'Sputnik Abkhazia' Again Targets Abkhazian NGOs
Once again, an anonymous article has appeared on "Sputnik Abkhazia", targeting Abkhazian Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and several public figures. The piece follows the same pattern as previous article from the Russian state media outlet, using unsubstantiated conspiracy theories to accuse Abkhazian activists and independent media of being pro-Western, pro-Georgian, and anti-Russian. This latest attack primarily focuses on the youth movement “ҲараҲПицунда” (Our Pitsunda), Omar Kharchilava of the independent media platform "At,ak", lawyer Said Gezerdaa from Centre for Humanitarian Programmes, and other figures like Alisa Agrba, an activist; Leuan Mikaa, a public figure and Hero of Abkhazia; Leuan Lagulaa, Chief Editor of "ApsnyHabar; and Asida Shakryl, the former Human Rights Ombudsman of Abkhazia.
The article, devoid of an author's name, draws a flimsy narrative that attempts to link these individuals and organisations to foreign interests. The accusations are nothing short of absurd, alleging that their opposition to certain government policies, such as the 'apartment law' and the 'foreign agent law', is part of a Western plot to destabilise Abkhazia’s relations with Russia.
Leuan Lagulaa, one of the individuals named in the article, posted a public response on ApsnyHabar's Facebook page, offering his thoughts on the piece:
"An interesting piece has been published on Sputnik-Abkhazia. It seems the goal was to come up with a catchy headline and mention about a dozen names in the article, including mine.
To be honest, I feel offended. Not by the mere mention – that was expected – but by the lack of effort in the article discussing the role of ApsnyHabar in the media landscape. If you're going to write about us, you could at least put some talent into it. Even your anonymous colleagues on Telegram managed to come up with a clever pun (ApsnyBarBar).
For those who can't muster the strength to read this anonymous author's work on Sputnik-Abkhazia, here's a quick summary: ApsnyHabar is supposedly being advertised on Georgian media platforms. That is to say, Georgian media reference us and spread our messages. According to the authors of the article, this supposedly confirms our alleged connection with NGOs, which means with Georgia, and therefore with the West, which ultimately means we are anti-Russian. Quite an imaginative leap, really.
Dear Sputnik-Abkhazia, next time you fulfil an anti-Abkhazian order, please do it with some talent. It would be a shame for future generations if such lacklustre articles were to be used to tarnish the reputation of our proud and united ApsnyHabar."
Lagulaa’s frustration reflects a wider trend: this is not the first time "Sputnik Abkhazia" has targeted Abkhazian civil society organisations. Earlier this year, the same outlet published another provocative and baseless article aimed at discrediting NGOs. [See our previous commentary, "The Sputnik Sham: How Propaganda Undermines Abkhazian NGOs"]. The accusations were similarly vacuous, accusing organisations of undermining Abkhazia's sovereignty while being funded by Western entities. However, as any keen observer of Abkhazian politics knows, this rhetoric is part of a broader narrative promoted by the current Abkhazian government, pro-government media, and media outlets like Sputnik to silence dissent and restrict the influence of independent civil society in the country.
The people named in these articles, such as Asida Shakryl, Omar Kharchilava, Leuan Mikaa, Leuan Lagulaa, and Said Gezerdaa, are respected figures in their communities who have dedicated their work to improving Abkhazian society. They stand for causes such as language preservation, addressing demographic concerns, preventing corruption, youth leadership, and transparency in governance—hardly the sinister activities "Sputnik" would have its readers believe.
+ The Sputnik Sham: How Propaganda Undermines Abkhazian NGOs
+ Inal Ardzinba in Moscow: Heated Controversy Erupts Over "The Great Game"
+ New Challenges for NGOs in Abkhazia: Concerns and Defiance
+ Tatyana Gulia: "The Current Government in Abkhazia Exploits Society's Disunity"
The policy of repression and intimidation against Abkhazian NGOs, their members, and outspoken critics has escalated in recent years. Dissenters are increasingly facing interrogations at borders, state media spreads falsehoods about them, and their voices are systematically excluded from mainstream media channels. In fact, this hostile environment is fuelled by our government, which continues to lie not only to the Abkhaz people but also to its partners in Russia to shield its corruption. In order to maintain their corrupt policies, they disregard the interests of the country, ignore the legitimate concerns of the people, and believe they can deceive everyone with their behind-the-scenes dealings. However, that is a topic for another article, and one we frequently address.
It is no secret that "Sputnik", as a Russian state media outlet, serves Russian interests. This is neither surprising nor unique. It’s perfectly normal for every country to act in line with its own interests and concerns. However, there is no need to resort to lies or unjustly smear people in the process. If the author at "Sputnik" believes that portraying Abkhaz NGOs and independent media as foreign agents, puppets of the West, or anti-Russian serves Russia’s interests, he is mistaken. Such reductive narratives not only oversimplify complex realities but undermine the principles of informed discourse. True strength lies in engaging with diverse viewpoints, not suppressing them. In today's interconnected world, heavy-handed propaganda erodes credibility and often backfires. First of all, cleanse yourself of lies and absurd conspiracy theories. Do not fear transparency. Do not fear diversity or different voices.
However, what "Sputnik" and others in the Russian media fail to acknowledge is that Abkhazia, too, has its own interests. The recent opposition to the “apartment law” and the “Pitsunda Dacha” agreement reflects these interests. Abkhazian civil society organisations, including the youth movement ҲараҲПицунда (Our Pitsunda), have been vocal in their resistance to these measures, which they see as threats to Abkhazia’s sovereignty and demographic balance. In no way does this opposition indicate a betrayal of Abkhazia’s good relationship with Russia; rather, it is a demonstration of the country’s desire to pursue its own path, one that aligns with the best interests of its people.
+ Liana Kvarchelia: "They Called Us the Gudauta Separatists"
+ Liana Kvarchelia: "Removing international organisations from Abkhazia is helping Georgia”
+ Diana Kerselyan: "We Do Not Intend to Be Recognised as Enemies of the People"
Sputnik’s Inconsistent Position
One must also question the inconsistency in Sputnik's position. On the one hand, Russia claims to support Abkhazia’s independence and recognition on the global stage. On the other hand, media outlets like "Sputnik Abkhazia" continue to attack any initiative that seeks to build bridges between Abkhazia and the wider world. If, as they claim, collaborating with Western entities is such a threat, then why does Russia push for Abkhazia’s recognition?
If the West were to formally recognise Abkhazia’s independence tomorrow, would "Sputnik" celebrate or condemn it? The truth is, the real issue may not be the source of recognition, but the loss of control.
The international isolation of Abkhazia has already strengthened Russia’s influence in the region. This isolation, rather than distancing Abkhazia from Russia, has pushed it further into Moscow’s sphere of influence—a situation that undoubtedly pleases Russian strategists.
As we noted in our previous commentary:
"Despite officially recognising Abkhazia's independence, Russia might not be entirely supportive of Abkhazia gaining wider international recognition—or even the establishment of economic ties between Abkhazia and other nations without formal recognition. Consider, for instance, the hypothetical scenario of the United States engaging with Abkhazia, regardless of its recognition status. Such a development would almost certainly face indirect opposition from Russia, not out of any particular animosity, but simply because it would not align with Moscow's strategic interests. This could potentially dilute Russia's influence in the region, conflicting with its national priorities. Russia’s stance on Abkhazia is deeply intertwined with its desire to maintain a strong presence in the Black Sea region and the Caucasus."
Is this a bad thing for Abkhazia? Not necessarily. After all, as Sergey Shamba once pointed out, 'The true battle is between the large international powers. On the one hand, Abkhazia and Georgia are levers in this fight, and on the other, Abkhazia and Georgia also use these powers for their own gain. The exploitation is mutual.'
It is clear, and unsurprising, that Sputnik’s agenda is more about maintaining full Russian control and serving its interests, rather than supporting Abkhazia’s true independence or even mutual interests. But the notion that Abkhazian NGOs working on the economic and social development of their country, raising concerns about demographic changes unfavourable to the Abkhaz, nature conservation, preventing corruption, language preservation, or youth empowerment are somehow acting against Russia’s interests is not only illogical but also deeply insulting to the people of Abkhazia.
In the end, every nation, including Abkhazia, has its own interests and concerns. Civil society organisations and activists like those targeted by "Sputnik" are not enemies of the state; they are patriots who want to see their country thrive. The attacks against them are a distraction from the real issues at hand and serve only to fuel suspicion and discord.
Abkhazia’s future depends not on stifling dissent but on embracing the diverse voices of its people. For Abkhazia to thrive, civil society must be allowed to flourish, and media outlets like "Sputnik" should focus on fostering understanding rather than sowing division. The only desire of the Abkhaz people is to live—to exist in their small country with as few problems as possible, and to live with dignity. They do not wish to share the same fate as their brothers, the Ubykhs, who were driven to extinction.