Russian agents in Abkhazia | Discussion of Inal Khashig and Astamur Tania

Russian Foreign Agents in Abkhazia

Moscow’s personal sanctions on Abkhazian citizens would have been impossible without initiative from Sukhum — this and other topics, including Sergey Kiriyenko’s policy course aimed at stabilizing the political situation in Abkhazia, the removal of Alexander Ankvab from the levers of power, and the prospects for the development of Abkhazia and Abkhaz-Russian relations, were discussed by Chegemskaya Pravda editor Inal Khashig with historian and political analyst Astamur Tania.

Inal Khashig has been included by the Russian Ministry of Justice in the registry of foreign agents. The journalist strongly disagrees with this decision and is challenging it in court.

Full transcript of discussion:

Inal Khashig: Hello, this is Chegemskaya Pravda. It’s been just under a month since our last broadcast. Nevertheless, quite serious things have taken place. The Russian Ministry of Justice, in particular, has added me — your humble servant — to the registry of foreign agents. I mean, I don’t know… maybe they consider me an agent of Abkhazia. And if you look at it from that angle — I even find it kind of flattering. But overall, this isn’t about me, it’s about broader trends.

The thing is, after me, Izida Chania (Nuzhnaya Gazeta) and Nizfa Arshba (Aiashara Agency) were also added to the foreign agents list in the same manner. On top of that, in December and January, Russian citizenship was stripped from Kan Kvarchia — a member of our parliament — and from Hero of Abkhazia Levan Mikaa.

Many Abkhazians from the diaspora have been banned from entering Russia. This too was done officially. So, we’ll be discussing that situation. Also, the elections have now taken place, we have a new president, and a new team is being formed. Naturally, we’ll talk about Abkhaz-Russian relations, which are also undergoing a kind of revision. And of course, we’ll be discussing all of this with our regular political expert — Astamur Tania. Astamur, good afternoon.

What’s your overall take on this situation? It seems to me it all started under the previous administration — during the presidency of Aslan Bzhania and his team, along with their handlers, represented at the time by Dmitry Kozak from the Russian Presidential Administration. But now it no longer looks so natural — everything has changed: there’s a new handler, a new president, and it all seems somewhat illogical. After all, the elections are over.

Astamur Tania: Well, let’s hope all these decisions are just inertia carried over from the activities of the previous Abkhaz authorities. Because if you look at these decisions from the perspective of the long-term interests of Abkhaz-Russian cooperation, they’re not beneficial in any way. Especially considering the nature of our society. Because if you “cut off” active participants in public life this way, it will inevitably generate political tension and may drive the public process out of the constructive sphere and into completely different domains.

Moreover, because Abkhaz society is connected by a myriad of ties — many of which are invisible to outside observers — this creates an atmosphere of distrust and tension, which, by the way, has never been characteristic of Abkhaz-Russian relations.

Astamur Tania: Because even when we’ve had intense internal political disputes, the topic of Russia and its involvement in our internal political processes rarely came up, as a rule. I think the people currently overseeing the Abkhaz direction within the Russian leadership should draw some conclusions from this — and, frankly, there’s reason for some cautious optimism. During the election process, certain proper steps were taken, which helped keep everything within the framework of legality and stability, so that society could accept the results. There was a real threat of us descending into completely unpredictable situations.

It’s obvious that Abkhaz-Russian relations need an upgrade. There needs to be an understanding that, although Abkhazia is essentially under Russia’s protection — to put it plainly, under its protectorate — the Abkhaz national project assumes an independent existence.

That’s how it has historically developed: independent, but in close relations with Russia. With the ability to resolve its own issues within its own political traditions. We have a political tradition that allows, for example, open expression of opinions on various matters. Our government can’t be detached — in such a small society, it simply can’t reside somewhere on Olympus, unreachable by the people. There was an attempt to build a wall between society and government institutions — and nothing good came of that for our leadership. I hope no one tries to repeat that mistake. Right now, it seems to me, it’s in the interest of the new Abkhaz government to demonstrate that it truly is a new government, not just a continuation of what came before. If that’s truly in their interest — then they need to take action. And secondly, people must have the ability to publicly speak their mind on this issue.

Inal Khashig: I think that’s a key point you’ve made — that the new government needs to actually be new, not a successor of the previous one. Because the legacy of the former administration was catastrophic for Abkhazia — at least in my view. And what happened with the revocation of citizenship, the designations as agents…

Astamur Tania: Sorry to interrupt you for a moment. Even supporters of the previous administration voiced criticism of some of those actions during the election. That suggests that even among the staunchest backers of the former president, there was dissatisfaction — they just couldn’t express it openly at the time.

Inal Khashig: But those actions still happened. And it’s strange — Abkhazia and Russia are allied, friendly countries, very closely connected. I’m convinced that if there hadn’t been a signal from this side — like “these people are bothering us, do something about them” — Russia would never have declared citizens of friendly Abkhazia as foreign agents. If Abkhazia itself has no official claims against these people, then it all sounds absurd. You’re a decent, law-abiding citizen in your own country, and suddenly a friendly nation has political grievances against you.

For example, take Russian-Belarusian relations. Belarus might have issues with its own opposition, and Russia may take that into account. But if the Belarusian state has no claims against a person, I don’t believe Russia would ever have political issues with them. Now, this revocation of citizenship and foreign agent status — that’s a political decision. I doubt it could ever be applied to Belarusians — unless Lukashenko himself asked for it. Even then, I can’t imagine him going to Moscow and saying, “Punish my citizens.” If he punishes anyone, he does it under Belarusian law.

Astamur Tania: I think you’re right — the initiative came from here. Because I don’t believe that the actions of our activists, journalists, or politicians in any way harmed Russia’s interests. This can only be interpreted through the lens of the interests of the previous authorities.

Inal Khashig: But how should actions like that be viewed from the standpoint of Abkhaz law — when someone, hypothetically speaking, goes and, bluntly put, rats out their fellow citizens, while holding an official position of power?

Astamur Tania: I don’t think everything can be addressed purely through legal terms. Besides the law, there are other ways to evaluate a person’s actions. I believe Abkhaz society, on the whole, condemns such behavior. I’m sure you felt that yourself when you were labeled a “foreign agent.” A lot of people called you, offering their support openly and directly. Because people understand that something unjust happened and that justice needs to be restored. I think this will not only help raise the credibility of our authorities, but also strengthen their ability to govern a country that’s in a complex situation — both due to internal political challenges and the broader external context surrounding us.

In such a situation, society needs to feel that the government is acting in the national interest. So this kind of legacy needs to be discarded.

Inal Khashig: I’d like to gradually move on to another topic. That legacy — it’s clear: the Bzhania team and so on — it’s all a kind of inertia. But why has the current administration, which is still being formed, not responded to this in any official way? Nothing.

Astamur Tania: I can’t really answer that question right now. Let’s leave it rhetorical for the moment. But yes, I do believe it should respond. Because government is, after all, a public institution — it’s elected by the people, and it must publicly voice its stance: was what happened right or wrong, and what steps will be taken if it was wrong?

But right now, we’re witnessing a kind of lull. And not just within the government camp — where, presumably, they’re still selecting personnel. For some reason, this process always takes us a long time — apparently, there are consultations going on. But even on the opposition side there’s complete silence, which, in my view, is also very strange.

Politics in Abkhazia, as in any other country, shouldn’t be something people engage in only occasionally — not just from one election to the next, but on a permanent basis: promoting ideas, programs, and fighting for their implementation. Being in power isn’t a requirement for that. Yet on that front, too, we’re not seeing anything that draws much attention. There was a statement from Adgur Ardzinba saying a unified political organization would be created. By the way, I haven’t heard any public reaction from the leaders of the groups expected to be included in that structure. No comments — radio silence. That’s actually not typical of Abkhaz political culture.

You have to understand — 42% voted for the opposition, and 2% voted “against everyone”. That’s a significant portion of our electorate. Let’s put aside the question of whether those percentages are entirely accurate or not. Even so, 44% is a very substantial share. So there’s a lot of discontent in society. That discontent needs to be addressed and dealt with. Long-standing problems must be solved — we need to finally become a proper state, not just… I don’t know, some kind of club. That’s the real work. And it’s not just the responsibility of those in power — the opposition has a role to play too.

So we’ll wait. Hopefully not for long — hopefully we’ll soon see something happen in the public sphere, initiated by either side. Or perhaps a third force will emerge — who knows? We don’t see it in our political landscape yet, but maybe it will appear.

Inal Khashig: I’ve noticed something else: we have a newly elected president… The elections were held on March 1, and now it’s nearly mid-April. Yes, the inauguration took place, but there’s very little public presence. So far, we only see him in the news — in a positive light: things being opened, events taking place. But in response to challenges — and there are plenty of them in Abkhazia, including extreme situations and crises — there’s been no reaction. It’s as if the government doesn’t exist.

Astamur Tania: Or maybe that’s a sign of real prosperity? In Switzerland, it also feels like the government doesn’t exist. Many people there say the same thing. In fact, the citizens don’t always even know who their president is.

Inal Khashig: Well, things do change over there, but everything runs like clockwork — the trains arrive to the second, right on schedule. But at the same time, our new overseer for Abkhazia — Sergey Kiriyenko — has been showing himself quite actively. Unlike his predecessor, Dmitry Kozak. You won’t believe it, but Kozak oversaw Abkhazia for at least five years. And I don’t think he ever once visited Abkhazia during all that time. Meanwhile, Kiriyenko, in just a couple of months, has already visited several districts, including some of the most remote areas — even my own village of Khwap. He’s been to Tkuarchal and Ochamchira.

Astamur Tania: And I get the feeling he genuinely wants to understand the situation and do something good for Abkhazia. He’s known as a strong political strategist and manager, and maybe he really does want to apply that experience here. I think he has both an administrative interest and perhaps a personal motivation — to prove himself in this role. If things go well, he could become a driver of positive change.

Inal Khashig: I get the sense that he’s approaching Abkhazia in a very comprehensive way. It’s not just about socioeconomic issues; it seems like he’s trying to dig deeper. There’s a feeling he’s set a goal for himself of stabilizing the internal political situation in Abkhazia. And I think he’s also been making some personnel decisions and adjustments.

Astamur Tania: I think we’re also seeing a generational shift.

Inal Khashig: In our politics, generational change has always happened under the influence of major political centers. These centers were well known, and the influence of certain long-standing figures remained strong. Now there are rumors that some of these figures won’t be holding high office anymore. For example Alexander Ankvab, Sergey Shamba, Aslan Bzhania, Kristina Ozgan. It seems they’re all on their way out. There’s even talk that changes might affect the power ministries as well.

What’s interesting is that Alexander Ankvab has always been a difficult figure to remove — his position was hard to shake. He was a mentor to the current president, played a key role in shaping his career and in the political life of the country. Ankvab also led Badra Gunba’s campaign headquarters and likely had certain expectations from that. In the past, it was nearly impossible to move him aside, but now it seems the system is beginning to change.

Astamur Tania: Time is relentless — people don’t get younger. This is a natural generational transition. People from different generations sometimes simply can’t work together — not just mentally, but in terms of habits and working styles. It’s right for senior figures to step away during peaceful times, while still healthy, and not cling on until the last moment. That’s a normal process.

As for Alexander Ankvab, I believe he’s played his role. He was the architect of the current Abkhaz state. Of course, one could say that the state tied to the national liberation movement and the first president, Vladislav Ardzinba, has now passed into the realm of myth — and that may be painful for some to hear. But the current state and political elite were shaped by Ankvab.

This state is the legal successor of the Abkhazian ASSR, and unfortunately, it is memorial-ethnographic in form and parochial-criminal in essence. That reflected our level of development at the time. These old figures, despite their flaws, did achieve certain results. And while today we may have outgrown that stage, we can only hope for a better future.

Inal Khashig: I agree. We’ve truly moved away from the original vision of the state that existed during Vladislav Ardzinba’s time. I’m not sure to what extent we can call our state fully sovereign, but it does exist. The fact that Alexander Ankvab and others are stepping down is a clear sign of change.

Astamur Tania: Well, maybe he stepped down of his own accord.

Inal Khashig: I’m reminded of how officials used to be replaced back in Soviet times — the party or the government would make the decision, and the official reason given was often retirement or reassignment. But the transition always felt like a top-down directive, and honestly, the current situation feels quite similar.

There’s a growing sense that many decisions aren’t being made here anymore, but rather at an external level. For years we’ve talked about the need to refresh the political class — the same people have been at the helm for 20–25 years, and they simply can’t handle today’s challenges effectively. We’re going through a crisis, and that crisis has roots. I think a new generation of politicians needs to emerge to move us forward. Right now we’re in a crisis situation, and in essence, Sergey Kiriyenko and his team are doing what we should have done ourselves a long time ago.

Astamur Tania: But that’s always how it goes ⁠— what we fail to do ourselves, others end up doing. I recall how the Abkhaz people gained access to education thanks to Soviet power. If it weren’t for the Soviet Union, the Abkhaz wouldn’t have gone to school at all.

Inal Khashig: No doubt. But after the war and the creation of our own state, we adopted a Constitution, endured a blockade, and started building governmental institutions. And now we’ve come to a new reality. Right now, forming a new government is on the agenda. And honestly, it feels like every candidate, every position — it’s not just an internal decision, but subject to external approval. It feels like we’ve entered a phase of external governance. More and more decisions are being made not locally, but from the outside.

And maybe that’s not even a bad thing, if we can’t handle things internally. We can do it — but personal ambitions prevent us from doing so. Maybe this new government, if it turns out to be technocratic, will actually offer solutions; maybe it will be more results-oriented. People without political ambitions, focused on getting things done.

Astamur Tania: Technocrats are definitely needed as we have a mountain of issues. Just walk through the city: sometimes you’re afraid you’ll break a leg walking down the street at night. Meanwhile, officials drive around in massive SUVs worth as much as a mid-level sports facility while the streets are nearly impassable. These are the kinds of practical, technocratic tasks that desperately need attention.

But at the same time, we can’t forget that this is the Abkhaz state. If it exists, it exists primarily to preserve our people and to create opportunities for their development. That’s why we need to focus on areas like modernizing education — so it’s not just a meaningless piece of paper. And culture, which right now I’d describe as being in a purely memorial-ethnographic state… A nation cannot survive in such a form.

Astamur Tania: A nation is a creative process, it must shape its own destiny. And these areas — culture, language, education — have, frankly, been neglected for many years. They’ve been treated as afterthoughts. This includes the Abkhaz language and demographics. Everyone talks about demographics, but we’re still, more or less, a dying nation, and I don’t think our situation has improved much over the past 20 years. So these issues need to be addressed.

We also need to rebuild ties with the diaspora. These connections were valuable not only for us but also for Russian interests. In countries like Turkey and Syria, where many from our diaspora live — and where some quite influential people are — they used to promote a positive image of Russia as the protector of Abkhazia. That kind of narrative existed there. I’m afraid that recent developments may have damaged that. We need to work on this too. It’s important for us, and for Russia. But of course, first and foremost, it’s important for us to maintain ties with our compatriots abroad.

We also need to deal with the tensions that can arise between different ethnic groups within Abkhazia. We’ve discussed this before — there’s always a temptation to blame others for our own issues. But our problems stem, first and foremost, from the Abkhaz ruling elite — not the Armenian, not the Russian, but the Abkhaz. Because, like it or not, we’ve had an ethnocracy in Abkhazia for many years now. And since the problems are clear, we should be looking for their causes not in others — not in the new political managers trying things out — but in ourselves.

We need to make sure that our society is united around these core challenges. I’m not in favor of uniformity; groupthink is harmful. But there are foundational values that bind a nation together. I believe we need to move to the next stage, the stage of forming a civic nation, one that isn’t based solely on ethnicity. Of course, the Abkhaz identity must remain a part of it — through language, through cultural values. That’s an enormous task.

We actually have a strong youth — those who’ve graduated from universities, those in their 20s and older. They need to be brought into solving these problems. Not appointed as ministers right away, as that can go to their heads and end up hurting their development. These young people need to be tested, trained, assigned to real tasks. They’re eager, they come from a different background — they’re just different. We’ve become used to being ruled by elderly people. But this younger generation has different ambitions, different desires — they just want to get a good night’s sleep!

We need to bring this youth into the Abkhaz political process, because in recent years, they’ve been pushed to the margins, while the same people always remain at the top. That’s harmful. It makes the youth passive, infantilized. They trust the older generation — it’s in our culture to let elders go first. But in politics and state governance, that’s not always a good thing.

Astamur Tania: We need to move toward new forms of relationships, more lateral. That’s what distinguishes a developing society from a stagnant one, which just keeps repeating the same behavioral models inherited from older generations, recycling them without change. You can’t survive in the modern world like that — the only outcome is creating a kind of reservation. But a reservation needs someone to feed it, because it won’t survive on its own. It’s a very complex challenge, but I think today’s authorities — at least because of their age — should have the ambition to take it on.

Inal Khashig: We’ve talked so much in the past about the need for reform — including constitutional reform, reforming the system of governance. And now, perhaps, there’s some hope that something real could finally happen.

Astamur Tania: If we want to break out of this vicious circle, the government has to understand that their coming to power wasn’t entirely their own doing. They need to realize that public trust in them is not particularly high. That trust and authority need to be earned. No one is planning to leave. We all want to live here. And when people leave office, they want to raise their children and grandchildren in this country. And when this government is replaced by the next, people should remember it with gratitude. That’s one thing. And second — we need to move forward, to reach the next level.

Inal Khashig: Although some are leaving.

Astamur Tania: But that’s a minority. Most are staying.

Inal Khashig: Alright, I think we’ll wrap up here. Our government is still in the process of being formed. I hope that once it’s finalized, once we have a clear structure and key priorities are set out, we’ll return to this topic. Today we talked about foreign agent designations, Russian-Abkhaz relations, and the new government, which we hope won’t be just a continuation of the old one. Our guest was Astamur Tania. Astamur, thank you very much. Until next time.

Toponyms, terminology, views and opinions expressed by the author are theirs alone and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of JAMnews or any employees thereof. JAMnews reserves the right to delete comments it considers to be offensive, inflammatory, threatening or otherwise unacceptable.