Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Abkhazia signs its 136th agreement with Russia. Is this one different?

Abkhazia signs its 136th agreement with Russia. Is this one different?

24 November 2014

Russian President Vladimir Putin will today receive the President of Abkhazia , Raul Khajimba, in Sochi and the two sides are expected to sign a ten year treaty that will formalise Russia's predominant position in Abkhaz affairs. Joseph Alexander Smith reports from Tbilisi for commonspace.eu  about the possible implications.

Abkhazia's ambitions to develop its regional transport infrastructure have come under the spotlight recently, as the territory prepares to sign a treaty deepening ties with the Russian Federation.

The issue re-surfaced earlier this month after comments made by Armenia's Deputy Minister for Transport and Communications, Artur Arakelian. Speaking to journalists, Arakelian announced that discussions are ongoing over the restoration of a railway linking Armenia, Georgia, Abkhazia and Russia- a plan previously floated and since largely ignored - and that "a very important decision" is expected "soon."

Coming only days before an opposition-led rally which pointed fingers at the Georgian government for responding inadequately to the Russian proposed treaty with Abkhazia, the comments caught Georgian officials somewhat off-guard. Paata Zakareishvili, Georgia's State Minister for Reconciliation and Civic Equality - the body which manages the floundering Abkhaz-Georgian peace process - quickly came out saying that "nothing is happening" with regard to the Abkhaz railway idea, and that talks are still where they left off two years ago.

Abkhazia's recently-elected President, Raul Khajimba, was somewhat more positive about the idea of a rail-link between Armenia and Russia, but denied that his side had been in talks: "I think it would be interesting for Abkhazia, Russia and Armenia. I can't say whether Georgia is ready to implement this project, but I'm more than confident that its Western backers are unlikely to want to" Khajimba told the news website Caucasian Knot.

A direct rail-link to Russia would be of huge strategic importance to land-locked Armenia, which has recently acceded to the Russian-sponsored Customs Union. The Union aims to facilitate trade between Russia and other former-Soviet republics currently on good terms with the Kremlin. Apart from Armenia and Russia, other members include Kazakhstan and Belarus.

In the Soviet period, railways linked the Armenia and Georgia to Russia via Abkhazia. The railway between Abkhazia and Russia is still functioning, but the westward-link to Georgia hasn't worked since 1992, when the Enguri railway bridge was blown up during Abkhazia's bitter fight for secession.

Restoration of the rail-link has been proposed in the past as part of a regional peace initiative, but while Moscow's allies Armenia and Abkhazia have expressed enthusiasm for the project, Georgia - which fought a brief war with Russia in 2008 - has reacted more cautiously to the plans.

The Abkhaz government, which is recognized only by Russia and a handful of other states, has stated that the chief benefit of a restored rail-link would be increased "political legitimacy" for the Abkhaz state. Georgia - which has pursued closer integration with NATO and the EU despite Russian warnings - remains staunchly opposed to any project that would involve recognizing Abkhazia's de facto government.

Further questions about Abhkazia's regional transport links arose when it was announced on November 14 that Abkhazia's Prime Minister, Beslan Butba, has signed a memorandum of understanding with Russian firm "Airport Development", with a view to reconstructing Sukhumi's battered airport. According to Apsnypress news agency, a draft contract between the company and the Abkhaz government is expected within three months.

Abkhazia has signed such agreements in the past, however, which have not resulted in the airport re-opening. A similar memorandum was signed in 2011 with Novaport, a company which runs several airports in the Russian Federation. Georgia remains opposed to the operation of any flights from Sukhumi airport, and has previously pushed for the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to blacklist flights in or out of Abkhazia that operate without Tbilisi's consent.

Speculation about the development of Abkhazia's transport infrastructure come as Sukhumi and Moscow prepare to sign a controversial treaty on "alliance and strategic partnership". Moscow's first draft of the treaty included the word "integration" in the title, which sparked outrage in Tbilisi.

Senior Georgian officials have expressed concerns recently that Abkhazia and South Ossetia - another breakaway territory - could become the latest territories to be annexed by Russia, which took control of the Crimean peninsula earlier in the year. Shortly after annexing Crimea, Russia approved plans for a bridge linking Eastern Crimea to Russia.

The latest version of the Russian-Abkhaz treaty, which has been endorsed by both sides, envisages the creation of joint command structures in defence and law enforcement, as well as offering Russian passport-holders in Abkhazia the same pensions and healthcare benefits as are currently available in the Russian Federation.

While the Georgian Foreign Ministry has strongly condemned the treaty as an obvious step towards the "annexation" of Georgian territory, its counterpart in Abkhazia has responded coolly to the controversy: "We have 135 agreements with Russia" said Abkhaz Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Chirikba. "This will be the 136th, so what's the problem?"

Joseph Alexander Smith filed this report from Tbilisi for commonspace.eu

photo: Russian president Putin welcoming the Abkhaz leader, Raul Khadjimba in Sochi (archive picture).

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
News
European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit
Trending

European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

31 October 2026
António Costa, President of the European Council, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, represented the EU at the 21st EU-Canada summit, which took place in Montreal on 29 and 30 October 2026. Prime Minister Mark Carney represented Canada. The summit marked a major milestone in EU-Canada relations, paving the way for an even broader and deeper political partnership. Leaders took stock of progress made since the previous EU-Canada summit and issued a joint statement launching an Alliance for the Future. Building on their longstanding strategic partnership, the alliance aims to deepen cooperation and create a common prosperity and economic security space. This is a moment to act with clarity and ambition. By aligning more closely – economically, technologically and strategically – Canada and the EU are building an Alliance for the Future based on trust and shared values that meets the scale of today's challenges and opportunities and will reinforce the freedom, prosperity and safety our citizens expect and deserve. We are stronger together. Building on their existing Strategic Partnership Agreement, the EU and Canada will deepen political engagement and coordination on shared priorities. Leaders welcomed the increasingly frequent exchanges with Canadian ministers at relevant Council and ministerial meetings. The EU and Canada will build on these exchanges through regular summits, joint ministerial meetings and cooperation committees. The partners will work to define the concept of an ever-closer association of Canada to the EU, short of full membership, by the 2027 EU-Canada summit. (click image to read more)

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut