Russia speaks on Georgia’s neutrality
By Messenger Staff
Wednesday, May 27Recently the number of people speaking about Georgia’s neutrality has increased. They stress that striving to the Euro-Atlantic organizations is an unrealistic goal and only increases threats with regard to Georgia’s state security.
They offer Georgia to reject its strive towards the EU and NATO and this step would facilitate much in regulating relations with Russia.
However, some analysts believe that the propaganda concerning Georgia's neutrality is a mask disguising Russia’s genuine goals.
The aim is quite simple. If Georgians support the idea of neutrality, they would distance themselves from the NATO and EU. In response the West also loses its interests towards Georgia and thus the country would have no other choice but Russia.
Analyst Khatuna Lagazidze believes that it is impossible for Georgia to unilaterally declare itself as a neutral country, as based on world experience the neutrality should be satisfying the interests of neighboring, powerful, hegemonies countries.
“If such neighbors fail to achieve an agreement over the issue, the neutrality would be under a serious threat from one of the neighbors,” Lagazidze states.
Analyst Gia Tvalavadze suggests that neutrality would be a positive option for Georgia. According to him there are countries like Austria and Finland which have developed excellently without the membership of the NATO; the same could be said for Switzerland.
“However, Russia is against our neutrality. It wants Georgia under its influence. Thus Georgia has only two options among Russia and the West.”
The analyst also claims that even if Russia accepts our neutrality, its promise might not be trustworthy.
“A shining example of this is Russia’s actions in Ukraine.” It is widely known that Russia became a guarantor of Ukraine's territorial integrity when Ukraine refused to keep nuclear armament on its territory. In reality it was exactly Russia which violated the commitment and snatched Crimea and other territories from the neighboring state.
Tvalavadze says that it is also unclear how would Georgia act if it is asked as a neutral country to open its air space and borders for anti-corruption or anti-terrorism activities, as well as in the occasions when a problem concerns genocide.
“Such neutrality might be equal to isolation of Georgia. If we say no on such appeals we would have to stand alone without any foreign, influential organizations and that is quite risky in the 21th century,” the analyst suggests.
It’s true that politics is measured based on outcomes. The outcomes in the region are that Ukraine lost its territories and 20% of our lands are occupied by Russians.
Despite these facts it is quite hard to gauge whether being neutral or striving towards NATO membership?