All my investigations are free to read, thanks to the generosity of my readers. Independent journalism nonetheless requires investment, so if you value this article or any others, please consider sharing, or even becoming a paid subscriber. Your support is always gratefully received, and will never be forgotten. To buy me a coffee or two, please
I like how this article has completely omitted the role of Bidzina Ivanishvili in modern Georgian politics, but took their time to mention George Soros…
I guess the left are supposed to be fans of Bidzina Ivanishvili now? Let’s all forget that he was one of the main architects Yeltsin used within the Semibankirschina to dismantle the Soviet Union.
Apparently it’s great news that the left is now aligned with a billionaire who made his money parting out a communist government.
Makes sooo much sense…
What part of this article or the post shows support for Georgian Dream specifically? Do you think we support Putin’s party or Iran’s current government in the same way? Not trying to come off as smug
I mean, we do support them, but critically, not blindly like the word “fans” or “aligned” may suggest. I don’t get what’s the difference in this situation wrt Georgia. If you think this isn’t worth critical support you should just say that instead and explain materially why.
critical support for Georgia in their struggle against western imperialism.
This is faulty logic. Omission of something is not endorsement.
First of all the author of this article does not represent “the left”. His views are his own.
Secondly, nothing in the article suggests alignment with this person you mentioned, because as has already been established, said person is not even mentioned in the piece.
You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. You are reading things into this article that it simply does not say.
deleted by creator
Welcome to the club, buddy. Yes, we CRITICALLY support anyone who throws shit at the U.S Empire. Obviously, Yeltsin’s dog isn’t someone we blindly support. Someone already told you that this is a sign of larger geopolitical reorientation; even if only briefly for a “bartering chip” that shows how the overall world reacts under U.S “international law” and how those reactions are changing compared to even five-six years ago.
That’s it. You should know that the author likely has his own views. That this was likely shared here because we support any chip in the U.S empire and global hegemony, even if only momentarily. “The Left” is a completely disingenuous statement which tells me you likely aren’t a regular here and think we give a shit about people politics. We aren’t Ivanishvili fans. No one here is defending them and multiple people have tried to point out their actual positions to which you just reiterate that we’re supporting X and must believe X.
Are you trying to be a wrecker or something?
I’ve been told that, but I haven’t seen any kind of evidence supporting the theory.
So far the only governments outside of China that just so happen to be “reorienting” their geopolitical alignments are led by authoritarian conservative governments.
And how do you determine what’s a chip against the global hegemony, and not just a legal fiction used to further entrench conservative governments?
And yet you are ignoring the innate economic motivators leading to the shift in geopolitics to begin with?
You don’t know what you are supporting because you aren’t interested in the regional political history. I get what you want to support, but you’re blind to the motivations of the person who is pulling the strings.
No, just worried for friends in Tbilisi. Ivanishvili has been trying to put the last nail in the coffin for communist and socialist in Georgia for a long time, and allowing him to shut out opposition parties is probably going to be dangerous for them.
You keep using this word “authoritarian”. How are these countries any different from the average western capitalist country? What exactly is so much more “authoritarian” about them?
The example you’re discussing is the evidence. Reorientation does not mean fully reoriented. It means things are changing. An example that shows a changing relationship is evidence that relationships are changing. This remains true even if you don’t like the type of change or if things go back to the way they were.
At the moment we are still witnessing quantitative changes. Enough of those and we will see qualitative changes. The fact of quantitative change does not discount the fact of change i.e. reorientation.