Melik Kaylan’s reaction to Saakashvili’s departure from office wins the prize for being the most unhinged:

Why does it matter to the rest of us what happens in Georgia and environs? Answer: if the West cannot help an aspiring ally with dreams of joining Nato and the EU, cannot even protect it from Russian hegemony, what are we doing meddling in the Middle East or anywhere else? And if we can’t help Georgia, then what is left of the West’s victory in the Cold War?

This makes no sense. The “West’s victory in the Cold War” would be quite secure no matter what happened with Georgia’s NATO and EU aspirations. Virtually every former Soviet satellite in central and eastern Europe now belongs to one or both organizations, and the USSR has been dead for more than twenty years. Continuing to expand NATO into the former Soviet Union serves no purpose except to extend security guarantees to countries that other NATO members will never fight to defend. Meanwhile, trying to bring Georgia into NATO has done more to revive Cold War-era tensions between Russia and the West than almost any other policy, and it contributed to the terrible decision by Saakashvili to fight a war that inflicted enormous damage on Georgia. Trying to “help” Georgia in this way resulted in disaster. Georgia doesn’t need any more of this kind of “help.” Certainly, it has not helped Georgia for Westerners to defend Saakashvili at every turn, vilify his opponents, and recycle his propaganda. These people have been deliberately conflating Georgian interests with the political interests of Saakashvili for a decade, and now that he is leaving office they still can’t stop.

Later on, Kaylan rages against Thomas de Waal’s fair and accurate review of Saakashvili’s tenure as “so virulently one-sided that it borders on charlatanry,” but that would be a much more fitting description of his own article.