The "Fire" We Choose Not to Put Out

The nationalization of foreign assets and or companies operating within a country is a political practice that has existed for decades. History records that it was first carried out by the Soviet Union during the early success of the Bolshevik Revolution under the leadership of Joseph Stalin in 1917–1918. Changes in state structure and political leadership underpinned the transformation of the Russian Empire, which had previously relied on Western European and United States investment, into a communist system. 

This mistake of the past was later acknowledged by Stalin’s successors, including Vladimir Lenin, who offered concessions to several countries harmed by Stalin’s decisions, allowing them to reinvest in the Soviet Union, particularly in the oil and gas sector. This scheme continued for decades, until the Soviet Union eventually declared its willingness to provide compensation for those losses in 1986 and again in 2017, respectively. 

Although Western observers considered the amount of compensation disproportionate to the losses suffered by investors during the Stalin era, the Soviet Union, and Russia as its successor, did not simply walk away from responsibility. This was partly driven by a broader mission to integrate Russia into the global community, as reflected in the policies of Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, the former president and current president of Russia. 

It is interesting to examine the reactions of countries that suffered losses during the Bolshevik era, including France, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, and the United States. Having received compensation from the Soviet Union in 1986 and from Russia in 2017, these countries were also willing to reinvest in Russia afterward. When Russia declared war on Ukraine on February 24, 2022, their initial reaction was not centered on protecting their investments in Russia, even as the shadow of Bolshevism potentially once again threatened their profits.

The “Fire” That Is Passed Down

Fire is a sacred element in many belief systems across the world, including the Indigenous Georgian Faith. Fire symbolizes purity, though it is not conceived as a primordial origin that precedes everything else, like air. In its physical form, fire serves as a mediator that transforms solid matter into ash, returning it to its origin so it can once again nourish the soil. This benefit is only realized when fire can be controlled, much like human emotion. 

Illustration: private collection

This understanding forms the foundation of the Indigenous Georgian Faith and its various rules. As with many other indigenous belief systems, the desire to live in harmony with the surrounding environment inspires a range of guidelines intended to steer people away from reprehensible behavior. From the perspective of the Indigenous Georgian Faith, a person’s actions do not concern only themselves and their own “universe.” Right or wrong, an individual’s actions affect the spiritual standing of subsequent generations, creating a cycle of cause and effect that must be faced from one generation to the next.

This is not a form of punishment. A believer of the Indigenous Georgian Faith can break this cycle of cause and effect by performing certain acts as “compensation” for the mistakes of previous generations. The aim is to ensure that the lingering “fire” of resentment felt by affected parties can be controlled, extinguished, and no longer passed down. Only then can the human life cycle truly move on, especially since challenges continue to arise, regardless of whether we are ready to face them.

Forgiving Is Harder Than Apologizing

The nationalization of foreign assets and or companies may appear to bring financial benefits to the state that carries it out. What is often overlooked is that the financial losses suffered by the affected parties tend to push them to recover those losses by any means available, because companies are not charitable institutions.

This “fire” can take the form of sanctions, tariffs, bans, blockades, embargoes, tax increases, and a range of other measures with similar implications, all essentially aimed at extracting payment from the subjects of those regulations. On the other hand, the party carrying out the nationalization, cast as the “defendant” in this situation, also has the right to change its fate, because every person has the right to enjoy prosperity, as collectively recognized by our predecessors.

From the perspective of the Indigenous Georgian Faith, the generational impact of a mistake does not affect only the perpetrators, but also the victims. How long the perpetrators and their descendants continue to act as perpetrators, and how long the victims and their descendants continue to see themselves as victims, is ultimately a decision in the hands of each of them. (dswas)