Russian Journalist Alexei Romanov on the Latest Shifts in Russian-Georgian Relations

Exclusive interview

With the Rustavi 2 case still seemingly hanging by a thread, GEORGIA TODAY spoke to Alexei Romanov, a Russian journalist residing in Georgia, to hear his insights on both the legal aspects and the now infamous anti-Putin monologue delivered by Rustavi 2 anchor Giorgi Gabunia that created so much fuss in his native country.

First off, let’s hear your assessment of the recent ECHR ruling on the Rustavi 2 case.

It was a tremendously important victory for the government and a defeat, both tactical and symbolic, for the opposition. They were demanding the resignation of Gakharia and what they got instead was that Gvaramia, who had been de-factor leader of the political opposition for quite some time, had to go. Whether it’s also a strategic defeat, time will show –we’ll see whether the opposition manages to survive without relying on Rustavi 2 reporting. On the other hand, it’s obvious that Rustavi 2’s days as a staunchly critical opposition television are numbered. Of course, we see promises that the editorial policy won’t be changed and so on, but that’s a simple spin that I don’t think even the naivest people in Georgia will believe.

What were your impressions of the Anti-Putin monologue from the Rustavi 2 TV host?

As a journalist, I would say that it’s first and foremost unprofessional. It was quite unexpected, as I have known this anchor for quite some time and to see him do that – to alienate even the channel’s core audience to that extent – was quite shocking. I have yet to meet anyone here in Georgia who thinks that what he did was right and sensible. But to be honest, I don’t think it was a spontaneous decision - I think this kind of aggression, rejection, was exactly what they were striving for. I think this reaction, these protests around their office, this outpouring of negativity from Russia, was what they were trying to get, and they succeeded.

And what would they gain from that?

I will take a guess. As far as I can be a judge of what’s going on now in Georgia, I think we are at a “make or break” moment; we are witnessing a clash of generations, if you will. On one side, there is more conservative-minded society, not necessarily pro-Russian, but one that wouldn’t mind mending some burnt bridges between Georgia and Russia; to find some sort of a working format within the existing confines; something reminiscent of Soviet times, for example. During Saakashvili’s time, such things would have been out of question: you’d have been branded a traitor for even saying it, but the current government that promised the normalization of relations with Russia might not necessarily object to it. Quite the opposite. Of course, they will keep saying they want to get the country into NATO, the EU, that Georgia is Europe, but at the same time, even now, some of the representatives of the current government say that they wouldn’t mind finding a workable solution that would circumvent the frozen diplomatic relations. On the other side, however, we’ve got this new generation, young Georgians, who are now trying to get their heads around a vital question: we, being patriots, have been taught that Georgia’s territories are occupied and Russia is to blame for that – 'are we going to say that’s ok? Who is responsible?' And where, for the older generation, this wound that is Abkhazia and Ossetia has more or less stopped bleeding, they’ve grown used to it, this younger, impetuous lot is not so receptive to that idea: for them the wound is still quite open. And there is a clash between these two camps – One side, I must say, quite a sizeable part of Georgian society, is ready to cooperate with Russia at least in some way, leaving the territorial conflicts out of the equation, while another side, the younger one, is ready and eager to fight for it, to show that they want nothing to do with Russia, that ‘we remember what this country did to ours, and we are ready to fight for that, other path, that will get Georgia into Europe.’ I think Rustavi 2 has firmly sided with this camp and tried to burn the remaining bridge to make that position a point of no return.

But why alienate your own audience, including that very youth, with an obscene monologue that in the end benefitted no-one? What did they gain from it?

This wasn’t a message meant for Georgians. This was a message to Russia and Russians. Rustavi 2 accepted the risk of aggravating its own audience to get this message across. That’s why it was delivered in Russian. The aim was to enrage the Kremlin, the Russian establishment, those people in Moscow who were actually ready to alter Russian policy on Georgia to a certain extent, to take a more reconciliatory path. This path is no longer accessible. I am aware that there were certain negotiations going on between the Georgian Dream and the Russian authorities, certain commitments, and now all this is gone.

Could those negotiations have been about removing the visa regime from the Russian side, as some of the Kremlin officials claimed?

Yes, there were ongoing talks about that. But that wouldn’t have come as a one-time gesture. If Russia gives something, it always asks something in return. What they would demand for cancelling the visa regime – that’s what we do not know. But it’s quite evident that there were ongoing talks and now they’ve hit a stumbling block.

How would you assess the reaction of the Georgian authorities to what happened?

The statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, asking the international community to condemn a journalist from a private channel was, to be frank, ridiculous. What was the message? We cannot do anything about that, so please tell these bad guys off? That isn’t serious.

And what about the reaction in Russia?

The Russian response was surprisingly understated. I expected a much more severe reaction, some serious measures, but this didn’t happen. Neither Spokesman Peskov, not other speakers, pretty much no decision-making figure in Russia, gave it much credit; on the contrary, they tried to sweep it under the rug, make it look like a minor misunderstanding. Compare it to the Gavrilov incident – there we had a serious, coordinated response from the Kremlin: they were quite angry about what happened. Nobody said that one was nonsense and not worth commenting on.

Putin himself said out of respect to Georgian people, he doesn’t see a reason to introduce any form of sanction… Seems mighty charitable from a guy who relishes every opportunity to torment his neighboring countries.

Yes, a surprisingly peaceful reaction from Putin himself too. Why? Hard to tell. On the other hand, we need to keep in mind that if they really were at the brink of some major agreement, they might not want to burn the remaining bridges to ashes. Russian authorities literally loathe it when they have to change their calculations because of outside factors. Then again, Putin might be playing the Kniaz Vorontsov card, who during the times of the Tsar, managed to spread Russian influence in Georgia by offering various carrots instead of sticks. Putin knows that trick – he has pulled it off with Chechnya and Kadyrov before, and it’s considered a success. After wrapping up the second Chechen War, the first thing he did was buy the Chechen elite over to his side. I wouldn’t exclude the Kremlin resorting to such a scenario in Georgia as well.

By Vazha Tavberidze