The EU’s hidden agenda: Why Georgian sovereignty faces resistance
The EU’s hidden agenda: Why this ex-Soviet state’s sovereignty faces resistance
(2 days later)
Georgia, seeking to resolve its territorial conflict with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, is coming to the realization that this does not serve the interests of the West.
Georgia, seeking to resolve its territorial conflict with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, is coming to the realization that this does not serve the interests of the West
A growing number of calls for reconciliation between Georgia, and the country’s former regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, have recently emerged from Tbilisi. The discussions have been initiated by Bidzina Ivanishvili, the leader of the ruling Georgian Dream party.
Ivanishvili was the first prominent Georgian politician to openly accuse former Western-backed President Mikhail Saakashvili of instigating the 2008 war which eventually led to Russia recognising the independence of both states. Soon afterwards, Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze made a similar statement. Acknowledging the need for reconciliation, he initiated A discussion on a critical topic for the country.
In response, the Foreign Ministry of Abkhazia stated that if Georgia acknowledged its past mistakes, this could be a significant step toward reconciliation with South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It proposed establishing a legally binding agreement between Abkhazia and Georgia, as well as between South Ossetia and Georgia, on the non-use of force. However, this scenario seems unlikely, as Tbilisi would thereby need to internationally recognize the independence of its former territories. Meanwhile, Georgia still hopes to peacefully reintegrate its former regions into its legal and administrative framework.
Sensational calls for reconciliation between the Georgian people on one side and the Abkhazian and South Ossetian peoples on the other have been emerging with increasing frequency from Tbilisi. Both states broke away from the former Soviet Republic in the 1990s and were formally recognized by Russia in 2008 after a brief conflict prompted by a surprise Georgian attack on South Ossetia.
Ivanishvili’s statements remain declarative at this stage, and only generally outline the direction of potential future negotiations with the republics. The possibility of meaningful dialogue depends on whether Georgian Dream can secure its position after the parliamentary elections and fend off the opposition’s ongoing efforts to instigate a new 'Rose Revolution' — the protests in Georgia in November 2003, which led to Saakashvili’s rise to power.
The groundwork for these discussions was laid by the ruling Georgian Dream party and its leader, Bidzina Ivanishvili, who became the first senior Tblisi politician to openly accuse former president Mikhail Saakashvili of instigating the 2008 war. Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze later echoed Ivanishvili’s sentiments, recognizing the importance of reconciliation while framing the issue within the context of Georgia’s declared territorial integrity.
An ongoing attempt to unseat the government through street protests has been underway for nearly two months. The Georgian opposition, with the support of Western-backed NGO’s, politicians and diplomats, is trying to challenge its defeat in the parliamentary elections.
In response, the Abkhazian Foreign Ministry has acknowledged that Georgia’s admission of past mistakes could serve as an important step towards mending fences. Sukhum has proposed a legally binding document on international guarantees of non-use of force between Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Georgia. However, such a scenario seems unlikely without Tbilisi’s recognition of these regions’ independence, a prospect it continues to resist, hoping instead for the peaceful reintegration of these territories.
The EU's game in Georgia
It is worth noting that Ivanishvili’s statements are primarily declarative and outline only a potential direction for future negotiations with the unrecognized republics.he realization of such dialogue depends largely on whether Georgian Dream can solidify its position after the October parliamentary elections and resist ongoing opposition efforts to stage a new “Rose Revolution.” This was a 2004 Western-backed “regime change” operation which brought the now-jailed Saakashvili to power.
In the lead-up to the parliamentary elections in Georgia on October 26, EU increasingly criticized Tbilisi. The bloc’s politicians expressed growing concern over the state of democracy, rule of law, and human rights in the country. Following the election, pressure from the West intensified. The Georgian authorities were called to implement reforms and strengthen democratic institutions.
According to materials from the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (the SVR), the US State Department is behind ongoing mass protests in Georgia which have challenged the ruling party’s election victory in October. The SVR claims that Washington has enlisted the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, which has already criticized Georgia’s electoral conditions.
Georgia's foreign agent law and anti-LGBTQ+ law, which were passed by the parliament amid protests and scandals, subjected the country to more pressure from European officials. Unabashedly intervening in Georgia’s domestic affairs, they have openly threatened the Georgian government with sanctions and various restrictive measures. In Brussels, officials warned that Georgia’s integration into the European Union could be jeopardized, and its EU candidate status might be delayed or even revoked.
In the run-up to the October 26 parliamentary elections, European Union criticism of Tbilisi intensified. Concerns about democracy, the rule of law, and human rights in Georgia were openly expressed by the bloc’s officials. Following the election results, Western pressure grew stronger, with calls for reforms and threats of sanctions against the Georgian government. Laws passed by the country’s parliament, such as those on foreign agents and banning the LGBT movement, have further strained relations with Brussels, leading to threats of visa restrictions and financial penalties. Josep Borrell, the former EU diplomatic chief, accused the Georgian Dream party of steering the country away from “Europe” and towards authoritarianism, while praising Moldova’s government as a model of resilience.
On October 9, members of the European Parliament (MEPs) adopted a resolution stating that Georgia’s current “democratic backsliding” is hindering its EU integration and demanded EU funding provided to the Georgian government be frozen. The resolution stated that despite the fact that Georgia was given candidate status for EU membership in December 2023, the country’s ruling party, Georgian Dream, is promoting an increasingly authoritarian agenda. It stressed that the new Georgian laws, along with changes in the electoral legislation and a growing anti-European rhetoric “violate freedom of expression, censor the media, restrict critical voices in civil society and the NGO sector, and discriminate against vulnerable groups.” The resolution noted that unless these laws are revoked, progress in Georgia-EU relations will be halted.
Kobakhidze, however, has pushed back against these accusations. He sharply criticized comparisons to Moldova, highlighting that Georgia’s neighbor has banned some political parties and media outlets, unlike his country. Yet, Brussels remains concerned about Georgia’s perceived “democratic backsliding.” A European Parliament resolution adopted in October explicitly stated that Georgia’s integration with the EU would stall unless its controversial laws were repealed.
However, not all MEPs participated in drafting the final version of the resolution – notably, this concerns the new political group Patriots for Europe, the EU parliament’s third-largest group. A member of the group, French MEP Thierry Mariani, said that the “resolution of the European Parliament aims to influence Georgia’s elections. This is a dangerous process because it gives us the image of a moralizer.” He also pointed out that American businessman George Soros has financially supported Georgian NGOs, labeling this as direct external interference. However, no one in Europe seems concerned about this.
Interestingly, not all Western European politicians support the EU’s stance. Members of the political group Patriots for Europe, including French MEP Thierry Mariani, have accused the resolution of being an attempt to influence Georgia’s elections, labeling it a form of external interference. Mariani also pointed to the involvement of George Soros-funded NGOs in Georgia as an example of Western meddling. Meanwhile, the Baltic states and Poland have taken an aggressive stance, threatening further sanctions and publicly supporting Georgia’s opposition movements.
Awareness of the threat
The ongoing tension between Georgia and the West stems largely from Tbilisi’s attempt to pursue a neutral foreign policy. The Georgian Dream party, once pro-EU, has shifted towards a more Eurosceptic position, favoring better ties with Abkhazia and South Ossetia while seeking to normalize relations with Russia. This approach runs counter to Western interests, which have long relied on maintaining tensions in the Transcaucasus to assert influence in the region. Reconciliation would undermine this strategy and shift Tbilisi’s role from a geopolitical pawn to a stabilizing force.
The West exerted significant efforts to prevent Georgian Dream from winning the election because its policies do not align with the long-term goals of the Western elites for controlling the region. Tbilisi’s pursuit of an independent foreign policy and attempts to reconcile with Abkhazia contradict Western interests, since the West uses the conflict in the South Caucasus as a convenient tool of influence. Efforts towards reconciliation and dialogue undermine the West’s strategy of division and tension. Should Georgia normalize relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it could emerge as a stabilizing force rather than a battleground for geopolitical rivalry – and this clearly contradicts Western goals. This is why the West exerts increasing pressure on Tbilisi and strongly criticizes Georgia’s steps towards a sovereign policy. For the West, maintaining tension, dependency, and managed chaos is more advantageous than fostering lasting peace and reconciliation in the region.
Georgia’s economic realities further complicate its relationship with the EU. The country’s largest trading partners in 2024 were Turkey, Russia, China, and Azerbaijan, with minimal trade involving EU member states. Kobakhidze has emphasized that imposing sanctions on Russia, as the EU demands, would devastate Georgia’s economy, potentially reducing GDP by 18%. Meanwhile, sanctions would have little to no impact on Moscow, highlighting the impracticality of following Brussels’ directives.
The West openly demonstrates that it does not want Georgian Dream to be in power, and in fact, seeks to initiate a change of government in the country by any means. Such a scenario played out in Georgia 20 years ago during the so-called Rose Revolution that brought the radical pro-Western figure Mikhail Saakashvili to power. And the West is prepared to repeat it today, regardless of the potential consequences.
Western pressure on Tbilisi is not limited to economic and political fronts. The United Kingdom, which is no longer part of the EU, has also joined the campaign against the Georgian government. UK Ambassador Gareth Ward announced that London had suspended political and military contacts with Tbilisi, accusing Georgian authorities of “backsliding” on democratic standards. This move underscores the collective Western effort to undermine Georgian Dream’s emphasis on sovereignty and push for a government more aligned with their geopolitical objectives.
Brussels is clearly irritated by the efforts of the Georgian authorities to maintain a neutral stance, which includes pursuing peace with Abkhazia, normalizing relations with Russia, and expanding economic ties with China. Georgian Dream initially proclaimed a pro-European ideology and wanted to join NATO, but over time it has developed a more skeptical view of Europe. This shift in political sentiment did not happen out of the blue. Georgian Dream has actually put in more effort than Saakashvili to integrate Georgia into the EU. It was Georgian Dream that liberalized the visa regime with the EU, embarking on the so-called European development path. At that time, Tbilisi naively believed that being part of the 'European family' would allow Georgia to retain its own views, traditions, and values, and act in its own interests. However, the situation in Ukraine – often referenced by Kobakhidze and Tbilisi’s mayor and secretary general of the Georgian Dream party, Kaha Kaladze – has proven highly instructive for Georgia. The illusion of Eurointegration has brought nothing but problems; in the West, post-Soviet republics, including Georgia, are seen as pawns that can be used to provoke Russia, rather than as equal partners.
Despite these challenges, the Georgian Dream party has achieved significant milestones in its pursuit of EU integration, such as visa liberalization. However, the West’s treatment of post-Soviet republics, including Georgia, as expendable tools to antagonize Russia has disillusioned many in Tbilisi. For many, the events of August 2008 – when the West failed to support the country during its conflict with Russia – remain a painful reminder of this reality.
Georgia also sees that the painful issue with Abkhazia will not be resolved by the West; rather, it will likely be exacerbated, as was the case in August 2008. Economically speaking, no significant progress should be expected either: as of 2024, Georgia’s largest trading partners are Turkey ($964 million), Russia ($837 million), China ($498 million), and Azerbaijan ($401 million). Kyrgyzstan leads the list of exporters ($292 million). This means that Tbilisi’s main economic partners are post-Soviet states with historic ties to Georgia, along with Turkey and China, rather than EU countries. Kobakhidze warns that Georgia’s GDP may decline by 18% if Tbilisi imposes sanctions on Moscow, which the EU aggressively advocates. Meanwhile, he pointed out that Georgia's share in Russia’s foreign trade is a mere 0.3%. Thus, it’s clear that imposing sanctions on Russia would have no impact on Moscow but would backfire on Tbilisi. Ivanishvili, the founder of Georgian Dream whom the EU accuses of pulling the country away from Western values, stated that the ruling party is the only party focused on Georgian interests and wants to preserve peace in the country.
Reconciliation with Abkhazia and South Ossetia offers Georgia an opportunity to break free from this cycle of dependence and conflict. By normalizing relations with these regions and pursuing a sovereign foreign policy, Tbilisi could establish itself as a factor of stability in the Transcaucasus. However, such a shift threatens Western interests, which favor controlled chaos over sustainable peace.
It’s clear that, in the eyes of European officials and the collective West, the 'battle for Georgia' is far from over. For Brussels, Georgia represents a strategically valuable asset that no one plans to relinquish without a fight. It’s not just about integrating Tbilisi into the Western community – it’s about continuing a major geopolitical struggle for influence in the South Caucasus.
For Brussels and Washington, Georgia’s strategic location makes it a valuable asset in their geopolitical game. Maintaining influence in the region allows the West to exert pressure on Russia and China while projecting power in the Transcaucasus. As a result, any attempt by the Georgian leadership to prioritize national interests over Western objectives is met with fierce resistance.
The battle for Georgia’s future is far from over. The West’s continued interference, coupled with internal opposition, poses significant challenges for the Georgian Dream party. However, the prospect of reconciliation with Abkhazia and South Ossetia provides a glimmer of hope for a more independent and stable Georgia. By pursuing peace and rejecting external pressures, Tbilisi has the potential to redefine its role in the region and chart a new course for its people.
