Beyond the Rhetoric: The West's Wavering Stance on Georgia

Following the war in Abkhazia (1992-1993), an estimated 250,000 to 300,000 people, the vast majority of whom were ethnic Georgians, were forcibly displaced in a campaign of ethnic cleansing conducted by Russian-backed separatist militias. For over three decades, the hope that these internally displaced persons (IDPs) and their descendants might one day return to their homes has remained a central and painful issue in Georgian society. Many of these citizens still hold legal titles to their houses and land in Abkhazia, properties that were abandoned during the conflict and have since been illegally occupied.

The International Stance vs. Troubling Rhetoric

On the surface, the position of the international community, particularly the West, is clear and consistent. The United States, the European Union, and the United Nations overwhelmingly recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia (the Tskhinvali Region/Samachablo) as integral parts of Georgia under Russian military occupation. Official statements and resolutions consistently condemn the occupation and call for the safe, dignified, and voluntary return of all IDPs.

However, a divergence between this public rhetoric and comments from certain influential figures can create significant concern. For example, in past interviews, British politician Nigel Farage has promoted a narrative that challenges well-documented historical facts. He has asserted that South Ossetia was home to many Russian-speaking people and, more significantly, elswhere he has questioned reports that ethnic Georgians were the majority population in Abkhazia before the war.

A Question of Influence and Intent

It is crucial to counter such statements with facts. The last official Soviet census in 1989 clearly shows that ethnic Georgians constituted the largest single group in Abkhazia at 45.7% of the population, whereas ethnic Abkhaz were 17.8%. While Mr. Farage does not hold a position in government, his influence as a political commentator in both the UK and the US is undeniable. His statements, though factually incorrect, are concerning because they may reflect a line of thinking within some Western political circles that is not publicly acknowledged.

This raises the troubling possibility that behind the scenes, away from official declarations of support for Georgia's sovereignty, there may be a willingness to entertain narratives that legitimize Russia's actions. For Georgia, the worry is not just about the opinion of one politician, but what it might signify about the long-term reliability and resolve of its Western partners.