Thesis (M.A.)--Ohio State University, 2009. / Title from first page of PDF file. Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 82-85).

The purpose of this dissertation is to examine the motives, means and implications of the Russian involvement in the Abkhaz-Georgian conflict. It seeks to find answers to the following questions: what are the dynamics of the Russian policy towards Abkhazia / how the contradictions in Russian domestic policy are reflected in the Russian policy towards Abkhazia / what are the implications of the Russian involvement in the conflict and the peace process. This dissertation argues that the Russian involvement in the Abkhaz-Georgian conflict has not contributed to the settlement of the conflict and peace in the region but rather to the realization of Russia&rsquo / s own interests by deepening the crisis in the region. Thus, Russia has conducted neither a pro-Abkhaz nor pro-Georgian policy in this conflict. The second chapter of this thesis examines the historical background of the conflict. The emergence, evolution and nature of the conflict are analyzed in the second chapter. The third chapter focuses on the reasons of the Russian involvement during the war between the Abkhaz and the Georgian forces. The Russian policy towards the Abkhaz conflict before and after the Rose Revolution is analyzed in the fourth and fifth chapters.

ix, 161 p. : maps / In 2002, the Russian government began distributing tens of thousands of Russian passports in the de facto states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Some scholarly attention has been devoted to this process, known as passportization, but most of the literature treats passportization as a primarily political process, ignoring its geographic aspects. This thesis shows that passportization in Abkhazia and South Ossetia amounted to a process of "biocolonization," wherein the populations of the de facto states were discursively captured by Russia through individual naturalization. Consequently, passportization served to create "Russian spaces" within the internationally recognized borders of Georgia and, in the process challenged international legal norms rooted in the logic of the modern state system. / Committee in charge: Dr. Alexander Murphy, Chair; Dr. Shaul Cohen, Member; Dr. Julie Hessler, Member

This thesis comparatively analyses dilemmas arising from the unresolved Georgian-Abkhazian and Moldovan-Transnistrian conflicts. The many existing differences in the nature and dynamics of each conflict point to a sui generis situation, yet, many similarities also exist, including Soviet era legacies. The research premise is based on very considerable resourcing being dedicated to the resolution of these conflicts since their inception, yet no significant conflict transformation (Abkhazia has Russian recognition) has occurred, let alone peace. Given the mandate from the OSCE, EU and UN, the purpose of the thesis is to analyse their involvement. While evidence – local vested interests and strategic interests – illustrates the obvious obstructions, the thesis focuses on the IOs and asks why no tangible successes were achieved. This is done by critically analysing their performance, by assuming that success is often overlooked and by identifying a range of misperceptions. Therefore, by considering conflict transformation and engaging in analysis of many sources, including documents and about five-dozen interviews, the thesis reappraises the ethno-national origins, the geopolitical dimension and the entrenched conflicting party positions in the context of pan-European actors' responses. The analyses of the comparative peace processes illuminate the IOs' own challenges in reaching consensus as well as on the conflicting parties' competing narratives. Answering the question of what to produce first – a political solution to improve societal conditions, or the pursuing exercise of confidence-building measures (CBMs) to settle the status question – is part of the objective. I argue that a typology of success and failure more comprehensively explains IO performance between 1992 and the EU's Vilnius Summit in 2013.