Latest news with #Russo-GeorgianWar
Daily Mirror
07-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mirror
Paddy Pimblett forced to explain comment which sparked bitter Ilia Topuria feud
Paddy Pimblett and Ilia Topuria have been bitter rivals for the past three years and the feud boiled over last month when the pair clashed in the UFC cage Paddy Pimblett has insisted he didn't mean to upset his UFC rival Ilia Topuria during a heated exchange which ignited their ongoing feud. The pair, who have been at loggerheads for the past three years, were initially not seen as direct competitors due to fighting in different weight classes. However, it seems a showdown in the cage could be on the horizon. The bad blood started when Pimblett fired off a contentious tweet aimed at Guram Kutateladze, a Georgian fighter and friend of Topuria's. Recounting the incident on his podcast, Pimblett said: "The other Georgian fighter, Guram, tweeted at me saying something, and I tweeted back something like, 'Oh, shut up you fake Russian'" This comment didn't go down well with Kutateladze and his crew, leaving Pimblett bemused. "They all took offence of it, and I'm there sitting at the house, 'Why did they all took offence to it?'," he said. "Obviously, when you say something, and you offend someone you're going to say something else along the lines. They started tweeting me, so I said something like, 'No wonder why the Russians terrorised you,' and then I went to bed and woke up the next morning and I had the craziest amount of hate mail." Months before Pimblett and Topuria's altercation at a London fighter hotel, Pimblett stirred controversy with a social media post: "Lad how stupid are these Georgians man! No wonder the Russians terrorise their lives.", reports All Out Fighting. Despite the backlash, Pimblett maintains his comments were not politically charged, though many Georgian fighters felt differently due to the sensitive history of the Russo-Georgian War. "They all said I was talking about the war, and I was like, 'What war?' I only had found out the next day that Russia had been at war with Georgia," he explained. "I didn't know that at the time. My Twitter blew up, 'I'm like, what's going on here? What's happening?'". "People are saying that I'm saying stuff about war. It had nothing to do with war. I just said a word. Back in Liverpool, if you say something like 'terrorise' it is like you're being bullied. That's just something we say. He still says it to this day, and he said it on (Joe) Rogan (Podcast), that I was happy that Russia dropped bombs on Georgian kids. I never said that. I don't know how he's made that up in his own mind, but that's what he says." Following the negative reaction, Pimblett did issue an apology for his remarks online. The feud between Pimblett and Topuria has persisted, with last month seeing Pimblett shoved by the new UFC lightweight champion Topuria after confronting him in the octagon. Topuria was crowned the new lightweight champion after a first-round knockout of Charles Oliveira at UFC 318. The newly minted champ wasted no time in calling out Pimblett. In response to Topuria, Pimblett said: "Well done, lad, well done, that was a heavy knockout. I give you that, respect, but you will never knock me out." Topuria fired back by labelling the Brit a "coward," as Pimblett insisted he wouldn't suffer the same fate as Oliveira. "Watch what is going to happen with you," Topuria shot back. "I'm going to take your head off. I'm going to submit you, you little coward. I'm going to humiliate you, you wimp." The confrontation eventually came to an end when Topuria pushed Pimblett aside.
USA Today
06-07-2025
- Sport
- USA Today
Paddy Pimblett recounts origin of Ilia Topuria beef: 'It's all a big misunderstanding'
Paddy Pimblett gives his side of origin of his heated rivalry with Ilia Topuria. One of the biggest and most heated rivalries in MMA today stemmed from a simple misunderstanding – at least, that's how one half of the feud sees it. Paddy Pimblett has been feuding with now UFC lightweight champion Ilia Topuria for several years. It all originated from a tweet that Pimblett meant no malice beyond just ordinary trash talk with a Georgian fighter, Guram Kutateladze, who's a friend and fellow countryman of Topuria's. "The other Georgian fighter, Guram, tweeted at me saying something, and I tweeted back something like, 'Oh, shut up you fake Russian,'" Pimblett said on his podcast recalling the birth of his beef with Topuria. "They all took offense of it, and I'm there sitting at the house, 'Why did they all took offense to it?' Obviously, when you say something, and you offend someone you're going to say something else along the lines. They started tweeting me, so I said something like, 'No wonder why the Russians terrorized you,' and then I went to bed and woke up the next morning and I had the craziest amount of hate mail." Back in 2021, Pimblett wrote to Kutateladze in a tweet where Topuria was tagged in: "Lad how stupid are these Georgians man (laughing emojis) no wonder the Russians terrorise their lives (laughing emojis)." Pimblett assures there was no political connotation to his comments. However, many Georgian fighters, including Topuria, took offense to it given the history of the Russo-Georgian War of 2008. "They all said I was talking about the war, and I was like, 'What war?' I only had found out the next day that Russia had been at war with Georgia," Pimblett said. "I didn't know that at the time. My Twitter blew up, 'I'm like, what's going on here? What's happening?' People are saying that I'm saying stuff about war. It had nothing to do with war. I just said a word. Back in Liverpool, if you say something like 'terrorize' it is like you're being bullied. That's just something we say. He still says it to this day, and he said it on (Joe) Rogan (Podcast), that I was happy that Russia dropped bombs on Georgian kids. I never said that. I don't know how he's made that up in his own mind, but that's what he says." After the social media backlash, Pimblett did apologize for his comments online. However, that didn't settle things with Topuria. The two would run into each other the following year at the host hotel for UFC Fight Night 204 in London, as the two competed in respective bouts on the card. As expected, their interaction was far from friendly. "I've seen him a couple of months later," Pimblett recalled. "I went to the lads where the UFC gives you food and stuff on fight week. I'm going to warm these eggs up, boys, I'm just going to go down and warm them up. One of my coaches went to me, 'Wait there, Pad, I'll come with ya.' Lad, I'm only going to warm these up. I got on the lift, went down like two flights or something, put the eggs in there, and I'm just waiting for the eggs, and then he comes walking out of the door with like eight of his buddies and his boys. "To be honest, it's a good thing that Ellis didn't come down because it would've been a brawl. ... Ellis my coach is ready no matter what. He would've started swinging. Luckily enough, I was still behind the thing so when he came over, I just went, 'What's happening lad?' And then he halfway went like that, and I don't know if he actually swung at me, but he went to, and I just moved out of the way and threw the (sanitizer) bottle on his head and then pushed the table at him. It was quite funny became there were about nine of them, and I'm thinking, 'Cook off here, I'm going to get jumped.'" Since their hotel altercation, Topuria went on to win and defend the UFC featherweight bout, and then win the vacant UFC lightweight title last month. A historic run that had him knock out Alexander Volkanovski, Max Holloway, and Charles Oliveira. Meanwhile, Pimblett continued to build his star power and become a top contender at 155 pounds. "He's blown up a lot since then," Pimblett said. "But before he got into that with me, no one knew who he was, and he's blew a lot since then. He's one of them lads who still says, 'Oh, he's sh*t, he's sh*t,' when he talks about me. As much as I hate him, I know he's good. He's a good fighter, but I still think I beat him. I think it could end up happening." It's not official, but a title fight between Topuria and Pimblett could be happening next. There are other contenders campaigning for the shot besides Pimblett, but the Englishman does have a case, being undefeated in the UFC, being highly ranked, and having a high ranking in the division. Should the fight happen, Pimblett expects the rivalry with Topuria to live on. "No, (the beef won't be settled) because I will beat him, and then he won't want to smash the beef," Pimblett said. However, should Topuria want to settle things, which Pimblett doesn't think it will happen, he's more than willing to shake his hand, as for him, this feud has never been personal, and he never meant to get political. "I'll shake his hand, yeah," Pimblett said. "For me, it's all a big misunderstanding. It's built a massive storyline for the fight when it comes down to it, but it just annoys me that he still says that I said something I never. He said that on the Rogan podcast bout three months ago. He's making me look bad. Lad, I never said that, and I would never say something so disgusting."
Balkan Insight
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Balkan Insight
Russia's psychological operations in Georgia: a multifaceted strategy of control
July 4, 2025 - Grigol Julukhidze - Articles and Commentary A man standing next to barbed wire on the separation line between Georgia and the breakaway region of South Ossetia in Khurvaleti. Photo: Shutterstock Psychological operations (psyops) are planned activities designed to influence the emotions, motives, reasoning and behaviour of individuals, groups or societies to achieve strategic objectives. This is often achieved through the use of information, symbols and actions. In military and geopolitical contexts, psyops aim to weaken an adversary's resolve, sow confusion, or shape perceptions to align with the operator's goals. Unlike propaganda, which primarily focuses on disseminating information – often biased or misleading – to shape public opinion through mass media, psyops encompass a broader range of tactics. For example, they can involve physical actions, psychological manipulation and targeted messaging, often with a specific strategic intent. While propaganda seeks to persuade through widespread narratives, psyops are more calculated, often covert, and may involve direct interventions like troop movements or staged events to create psychological effects. Since the 2008 Russo-Georgian War, Moscow has employed a sophisticated array of psychological operations aimed at weakening Georgia's sovereignty, eroding societal resilience, and reinforcing its dominance in the South Caucasus. These operations, often orchestrated with the involvement of Russian military intelligence (GRU), exploit Georgia's historical traumas, geopolitical vulnerabilities, and aspirations for western integration. This article explores three key psychological operations Russia has conducted in Georgia since 2013: the creeping annexation and kidnappings along the Administrative Boundary Line (ABL); the persistent threat of war to instil fear; and the propagation of narratives that demoralize Georgian society while promoting the myth of an invincible Russia with a legitimate claim to regional dominance. Creeping annexation and kidnappings: eroding sovereignty and societal resolve One of Russia's most visible psychological operations in Georgia is the strategy of a 'creeping annexation' along the Administrative Boundary Line (ABL) separating Georgia from the Russian-occupied regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Since 2013, Russian and separatist forces have incrementally advanced the ABL deeper into Georgian territory, often under the cover of night, by moving border markers, installing barbed wire fences, and erecting 'State Border' signs. This process, known as 'borderization', has resulted in the loss of farmland, homes and livelihoods for Georgian villagers, who sometimes wake up to find their properties suddenly within occupied territory. For instance, in the village of Tamarasheni, South Ossetian troops and their Russian allies shifted border poles overnight, forcing farmers to harvest crops under a 72-hour ultimatum before being expelled. Unlike propaganda, which might amplify these actions through media, this psyop relies on the physical act of borderization to instil fear and helplessness directly in affected communities. The psychological impact of this operation is profound. By repeatedly violating Georgia's territorial integrity in small, incremental steps, Russia tests the resilience of Georgian society and its government. The constant threat of losing more land creates a pervasive sense of insecurity. Villagers living near the ABL face the daily risk of arbitrary detention or kidnapping by Russian-controlled forces, with over 126 Georgians illegally detained in 2017 alone for 'illegal border crossing'. These detentions, sometimes involving minors or elderly individuals, are rarely investigated by the de facto authorities, fostering a climate of impunity that further demoralizes local communities. The deliberate use of kidnappings as a psyop tactic, rather than mere propaganda, targets specific communities to create a direct psychological effect, amplifying fear beyond what media narratives alone could achieve. This strategy is designed to exhaust Georgian resistance over time. By 2013, the initial outrage over borderization began to wane as communities grew fatigued by the unrelenting pressure. The lack of a robust international response – beyond statements from the EU and US – has amplified this fatigue, as Georgians perceive their plight as being ignored by the global community. The psychological toll is evident in the stagnation of villages near the ABL, where economic activity has plummeted, and residents live in fear of straying too far from home. The message Russia sends is clear: Georgia's sovereignty is fragile, and resistance is futile against a determined occupier. The threat of war: exploiting Georgia's traumatic past Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, another psychological operation has gained prominence: the deliberate amplification of war rhetoric to scare Georgians into submission. Georgia's traumatic history with Russia, particularly the devastating 2008 war that resulted in the loss of 20 per cent of its territory, makes its population highly susceptible to fears of renewed conflict. Russian psyops exploit this trauma by perpetuating narratives that warn of imminent war unless Georgia aligns with Moscow's interests. This operation intensified in 2022, as Russia's actions in Ukraine served as a stark reminder of its willingness to use military force against perceived adversaries. The Kremlin has promoted the idea that pursuing NATO or EU membership will provoke Russia into another devastating war. For example, in 2024, political campaigns in Georgia featured billboards contrasting peaceful Georgian cities with devastated Ukrainian ones, implying that resistance to Russia risks a similar fate. This messaging taps into the collective memory of the 2008 war, where Russian forces overwhelmed Georgia in just five days, displacing thousands and leaving lasting scars. By framing Russia as a guarantor of peace, the Kremlin seeks to deter Georgia from pursuing its Euro-Atlantic aspirations. While propaganda might spread these narratives through media, the psyop incorporates real-world actions, such as Russian troop movements near the ABL, to heighten the perceived threat. Russian military intelligence has played a key role in amplifying these threats. The GRU has been linked to disinformation campaigns, including statements from Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) accusing the West of plotting a 'Tbilisi Maidan' to destabilize Georgia. These claims, disseminated through Russian media, aim to sow fear of western-induced chaos and position Russia as a stabilizing force. The psychological effect is to paralyze Georgian society, making alignment with Moscow seem like the only path to avoid catastrophic conflict. Demoralization and the myth of invincible Russia Perhaps the most insidious psychological operation is Russia's effort to demoralize Georgian society by promoting the narrative that resistance is pointless and that Moscow is an invincible force with a legitimate right to dominate the South Caucasus. This operation, which gained momentum in 2024, seeks to erode Georgia's national morale and undermine its democratic aspirations. By portraying Russia as an unstoppable power, the Kremlin aims to instil a sense of futility, convincing Georgians that no matter their efforts – whether political, economic or military – Russia will ultimately prevail. Unlike propaganda, which might rely solely on media to spread this narrative, this psyop includes tangible actions like asset transfers to reinforce Russia's dominance. This narrative is propagated through a combination of disinformation and economic coercion. Russian-backed media and organizations in Georgia, reportedly numbering in the dozens, spread anti-western messages, downplay Russia's occupation of Georgian territories, and whitewash its aggression. For instance, in 2024, statements emerged claiming that Russia's actions in Georgia and Ukraine were defensive responses to western provocation. Such narratives aim to shift blame from Moscow and erode trust in western institutions. The myth of Russia's invincibility is further reinforced through symbolic actions, such as the transfer of strategic assets like the Bichvinta Dacha in Abkhazia to Russian control in 2024. This move, framed as a legitimate assertion of Russian influence, signals to Georgians that Moscow can act with impunity in their territory. The GRU's involvement in these operations is evident in the sophisticated coordination of propaganda, which often portrays Russia as the natural hegemon of the South Caucasus, entitled to dictate Georgia's foreign policy. Economic interdependence is another tool in this psychological arsenal. Russia's trade with Georgia reached 2.39 billion US dollars in 2023, a 47 per cent increase from 2021. This fostered a dependency that undermines Georgia's ability to resist Russian influence. By controlling key economic levers, Russia reinforces the perception that Georgia cannot thrive without Moscow's approval. This economic coercion, combined with disinformation, creates a demoralizing narrative: Georgia's efforts to align with the West are doomed to fail, and submission to Russia is inevitable. The role of Russian military intelligence Russian military intelligence, particularly the GRU, has been instrumental in orchestrating these psychological operations. The GRU's expertise in hybrid warfare – combining disinformation, cyber operations and proxy activities – has enabled Russia to wage a relentless campaign against Georgia's national psyche. From coordinating borderization efforts to disseminating propaganda through various channels, the GRU ensures that these operations are executed with precision and maximum psychological impact. The 2008 war itself was a precursor to these tactics, with Russian forces rehearsing operations in the Caucasus 2008 exercise and deploying proxies like the Vostok Battalion to sow chaos. A battle for Georgia's soul Russia's psychological operations in Georgia since 2013 represent a calculated effort to undermine the country's sovereignty and demoralize its people. Creeping annexation and kidnappings erode territorial control and societal resilience; the threat of war exploits historical traumas to deter western alignment; and the myth of Russia's invincibility fosters despair and submission. These operations, driven by Russian military intelligence, have pushed Georgia to a crossroads, where it must choose between succumbing to Moscow's influence or rallying international support to preserve its democratic aspirations. Grigol Julukhidze is the director of the Foreign Policy Council, a think tank in Tbilisi. He specializes in security studies and propaganda research. He is also an Associate Professor at Caucasus University. New Eastern Europe is a reader supported publication. Please support us and help us reach our goal of $10,000! We are nearly there. Donate by clicking on the button below. borderization, Georgia, Georgian politics, Russian foreign policy, Russian interference, South Caucasus, South Ossetia
Yahoo
08-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump can't criticize Putin's invasion. He's threatening his own
Following Vladimir Putin's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Donald Trump, still reeling at his failed January 6 coup, marveled at the Russian dictator's audacity. As he himself described it, Trump watched the events unfold with a certain awe: ''This is genius,'' he recalled thinking, 'Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine… Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that's wonderful.' He added that the move was 'very savvy.' Only later, facing criticism from his own party, did he admit that Russia's violation of Ukraine's sovereignty was 'appalling.' Yet, since taking office, Trump hasn't even been willing to offer that level of mild rebuke. Of late, the president has been rather sympathetic toward Putin in ways that seem to go well beyond establishing a working negotiating relationship. During his Oval Office ambush of Volodymyr Zelenskyy last week, Trump expressed the strange notion that 'Putin went through a hell of a lot with me,' including 'a phony witch hunt' – as if Putin in some way had suffered from the American investigation into obvious – and well-documented – Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. Even after calling Zelenskyy a 'dictator,' Trump refused to use the term for Putin. And while he's had no problem referring to the influx of undocumented immigrants as an 'invasion,' his administration has backed off using such language to describe Russia's actions in Ukraine, as if the war was some sort of misunderstanding rather than an act of territorial aggression. When asked directly about the war's beginning and if Russia had invaded, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth equivocated, telling a Fox News host that it was 'a very complicated situation.' It's not. Nor has it ever been. Russia attacked Ukraine because Putin has territorial ambitions and nothing more. Putin proved way back in 2008, during the brief Russo-Georgian War, that he's willing to invade other nations on false pretenses. When he attacked Georgia and quickly took over some of that nation's lands, the world collectively shrugged, giving the (real) dictator the green light to do it again in Crimea in 2014. Interestingly enough, when he was asked about Crimea shortly before that invasion – in 2013 – Putin claimed that the situation there was completely different than in Georgia because there had been no declaration of an independent nation – right before he orchestrated one in order to invade. Then, in 2022, using lies about Nazi leaders and yellow journalism to accuse Ukraine of atrocities, he justified yet another invasion. Last year, in his State of the Nation address, Putin rewrote history to justify that act, blaming the West for provoking the war. Yet the Trump administration is bending over backwards not to blame Putin. We have to ask ourselves: Why is the Trump administration so unwilling to acknowledge basic truths in order to accommodate the world's most lethal villain? Well, part of the answer may be found in Trump's address to Congress on Tuesday. The two key lines that seemed to go largely unnoticed were: 'We didn't give [the Panama Canal] to China; we gave it to Panama, and we're taking it back.' 'And I think we're going to get [Greenland] — one way or the other, we're going to get it.' The first line seems right out of Putin's playbook, laying the foundation that the United States was somehow cheated and may have no choice but to take land and resources away from a foreign nation. Putin argued that Crimea had to be taken back because he too understands how to tap into people's anger. The notion of 'taking back' is a strong one – think, for instance, how slogans about taking back the UK caused it to leave the EU. Like Trump's arguments about Greenland, Putin has also claimed that annexing certain territories – including Ukraine – is necessary for Russian security and world security, declaring that 'enduring international order is possible without a strong and sovereign Russia.' Trump is using the same logic: Whatever makes the United States stronger is better for the world, and if we have to invade certain places to make that happen, we may just do that. If we turn Gaza into an American Riviera, it's all for the better, Trump argues, even if it comes at the cost of thousands of Palestinian lives and the utter destruction of Palestinian culture. It's difficult, then, for Trump to criticize Putin's rationales for invasion when he's using similar rationales himself. Trump is building a monument of grievance so that he can use it to justify any actions he may take. The US has done such things before, of course. We provoked the Mexican War, but found an excuse to say it was the Mexicans – then took about a third of their country away. (Now Trump is provoking a trade war on the same grounds, blaming for Mexico somehow starting it.) We found similar justifications for taking Hawaii, Guam, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico. We also justified, in one way or another, all of our violations against Native American tribes. Everyone in their right mind should be questioning Trump's motives, yet questioning is also something Trump is trying to get rid of, once again emulating Putin. The Russian dictator has cracked down on dissidents, removed all in the government he deems disloyal, and has infiltrated universities to make sure they're teaching an ideology that suits his needs. Sound familiar? In her takeover of the GOP leadership, Lara Trump insisted that all members of the GOP refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the 2020 election; Trump and Musk have sent their DOGE minions to weed out any potential dissent within the government; Trump took over programming at the Kennedy Center, to stop it from being too 'woke'; and Trump has been threatening to withhold funding from universities that do things he doesn't like, such as DEI initiatives, and has now started sending in task forces to ensure that the speech of students is thoroughly regulated. Recently, Barnard College expelled students it said had taken their free speech too far because they had committed crimes – however nonviolent – in the process of exercising it. Once again, justifications that meet a predetermined end. Insist that territorial expansions are about security, demand loyalty, crush dissent, and make up the facts as you go. Of course Trump won't criticize Putin: they're both reading from the same script.
