I was in Abkhazia in mid-October and spoke to a number of people there, including Sergei Garmonin, the last independent publisher in Abkhazia. At the center of the protests is a quasi-invisible factor, namely the globally unique fact that private land ownership is not possible in Abkhazia. All land belongs to the state, which allocates it to its citizens on application, in the cities for a rent, in the countryside free of charge. What is built on the land belongs to the builders and can also be sold, but the land itself cannot. And to be allowed to build, you have to be an Abkhazian citizen. The traditional attitude towards private property is also reflected in the fact that there is no word for “money” in the Abkhazian language.
This rule - no private ownership of land - is apparently supported by the vast majority of Abkhazians, as I was told. It is also explicitly seen as a guarantee that Abkhazia will not fall into the hands of Russian oligarchs. This is because the country was something of a Monaco of the East during the Soviet era. Many magnificent buildings have since fallen into ruin. With a little money - which the Abkhazians don't have - the past splendor could be restored. As a rich Russian, I would also keep an eye on the beautiful plots of land in the subtropical climate.
Another remarkable detail about Abkhazia is the fact that there is no post. So you never find bills in your letterbox and you can't send off a tax return either. Many state institutions in Abkhazia are based on personal relationships. Having already entered the country I experienced this when I tried to get a visa with the help of Sergei Garmonin. You first have to transfer 400 roubles through a bank to the passport office which doesn’t accept cash or electronic payments at the counter. Then you go to the passport office with the proof of payment and receive your visa within a few minutes and without any further paperwork.
Now two banks didn't want to accept the transfer worth four euros, for God knows what reasons. Then Sergei called a friend - I think it was a former foreign minister. He appeared within five minutes and told the friendly ladies at the counter to make the transaction, which they did. When I asked Sergei why it had suddenly worked, he replied. “My friend was someone they knew.”
It is clear that a state system that is so characterized by personal relationships is relatively lean, but on the other hand it is also very susceptible to corruption. And since the state or its representatives grant land rights, a lot of roubles can quickly be at stake. Perhaps the fact that small Abkhazia has a professional parliament of 35 members that meets daily and also allocates land rights also plays a role. The parliamentarians like to be among themselves. The growing distance between the people and the parliament is symbolized by the high fence that was recently erected around the parliament building.
This parliament now wants to make it much easier for Russian investors to do business in Abkhazia. Not least, these investors are to be allowed to use the land in Abkhazia as collateral for bank loans, which not even Abkhazians can do, as private land ownership is not possible.
It seems quite plausible to me that the Abkhazians are rebelling against this. And there would certainly be opportunities to use Abkhazia's great potential not only for the benefit of Russian capital, but also for the general benefit of the country and its people.
Your post has some omissions. The russian minister of economy wants to deregulate the housing market in Abkhazia. He probably believes that free market is a good thing without understanding the consequences.
Abkhazia is a special region, with a special history and identity.
Abkhazia is poor but it's a turistic area.
Allowing non-residents to buy properties there will not improve the local economy, and will price residents out of the housing market.
So, Abkhazians are totally right to complain about this.
I've read about this investment deal in another blog ( https://awfulavalanche.wordpress.com/2024/10/17/ukraine-war-day-967-interesting-events-on-the-periphery-part-i/ ). The demonstrators' claims that "the terms of the proposed investment deal might only benefit wealthy oligarchs and thus come at the expense of average Abkhazians" seems to be accurate. It doesn't help that things are being run with little public scrutiny, as evidenced by the leaked “Kozak Protocol” of 19 August, demanding that the Abkhazians agree to Russia’s terms for building private condos on Abkhazian territory; and they also had to turn over a list of their Oppositionists who “are acting to the detriment of the Russian Federation” (read against Russian oligarchs' interests).
Seems to me the Abkhazians don't like the idea of foreigners, including Russians, buying their land. Lots of countries only allow citizens to buy real property, and I personally don't have a problem with that.
I see all sorts of non-citizens buy land in the US because they can, and it causes all sorts of problems. I don't have any advice for what Russia should do here; just making an observation.
Reframe the deal so that Russians are allowed to invest only in commercial and hospitality properties rather than residential. I appreciate the spirit of the Abkhazians. Control over space especially residential is key to maintaining continuity of ethnic identity - they understand that let them be. Only thing to do is to reframe scale back or kill the bill and if it is reframed communicate the content properly in their native tongue. Any use of violence to coerce them will be counter productive and hand over another one of Russia's flanks to Nato.
A country can get better off, if not rich, even with foreign investment, and still maintain a homogeneous society regarding better wealth distribution. Such development rarely happens because those in political power tend to forget the general public. The longer they hold the power, the more they will forget. Abkhazians likely do not have a fellow countryman who loves their country to run their little world. Russia can help by scrutinizing the Russian side of the deal, but the Abkhazians must do the real heavy lifting. The agreement in dispute is likely only one of the many things lurking in the dark.
Of course, you can find all sorts of ways to prove they're different, but can you see how they're similar?
"...Russian officials would [should] have advised their Abkhazian counterparts to hold off on tabling this legislation until public opinion could be reshaped..."
What would Gorbachyov do [have done]? You don't need to think too far out of the box to see what's going on here.
I was in Abkhazia in mid-October and spoke to a number of people there, including Sergei Garmonin, the last independent publisher in Abkhazia. At the center of the protests is a quasi-invisible factor, namely the globally unique fact that private land ownership is not possible in Abkhazia. All land belongs to the state, which allocates it to its citizens on application, in the cities for a rent, in the countryside free of charge. What is built on the land belongs to the builders and can also be sold, but the land itself cannot. And to be allowed to build, you have to be an Abkhazian citizen. The traditional attitude towards private property is also reflected in the fact that there is no word for “money” in the Abkhazian language.
This rule - no private ownership of land - is apparently supported by the vast majority of Abkhazians, as I was told. It is also explicitly seen as a guarantee that Abkhazia will not fall into the hands of Russian oligarchs. This is because the country was something of a Monaco of the East during the Soviet era. Many magnificent buildings have since fallen into ruin. With a little money - which the Abkhazians don't have - the past splendor could be restored. As a rich Russian, I would also keep an eye on the beautiful plots of land in the subtropical climate.
Another remarkable detail about Abkhazia is the fact that there is no post. So you never find bills in your letterbox and you can't send off a tax return either. Many state institutions in Abkhazia are based on personal relationships. Having already entered the country I experienced this when I tried to get a visa with the help of Sergei Garmonin. You first have to transfer 400 roubles through a bank to the passport office which doesn’t accept cash or electronic payments at the counter. Then you go to the passport office with the proof of payment and receive your visa within a few minutes and without any further paperwork.
Now two banks didn't want to accept the transfer worth four euros, for God knows what reasons. Then Sergei called a friend - I think it was a former foreign minister. He appeared within five minutes and told the friendly ladies at the counter to make the transaction, which they did. When I asked Sergei why it had suddenly worked, he replied. “My friend was someone they knew.”
It is clear that a state system that is so characterized by personal relationships is relatively lean, but on the other hand it is also very susceptible to corruption. And since the state or its representatives grant land rights, a lot of roubles can quickly be at stake. Perhaps the fact that small Abkhazia has a professional parliament of 35 members that meets daily and also allocates land rights also plays a role. The parliamentarians like to be among themselves. The growing distance between the people and the parliament is symbolized by the high fence that was recently erected around the parliament building.
This parliament now wants to make it much easier for Russian investors to do business in Abkhazia. Not least, these investors are to be allowed to use the land in Abkhazia as collateral for bank loans, which not even Abkhazians can do, as private land ownership is not possible.
It seems quite plausible to me that the Abkhazians are rebelling against this. And there would certainly be opportunities to use Abkhazia's great potential not only for the benefit of Russian capital, but also for the general benefit of the country and its people.
Thank you, that was incredibly informative!
Sorry, I got the name of the publisher wrong: His name is Sergey Arutyunov and his publlication is «Novi Dien»
Your post has some omissions. The russian minister of economy wants to deregulate the housing market in Abkhazia. He probably believes that free market is a good thing without understanding the consequences.
Abkhazia is a special region, with a special history and identity.
Abkhazia is poor but it's a turistic area.
Allowing non-residents to buy properties there will not improve the local economy, and will price residents out of the housing market.
So, Abkhazians are totally right to complain about this.
I've read about this investment deal in another blog ( https://awfulavalanche.wordpress.com/2024/10/17/ukraine-war-day-967-interesting-events-on-the-periphery-part-i/ ). The demonstrators' claims that "the terms of the proposed investment deal might only benefit wealthy oligarchs and thus come at the expense of average Abkhazians" seems to be accurate. It doesn't help that things are being run with little public scrutiny, as evidenced by the leaked “Kozak Protocol” of 19 August, demanding that the Abkhazians agree to Russia’s terms for building private condos on Abkhazian territory; and they also had to turn over a list of their Oppositionists who “are acting to the detriment of the Russian Federation” (read against Russian oligarchs' interests).
Seems to me the Abkhazians don't like the idea of foreigners, including Russians, buying their land. Lots of countries only allow citizens to buy real property, and I personally don't have a problem with that.
I see all sorts of non-citizens buy land in the US because they can, and it causes all sorts of problems. I don't have any advice for what Russia should do here; just making an observation.
Reframe the deal so that Russians are allowed to invest only in commercial and hospitality properties rather than residential. I appreciate the spirit of the Abkhazians. Control over space especially residential is key to maintaining continuity of ethnic identity - they understand that let them be. Only thing to do is to reframe scale back or kill the bill and if it is reframed communicate the content properly in their native tongue. Any use of violence to coerce them will be counter productive and hand over another one of Russia's flanks to Nato.
A country can get better off, if not rich, even with foreign investment, and still maintain a homogeneous society regarding better wealth distribution. Such development rarely happens because those in political power tend to forget the general public. The longer they hold the power, the more they will forget. Abkhazians likely do not have a fellow countryman who loves their country to run their little world. Russia can help by scrutinizing the Russian side of the deal, but the Abkhazians must do the real heavy lifting. The agreement in dispute is likely only one of the many things lurking in the dark.
"...the proposed investment deal might only benefit wealthy oligarchs..."
Is Putin the New Gorbachyov?
"...Russia now feels the need to directly invest there in order to bring about long-overdue and much-needed development."
What would the Old Gorbachyov do?
"These perceptions are behind the ongoing unrest."
Ultimately, they were also behind the failure of Perestroika.
"Something similar took place in summer 2014 ..."
And in January, 1990 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_Events)... Hey, look on the bright side: the tower's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilnius_TV_Tower) got LED lighting installed now, and you can do bungee jumps off of it! (If you've got enough money, obviously.) I bet you could negotiate a great deal on group rates. You're gonna love, already!
Of course, you can find all sorts of ways to prove they're different, but can you see how they're similar?
"...Russian officials would [should] have advised their Abkhazian counterparts to hold off on tabling this legislation until public opinion could be reshaped..."
What would Gorbachyov do [have done]? You don't need to think too far out of the box to see what's going on here.
"...misguided Abkhazian nationalists."
Not Led Zeppelin's 'Tangerine': https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2991224/, https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Мандарины_(фильм), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangerines_(film) something goes awry in the translation; what's the difference between a 'mandarin' and a 'tangerine'? (https://veritablevegetable.com/tangerines-clementines-mandarins-whats-the-difference/)