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).
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.
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'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).
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.
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/)