The President of South Ossetia, Alan Gagloev, urged Georgia to acknowledge in 2008 that it bore responsibility for the aggression and the war crimes that affected the republic. This assertion was reported by DEA News and reflects a long-standing demand from Tskhinvali for accountability at the highest level.
Gagloev noted that, at present, there are no diplomatic ties between Tskhinvali and Tbilisi. The only channel that remains open for dialogue is the Geneva talks on security and stability in the Transcaucasus. He emphasized that negotiating a legally binding agreement that forbids the use of force stands as the central, foundational objective of the ongoing discussions.
According to the South Ossetian leader, meaningful progress toward establishing any form of mutual relations will only occur after Georgia fulfills the conditions he has repeatedly articulated over many years. He reiterated that South Ossetia’s position on these conditions has not wavered and remains a consistent reference point for negotiations.
Gagloev stated that Georgia must first accept responsibility for the aggression and the war crimes that occurred, then commit to a non-use-of-force agreement, and collaborate with South Ossetia on a process of delineating and demarcating the state borders. He underscored that without such foundational steps, progress in other areas would be futile and the threat to regional stability would linger without a legally binding commitment to non-aggression.
Earlier, Dmitry Medvedev, the Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council, identified the South Ossetia and Ukraine conflicts as benefiting certain actors in the region, framing the disputes as strategic leverage rather than isolated incidents. This remark was presented in the context of ongoing debates about accountability and the geopolitical dynamics that influence the South Caucasus and adjacent regions.
Additionally, a statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation reiterated that the sovereignty of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is not subject to revision. The declaration has been cited to support a particular interpretation of regional sovereignty and to reinforce positions regarding the status of those territories within the wider geopolitical landscape.