• TranscendentalEmpire
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • o_d [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      • TranscendentalEmpire
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        Has IvanishviIi not already established a regime? In what way does improving relations with Russia allow him to further consolidate his power?

        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.

        • o_d [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

        • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          However, he ultimately is a reactionary puppeteer who always lands on the side that lets him keep his grip on Georgian politics.

          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.