DOCSLIB.ORG

Failed Prevention 35

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Table of Contents Foreword by the Editors 5 PART I: CONCEPTS IN CONFLICT PREVENTION 9 Concepts and Instruments in Conflict Prevention 11 Frida Möller PART II: CONFLICT DEVELOPMENT AND FAILED PREVENTION 35 The Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict 37 Sabine Fischer Missed Windows of Opportunity in the Georgian-South Ossetian Conflict – The Political Agenda of the Post-Revolutionary Saakashvili Government (2004-2006) 59 Doris Vogl Failures of the Conflict Transformation and Root Causes of the August War 79 Oksana Antonenko PART III: VIEWS FROM THE REGION 95 Frozen Conflicts: The Missed Opportunities 97 Salomé Zourabichvili Failure to Prevent Violence – Lessons Learnt from the Georgian- Abkhazian Conflict Resolution Process 113 Liana Kvarchelia Missed Chances in the Georgian-South Ossetian Conflict – A View from South Ossetia 131 Alan Parastaev 3 PART IV: THE INTERNATIONAL INFLUENCE 139 OSCE Early Warning and the August Conflict in Georgia 141 Dov Lynch The Role of the United Nations in Abkhazia, Opportunities and Missed Opportunities between 1992 and 2009 151 Charlotte Hille United States’ and NATO’s Role in Georgia’s Territorial Conflicts August 1992-July 2008 169 Eugene Kogan Used & Missed Opportunities for Conflict Prevention in Georgia (1990-2008) – The Role of Russia 187 Markus Bernath Russia and South Ossetia: The Road to Sovereignty 207 Flemming Splidsboel Hansen PART V: CONCLUSIONS 235 Some Lessons Learnt in Conflict Prevention from the Conflicts in the Southern Caucasus 237 Predrag Jurekovi ć List of Authors and Editors 243 4 Foreword by the Editors The violent escalation of the Georgian/South Ossetian and Georgian/Abkhazian conflict in the summer of 2008 resulted in a significant deterioration of the regional security situation in this part of the Southern Caucasus. Due to the suffering of injured, expelled or killed civilians, it caused a new humanitarian catastrophe and strained the relations between Washington and Moscow. Despite the raised voices in the UN and OSCE framework starting in the early 1990ies for a proactive and preventive policy in potential crisis situations, the so called “frozen conflicts” in the Southern Caucasus seemed to have been underestimated. The issue how to close the gap between pretension and reality in regard to preventing violent conflicts has been in the centre of a research project carried out by the Institute for Peace Support and Conflict Management of the Austrian National Defence Academy since 2006. After having dealt with the instruments and concepts for conflict prevention as well as preventive strategies in regard to religious extremism in the Middle East and Western Balkans in March 2009 the case study of the Georgian/South Ossetian and the Georgian/Abkhazian conflict became the main topic of another workshop. This conference, organized in cooperation with the Austrian “International Institute for Liberal Politics” and held in Vienna, focused in particular on the lessons which can be drawn from the behaviour of international and local actors regarding conflict prevention in the Georgian/South Ossetian and Georgian/Abkhazian conflict between 1990 and 2008. The used - and much more - missed opportunities to transform these conflicts in a peaceful way were discussed by outstanding international experts on the Southern Caucasus, representatives of the OSCE and EU as well as by politicians and NGO representatives coming from the conflict region. Most of their contributions are contained in this publication. The book comprises of five parts: 5 Part I is focussed on the concepts and instruments in conflict prevention. Frida Möller, an analyst from the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at the Uppsala University in Sweden, in her contribution gives an overview about this topic with some references to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program. In part II, international experts on the Southern Caucasus analyze the conflict development in regard to the (missed) opportunities for preventing an escalation. Sabine Fischer from the EU Institute for Security Studies in Paris focuses on the Georgian/Abkhazian conflict. The period 2004-2006 in the aftermath of the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia is in particular the subject of the contribution by Doris Vogl who is affiliated with the University of Vienna. Beyond that she draws from a large pool of knowledge and experience due of having been engaged in different EU and OSCE missions in Georgia. Oksana Antonenko from the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London analyzes the failures of conflict transformation and the root causes of the August war in her contribution. In this context she emphasizes in particular the relevance of “Track-Two-Dialogue”, a confidence-building format to which she actively contributed. Part III is dedicated to views from the region: Salomé Zourabichvili, who was Georgian Foreign Minister 2004-2005, presents a critical Georgian opinion on the missed opportunities for conflict prevention. Liana Kvarchelia from the Centre for Humanitarian Programmes in Sukhum/Sukhumi presents an Abkhazian perception of the conflict development. Finally, Alan Parastayev, who heads the Centre for Humanitarian Studies in Tskhinval/Tskhinvali, describes in his contribution the Georgian-South Ossetian relations from the angle of an NGO representative from South Ossetia. In part IV, the role of international actors in regard to the Georgian/Abkhazian and Georgian/South-Ossetian conflicts is analyzed. Dov Lynch, Senior Advisor to the the OSCE Secretary General, illuminates the OSCE’s practical experience with conflict prevention in Georgia. The role of the United Nations in Abkhazia between 1992 and 2009 is the topic of Charlotte Hille, who is Assistant Professor at the 6 University of Amsterdam. Eugene Kogan, a Senior Researcher at the Vienna based International Institute for Liberal Politics, in his contribution explores the role of the US and of NATO in the context of the conflicts in the Southern Caucasus. Russia’s policy is then analyzed in the contributions of Markus Bernath, a journalist for the Austrian daily “Der Standard”, and by Flemming Hansen, a Danish Defence College in Copenhagen. The final part V closes with some general lessons which can be drawn from the Southern Caucasus cases for conflict prevention. This is done by Predrag Jurekovi ć, co-editor of this book and researcher at the Institute for Peace Support and Conflict Management at the Austrian National Defence Academy. Some of the contributions included in this book are primarily based upon the practical experience of the authors in the examined conflicts. Another case is that authors belonging to one of the conflict parties present their personal views. In these cases, unlike in the contributions based primarily upon academic research references are used less often, respectively the articles are written without pointing to other sources. The editors want to thank Veronika Siegl and Rosalind Willi for their substantial efforts in lecturing the articles as well as Christian M. Huber for the technical realization. By publishing this book the editors want to raise the awareness on the necessity of and the challenges connected with conflict prevention, in particular regarding the lessons learnt which can be drawn from the difficult processes of conflict transformation in the region of Southern Caucasus. With the Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defence Academies and Security Studies Institutes and the Study Group Information series published at the Austrian National Defence Academy we have deliberately chosen a framework of security political research cooperation on regional stability active in the Western Balkans and the Southern Caucasus alike. Walter Feichtinger Ernst M. Felberbauer 7 Predrag Jurekovi ć 8 PART I: CONCEPTS IN CONFLICT PREVENTION 9 Concepts and Instruments in Conflict Prevention Frida Möller A number of positive signs indicate that the world is getting more peaceful. Since the early 1990s, the overall number of armed conflicts in the world has decreased even though there has been a small increase in the last few years, illustrated in Figure 1. Another encouraging trend is that the number of full scale wars (over 1 000 battle-related deaths in one year) has decreased during the same time period. In 1991, the year with the highest number of armed conflicts since 1946, one third reached the level of war. In 2007, there were only four wars registered in the world. This is the lowest number of wars since 1957, when the number was just three 1. Fewer conflicts seem to escalate to the level of war. This in itself is encouraging. Also optimistic is that civil conflicts – the far most common type of armed conflicts – are now to a higher degree terminated through peace agreements. From the 1950s to the 1980s there were many more victories than negotiated settlements. But this pattern changed in the 1990s when the negotiated settlements grew in number and is still growing. Furthermore, negotiated settlements are more stable today than previously. In the 1990s, negotiated settlements were highly likely (44 %) to break down within five years. Today, around 12 % seem to break down. This is a dramatic decrease. 1 Harbom, Lotta/Melander, Erik/Wallensteen, Peter: Dyadic Dimensions of Armed Conflict, 1946 - 2007. In: Journal of Peace Research , 45(5)/ 2008, pp. 697-710. 11 Figure 1: Number of armed conflicts 1946-2007, by intensity Source: Uppsala Conflict Data Program 2009/02/23 These encouraging signs are often overshadowed by the brutality of some of today’s conflicts.
Recommended publications
  • Russia-Georgia Relations

    Russia-Georgia Relations

    russian analytical russian analytical digest 68/09 digest the moment. So are specific steps aimed at resolving the usually are not focused on activities that cannot bring Abkhazia and South Ossetia conflicts. Harm reduction anything tangible in the short run. is the only realistic policy objective in that area. As to the long run, one should admit that nobody At the same time, Georgia cannot afford to lose ties can confidently predict what will be happening in the to the people who live in Abkhazia and South Ossetia region in ten–fifteen years time or beyond that. Georgia now – whatever political attitudes they may have. This has too much on its hands right now to be too involved is not easy, but Georgians – both in government and in speculations about it. It is rational to focus on ob- in society – should be creative and inventive on this jectives that can be achieved and not allow things that point. Apart from technical impediments for such con- cannot be changed for the time being to get one de- tacts, the trick is that there can be no short-term politi- pressed. cal advantages coming from such contacts, and people About the Author: Professor Ghia Nodia is the Director of the School of Caucasus Studies at Ilia Chavchavadze State University in Tbilisi, Georgia and chairman of the Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development, a Georgian think-tank. Georgian Attitudes to Russia: Surprisingly Positive By Hans Gutbrod and Nana Papiashvili, Tbilisi Abstract What do Georgians think about Russia? What relationship would they like to have with their northern neighbor? And what do they think about the August conflict? Data collected by the Caucasus Research Resource Center (CRRC) allows a nuanced answer to these questions: although Georgians have a very crit- ical view of Russia’s role in the August conflict, they continue to desire a good political relationship with their northern neighbor, as long as this is not at the expense of close ties with the West.
  • METHODOLOGICAL APPENDIX: FIELDWORK and ARCHIVES in TORN STATES Even Though I Had Anticipated Methodological Problems When I

    METHODOLOGICAL APPENDIX: FIELDWORK and ARCHIVES in TORN STATES Even Though I Had Anticipated Methodological Problems When I

    METHODOLOGICAL APPENDIX: FIELDWORK AND ARCHIVES IN TORN STATES Even though I had anticipated methodological problems when I set out to investigate the relation of separatism to organized crime, I completely misidentified what the main ones were to be. Having repeatedly done fieldwork in Kosovo, including an interview-based study of nationalism among students at Belgrade and Priština Universities (Mandic 2015), I expected the primary problems to be logistical. Since crossing “borders” (as separatists call them) or “administrative boundaries” (as host state bureaucrats call them) was often time-consuming and costly, and since ignorance of Albanian, Georgian, Ossetian and Russian often required a translator as well as a tour guide, I thought traveling would be the greatest difficulty. In fact, the two main difficulties were access to archives – by far the greatest challenge, and the most costly research component – and evaluating the credibility of sources – steering clear of nationalist propaganda and quasi-scientific references. Below I explore some of the dilemmas, challenges and regrets I have faced in the hopes that they aid future students of the topic. Fieldwork With the help of a Research Fellowship from the Minda de Ginzburg Center for European Studies in the 2013-4 academic year, I was able to travel extensively in Serbia/Kosovo and Georgia/South Ossetia interviewing experts, conducting informal ethnographies and exploring archives. I spent a total of five and a half months in Serbia, three of which were in Kosovo and three and a half months in Georgia, four weeks of which were in South Ossetia. I visited the four relevant capitals, cities/towns along separatist borders, and major towns on separatist territory.
  • Status and Protection of Globally Threatened Species in the Caucasus

    Status and Protection of Globally Threatened Species in the Caucasus

    STATUS AND PROTECTION OF GLOBALLY THREATENED SPECIES IN THE CAUCASUS CEPF Biodiversity Investments in the Caucasus Hotspot 2004-2009 Edited by Nugzar Zazanashvili and David Mallon Tbilisi 2009 The contents of this book do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of CEPF, WWF, or their sponsoring organizations. Neither the CEPF, WWF nor any other entities thereof, assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, product or process disclosed in this book. Citation: Zazanashvili, N. and Mallon, D. (Editors) 2009. Status and Protection of Globally Threatened Species in the Caucasus. Tbilisi: CEPF, WWF. Contour Ltd., 232 pp. ISBN 978-9941-0-2203-6 Design and printing Contour Ltd. 8, Kargareteli st., 0164 Tbilisi, Georgia December 2009 The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) is a joint initiative of l’Agence Française de Développement, Conservation International, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of Japan, the MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank. This book shows the effort of the Caucasus NGOs, experts, scientific institutions and governmental agencies for conserving globally threatened species in the Caucasus: CEPF investments in the region made it possible for the first time to carry out simultaneous assessments of species’ populations at national and regional scales, setting up strategies and developing action plans for their survival, as well as implementation of some urgent conservation measures. Contents Foreword 7 Acknowledgments 8 Introduction CEPF Investment in the Caucasus Hotspot A. W. Tordoff, N. Zazanashvili, M. Bitsadze, K. Manvelyan, E. Askerov, V. Krever, S. Kalem, B. Avcioglu, S. Galstyan and R. Mnatsekanov 9 The Caucasus Hotspot N.
  • Security Council Distr.: General 18 July 2007

    Security Council Distr.: General 18 July 2007

    United Nations S/2007/439 Security Council Distr.: General 18 July 2007 Original: English Report of the Secretary-General on the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia I. Introduction 1. The present report is submitted pursuant to Security Council resolution 1752 (2007) of 13 April 2007, by which the Security Council decided to extend the mandate of the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) until 15 October 2007. It provides an update of the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia since my report of 3 April 2007 (S/2007/182). 2. My Special Representative, Jean Arnault, continued to lead the Mission. He was assisted by the Chief Military Observer, Major General Niaz Muhammad Khan Khattak (Pakistan). The strength of UNOMIG on 1 July 2007 stood at 135 military observers and 16 police officers (see annex). II. Political process 3. During the reporting period, UNOMIG continued efforts to maintain peace and stability in the zone of conflict. It also sought to remove obstacles to the resumption of dialogue between the Georgian and Abkhaz sides in the expectation that cooperation on security, the return of internally displaced persons and refugees, economic rehabilitation and humanitarian issues would facilitate meaningful negotiations on a comprehensive political settlement of the conflict, taking into account the principles contained in the document entitled “Basic Principles for the Distribution of Competences between Tbilisi and Sukhumi”, its transmittal letter (see S/2002/88, para. 3) and additional ideas by the sides. 4. Throughout the reporting period, my Special Representative maintained regular contact with both sides, as well as with the Group of Friends of the Secretary-General both in Tbilisi and in their capitals.
  • Georgian Literature Since the Rose Revolution: Old Traumas and New Agendas

    Georgian Literature Since the Rose Revolution: Old Traumas and New Agendas

    Concentric: Literary and Cultural Studies 42.1 March 2016: 169-191 DOI: 10.6240/concentric.lit.2016.42.1.08 Georgian Literature since the Rose Revolution: Old Traumas and New Agendas Mzia Jamagidze & Nino Amiranashvili Department of Comparative Literature Ilia State University, Georgia Abstract Georgia’s Rose Revolution of November 2003 was a demonstration of the Georgian people’s desire for fundamental change. More specifically, it expressed their aspiration to overcome their post-Soviet status and to establish a fully functioning state and a fully competitive developed society. These ambitions took strength from a decades-long experience of cultural resistance to Soviet totalitarianism and Russian domination. Thus, the revolution had national- cultural causes and origins as well as political ones. The resistance to Russian dominance, which has been an issue in Georgian culture for the last two centuries, has gained new ground in the post-Soviet period, and the Rose Revolution was a clear symbol of Georgia’s desire to develop a new identity based on a free and democratic state. Despite the cultural aspects of the Rose Revolution, it was primarily a social movement. Therefore, post-Soviet Georgian literature was not found in the center of the political upheavals. However, the revolutionary process was supported by young Georgian writers, practicing a predominantly postmodernist style and thus maintaining the ideas of pluralism and Westernization through their texts. The Revolution as a socio-political event has had a significant impact on the development of literature. The establishment of well-functioning state institutions, improved safety, increased social responsibility, and the attempt to integrate elements of Western culture into the fabric of society all provided new impulses to Georgian literature.
  • Georgia/Abkhazia

    Georgia/Abkhazia

    HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH ARMS PROJECT HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH/HELSINKI March 1995 Vol. 7, No. 7 GEORGIA/ABKHAZIA: VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF WAR AND RUSSIA'S ROLE IN THE CONFLICT CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................5 EVOLUTION OF THE WAR.......................................................................................................................................6 The Role of the Russian Federation in the Conflict.........................................................................................7 RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................................................................8 To the Government of the Republic of Georgia ..............................................................................................8 To the Commanders of the Abkhaz Forces .....................................................................................................8 To the Government of the Russian Federation................................................................................................8 To the Confederation of Mountain Peoples of the Caucasus...........................................................................9 To the United Nations .....................................................................................................................................9 To the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe..........................................................................9
  • Russia, Georgia and the Eu in Abkhazia and South Ossetia

    Russia, Georgia and the Eu in Abkhazia and South Ossetia

    PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION: RUSSIA, GEORGIA AND THE EU IN ABKHAZIA AND SOUTH OSSETIA Iskra Kirova August 2012 Figueroa Press Los Angeles The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and cannot be interpreted to reflect the positions of organizations that the author is affiliated with. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION: RUSSIA, GEORGIA AND THE EU IN ABKHAZIA AND SOUTH OSSETIA Iskra Kirova Published by FIGUEROA PRESS 840 Childs Way, 3rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90089 Phone: (213) 743-4800 Fax: (213) 743-4804 www.figueroapress.com Figueroa Press is a division of the USC Bookstore Copyright © 2012 all rights reserved Notice of Rights All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmit- ted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the author, care of Figueroa Press. Notice of Liability The information in this book is distributed on an “As is” basis, without warranty. While every precaution has been taken in the preparation of this book, neither the author nor Figueroa nor the USC Bookstore shall have any liability to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused or alleged to be caused directly or indirectly by any text contained in this book. Figueroa Press and the USC Bookstore are trademarks of the University of Southern California ISBN 13: 978-0-18-214016-9 ISBN 10: 0-18-214016-4 For general inquiries or to request additional copies of this paper please contact: USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School University of Southern California 3502 Watt Way, G4 Los Angeles, CA 90089-0281 Tel: (213) 821-2078; Fax: (213) 821-0774 [email protected] www.uscpublicdiplomacy.org CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy CPD Perspectives is a periodic publication by the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, and highlights scholarship intended to stimulate critical thinking about the study and practice of public diplomacy.
  • Analyzing the Russian Way of War Evidence from the 2008 Conflict with Georgia

    Analyzing the Russian Way of War Evidence from the 2008 Conflict with Georgia

    Analyzing the Russian Way of War Evidence from the 2008 Conflict with Georgia Lionel Beehner A Contemporary Battlefield Assessment Liam Collins by the Modern War Institute Steve Ferenzi Robert Person Aaron Brantly March 20, 2018 Analyzing the Russian Way of War: Evidence from the 2008 Conflict with Georgia Contents Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 9 Chapter I – History of Bad Blood ................................................................................................................ 13 Rose-Colored Glasses .............................................................................................................................. 16 Chapter II – Russian Grand Strategy in Context of the 2008 Russia-Georgia War ................................... 21 Russia’s Ends ........................................................................................................................................... 22 Russia’s Means ........................................................................................................................................ 23 Russia’s Ways .........................................................................................................................................
  • Who Owned Georgia Eng.Pdf

    Who Owned Georgia Eng.Pdf

    By Paul Rimple This book is about the businessmen and the companies who own significant shares in broadcasting, telecommunications, advertisement, oil import and distribution, pharmaceutical, privatisation and mining sectors. Furthermore, It describes the relationship and connections between the businessmen and companies with the government. Included is the information about the connections of these businessmen and companies with the government. The book encompases the time period between 2003-2012. At the time of the writing of the book significant changes have taken place with regards to property rights in Georgia. As a result of 2012 Parliamentary elections the ruling party has lost the majority resulting in significant changes in the business ownership structure in Georgia. Those changes are included in the last chapter of this book. The project has been initiated by Transparency International Georgia. The author of the book is journalist Paul Rimple. He has been assisted by analyst Giorgi Chanturia from Transparency International Georgia. Online version of this book is available on this address: http://www.transparency.ge/ Published with the financial support of Open Society Georgia Foundation The views expressed in the report to not necessarily coincide with those of the Open Society Georgia Foundation, therefore the organisation is not responsible for the report’s content. WHO OWNED GEORGIA 2003-2012 By Paul Rimple 1 Contents INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................3
  • The View from Abkhazia of South Ossetia Ablaze

    The View from Abkhazia of South Ossetia Ablaze

    Central Asian Survey Vol. 28, No. 2, June 2009, 235–246 The view from Abkhazia of South Ossetia ablaze Paula Garbà Department of Anthropology, University of California, Irvine, USA The Abkhazian and South Ossetian perspectives on the fighting between Georgians and South Ossetians in August 2008 could not be heard above the noise generated around the geopolitical implications of the larger Russian–Georgian clash. The population of Abkhazia experienced the violence in South Ossetia as though it was occurring on their own territory. This confirmed their complete lack of trust in the Georgian government’s commitment to peaceful resolution of the conflicts. In addition, they were disappointed with what they regarded as the international community’s absence of criticism of Georgia’s actions and lack of concern for the safety and well-being of the South Ossetians. Russia’s recognition of South Ossetia’s and Abkhazia’s independence has taken the question of Georgia’s territorial integrity off the negotiation table indefinitely. It also has set back the formal peace process with both South Ossetia and Abkhazia. An essential way forward, toward establishing trust as a necessary foundation for progress in the political negotiations, would be for the US and other interested countries to engage with the people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia at all levels, demonstrating credible and consistent concern for the safety and well being of all the people affected by the conflict. Keywords: conflict; culture; Abkhazia; South Ossetia Introduction Georgian–Abkhazian official relations since the end of the 1992–1993 war have offered little common ground for a mutually acceptable resolution.
  • The EU's Eastern Policy in Light of the Georgian Conflict and the Gas

    The EU's Eastern Policy in Light of the Georgian Conflict and the Gas

    The EU’s Eastern Policy in light of the Georgian Conflict and the Gas War Abstract The EU is seeking to develop its relations with former ex-Soviet republics at a time of growing Russian opposition to the expansion of Western influence into what it considers its sphere of influence, coupled with increased tensions between Russia and some of the other former Soviet states. The EU should not accept the concept of a Russian sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. The circumstances leading to the Second World War and the Cold War have made it clear that the same principles of international law, and national sovereignty, must apply throughout the continent. Furthermore, the Georgian conflict and the Russo-Ukrainian gas war have shown that the state of Russia’s relations with its neighbours can adversely affect EU interests. Furthermore, there is a danger of a renewal of the Georgia conflict and of further interruptions of the Russian gas transiting Ukraine. The EU should therefore make the state of Russia’s relations with its neighbours a factor in the EU’s co-operation with Russia. For the EU to influence most effectively Russian policy, and for the EU to develop its relations with the other former Soviet republics without Russian opposition, the West has to deal with Russian fears of Western expansion by working out a new security arrangement for Europe. The West might place greater emphasis on engaging Russia constructively on a wide range of world issues. The West should also seek to involve Russia further in the Western network of organizations and agreements.
  • Research Article STALIN and OCCULT KNOWLEDGE Abstract. It

    Research Article STALIN and OCCULT KNOWLEDGE Abstract. It

    International Conference. August 20, 2020. San Francisco, California, USA SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD: THEORETICAL BASIСS AND INNOVATIVE APPROACH 15th edition DOI: http://doi.org/10.15350/L_26/15 Research Article STALIN AND OCCULT KNOWLEDGE Tengiz Simashvili1 1Professor, Iakob Gogebashvili Telavi State University, Georgia [email protected] DOI: http://doi.org/10.15350/L_26/15.2 Abstract. It is impossible to publicize previously unknown documents about Ioseb Jugashvili that I have discovered in various archives in Georgia, without the analysis of the already- known materials. To some extent, the content of these new materials is different from examined in this article, are to some extent contradictory, the analysis of them makes it the “true” facts that are already known to us. notAlthough sufficiently the information studied. and documents, evident that Ioseb Jughashvili’s Biography is “In the mind of Georgian people St. George hasAcad. a place Ivane of Javakhishvilithe old main pagan deity of the Georgians, the moon…” The content of unpublished memoirs of Aleksandre (Sandro) Tsikhitatrishvili a son of Ioseb Jughashvili was my– breast brotherIoseb Jughashvili’s and my father Godfather Mikhaka Mikhail* was a Tsikhitatrishvili,groomsman of Besodated* togetherby 1936 with is Jacobquite Egnatashvili.1interesting. According1 to his words, “Comrade Stalin – Keke’s mother Melania was a Godchild of my grandmother. Soso was myselfborn in responsible December 1878, to say my all father’s that I know, mother or I Mariam think it helpedwill be usefulKeke during to fill out the a childbirth”. biography ofHe ourwrote, leader. “All Also,these I circumstancesconsider myself make obliged me dareto say to allbecome that I prudenthave hear andd fromconsider my 2 I stress this fact, because the memoirs are largely subjective, but defamation of any non-objective information about Stalin at that time was punished at least by forcedparents”.