There is such a well-known Georgian politician in the past, Mikheil Saakashvili - did I put it right?

From Saakashvili's own point of view, apparently not.

Here is what this character wrote on social networks: “I am a prisoner, a prisoner in Georgia, but my heart is in Ukraine.

I want freedom for Ukraine, I want to directly participate in the struggle and I am sure that Ukrainians do not abandon their people and will remember me.”

You can be "captured" in a foreign country.

But is Georgia really a foreign state for Mikheil Saakashvili?

If you believe the official biography of the politician, then it’s not even very accurate: he was born in 1967 in Tbilisi.

He also graduated from school in Tbilisi.

Former Member of the Georgian Parliament.

Former Minister of Justice of Georgia.

Former President of Georgia.

Somehow, all this does not look like the life path of a person alien to Georgia!

True, there are other interesting details in Saakashvili's biography: the former head of the Odessa Regional State Administration.

Former head of the executive committee for reforms in Ukraine.

But these lines of the politician's biography also make one ask a number of questions.

If Mikheil Saakashvili is the very embodiment of a “patriotic Ukrainian,” then why on earth did he go to Georgia last fall to return to power?

It turns out to be a mess!

In the past, of course, there were precedents when the same person successively headed several very different states.

For example, in 1573, Henry, the fourth son of the French king Henry II, was elected king of Poland (a striking fact: among his elective competitors was the sovereign, tsar and Grand Duke of All Russia Ivan the Terrible).

But our Heinrich (oh, sorry, definitely not ours) did not like it in Warsaw - even in the rank of king.

On January 24, 1574, he entered the territory of Poland, and already on June 19 of the same year, His Royal Majesty deigned to escape from Poland.

And Henry had a good reason for this: the opportunity to take the throne of the king of France.

It's logical, right?

If you choose where to be king, in Warsaw or Paris, then the choice is quite obvious.

But such political touring was the norm in the old days, when the “right of blood” decided everything, and no one could even think about democracy.

Why did Mikheil Saakashvili manage to get confused and lost between countries already in the 21st century?

Let the ex-president of Georgia look for the answer to this question himself.

He now has more than enough free time.

I want to say something that is very important not only for the political and human fate of Mikheil Saakashvili.

In 2006, the then president of Georgia said that his country had every chance of becoming a member of NATO in 13 years.

More than 13 years have passed since then.

Georgia did not become a NATO member and, based on the position of the current authorities of this state, no longer considers such an idea as something unambiguously positive.

After the start of the Russian special operation in Ukraine, Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili said: “Of course, we are aware of the actions of our international partners after the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine (I mean economic and financial sanctions).

And I would like to clearly and unequivocally state that Georgia is not going to participate in these sanctions, as this will only greatly harm our country and population.”

What does this indicate?

That Georgia learned the right lessons from the events of August 2008, when President Saakashvili suddenly decided that Russia was a “paper bear” that would meekly swallow his attack on South Ossetia.

I will give one more quote from Garibashvili's speech.

Recalling that his country had already “fought three times with Russia,” the Georgian prime minister vowed: “We guarantee the population that there will be lasting peace in the country, no second front, no war.

On the contrary, there will be development, creation and peace.”

"Creation and peace" will be, but the conflict with Russia will not.

Saakashvili's successors at the helm of the Georgian state with "political learning" are doing not just well, but very well.

But to Mikheil Saakashvili himself, the words that Charles de Talleyrand, the genius of European diplomacy of the 19th century, uttered about the French royal Bourbon dynasty, are quite applicable: "They have not forgotten anything and have not learned anything."

However, why am I referring only to Talleyrand?

The Russian Emperor Alexander I described the same Bourbons in a similar way:

It's a pity, it's a pity that Saakashvili "has not corrected himself and is incorrigible."

But these are his personal problems.

But what goes far beyond the personal problems of the former president of Georgia: the Ukrainian political elite repeated the main mistake of Mikheil Saakashvili.

But she had every chance to learn from his bitter experience in August 2008.

It is sad that all these chances remained unused.

That was not what Saakashvili was doing in Ukraine, not at all!

And in the "Georgian captivity", judging by his message quoted above, Mikhail Saakashvili is also doing something completely different from what he himself, and Georgia, and Ukraine need.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.