Do you think Hillary Clinton using the word ‘occupation’ will change anything for Georgia?
Friday, July 9
"I think it is very important that such a strong and influential country’s leading politician has called Russia's activities in Georgia an occupation. There are many countries in the world which respect and pay great attention to what America says and this will prevent them thinking about recognising Abkhazia and South Ossetia."
Giga, computer programmer, 24
"It is good that America has so loudly called what is happening an occupation, but verbal assistance alone is not enough. Russia should be put in international isolation, as only after this will it stop getting involved in Georgia's internal issues."
Tamta, economist, 35
"It will change things, I think. Before this visit there were statements that America was not paying attention to Georgian issues, however this visit has confirmed that it is incorrect. When the United States so openly supports Georgia Russia will not do what it wants. Consequently international organisations might become more actively involved in Georgian reintegration affairs."
Nugzar, historian, 54
“It will not change anything in practice because only a US official's statement that our territories are occupied will not persuade Russia to withdraw its forces from Georgia. On the other hand this is proper terminology and should be used by other countries as well.”
Meri, housewife, 29
“It is a good precedent when such high profile politicians openly use this word, and this should have happened earlier because Russia is an occupier and knows it very well but tries to maintain its influence on our rebel territories. However I’m sure this will not last long and our property will be returned!”
Nana, student, 21
“It will not relieve us if Clinton uses this term because Russia does not care if it is an occupier, killer, criminal or aggressor. It does what it wants and this is the reality. Instead of just talking and calling them occupiers, its better to act more effectively and make them leave Georgia.”
Kakha, accountant, 36
Giga, computer programmer, 24
"It is good that America has so loudly called what is happening an occupation, but verbal assistance alone is not enough. Russia should be put in international isolation, as only after this will it stop getting involved in Georgia's internal issues."
Tamta, economist, 35
"It will change things, I think. Before this visit there were statements that America was not paying attention to Georgian issues, however this visit has confirmed that it is incorrect. When the United States so openly supports Georgia Russia will not do what it wants. Consequently international organisations might become more actively involved in Georgian reintegration affairs."
Nugzar, historian, 54
“It will not change anything in practice because only a US official's statement that our territories are occupied will not persuade Russia to withdraw its forces from Georgia. On the other hand this is proper terminology and should be used by other countries as well.”
Meri, housewife, 29
“It is a good precedent when such high profile politicians openly use this word, and this should have happened earlier because Russia is an occupier and knows it very well but tries to maintain its influence on our rebel territories. However I’m sure this will not last long and our property will be returned!”
Nana, student, 21
“It will not relieve us if Clinton uses this term because Russia does not care if it is an occupier, killer, criminal or aggressor. It does what it wants and this is the reality. Instead of just talking and calling them occupiers, its better to act more effectively and make them leave Georgia.”
Kakha, accountant, 36