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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He has a long established history of supporting whatever side further empowers his grip over Georgian politics and economics.
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.
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.
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.