Opinion: Why did Russian official call Georgian combatants of the Abkhazian war ‘neo-Nazis’?
Kiriyenko called Georgians neo-Nazis
At the inauguration of Abkhazia’s de facto president, Badra Gunba, Sergei Kiriyenko, the deputy head of Russia’s presidential administration and the new curator for Sukhumi and Tskhinvali, referred to the Abkhazian war against Georgians as a fight against ‘neo-Nazism.’
“Abkhazia was the first republic in the post-Soviet space to encounter neo-Nazism,” Kiriyenko stated at the inauguration. “Even back then, representatives of neo-Nazi groups, whom we are now dealing with our ‘Special Military Operation,’ were fighting against Abkhazia,” he said.
Interestingly, the term “neo-Nazism,” which is now widely used in Russian political discourse and propaganda against Ukrainians and foreign fighters supporting them, has been applied for the first time in the context of the conflicts of the 1990s.
Why did a Russian official use this term for the first time regarding Georgian participants in the Abkhazian war?
Conflict analyst Paata Zakareishvili offers his perspective:
“At the inauguration of Abkhazia’s de facto president, Sergei Kiriyenko used the term ‘neo-Nazism’, effectively utilizing the platform to spread his message. Kiriyenko knew very well that this word would spread.
He essentially labeled Georgia a ‘neo-Nazi’ state dating back to the 1990s. This had never been done in Russia before,” says Zakareishvili.
According to the conflict analyst, Kiriyenko attempted to adapt the term ‘neo-Nazis,’ which is actively used in Russia today against Ukraine, to fit Georgia’s history as well.
“Kiriyenko basically claimed that the Georgian state has done nothing but promote ‘neo-Nazism’ since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This aligns perfectly with Russia’s broader narrative against Ukraine and portrays what ‘noble’ Russia is fighting worldwide—’neo-Nazism.’
According to the Russian politician, Moscow is fighting it in Ukraine, and that same ‘neo-Nazism’ existed in Georgia too,” Zakareishvili argues.
The conflict analyst also points out that it was symptomatic that Alan Gagloev, the de facto leader of the Tskhinvali region, used the same term in his speech at the inauguration.
Zakareishvili states, “Alan Gagloev synchronized the use of the term ‘neo-Nazism’ within the framework of this event. He was speaking about Ukraine, but the implication was clearly about Georgia.
This was not something he spontaneously came up with on the spot – he read from a prepared text, which was part of a prearranged, coordinated plan.”
“In my opinion, in this context, the farce currently unfolding in Tbilisi with Tea Tsulukiani’s commission fits perfectly. This commission is investigating Georgia’s responsibility in relation to the 2008 war. All of this is interconnected, and the use of this term at the inauguration was no coincidence,” Zakareishvili argues.
The conflict analyst predicts that once Tsulukiani’s commission concludes its work, Russia will make a significant statement—possibly even at the level of Putin—praising the Georgian government.
“Moscow’s position will be that Georgia is freeing itself from ‘neo-Nazi’ evil, and Russia will be ready to engage with a ‘cleansed’ Georgia that repents for its past sins and begin discussions on establishing new relations,” Zakareishvili explains.
“This is a well-calculated, pre-planned strategy,” he concludes.
