked out for them, what is the difference here? That the natives did not identify the americans as the primary contradiction. There are many other examples, like Chinese civil war, the korean war, vietnam war, etc... The point is to identify the primary contradiction, which in this case is american imperialism.
And you're completely wrong, the decline of american hegemony is forcing them to give away concesions. Countries all around the world are joining BRICS, Yemen gets away with attacking Israel shipments, african nations are kicking out french and american troops of their countries, even Saudi Arabia is slowly dropping the petrodollar policy!!, something that was immediately punished with bombs in the past (lybia, irak, iran), americas "backyard" is now full of leftists goverments, etc... Its quite obvious that america is losing control.
As i mentioned, americas "backyard". Heck look at Mexico left party completely destroying the neoliberal parties and the US can't do anything more than putting some NYT hit pieces here and there 😅
The U.S.?
Pretty much, but with a more reinforced hierarchy of capital and state control.
Georgia isn't in the EU. I think you're a bit confused mate.
This article omits that sort of discussion because it is not relevant. This article is about Georgia mending its relations with Russia, which is objectively a good thing for both countries and a defeat for the US empire.
And who is controlling the political party who is "mending it's relations with Russia"? The same man who funded the rose revolution, the same man who happened to buy up the industry of Georgia afterwards?
This isn't about geopolitics, it's about a billionaire trying to set up a dictatorship.
This is about geopolitics, that's exactly the point of the article. You seem very fixated on this one individual but there are larger forces at play and there is a bigger geopolitical context that this fits into.
If bourgeois interests that once supported Georgia's submission to US diktat and aggressive anti-Russian policies are now turning in a different direction and in doing so are daring to draw the ire of the US empire that is a sign of which way the geopolitical winds are blowing.
It means that something has fundamentally changed in the global balance of power and various actors around the world are reorienting according to what they perceive as being in their best interest.
There is literally no player larger than ivanishvili in the region..... He has controlled Georgian politics for the last 30 years. Which is why it is so academically dishonest to leave him out of the article, especially when the author was blaming his cronies for Georgia's contemporary issues.
Right, but we've already gone through this before with ivanishvili. He has a long established history of supporting whatever side further empowers his grip over Georgian politics and economics. He funded the rose revolution, then threw the leaders of the rose revolution under the bus, and then established his own neolib political party. Jumping between supporting Russia and the west as it suits his interest.
He is never going to detach himself from western interest, this recent shift is just a bartering chip. He is hoping that if he can scare the west into thinking he is aligning with Russia that they will allow him to do whatever he wants in Georgia.
And currently the West doesn't seem to be offering that support. They seem to be doing the opposite by organizing protests aimed at toppling the government.
Hell, never mind "Georgian Dream," I'd even (very critically) support a "Georgian National Socialist" party in the sole and specific action of breaking away from the western imperial bloc (which is the entire cause of Georgia's political issues to begin with- not that a Nazi party would likely break with their western sweethearts to begin with, to join all the non-white, non-western nations in anti-imperialist struggle at that).
It seems you can't understand- as your other comments clearly suggest- that we're dealing with a global world system here, and that imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism and its most abhorrent, destructive, and explicitly genocidal one is what we're dealing with. That you fall for the "AuThORitARian" smear in your comments below (without recognizing that the most authoritarian system imaginable, is that of the imperialist bloc against the global democracy which is emerging, however problematic its various actors may be), as well as your clear lack of genuine understanding for the actual realities and constraints of the western military-industrial complex (if you can't realize the US has been in a neoliberal equivalent of a "wartime economy" for decades, for instance- and if you can't recognize that the MIC has been running the show for a long while now, and manufactured the current Ukraine crisis, and would simply manufacture some other crisis if that hadn't been possible) is very telling.
you said what i didn't have the guts to say.
