Abkhazia and South Ossetia should not be independent from Georgia

I apologize for not answering to the third round - I explained myself in the comments: I had tests to prepare - and thank JBlake for such a polite response to my mistake. I now have to prove why JBlake's opinion, even though well-argumented, is wrong. So, here is a summary of his arguments for the last round: *There is a historic background for the independence of South Ossetia as the latter was already independent from Georgia before the 1990s; *Russia's presence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia guarantees peace for the Caucasus. The regions can always fight in case of a significant change in their population diversity. *The Abkhaz and Ossetian peoples do know their history and the words of a Georgian nationalist should not be taken into account. *Self-determination is a more important principle than territorial integrity. === Historic background === Note, by the way, than Con could not find a historical background for Abkhazia's independence. In order to answer your question, I will use your own source (http://www.caucasus.dk...), which states that in Eastern Europe, a nation is based on mystical values and on cultural principles, differentiating from the Western Hemisphere, where a declaration of independence is enough to give birth to a legitimate state. In the Caucasus, as well as in the rest of Eastern Europe, there has to be a cultural base for a nation to exist. Now, if you look at Abkhazia's and South Ossetia's histories, you will find only a Georgian background, including churches, ancient scriptures, names of locations, etc. There is no such thing as an old Abkhazian writing in Abkhazia, while for South Ossetia, well there is just no Ossetian presence evidence dating before the Soviet period. In 1920, Ossetians did declare independence but this was not based on a nationalistic basis, but rather on a Menshevik-Bolshevik conflict, hence the pretense of Ossetians of that time of establishing the "Workers' power" from north Georgia to the middle of the country, that is the city of Gori. So I don't think this counts as a nationalistic position. === Conflict === Also note that Con neither proves how the Caucasus will be peaceful in case of the regions' independence. He only states that for this to happen, Abkhazia and South Ossetia will have to give up their military institutions and probably more to Russia, which, first of all, doesn't guarantee anything seeing what happened in Chechnya, and is not a very good example of... independence. Moreover, Con agrees that the return of Georgians in the conflict regions, which is a condition for their independence, would rather bring violence than peace there. As for Georgia's role as a peace mediator in the Caucasus, the conflicts of the 1920s, 1990s, and 2000s have nothing to do with what Georgia achieved in the prior centuries. For Con to know, Georgia actively participated to the cultural development of the North Caucasus, protected Caucasians against Turkish agressors as long as it could do so. It built roads, cities, developed commerce. That is how it had an influence in the whole region and made it possible for Chechens to have relations with Armenians, Abkhazs with Ossetians... in peace. But Russia's imperial policy of "divide to rule" canceled all that and created anti-Georgian feelings among other Caucasian peoples. === Ignorance === Now, it is a fact that in Abkhazia, historical sources are being written so that Abkhazia is differentiated from the rest of Georgia. So, unless Con has any evidence of the Abkhazian, or Ossetian, historiographic truthfulness, well it is not of my duty to show how propaganda has changed the locals' minds, but rather of JBlake's to show why it hasn't. And yes, I affirm it is true (for instance, Lakoba's 2007 book on Abkhazia's history). And this fact does change the people's minds, and mostly that of the young and learning generation. === Self-Determination v. Territorial Integrity === And once again, I do support the principle of self-determination, and I do value the doctrine of territorial integrity at the same time. This is my position, and probably that of the rest of the international community: a people has the right to live in a free nation and has the right to fight for it, as long as it DOES NOT ALREADY HAVE A HOME! And Ossetians do have a home: on the other side of the Caucasus, in a republic named North Ossetia, which is actually the only place where Ossetian history and national culture can be seen. Same thing with the Abkhaz people, who are not actually Abkhaz but Apsua -Abkhaz is the name of a Georgian tribe living in Eastern Georgia, while Apsua is the name of the North Caucasian settlers that came in the 17th-18th centuries. They have their own national home in Cherkessia. By the way, I believe it is the same thing with Kosovo. The people living there did suffer a tragedy, but Serbia's historical heritage, the only thing it can leave to its children, should not be destroyed, especially when the Albanians actually have their own independent country -Albania. Now, Con is using the example of Native Americans. It is not the same thing, because there were wars and history just kept going. But now, where is history's hands when a bigger power divides a small nation by forcing hundreds of Ossetian families to enter Georgia. It is not the country's immigration policy's weakness in question but rather, the heritage the Russian and Soviet empires left to such a nation, enslaved by a treason made in 1801. Now, let me ask JBlake the following hypothetical question. Let us imagine he lives with his wife in a beautiful house. He knows his neighbors are in danger of being killed by someone, so he agrees to hide them at his own house. Weeks pass, and the threat disappears. JBlake offers the neighbors the opportunity to return home, or, if they feel safer there, remain there. However, those neighbours, out of nowhere, just start to destroy JBlake's furnitures. Since they are three (a guy, his wife, and their child) against two, they decide to stay in his house and expel the owner and his wife. Would JBlake just leave and live in the street because those rude neighbours have their right to "self-determination"? Or would he want to return his house? Think about it.