Talk:War in Abkhazia (1992–93)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Abkhazia (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abkhazia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abkhazia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject European history (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Reworking the Russian role section[edit]

As I'd promised I've written it anew. I want to point out that:

1. all the facts that had been there stayed. I've shortened a bit Georgian Parliament declarations but imho it's not a very big deal.

2. All the new facts were taken from the HRW report (VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF WAR AND RUSSIA'S ROLE IN THE CONFLICT -

Finally I don't claim it's a comprehensive review of the issue and more facts may have to be added in future. Alaexis 17:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. I agree that the HRW report is a good source, but it is outdated and not very comprehensive. It also lacks political analysis due to quite understandable reasons. I've got a collection of many citations from the Western scholarly works on this particular issue. Unfortunately, I have very limited time right now, but I'll add more info a bit later. Also, there has always been a strong suspicion that Russia exploited the Abkhazian war to force Georgia into the CIS and to achieve the ligitimization of the Russian military presence in Georgia (Soviet/Russian bases had officially been declared as occupational in 1991). Once referenced, this should also be mentioned in the article. It was a critical point in the contemporary Russo-Georgian relations. --KoberTalk 19:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The Georgia's entry into the CIS has more to do with the civil war than with Georgian-Abkhaz war afaik. I don't know whether it should be added here also. Some political analysis is of course needed. I think that more global things should go to Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict article (or else I don't understand why it was created) Alaexis 19:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Kober is correct. Shevardnadze forced his government to sign the CIS agreement soon after fall of Sukhumi. Georgian membership in CIS was determined all due to Abkhaz conflict. Ldingley 20:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


War in Abkhazia sounds rather informal, thus I propose this article be moved to Georgian-Abkhaz war (analogous to Georgian-Abkhaz conflict). sephia karta 22:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

warmish agree Alaexis 07:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Georgian-Abkhaz war sounds as if it was a war between the two separate countries - Georgia and Abkhazia - and ignores the fact the North Caucasian confederation and Russia were involved much more heavily than the ethnic Abkhaz fighters. Better move it to War of Abkhazia or Abkhazian War. We have War of Transnistria, not Moldovan-Transnistrian war; Nagorno-Karabakh War, not Azerbaijan-Karabakh war.--KoberTalk 07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Alex, the UNPO itself is a controversial organization and its accounts are entirely based upon the information provided by its members (Abkhaz separatists in this case). If you have a BBC link on Karkarashvili's statement, please provide. Your addition is POV and more importantly, it is not veryfiable. --KoberTalk 11:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Cannot provide a link to BBC monitoring archive itself as it's a paid content. So I've given a link to the 'Conciliation Resources' site. Alaexis 11:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure that your source says exactly what you claim in the article? It's really a pity that I have to verify all your edits in your own references. --KoberTalk 15:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose like Kober --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


Yes, you are right. I've just remembered there was one of his expressions on that site and haven't checked which one. I'll try to find a source for another one when I have time. Alaexis 17:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


The removed text: Furthermore another helicopter reportedly carrying evacuated civilians was shot down on December 14 in the Tkvarcheli district resulting in 52 to 64 deaths (including 25 children).[1]

Where is that reference, where is the text? Copy the text or link here so i review it. Ldingley 16:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

These references are taken from the hrw's VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF WAR AND RUSSIA'S ROLE IN THE CONFLICT report, page 31, note 99. Do you claim they included fake refs? Alaexis 16:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing on page 31 Ldingley 16:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
What's written in the 99th note then? Alaexis 16:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Give me the link, where are you reading that? im on p 31 and there is no such thing, here [1] Ldingley 16:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking here. Alaexis 16:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
So do I and there are no such info in that chapter or on those pages which you give me. Also there are no notes. There are 60 pages in total. Ldingley 16:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Here: A political watershed was reached when on December 14 a

Russian army helicopter, reportedly evacuating Abkhaz civilians from the besieged mountain town of Tkvarcheli to Gudauta, was shot down. Reports of the dead ranged from fifty-two to sixty-four, including twenty-five children. 99 Although the Georgian government denied responsibility, few believed it, especially in Russia. Now i know what you mean by notes. Ldingley 16:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, the page numbers in the contents do not correspond to de facto page numbers )). Alaexis 16:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

references 2[edit]

The removed text: After the fall of Sukhumi Russian Black Sea fleet participated in the evacuation of tens of thousands of Georgians from it.[2]

See the 153rd note of the report, page 42. Alaexis 16:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

again so such thing on page 42, here [2] Ldingley 16:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Ignore the page, look for 153rd note. Alaexis 16:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
There are no notes on that document, just give me p # Ldingley 16:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
On September 27, Sukhumi fell to Abkhaz fighters as the Russian Black Sea fleet evacuated tens of thousands of Georgians by sea. 153 Many tens of thousands more attempted to flee to the south and east through Ochamchira and Mingrelia. Other tens of thousands sought to cross the Caucasus mountains east of Sukhumi. Ok, checked and corresponds, my fault. Thanks Alex. Ldingley 16:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I have more docs and references, i'll review them too. Ldingley 16:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert explanation[edit]

1. About Ukrainians. The ref you've given is to the geocities site; afaik it's a free hosting and anyone can create his page there and as such it's not a reliable source. Please find a more reliable ref supporting this claim.

2. Muslim Russians, Shamil Basayev,[3] - that's what I removed because it's already written in the article: about volunteers from Caucasian republics right in the next sentence (The separarists were supported by the North Caucasian and Cossack militants) and about Shamil Basaev in the list of commanders of separatist forces. Alaexis 16:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that Armenians generally supported the separatism in Abkhazia and the article is definitely not neutral nor accurate. SosoMK 19:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You probably know about Bagramyan Battalion already. See also the ref I've added. Alaexis 20:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
One could also recall the results of the USSR renewal referendum in Abkhazia. Alaexis 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there were many Armenians who were fighting on the Georgian side, example Sumbat Saakian, members of Armenian diaspora of Abkhazia and Georgian Armenians (battalion Virq). So did Russians (example: Siberia brigade), Ukrainians, Jews, etc. Ldingley 20:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Karkarashvili[edit]

I found this video on youtube [3]

There is logic in Karkarashvili's statements. There are about 4 000 000 Georgians and 100 000 Abkhazians, so we can kill 100 000 Georgians and 100 000 Abkhazians. This will be fair (100 000 = 100 000).

Btw, recently the head of Administration of the President of Georgia live on television told to Karkarashvili that he envied him, because he had had opportunity to fight for his country. I think this was too bad of the head of Administration of the President of Georgia. Tamokk 14:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes and then, one of the ministers of Georiga called the head of Administration of the President of Georgia an 18 year old boy, suggesting that he was misinformed, anyway. Tamokk 14:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And to avoid being partial, which I by no means intend here, I will formaly sate: it is easy to find plenty of people like Karkarashvili on youtube on the Abkhazian side, as well as it is easy to find commentators like the head of Administration of the President of Georgia on the Abkhazian side too. Tamokk 15:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

These statements are pretty well known. They are also mentioned in the article. I don't think this video could be included in the sources though for copyright reasons. Alæxis¿question? 15:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, no wonder he made them after they crucified his brother on a tree and after he seen how Abkhaz buried alive woman and children in Gagra and Leselidze. I can produce tons of quotes by Arzimba and his fellows where they call for extermination of the Georgian race. Thanks to UN reports, all of them are available. I'll commence with inserting those quotes (and OSCE definition of the Abkhaz tactic as Genocidal) with nice photos of Arzimba. Ldingley 14:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually I've followed your example - Ethnic_cleansing_of_Georgians_in_Abkhazia#Military_conflict_in_Abkhazia Alæxis¿question? 15:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, he was angry about Abkhazians, but why was he killing 100 000 Georigans? Tamokk 04:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, well it's well known that Abkhaz leaders have called for extermination of Georigans. Tamokk 04:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

UN report[edit]

UN Mission in Georgia has issued the following statement: “The violation of human rights were committed by both sides of the conflict, however more intensively and systematically by the Abkhaz side which resulted in the death of thousands..” ref Annex to the Report of the UN Secretary General on the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia; Proposals for political and legal elements for a comprehensive settlement of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict, Georgia UN Mission report chronology, 3 May 1994. /ref

Here is the report of May 3, 1994 - [4]. I couldn't find the comparison of atrocities in the annex "Proposals for political and legal elements for a comprehensive settlement of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict" (page 11). Could you give the number of the page where these words are written? Alæxis¿question? 15:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Annex to the Report of the UN Secretary General on the situation in Abkhazia, Georgia; Proposals for political and legal elements for a comprehensive settlement of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict, Georgia UN Mission report chronology, 3 May 1994. This document includes sub-section of UNOMIG (previously UN Mission in Georgia) report dated from November 1993 by Margaret Nicholson, which is included in full document of May 13, 1993. On internet I could not find this protocol, however, its hard copies are available in UN Report Factbook of 1993-94, published by the United Nations and available in libraries. They also have collection of protocols and amendments.
Also i found two more references for that, from OSCE report of UN mission statement and UN Observers report. I'll incert them. Ldingley 17:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
What full document of May 13, 1994 have you written about? [5]Alæxis¿question?
Its sub-section of UNOMIG report, here: November 1993 by Margaret Nicholson, UNOMIG Observer Report on situation in Abkhazia, November 1993, New York. Ldingley 17:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You can find it here: United Nations Reports from 1993-1994, published in New York. Ldingley 17:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wait. This report tells about the whole conflict. This info shouldn't be in the first months of the conflict section, should it? Alæxis¿question? 17:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it should be. The report covers whole conflict including first phases of the war. Ldingley 17:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
If it's written in the report that human rights violations were more intensive on the Abkhaz side during the whole conflict it does not mean that in every phase of the war that was so. Alæxis¿question? 18:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead section[edit]

The lead section somehow renders Armenians and Russians equal, in a sense, to Abkhazians in the idea of independent Abkhazia. As far as I know, the ideology of separatists was to establish independent state, largely on the basis of the Abkhazian national idea. The wording should be changed. True that most Armenians and Russians fought on the Abkhazian side. Tamokk 04:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Would someone care to clarify?[edit]

I notice it with Abkhaz articles especially this one that the Abkhaz war had an extremely bizarre motley crew of nations fighting against the Georgians. I’m just wondering why this was the case. For instance you had Basayev and the Russians and the Confederation of Mountain Peoples of the Caucasus, Cossacks, and the ethnic Armenians all fighting on the same side as the Abkhaz against the Georgians. It seems odd that Basayev and the Russians would fight on the same side; it would be more likely that Basayev would fight against the Georgians. It seems odd that Basayev would fight against the Georgians when Gamsakhurdia recognized the independence of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. It seems odd that Basayev would fight along side Armenians when Basayev found along side Azerbaijan against the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh. It also seems odd that Basayev would fight along side the Abkhaz when the Abkhaz are allied with the Ossetes and Basayev went and blew up the Ossete school in Beslan. Could the article be representing peoples/nations as fighting against Georgia when in fact it was mostly mercenaries? Pocopocopocopoco 02:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing really surprising in the list of those who fought against Georgians. Chechen war, Beslan etc happened after the war in Abkhazia.
The non-Georgian population of Abkhazia (Abkhaz, Russians and Armenians) mostly voted for keeping the USSR during the March referendum and then (mostly) fought against Georgians after Georgian forces occupied Sukhumi and did some not very nice things. This is one set of combatants. Another set of combatants were outsiders, mainly Cossack and North Caucasian volunteers. Abkhaz are ethnically quite close to some North Caucasian nations so it was again not surprising. Shamil Basayev was one of those guys who came to Abkhazia.
Btw, what do you want to change in the article? Alæxis¿question? 06:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see more information, perhaps a separate section in the article on the motivation behind the other nations/peoples.
For instance:
The Russians
You mentioned that they were fighting to keep the USSR intact however this occurred Between 1992 and 1993 and the USSR had already disolved. There was no guarrantee that Abkhazia wouldn't turn into another Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
The Armenians
I saw on an unreliable source (Abkhazia-e-Caucausia) that the Armenians were initially Neutral however the Mkhedrioni did some nasty things to them so they joined the Abkhaz side
Dudayev and Chechens
This seems odd to me as Georgia at the time was sympathetic to the Chechens and Gamsakhurdia recognized Ichkeria in 1991.
I suppose there are culturial links however it seems odd that Sunni Cherkez would fight for Orthodox Abkhaz but I suppose it's possible.Pocopocopocopoco 16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Most of Caucasian Abkhaz are indeed Orthodox but there's a Muslim minority as well. Actually the religion wasn't the main reason behind any of the Caucasian Post-Soviet conflicts.
Gamsakhurdia was no longer Georgian president when the Abkhazian war started, btw.
I wrote about the referendum results just to show the general mood of the non-Georgian population of Abkhazia.
What you've read at Abkhazia-e-Caucausia is more or less true (imo), see the HRW report ( ) for details. Alæxis¿question? 18:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Reaction section[edit]

Imho the problems with this section are:

  • It's not clear why are these people's opinions are chosen to be included here.
  • The passages from Prof. Zaza Gachechiladze's article "The Conflict in Abkhazia:A Georgian Perspective" are included in the article as if they were facts.

I also think that the section is rather inflated and should be shortened. Alæxis¿question? 19:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left the McFarlane's citation for now however it should also be transformed into a concise description of Russia's politics with respect to Georgia and Abkhazia rather than the overview of Russia's politics in all the 'near abroad'. Alæxis¿question? 21:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


Do you have sources confirming this? Alæxis¿question? 07:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Political POV edits from Sosomk. Mkhedrioni was a paramilitary Georgian organisation which counted tens of thousands members in Georgia. It was anti-Gamsakhurdia but by no way was it anti-Russian. Tamokk 08:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Karkarashvili was a minister of defence of Georgia. Tamokk 08:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda Poster[edit]

Calling that poster a propaganda poster isn't POV, it's just calling it like it is. That poster is a textbook propaganda poster. Please see this page and compare the posters on that page with the one in this article.

This is just your personal oponion. The poster was designed by a NGO formed by the Georgian IDPs from Abkhazia who are victims of ethnic cleansing and are not allowed to return to their homes. They don't make propaganda, but protest Russian interventionism in their homeland. This differs subsantially from the real prop made by the Kremlin and its PR agents in the West.--KoberTalk 15:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Is that poster even worthy of inclusion to Wikipedia then? "Georgian Youth against Russian troops" is listed as the author however a google search of that name yields only results where that poster has been posted (I suppose there could be hits if the search is done in Georgian). seems to be some sort of Georgian general purpose messaging board. Wikipedia isn't the place to upload artwork of obscure individual(s).
Yes, Georgian search engines do yield results. Anyway, I don't understand why we should remove the picture, which has been here for a while, just because you consider it to be propaganda. --KoberTalk 17:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I never said that it should be removed because I consider it propaganda. I questioned whether it's worthy of this article. If it was something created by some kid on a forum then it's not encyclopedic and should be removed. Pocopocopocopoco 14:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


I don't quite understand what context are you talking about but if you think something important is missing you should've added it rather than deleting everything. Alæxis¿question? 08:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Alex, if you read his whole speech, you can see that he never said "the Abkhaz nation will be left without descendants". So this does not belong here. Why don't you read it first and then add in whatever you think fits here. What you have now can't stay because it's just untrue. (PaC 15:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC))
Could you write where his full speech could be found? That would be rather helpful. Alæxis¿question? 15:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I saw it in some Abkhaz propaganda literature, so we can't use it as a source, but at least we can say that it was no "worse" then what they are quoting. As for the phrase you were using it actually sounded different. He was warning Ardzinba personally not to make so that the Abkhaz nation will be left without descendants, because all the responsibility for the war will be on him. I'm sure you would agree it sounds very different from what you have. Abkhaz separatist widely misquoted and misinterpreted his speech in their propaganda machine to portray all Georgians as fascists and justify their own crimes. We do not want to do the same here, do we?(PaC 15:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC))
I'm sorry but now what we've got is the citation that was used in the article (Gia Karkarashvili, Georgian Minister of Defence, compounded Abkhaz fears when he threatened in a television broadcast that 'the Abkhaz nation will be left without descendants'.3 - we have no reason to doubt the reliability and neutrality of the NGO (Conciliation resources) that published that report) and a short clip where Karkarashvili says that all the Abkhaz could be killed. What sources do you base your assertions on?
ps. Here's another source I've just found out.
The reference is given to the book "G. Amkuab, T. Illarionova, Abxazija: Xronika neobjavlennoj vojny. Chast' I. 14 avgusta - 14 sentiabria 1992 goda. Moskva, 1992, p. 128". What is written there coincides finely with what is written in the Conciliation Resources report and what we could hear in the clip. Alæxis¿question? 15:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Alex, you heard the video on YouTube of that part (for 100 000 vs 97 000). This translation is not exact. (Of course he says it in broken Russian, so it is hard to translate exactly.) It sounds really more like a warning of not to continue the war, for the consequences would be dire and not a threat to exterminate them. The quote of "the Abkhaz nation will be left without descendants" is really ripped from the middle of the sentence, NGO or not. Here's what I found in some pro-Akhaz description of events. The speech is not quoted 100% correctly (if compared to video on YouTube), a word here or there is changed, but anyways they wouldn't make it sound "better", would they? "Хочу дать совет лично господину Ардзинба: пускай он не сделает так, чтобы абхазская нация осталась без потомков, потому что все жертвы и всю ответственность он возьмет на себя." (from here) You can also read in Chervonnaya's "Посткоммунистическая вандея" how often pro-Abhaz media misquoted and misinterpreted his speech. At one point she call's it "oткровенная передержка высказывания Каркарашвили".
It may be good to work it all in the article if you want - both his speech and its misquoting by separatist supporters for their propaganda purposes.(PaC 18:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC))
So here's what he said (from your link). Let's write then that:
and that

Alæxis¿question? 19:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

More like
What do you propose to include about deliberate misquoting ("oткровенная передержка высказывания Каркарашвили") by separatists for their propaganda purposes?
I haven't thought about this. This could be decided later. Alæxis¿question? 20:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Also we probably need to find a more reliable transcription of his speech before the final version. This source is generally unreliable. (PaC 19:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC))
It's rather funny. You've brought that source to support your point and now you claim that it's generally unreliable :) If it's unreliable we are left with the sources I listed in the post of 15:57, 8 July 2007.
Yeh, I know. Internet is funny that way. Sometimes you find information you are looking for in unquotable sources.(PaC 23:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC))
Actually everything except for the passage about the POWs is referenced from those sources (ones we don't have any reason to suspect of bias) so it could still be included. Alæxis¿question? 19:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Alex, as PaC pointed out Karkarashvili addressed directly to the separatist leader and the hardliner Communist politician Ardzinba and placed all responsibilities on him. Why did not you mention this in your new version? --KoberTalk 07:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Before I reply to you could you please answer whether you consider the citation from there truthful or not? Alæxis¿question? 07:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


PaC, what sources do you use to support your edits? Do you use only BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 27 August 1992 as you've left only this source? If yes could you post the entire speech of Karakarashvili? If no it's against the rules of Wikipedia as you have to specify where you got the information rather than providing only primary source. Alæxis¿question? 19:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the source. Which rule? I remember somebody quoting 1896 census data without actually seeing the primary source. BTW have you fixed that wrong reference citation of yours?(PaC 20:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC))
Thanks for reminding that, I've fixed it. So could you post the entire speech of Karkarashvili as you've got access to it? Alæxis¿question? 05:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually your reference has all that stuff. And BTW you can not really demand from editors to post their complete sources here every time you feel like it. You can ask nicely. Otherwise you can go to the library, or archives and do your own homework.(PaC 18:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC))
According to my English dictionary the questions with the word could "выражают вежливую просьбу что-л. сделать" so I think you can't blame me for asking not nicely. What do you mean by "my reference" now (this or something else)? Alæxis¿question? 19:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll assume then that this citation is accurate. Alæxis¿question? 16:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm suppose to assume good faith but I'm finding this really suspicious. The reason is that initially user:Sosomk tried to spin the Karakashvili stuff as if Karakashvili and the Mkhedrioni were working for the Russians. He then got blocked for 3RR. Now were getting a different Karakashvili spin that he was some sort of benevolent politician that was trying to warn the Abkhaz against danger but was taken out of context. Pocopocopocopoco 02:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are you suspicious about? Cited sources?(PaC 18:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

references issues[edit]

There is a couple of questions concerning this paragraph. The third ref is apparently to the following paragraph in the Lisbon declaration:

It could be used to reference the first part of the first sentence of the paragraph and to reference the problems the refugees faced in 1993-1996.

As far as I understand the 2nd part is supported by the 2nd reference (UNOMIG observer report) and the 3rd part is supported by the 1st reference (annex). We have already discussed the problems with the 1st ref and Luis claimed the quoted words are in the paper version even though they didn't get to the online one. Imho some kind of verification is needed here. It would be also interesting to see what else is written in that annex. Unfortunately I couldn't find it in the libraries I have access to so maybe someone could help me with it. Alæxis¿question? 12:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've posted it in the beginning of July. I believe there has been more than enough time to check it. If the situation remains the same I propose to use Wikipedia's conflict resolution tools. Alæxis¿question? 09:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

UNOMIG Observer Report on situation in Abkhazia, November 1993[edit]

There're also some problems with this ref. For example, nothing similar could be found in the internet which means nothing but is strange since UN documents are usually available there or at the very least mentioned.

What was passed in November was the Resolution 881 which mentions only Secretary-General's report of 27th of October. Could someone also try to find that observer report and verify what is written there and possibly also inform us what other information it contains. Alæxis¿question? 05:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this document exists, however I'm not sure at all that the passage that was included in the article was about the whole war. That's why I'd like to see the whole text. Alæxis¿question? 22:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


I tagged the page for cleanup for a couple of reasons: 1. Excessive use of direct citations which is confusing for the first-time readers and diverts them from the chronological description of the events; 2. Selected use of citations from the HRW report; 3. Somewhat Messianic assessment of the Russian role in the conflict; 4. Lack of the Background section which prevents the reader from understanding the reasons behind the conflict; 5. Lack of political analysis from the scholarly sources. I'm going to launch a major improvement drive somewhere in the next week or so. Looking forward for cooperation with you. Thanks, --KoberTalk 07:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can but agree that there's too much of direct quotations in the article. Regarding the political analysis I'd like to remind everyone that we've also got the article Georgian-Abkhazian conflict which should contain the fullest version of the analysis. I also think it'd be a good idea to write it first. Alæxis¿question? 17:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Improvement certainly needed. I'll try to help. (PaC 17:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC))

Re: Kober's recent revert[edit]

Please explain how saying that if 100k Georgians die than all 97k Abkhaz die is not fascist? It makes no sense the way it is, so I'm reverting your revert. If you want to keep those lines in there than please clarify them. Pocopocopocopoco 04:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mauco, Buffadren or whoever you are. The passage is already referenced and clarified. If you want to throw accusations of fascism around, you can do it elsewhere but not here. So please don't remove the referenced passages just because it doesn't particularly meet your POV. Thanks for your understanding, yours truly KoberTalk 06:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I've got a somewhat unrelated question - do you consider G. Hewitt's books valid sources or no (at least those that he wrote before becoming an envoy or something of Abkhazia)? Alæxis¿question? 07:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
What do you actually mean? --KoberTalk 07:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly what I've written. Could we use his books as legitimate sources in your opinion? Alæxis¿question? 07:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest moving statements of this sort in a seperate section. Are you propaganda warring here? The section about war should concentrate on the course of the war itself and not on who said what. Tamokk 07:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course, they are propaganda warring here. My original article written back in 2004 or 2005 was entirely based on chronological order of military actions without pesky citations from the interviews with military commanders.--KoberTalk 07:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and what about numerous direct citations (all from one side) that were in this article and "pesky citations" here, here and here?
I'm pretty sure that Karkarashvili's speech was important enough for the war and as such should be mentioned here (and it's not only I who think like that - see the 33rd chapter of this book). Alæxis¿question? 07:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Neither of the above-mentioned citations have been added by me. They were provided by Luis in response to the morbid anti-Georgian campaign waged on these pages.
As for your favorite "book" at, I'm really amazed by your ability to select "neutral" and "scholarly" sources. Do a little research on Google books or consult Autonomy and Conflict by the Swedish scholar Svante E. Cornell (it is freely available on the net) and you will find that Ardzinba's and Lukianov's pre-war inflammatory rhetoric was no less important to the war. And before accusing Georgian officers of fascism (I don't consider them infallible though), I'd like to remind everyone who fought on the Abkhaz side: the bloodsucker Basayev, Hero of Abkhazia, and his gangs, erstwhile comrade-in-arms of the glorious Russian "volunteer" forces.--KoberTalk 08:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I've never called Georgian officers or other Georgians fascists. I haven't also used the book to support any statement in the article. All the rhetoric should be mentioned, btw, when are you going to create the article about the pre-war events out of your sandbox? Could you please answer my question about Hewitt? Alæxis¿question? 12:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we have already discussed Hewitt. He is a good linguist, but politically biased. He can only be used with extreme caution. His notoriously disgusting denouncement of Georgian scholarship and speculative articles about some demographic manipulations in the North Caucasus in which "Georgian empire" "has been acting in concert with Russia for the last two centuries" cannot be considered as legitimate sources, I guess. As for my sandbox, I have very limited time right now but will try to turn the draft into an article as soon as possible. Honestly, I much prefer working on medieval history and culture related topics, but the fact that I'm the only active Georgian user keeps me attached to Abkhazia/SO articles.--KoberTalk 13:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that the same could be said about Chervonnaya, particularly about her opinion about the 'misquoting and misinterpretation' of Karkarashvili's speech.
ps. Sorry, I didn't notice Karkarashvili was called Minister of Defence in the version I reverted to. Alæxis¿question? 20:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Try not to get emotional and look at the paragraph, it doesn't make sense as it is[edit]

The points of the paragraph are as follows.

1) Karkarashvili (the defense minister) said that the Georgian troops would not take prisoners of war (ie they would kill all the abkhaz that they captured.

2) He further said that if 100k Georgians die in the fighting then 97k all ethnic abkhaz would be killed and advised Arzinba not to have the Abkhaz without decendents.

3) This was misquoted as fascism.

I don't care if it's referenced material, the way that it is presented makes no sense ie 3 is contradictory with 1 and 2. I'm adding tags to this effect in front of the paragraph. Perhaps there is a simple explanation to all if this, it's our job to put that in the article. Pocopocopocopoco 15:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Let us just try to move all the rhetoric in a seperate section. Tamokk 03:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Probably makes more sense to move it into the Georgia-Abkhaz conflict article and make this article strictly military however it doesn't hurt to try to make sense of that paragraph in the mean time. Pocopocopocopoco 03:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion on all this Karkarashvili stuff[edit]

Move it from this article to the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict and present both possible interpretations of Karkarashvili's speech and mentioning that it is controversial. One interpretation is that Karkarashvili said that the Abkhaz will be left without descendents. The other is that he was warning Arzinba and putting all the responsibility on Arzinba. We have one online source that supports the first interpretation and we have another source that supports the other so let's report both and let the readers decide. If you have any other suggestions of where to move it, please post them but I think this article should be a military article. Your thoughts? Pocopocopocopoco 03:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you talk about different interpretations? The article pretty much takes direct quotes from his speech. There is nothing to interpret there.(PaC 07:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC))
Well, as I've mentioned, I find what we have in the article very confusing. We had the original source [6] that claimed that he said "the abkhaz people would be left without descendents". Then this was switched to another source that claimed he was warning Arzinba to prevent a catastrophy. He also said the Georgian forces would not take prisoners. I think that all of this need to make sense. I doubt he was the leader of a group of people that wanted to wipe out the Abkhaz but I also doubt he was benevolent and the article needs to reflect this. Pocopocopocopoco 17:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe all of that IS already reflected. I fail to see what is confusing you. I repeat: the current version has almost direct quotes from his speech. If you still find it confusing... well, you should have talked to Mr. Karkarashvili before he delivered the speech. (PaC 04:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC))

22 september[edit]

The reinforcements were obviously from Tbilisi - see this account of the September events in Sukhum (made by Georgian) for example. Seriously, who else could come to the city at this time? Alæxis¿question? 19:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Blogs and personal websites cannot be accepted as valid sources. The plane flew from Tbilisi to Sokhumi to evacuate the civilians. A handful of para-military personnel (chiefly volunteers) sent to assist the evacuation cannot be considered as reinforcement.--KoberTalk 19:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed passage by Alexey[edit]

Alexander, the passage which you removed has a second reference, which is neutral and valid. However, before you remove the passage again give me more time to find more support. I have seen this evaluation by UN, EU commition and actually Hague War Crimes tribunal before. Therefore, give more time. There are tons of info which you inserted into this article and their references are also questionable. Don't forget, Russian sources are not NPOV, on contrary they are biased (or using sources from web site of so called "president" of Abkhazia). Thanks. Iberieli 16:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course I'm willing to wait some more until someone (you, for example) checks this ref.
As I've written above there are two passages that are referenced by two sources there. So, even if they say similar things, the "neutral and valid" second ref doesn't let us leave the other passage if the first ref is not ok.
I've put quotes around neutral and valid because there are also questions about the second ref which I've raised there.
Finally I don't really understand what have you accused me of. If I reference something from pro-Abkhaz sources I generally mark it as Abkhaz position or something like that... In this article I mostly used HRW's report I hope you wouldn't call questionable. Alexey-Alexander-Alæxis¿question? 16:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok no problem. I'll find them. Thanks Alexey. Iberieli 17:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I've forgotten to mention another problem. It should be absolutely clear that the passages in question are related to the whole war and not to the last part of it. That's why I'd be interested in seeing the whole texts... Alæxis¿question? 17:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

helicopter's downing[edit]

Thanks for pointing out that this report comes from WriteNet. I think that it gains additional credibility being published in Oxford-based Refugee Survey Quarterly journal and as such constitutes a perfectly legitimate source for Wikipedia. Alæxis¿question? 18:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with WriteNet, it seems to be used for other Wikipedia articles? Probably a better source than YETT. Pocopocopocopoco 03:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
We've got two sources, one of them says
// So few believed in it not only in Russia.
Another one says
Needless to say there are no reliable sources claiming that this helicopter was brought down by someone else. That's why no 'allegedlies' or 'reportedlies' are needed. Alæxis¿question? 17:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The battle for Tkvarcheli was marked with extreme confusion and uncoordinated actions, and all sides engaged in indiscriminate firing. In late 1992, at least two Russian and one Georgian aircrafts were destroyed in a friendly fire.--KoberTalk 17:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and so what? Frankly, insisting that Russians or Abkhaz shot down this helicopter themselves is like insisting that Georgians repainted their planes and bombed Sukhumi (remember Mr. Grachev). The provided sources are more than enough to write that Georgian forces brought down that heli. Alæxis¿question? 17:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not insisting that Russians or Abkhaz shot down this helicopter escorted by the SUs which bombed Georgian villages en route to Tkvarcheli. Russians were quick to declare that the Georgians shot down the heli, but they have never provided any evidence. The Russian airplane bombing Sokhumi was shot down by the Georgians and evidence was presented to the UN mission which confirmed that the jet was piloted by the Russian Air Force major.--KoberTalk 17:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
We can't include only statements that were proven in court or acknowledged by UN in Wikipedia. If most of the sources basically agree who did it then it's what we should write (verifiability, not truth).
Btw, the source you've brought also says:

Alæxis¿question? 17:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Anachronisms in the Russia's role section[edit]

First, Georgia did not turne its artillery over to the Russians. Instead, Georgian artillery was transported to Poti under Russian supervision and would not be returned to Georgia until after the end of the Abkhazia war and Mr. Shevardnadze's capitulation to Russia's pressure to join the CIS. Second, Russia imposed sanctions on Abkhazia only after Georgia joined the CIS and the CIS summit passed a decision to start a "peacekeeping" operation in the region (1994). Neither of these events were directly related to the Sukhumi offensive in September 1993. These are obvious facts that can be found in any account of the Abkhaz war. I would ask Alaexis to stop reverting my corrections which are in line with the easily available sources, e.g. at Google Books.--KoberTalk 04:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I found a reference to the cut of electricity to Abkhazia in HRW report, but it is based on Russian media sources and seems to be dubious as most of Abkhazia has always been supplied by the Enguri plant. Anyway, I'm bringing that passage back to the article for the time being.--KoberTalk 05:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Huh, HRW could of course be mistaken, however to prove that it was indeed a mistake in this case some of those easily available sources should be brought, I think.
Btw, statements 'Russia cut off electricity to Abkhazia' and 'Abkhazia has always received most of its electricity from Inguri GES' in no way contradict each other. Alæxis¿question? 09:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Melkonian vs Ashcroft ;)[edit]

Alæxis¿question? 06:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


After reading this the reader will think that about an equal number of Armenians supported either side. This is of course not true, and not true to the extent that Helen Krag and Lars Funch (Helen Krag and Lars Funch. The North Caucasus: Minorities at a Crossroads. (Manchester, December 1994)) say plainly "During the war, not just the North Caucasus minorities, but local Russians and Armenians as well, supported the Abkhazians" (quoted here, for example). Of course a minority of them did support Georgians, so Poco*4's wording seems absolutely npov to me:

Alæxis¿question? 07:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes[edit]

I thought I was clear in my summary, the crisis group europe doesn't say anything about staying neutral that I could see. Melkonian v. Ashcroft is the views and experiences of one individual. Alaexis was pretty convincing allegedly. Also, allegedly sounds somewhat weaselish. I don't have alot of time so to be continued. Pocopocopocopoco 11:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Could you please explain why was this tag placed? Do you mean that non-Georgians supported Abkhaz right from the beginning or that they initially supported Georgians and then switched for some reason? Alæxis¿question? 13:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Those who opposed the Georgian state and later joined "Abkhaz" forces in slaughtering Georgians supported the separatist cause from the beginning of the conflict. That's why you and other Soviet patriots are so quick to recall their support to Gorbachev's referendum for the new Union.--KoberTalk 14:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
So now I'm a Soviet patriot... lol. Alæxis¿question? 18:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added two additional references showing that Russians and Armenians initially remained neutral but then joined the Abkhaz separatist side due to excesses of the Georgian military. Pocopocopocopoco 01:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the intro discusses Armenians and Russians in more details than the actual Abkhaz-Georgian relations, we can rename the article to Role of ethnic Armenians and Russians during the War of Abkhazia and the reasons why they abandoned their "intitial neutrality".--KoberTalk 04:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Might be suitable for a section in this article (with a different title of course). Pocopocopocopoco 00:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is the fact tag on Georgia denial of the shooting of the heli considered an abusive tag?[edit]

I'm all ears as to why user:Kober considers this an abusive tag. Also, he says to refer to Alaexis source. If he means The war of the Datchas what we get is

If anything, this represents an admission of involvement in the shooting. Ignoring user:Papa Carlo's recent revert, I am optimistic that we can cooperate and compromise on this article so for now I will respect Kober's wishes and leave the fact tag off on the condition that a source is provided. Pocopocopocopoco 01:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The HRW report cited by Alaexis explicitly says, that "Georgian government denied responsibility" (p. 31). Shevardnadze's request does not represent an admission. It is just your assumption. --KoberTalk 04:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The same issue has been raised at Tkvarcheli article. Alæxis¿question? 08:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Armenians 2[edit]

This is the direct quote from the International crisis group report (Abkhazia Today.).

Compare the latest version:

The ref was left intact but the text was substantially changed. This is unacceptable because 1. sourced material was deleted 2. unsourced info was added and 3. the false impression was created that the reference supports new version while in reality it supports the old one.

If you have some source backing the fact that "Significant part of ethnic Armenians and Russians living in Abkhazia largely supported the secession from Georgia" this info could also be added to the article. However it wouldn't justify the removal of other sourced information. Alæxis¿question? 17:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is simply ridiculous. Do you question the fact that "Significant part of ethnic Armenians and Russians living in Abkhazia largely supported the secession from Georgia"? Then why did they fight against Georgia? The current wording does not contradicts the sources brought by you. The fact that they remained "initially neutral" during the hostilities does not mean that they did not support the secession. We can create a separate section listing all involved sides and mention your "initial neutralities" there. We should not forget those 150 Ukrainians who fought on the Georgian side and valiantly opposed the Cossack offensive on Shroma to create a safe corridor for Georgian civilians. --KoberTalk 19:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually I do question this. This is unsourced and pretends to be sourced.
I also don't see how is ICG's wording pov. Could someone please explain this to me? Alæxis¿question? 20:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
You must be kidding. Your own sources say pretty much the same. One just needs to read them with his/her eyes open. Here's another source that ought to satisfy you: "An anti-Armenian sentiment infused Georgia in the early 1990s as Armenians in Abkhazia initially supported that region's separatism." From Javakhetia: Flashpoint or Bottleneck? Eurasia Insight, 06 December 1999 (PaC 04:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC))
'Pretty much the same' and 'the same' are different things. ;)
Your source is valid and could be used. However you should've made an inline ref if you used it to prove the statement in question. This is not a formality as it would prevent much subsequent reverting. Let's put here what available sources say about this issue: Alæxis¿question? 05:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


#1 Javakhk

  • Comment.The sentiment of Armenians in Javakheti is as irrelevant to this article as the sentiment of Armenians in Tbilisi. I seriously doubt that the Armenians in Georgia are operating as some sort of hivemind. Pocopocopocopoco 01:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

#2 Abkhazia Today.

#3 Full Report by Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch. Georgia/Abkhazia. Violations of the laws of war and Russia's role in the conflict

#4 The war of datchas

#5 Coppieters et al - Chirikba

#6 Krag & Finch

feel free to add more

I find it clear that based on the above, the initial neutrality of the minorities should be added back in. It is notable and NPOV there are two additional sources to the above that were part of the article before getting reverted. Pocopocopocopoco 01:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


So indeed sources #1 and #2 say different things about when did Armenians start to support Abkhazians. #4 supports #2 but it's not enough to establish the relative notability of these two viewpoints and thus both (or neither) of them should be presented in the article.

As one can see from almost all of these sources most of Armenians and Russians supported Abkhazians. so we should write either that 'most ... supported' or '... largely supported'. Alæxis¿question? 05:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

'largely supported' is written and further accentuated by the word "significant part". What do you want now? I see no point in going into details about ethnic minorities in the intro unless, of course, you are trying to say: "Look at these Georgians! Everybody hates them!". FYI, the first armed clash occured when the Abkhaz nationalists looted a Georgian university. Georgians were not the first to attack no matter what you are told during your holidays in Abkhazia.--KoberTalk 06:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Please stay on topic. Who attacked whom first is absolutely irrelevant to this issue.
Significant part may mean 20%, 30%, 50% or 99%. That's why I oppose it. Alæxis¿question? 06:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
And "ethnic Armenians and Russians" means 100% which is a lie.--KoberTalk 06:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't as there is 'largely' later in the sentence. Alternatively we can write 'most' in the beginning and remove 'largely'. Alæxis¿question? 06:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, none of the sources give a specific percentage. It is your POV to put it over 50% and this is what you are stubbornly trying to push for several days. Kober's version is most accurate, you've got to agree. (PaC 07:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC))
I wonder what sources are you looking at. #2 says 'largely', #5 says 'most'. #6, #4 and #1 don't even use any such words. So all the sources say either that all or most of them supported Abkhazians. Alæxis¿question? 07:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
These are all adjectives mentioned in passing. None of them really conducted a study on the actual percentage. Moreover, if you wanna be a stickler, "largely" may mean "on a large scale" which corresponds to Kober's version; #5 says "most of the minorities" which may mean "out of 5 minorities at least 3" and not more than 50% of the population; and since the others do not even mention these words -- you have no point. (PaC 07:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC))
No, they didn't conduct a poll in 1992. However no sources say the opposite (that the majority of them did not support Abkhazians). Wikipedia includes not the Truth but verifiable facts and this fact is indeed easily verifiable.
Regarding your nitpicking I'll remind you that #6, #4 and #1 say that all Armenians and Russians supported Abkhaz. After considering all sources 'most' is the most appropriate word. Alæxis¿question? 07:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Show me the word "all" in these sources, and we'll talk about it. (PaC 07:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC))
Huh, what else such sentence as During the war, not just the North Caucasus minorities, but local Russians and Armenians as well, supported the Abkhazians can imply? However, if you disagree with it let's not argue about it and write exactly the same text in the article - During the war local Russians and Armenians supported the Abkhazians. Then the reader will make his own conclusions. Alæxis¿question? 08:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
ps. Yeah, and show please the ref where the words 'significant part' is used. Alæxis¿question? 08:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I already did. Read above. (PaC)
I'm sorry but I cannot find it. Could you please write again where did you find these words? Alæxis¿question? 08:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, well... So "Americans went to the moon" in your opinion means they all went there. As I told you before, good luck with such logic. As for sticking the quote that you like - I don't think so. You lost all the arguments you put forward. What exactly do you not like in Kober's version now? (PaC 08:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC))
Am I right to conclude that there are no sources to back up that the significant part of ethnic Armenians and Russians living in Abkhazia largely supported the secession from Georgia ? If yes then why is the sourced version reverted to unsourced one?Alæxis¿question? 07:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

role of ethnic Armenians and Russians during the war[edit]

The dispute is how to accurately describe whom did ethnic Armenians and Russians support during the war and to which extent did they do it. This is the diff between the variants supported by the two sides of the dispute.

I saw the RFC. English is my first language. I have examined the diff. Here are some comments. Please let me know if I need to comment further. "Ethnic Armenians and Russians largely supported" is fine. I see no reason to change it to "Significant part of". Adding "allegedly" looks like a good move, given that government denied involvement. Changing non-military to military is not good as google tells me that the mission was to verify the ceasefire agreement. Eiler7 18:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Eiler. One thing if you don't mind clarifying, the source provided for the "allegedly" paragraph says that Georgia denied involvement in the downing of the helicopter however very few believed Georgia's denial. In my view, this should mean that the "allegedly" should not be added. The full quote (emphasis mine) "A political watershed was reached when on December 14 a Russian army helicopter, reportedly evacuating Abkhaz civilians from the besieged mountain town of Tkvarcheli to Gudauta, was shot down. Reports of the dead ranged from fifty-two to sixty-four, including twenty-five children.99 Although the Georgian government denied responsibility, few believed it, especially in Russia." From this source page 31. Your thoughts? Pocopocopocopoco 02:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I have read the page. I note that the page itself does not take a position on who was responsible for downing the helicopter. It does say "few believed it" but that appears to merely be a comment on the views of the general public. That being the case, if the source does not take a position, then neither should the wikipedia article reliant on that source. It would be permissible to have "few believed it" in the article as that merely reflects the contents of the source. Eiler7 23:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Eiler! Thanks for your comments. I agree with you that if the HRW report was the only source confirming this incident we should've written something like 'allegedly' in the article. However there is a couple of other sources (see above) that appear to not have any doubts about who did it. Here they are:

The Georgians were not only publishing threats, but firing back: on 14 December 1992 they shot down a Russian Army Mi-8 helicopter by SA-14 MANPADs. The downed helicopter was - in the view of such a danger - escorted by two Su-25s and another Mi-8, but these did not prevent it from being shot down, with the loss of three crew-members and 58 passengers, mainly Russian refugees.

Indeed, it was the downing by Georgian forces in December 1992 of a Russian Mi-8 helicopter evacuating women and children from that city that raised the level of general malevolence in the war and catalyzed more concerted Russian military intervention on the Abkhaz side. Alæxis

NB. The second article was also published in the Oxford-based Refugee Survey Quarterly journal.
Considering all these sources I think that 'allegedly' is redundant and misleading here. Alæxis¿question? 07:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
After reading the above, I think that the downing can be said to have been done by Georgian forces. I now support a version without "allegedly". Eiler7 18:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


In 1992, Abkhazia was de facto and de jure under Georgian control. So what's the problem with calling it an AR? --KoberTalk 06:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well from the Abkhazia article specifically here
So what we have is one point of view that Abkhazia's independence has been abolished, another point of view that Abkhazia is de facto independent due to the declaration of independence and that the Georgian resubjucation was really just a very temporary situation, and a third point of view that you and Iberieli have that Abkhazia is de facto and de jure part of Georgia. Given the three POV's its safer just to call it Abkhazia as in the region rather than pick the POV that it's an autonomy. Pocopocopocopoco 20:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Declaration of independence does not make it de facto independent. Any piece of land can declare independence, but it cannot really claim it until at least having won a de facto control over its territory/being occupied by the "third party".--KoberTalk 05:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't make it de-facto independent but that is one of the POV's that is just as reasonable as calling it an autonomy. Also, what about my first point that there is also a POV that Abkhaz autonomy was taken away? Pocopocopocopoco 23:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
What? You're welcome to check the Abkhazia clause in any of Georgia's constitutions from 1921 to 1995.--KoberTalk 05:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
We're talking about 1992-1993 here and you can't use the Soviet Georgia constitution to prove your point. There is also a clause in the Soviet constitutions that allows autonomous regions to separate called the 'Law of the USSR Concerning the Procedure of Secession of a Soviet Republic from the USSR,' this law provides for secession of a Soviet republic from the body of the USSR and also allows an autonomous region and compactly settled minority regions in the same republic's territory also to trigger its own process of independence. Like I said, it's safest just to call the region Abkhazia and not provide any POV in terms of whether this region was an autonomy or independent or simply a province of Georgia. Pocopocopocopoco 01:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Pocopo, Georgia's 1921 constitution was not Soviet. It was adopted by the democratically elected National Parliament of Georgia four days before before Tbilisi was reconquered by the Russians.--KoberTalk 05:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I can't seem to locate an english version of that constitution however the 1995 constitution is supposed to be based on the 1921 constitution and it doesn't make any mention of autonomy for Abkhazia, it just makes one reference to the Abkhazian ASSR. Pocopocopocopoco 03:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where your information come from, but the 1995 const. is not based on the pre-Soviet one, and it cannot make a reference to the ASSR because Georgia itself was no more SSR. In 1995, Abkhazia had already been lost and official Tbilisi's position was that the region's future status should be determined through negotiations which were then underway.--KoberTalk 05:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I got it from the preamble of the 1995 constitution. In terms of the 1921 constitution, are you arguing that if many Abkhaz believed that when Georgia restored the 1921 constitution that represented the end of their autonomy then those Abkhaz didn't know that Abkhaz autonomy was in the 1921 constitution? I find it hard to believe that the 1921 constitution had Abkhaz autonomy as the Georgia faced bolshevik threats in Abkhazia. Pocopocopocopoco 04:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
"I find it hard to believe" is not an argument. I'm not going to deliver a lecture on the history of Abkhazia. I'd suggest you do some research on the status of Abkhazia in 1921 as I've got very limited time right now and find this discussion absolutely unhelpful.--KoberTalk 05:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Then might I suggest that you provide sources (in english) to back up your claims that way you wont hear these types of arguments. Or even better, you could agree to just calling it Abkhazia rather than making any assertions that it's an autonomy or not. Calling it Abkhazia is still the most neutral. Pocopocopocopoco 04:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Poco, I asked you to do some research on the issue because I'm extremely busy in my real life. You can definitely find something on I remember there was a publication authored by Svante Cornell of Upsala University which mentions the 1921 clause on Abkhazia. Overall, I do not really see the point of your nitpicking. --KoberTalk 06:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing in the Results field of the infobox[edit]

This is a War article and the results field in the war infobox is used for describing who won and also what treaties came after the war. It's not used for describing things like ethnic cleansing. I have looked at many examples of war articles throughout wikipedia. For example World War 1, World War 2, Operation Storm, 1948 Arab Israeli War. Things like ethnic cleansing should be described in the body of the article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Completely disagree. Ethnic cleansing of Georgians from Abkhazia is definitely one of the main results of this war. Don't see the reason why it shouldn't be listed. See for example American Civil War, that lists "slavery abolished" as one of the results. (PaC (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
Sure. I don't think that without evicting the Georgian population, the secessionist regime would have retained what our Russian colleagues lovely describe as "de facto, but internationally unrecognized independence." --KoberTalk 05:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Bias to the Georgian cause?[edit]

I would say, the whole article shows a bias to the Geogian cause complete with lengthy translations of radio speeches of Shevardnadze etc. (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC) , Amadeus

Whitewashing the Russians[edit]

To Pocopoco:

Here's just one small passage fron the HRW report: "Yet the sudden presence of armor, tanks, and heavy artillery among the previously lightly armed Abkhaz in the fighting between October and December 1992 realistically leaves little room for any conclusion except that some parties, within the Russian forces, decided to supply the Abkhaz. The equipment had to come from somewhere, and given that the Georgians did not supply it, the likely source was Russia." (p. 32) There are dozens of similar indications in that report and the RUssian involvement in the war is well-referenced using several academic sources in the Russian role in the conflict section. No need to repeat them thousand times.--KoberTalk 18:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"The equipment had to come from somewhere" - that's great! Maybe, aliens? Well, if you take a look at the concept of war, you'll see, that oftentimes weapons come from the enemies, being captured. And - boy! - did the Georgian flee and drom their weapons.

HRW saying that "some parties within the Russian forces decided to supply the Abkhaz" is not justification enough to put "Russian-back" across every article that has anything to do with Abkhazia. I can pull out sources that say that the supply of Russian equipment had more to do with the lawlessness in Russia at the time rather than any sort of high level plan in Russia to take the side of the Abkhaz. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Poco, do no remove well documented information. Russia's involvement in Abkhazian conflict is almost as indisputable as Germany's involvement in WWII. (PaC (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Or British in the division of the Czech Republic in the same period, or US demolition of Dresden. Why not use proper comparisons?


Abkhaz side[edit]

Currently the following Abkhaz and confederate leaders are listed:

  • Vladimir Arshba - Abkhaz minister of defence
  • Anri Djergenia
  • Musa Shanibov - leader of CMPC
  • Sultan Sosnaliyev - head of the CMPC military arm; later Abkhazian minister of defence
  • Shamil Basayev - one of the leaders of CMPC formations, infamous for his later deeds

I've removed Yusup Soslanbekov, speaker of CMPC parliament, and Beslan Bargandjia, Ardzinba's aide. If anyone objects to it or thinks that somebody is unjustly absent from the list, please write about it here. Alæxis¿question? 18:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Anri Djergenia seems not to have played a major role in the war also so probably he should be removed from this list. Alæxis¿question? 18:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Georgian side[edit]

Here the list looks like this now:

  • Geno Adamia - one of the commanders of Georgian forces in Sukhumi
  • Guram Gubelashvili
  • Giorgi Kharkharashvili - Georgian commander in Gagra known for a certain TV speech; later minister of defence
  • Davit Tevzadze
  • Soso Akhalaia

I don't know who were the other three so I'm not sure whether this list is adequate or not. Maybe the leaders of the belligerent countries - Vladislav Ardzinba and Eduard Shevardnadze should also be added to the infobox. Alæxis¿question? 18:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

More accurate casualty figures[edit]

Considering that these days fantasy casualties are used as means of propaganda, I dug into some archives to see what the actual casualty figures are. Let me quote Human Rights Watch:

According to the Georgian government's Committee on Human Rights and Interethnic Relations, 4,000 individuals from the Georgian side, both civilians and combatants, were killed, 10,000 were wounded, and 1,000 are missing. Human Rights Watch interview with Committee chairman Aleksandre Kavsadze, Tbilisi, January 2, 1995. The Abkhazian Committee for Human Rights gives the following casualty figures for the "duration of the war," which they set as August 14, 1992 through September 30, 1993: 4,040 killed (2,220 combatants, 1,820 civilians); approximately 8,000 wounded; 122 missing in action. Grey Fox (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Arzimba speech.jpg[edit]

The image File:Arzimba speech.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

== Russian fleet mentioned: Quote the text: "The military vessels: ... "Aviation 529" ("SU-25", "SU-27")" - can anybody explain what kind of gibberish this is? What sort of vessel is this "Aviation" thing? When and HOW ON EARTH was it equipped with attack and fighter planes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Summarily removed, per WP:NOT. We should be very careful about those that might possibily be allowed in. I suggest only sources such as governments or well known NGOs. And only if they have a page directly related to this war that is worthwhile and expands on what is already in the article. --Xeeron (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I do agree. But it won't be so easy to explain this to some prone-to-trolling users.--KoberTalk 16:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we should retain the first (it's a rather well known work about the subject), second and third (as opposing sides' perspectives) links. Alæxis¿question? 19:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This can maybe stay, if CR is reputable enough. I notice that it does not have a wiki page yet (I'll create a stub now).
This is the English language wiki, so why link to a non-English site. I don't see any of those two being indispensible.
Lots of info, but the looks are not professional. Should only be kepts if Andrew Andersen is some expert on the topic.
We don't need that. Whoever wants pictures can use google.
Again, lots of info, but is ACIG a reputable group? Their blinking banner reminds me of myspace.
I guess a chronology is somewhat useful and not in the article. Seems to be scientific, so I'd let that one stay.
We don't need that either. Some reconciliation group that is not important for the war itself.
The article has a section concerning war in Abkhazia. Apswaaa (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
But we are not a link repository. Simply having a section on the war does not warrant a website for being linked here. --Xeeron (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

So in total, I would keep at most 4 of those links, and 2 of those only if there is some verification that the page is reputable enough. --Xeeron (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that this chronology is not really needed as well, as whatever useful there is there it could be incorporated in the article.
Regarding the second and third links, let's hear the opinions and arguments of others. I find them (links) useful but not indispensable. Alæxis¿question? 16:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


In the following sources pages are not indicated:

Червонная С.М. Абхазия - 1992: посткоммунистическая Вандея. Москва, 1993

Chervonnaia, Svetlana Mikhailovna. Conflict in the Caucasus: Georgia, Abkhazia and the Russian Shadow. Gothic Image Publications, 1994

White Book of Abkhazia. 1992-1993 Documents, Materials, Evidences. Moscow, 1993.

Dmitry Kholodov, Moscow journalist covering the Conflict, September 1993, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Moscow. Apswaaa (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The number of volunteers[edit]

The number of volunteers is exaggerated in the article. According to V. Khatazhukov, simultaneously there were no more than 400 volunteers in Abkhazia during the war. Apswaaa (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And why should we take the certain Khatazhukov for a neutral or credible source?--KoberTalk 06:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Current 'thousands' are unsourced, so we should either find a good source for that or drop the numeral. Khatazhukov's number could also be included with proper attribution. Alæxis¿question? 09:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

SC resolutions[edit]

Can anyone provide links to the resolutions in which the UN Security Council condemned the Abkhazian policy of ethnic cleansing. Apswaaa (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That statement is sourced. Did you check out the source given? --Xeeron (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I did. The book was published in 1998. I found only one resolution which mentions “ethnic cleansing”, but there is no condemnation of the Abkhazian policy of ethnic cleansing there. UN SC resolutions. Apswaaa (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Russian Involvement[edit]

The involvment of Russian Specnaz in the fightings around Sokhumi during the massive amphibious landing, is a fact. The involvement of Russian instructors into direct engagements assisting Abkhazian forces, is disputet. Georgian Forces deployed in Abkhazia controlling the entire road from Ochamchire to Sokhumi, were heavily engaged and almost completly destroyed by Russian Special Forces, advancing from the landing zone, to the city and further to the south, slowly step by step taking control over the entire lenght. The Russian amphibious operation was a total sucess and the Georgian lines were pushed back due to massive attacks, assisted by weapons of the landing crafts and escort vessels. Then they were forced out of Sokhumi after the Abkhaz forces suffered heavy casaulties during their large scale counter attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMightyGeneral (talkcontribs) 16:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And what are your sources? If you read the references in the Russian role section you will see that the there were many different things Russia did before and during this war (giving arms to Georgia, selling/giving arms to Abkhaz, use of aircraft in support of Abkhaz, logistics support of Abkhaz forces, turning blind eye on CMPC volunteers, evacuating civilians (mostly Russian and Abkhaz) from Tkvarcheli, evacuating Georgian civilians from Gagra and Sukhumi). Therefore I believe that the former variant is better, although not ideal. Alæxis¿question? 19:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"the Russian Federation forces stationed in and near Abkhazia." Oh god! That's nonsense! Russian forces on Abkhazias side? Where's proof? From more than 4000 combatants dead from Abkhazia's side, more then 3500 were ethic abkhazians others were circassians, kabardinians, chechen, cossacs and others. The article must be checked well! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


I'm trying to find a book on this war that provides an adequate analysis of the fighting. Does anyone have any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Avtobus gagra.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Avtobus gagra.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ RFE/RL News Briefs, December 10-23, 1992, p. 10; Moscow Radio Rossii, December 15, 1992, cited in FBIS-SOV-92-242, December 16, 1992, pp. 55-56
  3. ^