#Abkhazian

[abwwia]

Memorial complex in honor of the warriors - residents of Abkhazia who died in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945, the authors: sculptor Marina Eshba and architect Tamara Lakrba, Gudauta, 1981 © Naala Avidzba x

Source and more: https://abaza.org/en/life-in-sculpture-the-story-of-the-first-abkhaz-woman-sculptor-marina-eshba

[phillipthehermit]

went to Abkhazian state museum yesterday ⚱️

[folkmania]

An older Abkhazian woman, c. 1890s.

[tanadrin]

One of the arguments Zubok seems to be developing in this book on the fall of the USSR is that a huge factor in its breakup was Russian nationalism: as the other Soviet republics began to assert their rights and identities in '89 onward, the Russians seemed to be looking at each other and being like, "hey, why don't we have the same national rights?" There was no Russia-only branch of the CPSU, no quotas for Russians in universities, no particularly Russian state institutions--Russia was, despite being by far the largest part of the USSR, very unlike the other republics in being sort of a glue holding them together.

This was probably for solid historical reasons--Lenin and co. took very seriously the idea that the USSR should be a multinational state, and whether they succeeded or not the subsequent generations of Soviet leadership carried this idea forward: the USSR was not supposed to be a Russian-chauvinist enterprise. But resentment of protections for minorities--a sort of Soviet version of "white people are the most oppressed ethnicity in America"--in the context of everything else happening politically in the USSR at the time made Russian nationalism politically very salient, including (given how other republics like Lithuania were going) talk of Russian secession.

The USSR could have survived Lithuania seceding in a way it never could have survived Russia seceding, obviously; Russian nationalism was by far the most efficient way to destroy the Soviet Union. And the Politburo recognized this: they discussed in 1989 versions of plans mooted as far back as Andropov's premiership of balancing the internal relationship between the republics by breaking the RSFSR into smaller units, either de jure or just de facto. In the event, it seems like other events (the failure of perestroika, the August coup, etc) overtook them before anything could have been done about it, but it's interesting to note that the breakup of the USSR was not (only) peripheral regions trying to escape a state to which they were unhappily wedded, but also the core region of that state wanting to jump ship as well.

[yaoist]

some people brush off beria's reforms re: giving USSR countries more cultural autonomy as entirely opportunistic and cynical, but I don't think that's really fair. it's a consistent desire that goes back to the beginning of his career and keeps showing up over and over! writing him off as having no values or preferences at all is imo a desire to project one-dimensionality onto a historical figure.

[nando161mando]

"Most of Abkhazia broke away from Georgia in fighting that ended in 1993, and Georgia lost control of the rest of the territory in a short war with Russia in 2008.

While most countries recognise Abkhazia as part of Georgia, Russia recognises Abkhazia as independent. However, many Abkhazians are concerned that the region of about 245,000 people is a client state of Moscow."

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/15/protesters-storm-parliament-in-breakaway-georgian-region-of-abkhazia

[russianreader]

Ored Recordings: May 21st, Again (Abkhazian and Circassian Music from Turkey)

May 21st. Again. For several years now, almost every May 21st, we release a statement that speaks more clearly about memory, colonialism, defiance against repressive mechanisms, and resistance to assimilation. For the Circassians, this day is a day of mourning, marking the end of the Russo-Caucasian War in 1864, the loss of independence, and the mass expulsion from their historical…

[dontforgetukraine]

"I watched a film today at the Venice Film Festival titled "Russians at War." Since our film is in the same section as this one, I usually wouldn’t speak publicly about it. However, in this case, I cannot remain silent, because it’s not just about films and art, but about the lives of thousands of people who die in this war— a war that has instrumentalized propaganda as its weapon.

This film may mislead you into believing that it is an anti-war film, one that questions the current regime in Russia. However, what I witnessed is a prime example of pure Russian propaganda. Here’s why.

The filmmaker begins by expressing her surprise at the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. In her film, she always uses the term “invasion” and never "full-scale invasion." She does not mention that Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014. These two events seem to not exist in the world of this film. The filmmaker also states that her country hasn’t participated in wars for many years and that she has only read about wars in books. Thus, the war in 2022 was a complete shock for her. It’s interesting how the filmmaker could overlook the fact that her country has been inherently involved in various wars and occupations for at least the last 30 years (1992-93 Transnistria, Abkhazian War, 1994-96 and 1999-2009 Chechen Wars, the 2008 war in Georgia, and the 2015-2022 invasion of Syria).

The filmmaker starts her narrative with a Ukrainian who now lives in Russia and fights on the Russian side. This is a very intriguing choice for the beginning of a story about Russians at war. Later, this character will claim that a CIVIL war began in Ukraine in 2014. He will also suggest that Ukrainians bombed the eastern parts of their own country (and this is why he moved to Russia). Another character will declare that Ukrainians are Nazis. We’ve heard these narratives before; they are (and apparently still are) widely and actively propagated by Russian media. One of those horns of propaganda is Russia Today channel, for which the director of "Russians at War" has previously made several documentary films.

Throughout the film, all characters express their confusion about their actions in Ukraine, stating they want the war to end and that most of them are fighting for money. In the final part of the film, the battalion is moved to Bakhmut, and most characters die in battle. We then see their comrades and relatives grieving at their graves. All of them repeat that they don’t understand why this war is happening and who needs it. In the end, the filmmaker concludes that these are poor, ordinary Russian people who are being manipulated into war by larger political games. I found this perspective amusing because the filmmaker—like putin and his regime—plays an interesting game with these people. They deny them the simple ability to possess dignity and to think and decide for themselves. To her, these people are merely powerless objects. If those engaged in a war that has lasted over 10 years were not powerless, it would imply that they, in the majority, actually support this war, wouldn’t it?

You will feel pity for the people depicted as dying in the film and for those we see crying for their loved ones. And you should—if you are a normal human being, you should feel pity, sadness, and emotion. However, it is also important to remember that these individuals joined the army that invaded an independent country, many of them willingly, as we learn from the film. You should also recall Bucha, Irpin, Mariupol, and the civilians who were murdered there. Remember the thousands of children who were illegally transported from Ukraine to Russia. While I’m writing this and while you’re reading it, missiles are striking Ukrainian cities. The buttons are pushed by ordinary Russians. Are their crimes any less significant simply because they claim to be unaware of why they are involved in this war?

By the way, the director asks one of the characters if he thinks the Russian army commits any war crimes. He answers “no,” claiming he hasn’t witnessed any war crimes. Interestingly, the director echoes this in her interviews, stating she saw no signs of war crimes during her time near the front (https://www.reuters.com/.../russian-soldiers-given-their.../). We can only be happy for her that she was fortunate enough not to witness any war crimes. Unfortunately, thousands of Ukrainians have not been so lucky.

I could continue, but I believe it’s enough to understand that this film presents a very distorted picture of reality, spreading false narratives (calling the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea a civil war; suggesting that the Russian army does not commit any war crimes; presenting those who are part of the aggressors army as victims).

If you decide to watch it, I recommend following it with another documentary about Russian soldiers titled "Intercepted," directed by Oksana Karpovych. "Intercepted" also opens a door into the lives of ordinary Russians fighting in this war. You’ll be curious to explore it, as it will undoubtedly surprise you. You may also want to add "20 Days in Mariupol" to your viewing list, just to be able «to see through the fog of war," as the director of "Russians at War" so aptly put it."

—Darya Bassel, Ukrainian film producer of war documentary “Songs of Slow Burning Earth

[songs-of-the-east]

Brothers in Abkhazian mountain village Kuabchara, 2009 - Rob Hornstra

[elgringo300]

🌻

ok so

The Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 because in 1989 Gorbachev tried to turn communism into capitalism("its even more Communism!" he said" but that just made every state immediately try to become less communist to the point that in 1991 the military tried to coup against Gorbachev and utterly failed, but gave Russian president (very recent position, separate from USSR, established to make Russia more capitalist "its still communism I swear!") the political leeway to secede from the Union. Which he did and the union collapsed and ANYWAYS this story isn't about them, its about Georgia(in the Caucasus not the American south)

Because during those three years, 1989-1991, every Soviet state and their mom recognized that USSR was weak and not doing anything and they all started gunning for independence. Some of them just declared autonomy(most of Eastern Europe) while others actually asked nicely for autonomy because they still wanted the protection of the union.

First of all Georgia has two little regions I want to talk about, Abkhazia and Adjara. Abkhazia actually asked Russia to grant them that status of autonomous state and got rejected in 1989. Adjara is where all the Muslims in Georgia live although thats not actually important, and for some reason they get a lot of Turkish tourism.

Anyways Georgia declared independence and held elections in 1991, electing president Gamsakhurdia who has a first name I can't be bothered about. Then literally the next year the national guard had a coup about it, led by their leader Shevardnadze. Gamsakhurdia fled to Chechnya but then he came back and there was this massive civil war between basically the capital and Gamsakhurdia's home region.

At the SAME TIME Abkhazia decides now's a great time to get their independence and they have a little revolution called the Abkhazian War, and there's a really weird period where both Gamsakhurdia and Shevardnadze agree that Abkhazia can't do that, and Shevardnadze is saying "this is a step for reconciliation" when he hears that Gamsakhurdia is trying to fight Abkhazia. Spoiler alert, Abkhazia actually wins and today is their own independent republic, they're just not recognized by anybody because Russia.

But ALSO during the Civil War the guy in charge of Adjara, Abashidze, just says "nope" to both sides and closes the borders of the region, which would make him look like a good guy if he didn't immediately make himself the dictator of the place. Shevardnadze has to come down and ask him super politely "My guy we are so busy right now fighting the former president and the Abkhazian rebels could you please just pretend to care about my government and pay us taxes and I'll let you do whatever you want." Which is pretty much what happened, Abashidze holds Supreme Soviet(that just means parliament) meetings and then doesn't pay the government taxes and its a problem for the whole decade until Abashidze gets kicked out in 2004

oh yeah Gamskhurdia loses when he gets surrounded by the other army and totally commits suicide bro don't worry about it

and I haven't even mentioned South Ossetia!

and all of this information will take up one half of one section of the final essay for my Eurasian Politics class

the other half of the section is about Russia, Tatarstan, and Chechnya because both of those regions asked for independence and Russia gave Tatarstan some political resources and a degree of autonomy and Chechnya they absolutely destroyed with the full might of their army and I'm trying to figure out why by comparing with Georgia

My current thesis (which is not going to change because this is due on Monday morning) is that if you're a separatist region, then high showings of Ethnic Identity make the central government want to kill you, and wealth generating infrastructure makes the government want to kill you less

So the Abkhazians were very passionate about being Abkhazian and also completely broke so Georgia had no qualms about offering no compromise and just settling by war(which they failed to do but its the intent that counts) while Adjara has a bunch of muslims who really just think of themselves as Georgian and also a booming tourism industry so Georgia was much less likely to invade

In the same way Chechnya is full of like, fundamentalist muslims while the Tatar government has always been very careful to present themselves as ethnically neutral to the public. I really only need info on the economic status of these two regions and I'm set

[ishparpuaqib]

any time i read anything abt montenegro i have to remind myself that their capital city has a population of 180k people, and that its population makes up for about 30% of the country's entire population. everyone knows each other over there. it's easy to read abt the ongoing conflict between serbs and montenegrins and imagine depersonalised masses being swept into bloody quarrels over the rights of their imagined communities or w/e, but no; they're literally all neighbours

actually, i think this is probably closer to a norm than an exception. yugoslavia as a whole had a population of 23 million in 1991. recent unpleasantries have caused population displacement so severe, i'd wager basically everyone here has at least one neighbour who lives where they live as a direct consequence of ethnic cleansing (zagreb's infamous for this: there are probably more bosnian croats here than in bosnia). there were 240k georgians in abkhazia before their expulsion from the country, and just 93k abkhazians (currently there are 45k georgians in abkhazia, and 94k abkhazians. ethnostate win!). the holocaust might actually be the only genocide where most victims weren't within three degrees of separation from one another!

[abwwia]

Mihri Hanım (1886– c.1954) Self-portrait, Oil/Canvas, 98.5 x 61 cm, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University (MSFAU) Istanbul Museum of Painting and Sculpture Museum https://www.kimmihri.com/en/painter-mihri/

[folkmania]

A young Abkhazian woman, before 1899

Abkhazia (officially the Republic of Abkhazia, is a partially recognised state in the South Caucasus, on the eastern coast of the Black Sea, at the intersection of Eastern Europe and West Asia. It covers 8,665 square kilometres (3,346 sq mi) and has a population of around 245,000. Its capital and largest city is Sukhumi. Via Wikipedia

[tanadrin]

Pretty depressing that nationalism was so strong in the 90s in ussr. I’m not a big fan of communism but I would hope that over half a century of it would be anti nationalist. My naive assumption would be that the ussr should at least replace the nationalism of member states with ussr nationalism. What’s the tanadrin theory on why this didn’t happen and how does nationalism actually decrease? Alternatively correct my assumptions about what was happening in the ussr

(sorry this is a ramble, ignore whatever parts you want (or all of it))

The USSR was pretty good about not being a Russian chauvinist project by the 80s, is the impression I get; but as in Yugoslavia around the same time, economic and political tensions were fertile ground for populists of all stripes, including populist nationalists. This was maybe an OK position to be in if, say, you were Belarusian, and there was a Belarusian SR to protect “your” interests, but ethnic minorities within those SRs, like Abkhazians in Georgia, were in a much shittier position—“Georgia for Georgians” hits different if you’re Abkhaz.

And there absolutely were Soviet patriots. Even ones who were angry at the CPSU but still supported the USSR. Even plenty of non-Russian ones! But it’s also hard to overstate how badly perestroika was going, or how dysfunctional the late USSR political system was becoming.

As with all this stuff the *ideal* solution starts a lot earlier, deep in the Brezhnev stagnation. Gorbachev wasn’t a total buffoon—he was no Yeltsin!—but by the time he became leader of the USSR, he had a very difficult job to do.

[siriuslyobsessedwithfiction]

Realizing a widely popular historical fiction/modernist novel (in 20th century) had a political figure fighting for freedom of his people, more influential forces wanting him and his people to lose autonomy, a borderline fanatic head of the church interfering in political affairs, a young woman who has special connection with animals and particularly deer getting caught in-between conflicts, an old spellcaster who has lived many lives with different identities who keeps secrets, and a civil war. Why does this remind me of Shadow and Bone trilogy...🤔

Only in this book, the man who fought for freedom of his people for years is not framed as an absolute villain, even though he led a battle because he wanted to pursue a woman. But rather, the narrative acknowledges he was a brave man who served his people since he was thirteen and fought countless battles for his country. And that such responsibility is heavy, and even he was human, wanting a connection. Although, his actions aren't excused, no one says it was right of him to go to such lengths for a woman and to maim her lover. His end is still tragic. But it doesn't feel like a disservice to his character because people know the good he did and acknowledge it. He showed more mercy at first than his enemies deserved. He had friends who were good people and loved him. Even people who hated him for personal reasons said it was better for him to rule than to start a war and get someone far less competent in charge, which would leave them vulnerable to foreign enemies.

But what does the Darkling from Shadow and Bone get? His centuries of work erased, his name being more demonized than ever and eternity of suffering. LB could either make him an actual villain, or let him be a morally grey tragic character. Instead, he got tossed between both of those and then got blamed for everything that went wrong ever. While the rapist King got a nice retirement and the leader of the witchhunters who was actively committing genocide is spared because he was only the product of the system, apparently.

"Aleksander had marched south with the king’s soldiers, and when they’d faced the Shu in the field, he’d unleashed darkness upon their opponents, blinding them where they stood. Ravka’s forces had won the day. But when Yevgeni had offered Aleksander his reward, he had refused the king’s gold. “There are others like me, Grisha, living in hiding. Give me leave to offer them sanctuary here and I will build you an army the likes of which the world has never seen.”

“He … he said that Darklings are born without souls. That only something truly evil could have created the Shadow Fold.”

"Not everyone thought like Eva or the old serf, but I’d been in the First Army long enough to know that most ordinary soldiers didn’t trust Grisha and felt no allegiance to the Darkling."

"I've committed many sins, Pippa, as a king and a man. I carried almost all the virtues and all the defects of my people. I was bold and faint-hearted. I set at nought the Byzantine Emperor but was afraid of snakes. I was conceited, heartless and loathsome, but I never betrayed my people, Pippa. Our misfortune is the same now: among us, the traitors outnumbered the loyal ones. I know very well, even in my army, half of them were bought by the Byzantines, and half by the Sarkinos. When the people have so many traitors at home, even Alexander the Great cannot defeat the enemy. If the nobles had not deserted me at Basian, I would have defeated Basil Caesar there too, you know. If the whole nation doesn't want to win, Alexander Macedonian can't help either, Pippa, because cowards and emissaries have never won anywhere. I gave my childhood and my youth to Georgia, but the Kartlels called me "the Abkhazian," and by the Abkhazians I was considered to be a Kartalinian spy, I who was a Bagration, a Laz."

"I rarely saw the Darkling, and when I did it was from a distance, coming or going, deep in conversation with Ivan or the King’s military advisers. I learned from the other Grisha that he wasn’t often at the Little Palace, but spent most of his time traveling between the Fold and the northern border, or south to where Shu Han raiding parties were attacking settlements before winter set in. Hundreds of Grisha were stationed throughout Ravka, and he was responsible for all of them."

"The King is a child. But you've made him a very happy child."

"I was slowed down by the squabbling of the nobles and the commanders, Pippa. Every scoundrel in us longs for nobility, every bastard - to be a commander."

No one knew his name to curse or extol, so I spoke it softly, beneath my breath. “Aleksander,” I whispered. A boy’s name, given up. Almost forgotten.

"He took off his clothes and was surprised when he saw a body marked by wounds, some old, some newer. A completely young man's body."

"It was a gravedigger who dared to confront the truth first, once everyone had left: "Not even in death has King Giorgi had any luck."

[muskmelon-enjoyer-199x]

made this walnut adjika for the fridge today. I'm going to use it to make akutagchapa (walnut-herb deviled eggs) and apyrpylchapa (walnut-stuffed bell peppers)

I wasn't expecting it, but it fucked me up when I tried it. It's absurdly spicy and the flavor is just insane. It's so rich and herb-y and pungent

I questioned the garlic quantity (like half a head for a small jar) when I was making it, but the georgian and abkhazian ladies online were right. It's badass.

I might make a milder batch with less salt to eat as a salsa next time.