1. Describe common factors that contributed to the conflicts in the South Caucasus.

2. Some analysts in Western academia argue that conflicts in Georgia have their indigenous
causes, and Russia has just used the opportunity to exploit them. Do you agree with this thesis
or not? Why? Why not?

1.
The South Caucasus conflicts have been shaped by a complex interplay of historical, ethnic,
economic, and geopolitical causes. The Caucasus' diverse ethnicities and religions provide
fertile ground for inter-ethnic conflict, which is intensified by the strong national and ethnic
identities that formed during Russian invasion in the 18th and 19th centuries. Before this, people
had a broader sense of identity, connecting themselves with mountainous or Muslim groups in a
general way. But things changed when Russian influence came into play. It made people's
ethnic identities more specific and set the stage for later conflicts. The ongoing tension between
ethnic groups wanting more independence and the need to keep the country together has
consistently led to long and complicated conflicts.

One case of such conflict is the prolonged dispute between Georgia and Abkhazia. Arising from
historical grievances and disputes over territory, the conflict escalated into active hostilities in
the early 1990s. The Separatists sought independence, triggering a violent and protracted
struggle. The enduring impact of this conflict continues to pose persistent challenges for the
region in terms of reconciliation and stability.

Economic factors have significantly contributed to an unstable atmosphere in the South

Caucasus. Over the past twenty years, the region has faced economic downturns and persistent
socio-economic issues. Unlike regions such as Switzerland, or any other Western European
Country, where economic prosperity supports peaceful coexistence, the South Caucasus has
experienced economic difficulties that have acted as a catalyst for increased tensions.

An example for this is the Armenia-Azerbaijani conflict regarding Nagorno-Karabakh. Economic

difficulties and the competition for resources have added to the animosity between these two
nations. The economic downturn following the collapse of the Soviet Union intensified pre-
existing problems, leading to a prolonged dispute over the Nagorno-Karabakh region. This
conflict has experienced occasional escalations, such as a devastating war in the early 1990s
and periodical clashes in the years that followed.

Besides, the conflicts in the South Caucasus become even more complicated due to geopolitical
factors. Both Russia and the United States face allegations of interference, each stating its own
reasons. Russia presents itself as a peacekeeper, aiming to create a buffer between the Islamic
world and the West, while the United States argues for spreading democracy in the region.
These geopolitical strategies add layers of complexity to the conflicts, with accusations against
Russia involving intentional destabilization and backing specific factions in the wars.
In addition, media and various actors often overstate conflicts by attributing them a religious
character, particularly framing them as clashes between Islam and Christianity, which tends to
attract attention. However, just because belligerents belong
to different religions does not mean the conflict is religiously motivated. While the conflicting
parties may adhere to different religions, it does not necessarily mean that the core motivation
for the conflicts is religious. In fact, none of the ongoing conflicts in the Caucasus is
fundamentally about religion. Instead, religion is often strategically exploited to sway public
opinion and mobilize people for political ends.

To sum it up, the South Caucasus conflicts are complex and have various reasons, including
history, ethnicity, economy, and geopolitics. The region's mix of different ethnic groups and
religions makes it prone to conflicts between these groups. This complexity is rooted in the
history and is mainly influenced by Russian and Soviet policies.

2.

The conflicts in Georgia, especially in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, have drawn considerable
attention from Western scholars. While some experts assert that these conflicts originate from
internal factors such as history, ethnicity, and territory, others argue that Russia has taken
advantage of these internal divisions. I partially agree with the statement and in this essay I will
explore these conflicts and also express my position. I will try to be as objective as possible,
which is not going to be easy, as we, Georgians, are very intense and passionate when it
comes to the territorial integrity.

Firstly, in order to understand the essay thesis, it is important to take the history of the conflict in
Abkhazia into account. The indigenous causes of the Abkhaz-Georgian conflict are deeply
rooted in historical grudges and territorial disputes. Abkhaz aspirations for autonomy and the
preservation of their cultural identity have been key drivers of tensions with the central Georgian
government.This local context comes before Russia's participation, highlighting the notion that
internal causes play a significant role in the conflicts.

In 1992-1993, Abkhazia declared independence from Georgia, triggering a full-scale war. The
fall of Abkhazia's capital city - Sukhumi, marked a turning point in the conflict, as the capture of
the city happened after the so called ceasefire agreement - “Sochi Agreement”. The agreement
provided for the withdrawal of Georgian troops from Abkhazia and demilitarization of both sides.
Russia took the role of the guarantor of the agreement. As a result, Georgian heavy weaponry
was shipped to Poti, but Abkhaz weapons were stored near the front and were returned to the
Abkhaz by Russian so-called “safekeepers”. While Georgia didn’t have any strong weapons in
the region and the counrty was also dealing with tensions and disagreements of Zviadists and
Shevardnadze’s government, Abkhazians captured Sukhumi and cut off the Georgian supply
routes.
The war in Abkhazia witnessed brutal ethnic cleansing and displacement, as Abkhaz forces,
with Russian support, sought to solidify their control. Tens of thousands of Georgians were
displaced, and every Georgian’s favorite city of Sukhumi became a symbol of the grim
consequences of conflict. Russia, of course, played a crucial role in this episode, providing
military aid to Abkhaz separatists. In this case, indigenous causes were manipulated by external
forces, primarily Russia, to further their interests in the region. The fall of Sukhumi demonstrated
how Russia exploited internal divisions, contributing to the fragmentation of Georgia.

The conflicts in South Ossetia share similar characteristics with the Abkhaz-Georgian war.
South Ossetia, with historical ties to North Ossetia in Russia, became a central point of ethnic
divisions and territorial disputes. The Ossetians sought autonomy, leading to ongoing tensions
with the Georgian government. While indigenous causes fueled the conflict, Russia acted
strategically to advance its geopolitical interests.

In 1991-1992, the South Ossetian conflict escalated into a full-scale war, marked by significant
ethnic cleansing and displacement again. Russia's involvement in the conflict was multifaceted
and strategic. Moscow provided military and logistical support to South Ossetia. Russian forces
actively participated in the conflict, reinforcing the separatist cause. The assistance included
arms, personnel, and diplomatic backing, effectively turning the tide in favor of South Ossetia.
Russia's manipulation of the indigenous conflict in South Ossetia extended beyond military
support. The Kremlin skillfully exploited the existing tensions to advance its broader geopolitical
objectives. By strategically aligning with South Ossetia, Russia aimed to maintain influence in
the region, counteract Western influence, and consolidate its sphere of influence in the post-
Soviet space.

In conclusion, comprehending the complex nature of the conflicts requires understanding both
indigenous causes and Russian exploitation. The historical conflicts and desire for autonomy
within territories such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia are genuine and precede Russian
intervention. However, Russia's strategic exploitation of these internal splits has exacerbated
the disputes, creating a system in which external parties wield substantial power.