Foreign agents and protests in Georgia are a keyhole through which you can look at complex processes

23
Foreign agents and protests in Georgia are a keyhole through which you can look at complex processes

In March 2024, the so-called “Law on Foreign Agents” (“Law on Transparency of External Influence”). It provides for registration in a special register of legal entities and individuals whose share of foreign funding exceeds the 20% mark.

The bill launched a wave of mass protests, in which a significant part was taken up by the youth of the capital of Georgia, Tbilisi. The scale of the protests, as well as the specifics of the controlled information campaign around them in the Western media, show that in Georgia there is indeed an attempt to influence the authorities through one of the Maidan scenarios.



Moscow officially prefers not to speak out on this topic, observing the situation. At the same time, the protests themselves are going on under slogans like “let’s rid Georgia of the influence of the pro-Russian oligarch who has usurped democracy.”

Since the “usurper” is pro-Russian, and we are talking about the main Georgian oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili, it would be logical if Russia supported him with all its might, but Moscow decided to be patient. And there really are reasons for this, because here, as the popular expression goes, “everything is not so simple.”

The leaders of the protests are both representatives of NGOs associated with Western liberal funding and supporters of Mikheil Saakashvili. They can be understood, since in Georgia Western funding for NGOs usually approaches 100%. Otherwise, you need to go to the cashier to get funds from B. Ivanishvili.

The irony is that it was the main Georgian oligarch who at one time directly financed officials and government institutions, and after M. Saakashvili came to power, he poured funds into the Soros Foundation. He also in 2018 contributed to the fact that the presidential post in 2018 was taken by S. Zurabishvili, who today says that she will veto the law on foreign agents and generally become an antagonist of B. Ivanishvili. M. Saakashvili himself is now speaking from the prison hospital as a “prisoner of conscience.”

B. Ivanishvili can be called a “pro-Russian oligarch” as much as any other oligarch who has made a fortune in the post-Soviet space is pro-Russian. In this case, both Moldovan V. Plahotniuc and former Ukrainian President P. Poroshenko can be called pro-Russian. How pro-Russian the domestic oligarchs themselves are, the reader will answer for himself.

The roots of this whole situation are actually not so much in the area of ​​capital formation as in its use, capital. And here you can very well see how politics often goes hand in hand, and often contradicts the rational use of funds, as well as the peculiarities of the political design of transnational financial groups.

When M. Saakashvili was Gauleiter of the Odessa region, many attempts were made to trace the sources of financing of the “State Co-Investment Fund”, which was founded by B. Ivanishvili in 2013. Through this fund, the main public-private projects, startups, by the way, and charitable initiatives are implemented.

After M. Saakashvili was removed from power in 2012, B. Ivanishvili, taking into account the fact that his political force took power, required a financial instrument similar to private equity funds. However, both before the formation of the State Fiscal Service and after, even M. Saakashvili’s American curators were unable to dig up the mycelium of offshore companies that operated within the framework of capital associated with B. Ivanishvili. Although they tried.

But why did M. Saakashvili’s American curators need to dig into the assets and political power of B. Ivanishvili (“Georgian Dream”), if both he and his political force did not act from pro-Russian positions?

There was pragmatism in politics, but the United States itself, when necessary, does not shy away from the expression “this is just a business approach.” Moreover, if you turn to stories question, we can recall that the United States did not directly support M. Saakashvili’s adventure in South Ossetia in 2008, but rather distanced itself from it.

After his defeat in 2012, M. Saakashvili haunted Washington for quite a long time, until in May 2015 he was appointed to the post of governor of the Odessa region, and in fact, “overseeing” the traffic of the ports of the Odessa region.

We can say that, they say, in 2008 the Republicans were still in power in the United States, and in 2015 there was already a Democratic administration. However, it was under B. Obama that M. Saakashvili had very cool relations with Washington. So cool that they surprised Georgian politicians.

M. Saakashvili determined his final place in politics for himself, since in his “work book” it was written in black and white “adventurer, level 80.” His supervision of Odessa was the technical ceiling that was, in principle, possible, although he often behaved as if tomorrow he could become the president of Ukraine. That is why, in his final adventure of returning to Georgia, Washington again did not support him, in fact playing more on the side of B. Ivanishvili, and the EU offered integration.

Of course, it is possible to connect the protests with the position of official Tbilisi on the Northern Military District, where everyone over the past two years has tried to distance themselves from the conflict in Ukraine.

But Tbilisi under B. Ivanishvili has been doing this since 2014; it’s just that the activity of the Ukrainian special services, which are trying to use the territory of Georgia for their tasks, does not fit into the economic model that B. Ivanishvili is building (remember the Crimean Bridge in 2022).

This model is clear. Taking into account resources and climate, B. Ivanishvili, through the State Fiscal Service, is building a resort and tourism cluster and at the same time trying to integrate Georgia into raw materials transit projects. No matter how much criticism these huge construction projects (and unfinished projects) cause, in terms of goal setting they have logic.

In general, there are many states that maintain a distance from Ukraine, but not all of them are put under pressure by the American administration (see the example of Pakistan). And you can always explain that the use of Georgian ports for the purposes of organizations like the State Administration of Ukraine of Ukraine is not an investment climate, but a disgrace. That is, the point is not in Tbilisi’s position on Ukraine.

Now let's turn again to finances. Who pulled M. Saakashvili back in 2008? French President N. Sarkozy, who, by the way, was one of the initiators of pacification, including hotheads in Europe. What country was the current Mrs. President of Georgia S. Zurabishvili directly associated with? France. And this was very convenient, since S. Zurabishvili was at the same time a Georgian diplomat, part of the French state machine and at the same time a very diligent Atlanticist. An exceptional combination for B. Ivanishvili, taking into account the fact that after the 2018 reforms, presidential powers were significantly curtailed.

Here we can also remember which countries B. Ivanishvili and his family refused passports from: Russian and French.

After the United States in 2021 (let’s note this) decided to change its policy towards B. Ivanishvili’s political forces and launched a search for sources of funding, they did not achieve any special results. “Certain forces” within the EU itself constantly slowed down this process. But if it so desires, the United States has the ability to open up, if not all of the “offshore mycelium,” then a significant part of it, and periodically does so. But bad luck, the result turns out to be “not very good.”

Maybe some pro-Russian forces are helping the Georgians in Europe? But in this case, they, these forces, are quite selective, since they rarely give such gifts to the Russian oligarchy itself.

By the way, when did B. Ivanishvili start with the Credit Suisse bank, and even such that in the court proceedings the oligarch called the financial organization a “gangster bank”?

In 2008–2015 B. Ivanishvili concentrated significant financial reserves within the Credit Suisse trust fund system, after which it turned out that the trust funds began to behave in an unscrupulous manner.

The Georgian oligarch was sued in Singapore and several other jurisdictions, and even for representatives of the law firm MKD Law, everything looked rather strange. There were no formal grounds for blocking transactions, but they were carried out in court, which, after various debates, the oligarch always won, quite adequately, even faster than usual.

B. Ivanishvili was not the only one who became part of a certain financial game to slowly drown one of the oldest banks in Europe. It should be noted that in 2018, one of the old partners of Rothschild & Co, K. Despres, came to the position of head of the division for Europe, Africa and the Middle East. How much he helped the bank can be seen from later results.

Coincidence or not, but at the end of 2021, an eminent financial group represented by Managing Director Mrs. Ariel de Rothschild offers Tbilisi a “financial hub” project, which was enshrined in contractual form.

And then something starts to go wrong with democracy for the United States and Georgia; in 2023, there was even less democracy, and in March 2024, according to the United States, it completely disappeared in Georgia.

Negotiations between Tbilisi and financiers continue in 2022, and in July 2023, Ms. Rothschild noted the “exceptionally favorable investment environment” that has developed in Georgia. And this environment does not fit in with the fact that Kyiv wants to connect Tbilisi to its schemes.

At the same time, in March 2023, Credit Suisse, which fell completely and irrevocably, came into the possession of the UBS group affiliated with the family. Although it would be more correct to say that this family is affiliated with UBS.

In general, if you follow the operations of Credit Suisse from 2017 to 2022, you get a strong feeling that the group was drowned not from the outside, but from the inside, the company’s strategy was so abnormal. A list of abnormalities would take the place of full-length material, which suggests that the drowning of the group was a long game.

And for the fact that they had to take part in this, albeit not by special desire, with their capital, Georgia is offered a completely realistic strategic bonus in the form of a financial hub and investment zone, i.e. exactly what was included in the original strategy B. Ivanishvili.

However, is it only the Georgian investment zone that worries the shareholders of Rothschild & Co, as well as UBS and BlackRock? After all, this is the time to remember that large investment packages were offered to Turkey in 2023, it is clear that they are much larger than Tbilisi, but the scale of Turkey’s influence is different.

It would be useful to remember what a fuss E. Macron made after the death of J. Rothschild, when, almost under Napoleonic banners, he was going to lead the forces of a united Europe to defend... the Odessa ports.

The Rothschild group is not monolithic. One of its branches today covers Mongolia, Australia, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, the other – the Middle East, Turkey and Tbilisi. Can they, as the departed J. Rothschild wanted, combine assets and strategies?

Opinions here are different, but one cannot help but notice that they have something in common in politics. The world objectively diverges into value clusters, not markets, not currency zones, but spheres of value formation. In some places the common space is broken loudly and with consequences, in others the divorce is formalized softly.

And so part of the financial circles, with the participation of famous families, quite reasonably decides that if the economy is dispersed across different continents, then one of the best strategies would be to create an analogue of the East India Campaign, which would transport tea and spices between economic continents, or rather, finance (better in gold terms) and raw materials.

This is where this unique policy arises, which we often call “British”, although it is, rather, already French - to create a huge trade and financial circuit through Eurasia, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Only one family branch here is responsible for raw materials and food, and the second - for investments. Can they eventually come together and merge? Rather yes than no.

But the current US administration and Brussels elites do not yet need such a “financial hub” in Georgia as part of such a circuit. If only for the reason that it is not controllable in the usual sense. Similarly, Odessa is part of a separate strategy, where not controlled political, but purely private financial interests prevail.

But the Rothschilds, although they are not alone there, at that time, 2008–2014, had not yet developed such strategies. Judging by a number of interviews, they began to think about this later, in 2017–2018. How, by the way, to actively drown the Swiss banking structure, which also turned out to be generous with offshore activities. All these combinations are in the process of formation, and therefore Brussels and the United States themselves do not yet quite understand how to react to this.

Let’s assume that N. Pashinyan is knocked out on the current wave in Armenia, but it turns out that he was removed not in British, American or Russian interests, but in the interests of such a third force. How to react is another question.

For Georgia, such a strategy as a whole seems beneficial, since its real resources are the transit of raw materials and resorts, on the basis of which it is possible to build various technology parks and other innovative districts.

If all this is supported by something called a financial hub, then for today’s Tbilisi this is not so bad. But for US tasks related to Ukraine, the division of Europe, etc., this is generally unnecessary and Tbilisi’s exit from the “controllability zone.” But what to do, put sanctions on Tbilisi, and what will be the result? There will be no financial hub? Therefore, the protests are not yet in full force. The United States is trying to figure out how to bring Georgia into the controlled zone, but at the same time take into account the financial interests of transnationals.

This explains the strange divide when B. Ivanishvili, who although pragmatically did not try to conflict with Russia, but little by little supported American NGOs, even Soros structures, is now forced to fight against them. And the fight is pretty tough.

To the point that he refused to meet with the Americans against the backdrop of the sanctions he was promised. But he relies on someone? Yes, to financiers and France. And we will see how harshly official Brussels will criticize Georgia and how softly E. Macron will act against this background in the style of “scolding and patting it on the head.” For many, the activation of France seemed surprising, but it is not France that has become active, but the financiers standing behind who are making their New Silk Road.

Is it logical that Moscow for now prefers not to get involved in these Georgian affairs? Considering the above, this is more than logical.

But the question remains of how to generally respond to such a strategy of the financial bloc, where France acts simply as an “agis”, a flag, and also directly as arms and legs. After all, financiers have quite a good foothold in Eurasia: Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, they can take over Armenia from the Soros, closing the loop. You can then sell such a circuit to both China and the EU, earning money between them. And it is not for nothing that China is engaged in active discussions with the French. By the way, they will also sell this to us if we don’t come up with something wise and cunning.
23 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    15 May 2024 06: 31
    I won’t go into personalities. I know for sure that the real patriots of Georgia, and they are not the majority, see that Georgia has turned onto the wrong path where it should have gone. This does not mean that they now intend to follow in the footsteps of Russia. They just see that that Georgia is losing itself. That those who did not leave the country are left out of work. And this is a vast layer of people. After all, optimization knows no boundaries. Perhaps people received something from abroad to work in their areas. But they lost the support of the state. And this breaks everything in any state.
    1. +10
      15 May 2024 06: 38
      If you look at it, then, in principle, a “resort-innovation cluster”, with technology parks and water parks, is approximately what Georgia needs. The service sector, tourism, wine, juices and waters and IT specialists on scooters on the embankments. And for more - a railway road to the Caspian Sea, a trading port and a couple of pipe lines. There is no point in fighting for an alliance and friendship with Russia, and there is no point in spoiling relations with Russia. NATO bases here are completely unnecessary in this situation. Well, if you look at this region without emotions and reflections.
      1. 0
        15 May 2024 09: 10
        Quote: nikolaevskiy78
        this is if without emotions and reflections

        alas, without emotions and reflections, “not only everyone can”...
        but to understand and (!) accept that not only “the West” is not monolithic, but “different branches of dynastic business” can compete in some places and come to an agreement in others - catastrophically complicates the picture of the world for just over 100% of people, causing almost physical discomfort and the desire to yell “yes, you don’t understand, my neighbor is Georgian-said yesterday”, etc. )) ICHSH, the same screaming “simplifier of the world order” will claim that he is “for a multipolar world, crap! " ))
    2. 0
      15 May 2024 20: 08
      But they lost government support. And this breaks everything in any state.
      not in any, for example, in the USA, state support for the population is extremely insignificant, for example, only about 32% of the population receives the Medicaid program, in Social Security you must first pay taxes, etc., in the state. schools and universities also pay tuition... all peoples/societies on the planet are divided into eastern/collectivist and western/individualist with varying degrees of individualism/collectivism... now eastern societies, where the state is extremely strong. guardianship, they are trying to adopt the Western way of life, where this guardianship is minimal, and they are paying for this, for example, Georgia, which suddenly decided that it is part of European civilization
  2. +3
    15 May 2024 06: 54
    The protests in Georgia have one prerequisite. In the USSR, Georgians fattened themselves, but now they do it themselves...
    And Western aid is like this... entry is a ruble, exit is two!
    1. +4
      15 May 2024 06: 57
      Judging by your table, in 1985 Latvia spent the most time in sweat and labor. I won’t dispute the numbers, I’ll just make a remark
      1. +5
        15 May 2024 07: 24
        In principle, it is not surprising, because a lot of mechanical engineering enterprises were concentrated in Latvia, mainly precision - instrument making, which was expensive, for example, in comparison with cotton/milk... Considering the small population of the Latvian SSR, the figures may well be close to the real ones.
      2. +2
        15 May 2024 13: 50
        Judging by your table, in 1985 Latvia spent the most time in sweat and labor. I won’t dispute the numbers, I’ll just make a remark

        And so it was. Riga Radiotekhnika alone produced 35% of the USSR's audio equipment. We had a special regard for Latvians; Pelshe served as Chairman of Party Control until his death in 1983.
        But they still received more than they produced.
        Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, oddly enough. These ones pulled.
  3. +2
    15 May 2024 06: 57
    Unexpectedly.... Thank you. It was interesting to see the other side. Let's wait and watch...
  4. 0
    15 May 2024 07: 56
    It’s clear that they will oppose it, many live on handouts and grants from overseas
  5. -1
    15 May 2024 09: 06
    By the way, they will also sell this to us if we don’t come up with something wise and cunning

    Do we need to “invent” in this situation?
    Maybe it’s good if they sell to us and we buy? Well, yes, it will cost more, but it will be “built turnkey”? )
    1. +1
      15 May 2024 13: 10
      It is possible that this is exactly what will happen in the end.
  6. 0
    15 May 2024 09: 45
    Behind the protests in Armenia are the church - the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church, which has existed in Armenia since apostolic times, when the 70 Apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew brought Christianity to Armenia, which in 301 through the works of St. Gregory the Illuminator was completely baptized.

    This church, which is the guardian of the Armenian people, is taking the situation into its own hands, because there are no other forces in Armenia to resist the agents of the British and Turkish secret services in the person of Pashinyan and others. Pashinyan is leading Armenia to a new genocide and a new war, so this cannot suit the church.
    1. +3
      15 May 2024 10: 59
      How do you see Armenia without Pashinyan? A new war with Azerbaijan and sending Russian troops there? Personally, I don’t even (beep-beep) need this Armenia
      1. 0
        16 May 2024 12: 03
        How do you see Armenia without Pashinyan? A new war with Azerbaijan and sending Russian troops there? Personally, I don’t even (beep-beep) need this Armenia


        There will be war in any case - Baku calls the territory of Armenia “Western Azerbaijan”. The question is under what conditions, including territorial conditions. With or without a state traitor - an agent of the Turkish and British intelligence services - Pashinyan.
    2. 0
      15 May 2024 13: 10
      She can and does take it in her hands, but in whose hands the results will end up will still have to be seen. This has happened more than once or twice in history.
      1. +1
        16 May 2024 00: 17
        Now the real disaster is the layer of ordinary people who have already learned to speak and hold a stick and a stone in their hands, but have not yet grown to understand that their tiny countries are not and cannot be completely sovereign. It seems to these people that by surrendering wholeheartedly to globalists or merging in a single democratic ecstasy, they will receive abundance or freedoms harmoniously combined with canonicity and preservation of identity - they do not understand (or do not want to understand) that democracy has a very distant relationship with economic prosperity (example The PRC is the same), and the globalists will completely erase their identity into dust.

        Instead of forming adequate public demands to the authorities and, through it, increasing mutual benefit from current ties, the “crowd” craves movement and cannot get enough of it.
        In principle, the entire USSR space shows a simply fantastic development of mercantilism in its healthy forms as a political driving force.
        1. +2
          16 May 2024 00: 40
          You know, to a certain extent I understand Ivanishvili’s logic. Well, here you have Georgia, what resources and potential do you have? Sun, air and sea, juices, waters, wine, dominoes and fruits, kitchen. Port of Poti and the possibility of transit through a couple of passes. What's around?
          Russia, which itself cannot formulate what it wants, Turkey, which is in approximately the same position, plus Adjara for them are “Ottoman lands”. Europe with its homozygoticus, giraffes Marius and euthanasia. Liberal, limited leadership in countries like the Baltic states is not considered adequate, but the results of “European integration” are obvious there. There is the United States with its own political interests, which are realized at local expense. So what is the policy?

          As an adequate businessman, Ivanishvili went to understandable financiers from transnational and family funds. Build a tourism and technology cluster. Well, three things need to be done: the climate agenda and multiculturalism, but everything else is purely business. Moreover, it is adequately tailored to resources and potential. He is trying to hide behind this financial transnational screen, since today it remains the last island of adequacy and a sea of ​​ideological inadequacy of politicians. Of course, this Rothschild story with the East India Company is closer to him. But the trans genders of the EU will not let him go so easily))) This is generally a very interesting case. Ivanishvili will break under the wing of the financiers, the European homozygous ones will let him go, and the United States will loosen its grip a little. But if not, then this is an interesting question.
          1. 0
            16 May 2024 02: 05
            You can't get far on tourism alone, it's like food and seasoning. Of course, there are countries that have a large percentage of their budget from tourism, but I would not say that they look progressive.

            There must be some kind of content besides tourism and food production, from the point of view of diversification, from the point of view of ensuring that the population understands that they do not live in an agro-reserve without a future, but within a certain civilizational model.
            Considering the small scale of Georgia itself, such an opportunity will only exist in the case of industrial cooperation with neighboring states. Not some kind of “screwdriver assembly”, but industrial cooperation.

            And yes, you are right - on the one hand, we cannot formulate for them what we want. On the other hand, of course, there is also no understanding of what they themselves want. There is no Georgia inside a major global project - there is no its culture, identity, values. No one will be interested in what they are doing - such countries with mountains, air, vines and color are stupid from the point of view of any globalist. For the USSR people this is Georgia and “this and that”. But for foreign countries, it’s just some country in the F world with the name of an American state and endless seething masses.
            Perhaps we should ask ourselves the question - what would we actually want from post-Soviet leaders? republics? For architecture, for large projects. We need an image of the future, at least an outline of a road map. Perhaps this would be interesting to them, in turn.
            Although not a fact. It is also not a fact that Georgia or Armenia specifically will be of interest to us - if we consider them from the point of view of market capacity and not through the prism of “geopolitics for the sake of geopolitics” as we love to do, then it may turn out that poker is not worth the candle, or that this is a secondary or tertiary direction importance
  7. +7
    15 May 2024 10: 52
    The EU is interested in money, the USA is interested in architecture) The difference in the range of goal setting, so to speak..
    I think that Georgia is not particularly interesting for us at the moment, but we should, if possible, maintain good relations with them. Georgia has not shown itself to be a stable partner and, in a practical sense, it needs to be treated in exactly this way - as an unstable, unreliable partner. This means that the advantage should be given to those projects that, if necessary, we can quickly and relatively painlessly curtail, and those assets that we can remove. In principle, for states like Georgia, we should work on the principle of accumulating prehistory. Good backstory? More options. Bad backstory? Fewer options, more binding terms.

    Now it is simply advisable for us to keep a benevolent face with them, which, apparently, is what we are trying to do.
  8. +2
    15 May 2024 12: 54
    Quite an interesting and high-quality article.
  9. 0
    Today, 01: 34
    After all, financiers have quite a good foothold in Eurasia: Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, they can take over Armenia from the Soros, closing the loop. You can then sell such a circuit to both China and the EU, earning money between them.

    How can they close it, without Azerbaijan? In general, an interesting analysis, thank you. The latest events with New Caledonia and the Baku Group in the light of this analysis no longer look unexpected. It all comes down to Turkey, which will demand its share from the sale of the said circuit. Apparently we haven't reached an agreement yet.
    1. 0
      Today, 01: 46
      And pay attention to how Baku is being pressed and pressed from the French side. At the same time, they are building a separate port for Uzbekistan in the port of Baku, plus they are included in the Turkmenistan-Iran (swap), Iran-Azerbaijan-Georgia-Turkey gas supply scheme. And then there was a bang and protests in Georgia. The United States is asking Georgia, where is our share? And France, or rather those who stand behind the Elysee Palace, are demanding something from Baku. I suspect that after some time we will find out the price tags of the parties. Well, Aliyev’s answer regarding Caledonia is basically trolling level 80. But apparently everything depends on the price tags of the parties.