While Georgia has made significant progress in its integration process with the European Union (EU), recent developments have highlighted the country’s contradictory stance towards this goal and the growing tensions in its relations with the West. Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze’s announcement of suspending negotiations until 2028 has sparked widespread reactions both domestically and internationally. This decision has led to questions on the international stage regarding Georgia’s democratic commitments and its relations with the West, while domestically triggering large-scale protests and criticism towards the government. These events mark a critical turning point for Georgia’s political and strategic orientation.
On November 28, 2024, Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze attracted international attention by announcing the suspension of EU membership negotiations until 2028 and the rejection of the bloc’s budgetary grants during this period. Kobakhidze’s statement underscored Georgia’s conflicting strategy in its EU integration process and further highlighted the tensions in its relations with the West. The Prime Minister justified the decision by emphasizing Georgia’s desire to achieve “dignified integration” and accused European politicians and bureaucrats of “insults and blackmail” against his country. Furthermore, he accused the European Parliament of being used as a “tool of blackmail” against the Georgian government and stated that integration could only progress on a foundation of “mutual respect.”[1]
This statement reveals that the emphasis on independence and sovereignty has become prominent in Georgia’s stance towards EU membership. Prime Minister Kobakhidze’s assertion that the government would fulfill 90% of its EU-related obligations with its own resources by 2028 and his framing of EU membership not as a “favor” but as a “dignified right” reflect the country’s distancing posture towards the West. However, this approach by the Georgian government has triggered a new wave of tension in its relations with the West, drawing harsh criticism from both the United States (US) and the EU.
Following the announcement, the opposition called on the public to protest against the government, resulting in a large crowd gathering in front of the parliament. Protesters expressed their dissatisfaction with the decision and the government, further escalating tensions by creating challenges for security forces during demonstrations. This situation illustrates both the public’s discontent with the decision and the growing pressures faced by the government in domestic politics.
The United States has criticized Georgia’s increasing authoritarian tendencies and the disproportionate use of force by police against protesters. The U.S. Department of State announced the suspension of the U.S.-Georgia Strategic Partnership due to the Georgian government’s anti-democratic practices and called on Georgia to return to the path of Euro-Atlantic integration, conduct transparent investigations into electoral irregularities, and repeal laws restricting freedom of expression. State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller argued that Georgia’s deviation from its goals of EU and NATO integration makes the country more vulnerable to Moscow’s influence.[2] Similarly, EU Foreign Policy Chief Kaja Kallas expressed support for the Georgian people’s choice of a European future, condemned the violence against protesters and signs of democratic backsliding by the government, and stated that this situation would have direct consequences for the EU.[3]
During this period, Council of Europe Secretary General Alain Berset highlighted the international community’s close monitoring of developments in Georgia through his visit to the country. In his meetings with President Salome Zurabishvili and Prime Minister Kobakhidze, Berset expressed concerns over the growing polarization in the country and the violent incidents during protests. Emphasizing the need to investigate allegations of excessive use of force by law enforcement, Berset underlined the importance of protecting freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly for Georgia’s democratic future and stability.[4] The Council of Europe’s announcement that it would continue to support Georgia within the framework of its current Action Plan demonstrates Georgia’s ongoing efforts to seek international support on its path to EU integration.
However, the Georgian government’s contradictory stance in its EU integration process has heightened internal political tensions. Tbilisi Mayor and Georgian Dream Party Secretary General Kakha Kaladze accused the opposition of orchestrating sabotage within state institutions and attempting a coup, stating that such actions would be addressed within the constitutional framework.[5] Prime Minister Kobakhidze, on the other hand, claimed that the opposition was trying to create a “national Maidan” in the country but that this attempt had failed. He also expressed regret over the lack of condemnation from Western diplomats regarding these events. The government has framed the protests as a reaction against what it perceives as the EU’s “blackmail” demands toward Georgia.
The policies of the Georgian government should be analyzed within the framework of regional balancing efforts and strategic calculations in its relations with the West. Georgia is pursuing a policy of balance to reduce the risk of conflict with Russia and to maintain its strategic partnership with China. Instead of EU membership, Georgia aims to establish a model of a country characterized by an “European Georgia” identity—originating from the “East” but politically “balanced.” The postponement of negotiations until 2028 is considered not only an attempt to mitigate the EU’s perceived coercive policies but also a measure to gauge the sentiments of national and international public opinion.
In this context, Georgia’s greatest challenge lies in balancing tensions with the West while simultaneously developing policies that preserve domestic stability. Neglecting democratic reforms or harshly suppressing protests could undermine trust in Georgia on the international stage. Therefore, Georgia must adopt a more inclusive approach and recalibrate its democratic commitments to achieve its long-term development goals. This strategy could help Georgia secure a more sustainable position both in its relations with the West and within regional balances.
The recent developments in Georgia have made the country’s vulnerabilities in internal and external politics more evident. The protests that erupted following the suspension of EU membership negotiations are seen not only as a reaction to the government’s stance against the EU but also as an objection to its governance style in domestic politics. The growing influence of the opposition during this period and its efforts to rally public support have been met with accusations of an attempted “coup” by the government. This tension has become a factor threatening Georgia’s political stability, prompting the government to intensify efforts to re-establish its authority among the public and within state institutions.
On the international stage, the sharp rupture in Georgia’s relations with the EU has further complicated the country’s integration process with the West. Criticism from the Council of Europe and Western countries regarding democracy, human rights, and the rule of law has the potential to damage Georgia’s international reputation. Additionally, alleged signs of potential rapprochement between the government and Russia may reinforce the perception in the West that Georgia is shifting its foreign policy direction. This could risk Georgia losing its role as a regional balancing factor and becoming more vulnerable in geopolitical conflicts.
Considering possible scenarios, Georgia’s internal political crises may develop in two primary directions. In the first scenario, the government might intensify its authoritarian policies, harshly suppress protests, and seek to marginalize the opposition. However, this could bring relations with the West to a breaking point and lead to long-term political polarization within the country. The second scenario envisions the government adopting a more inclusive approach by creating a platform for dialogue with the opposition and reconsidering EU negotiations. This approach could foster a less tense atmosphere domestically and allow Georgia to adopt a more balanced stance in foreign policy. Essentially, this strategy would not only improve Georgia’s relations with the EU but also help the country avoid becoming a target of Western criticism in the international arena. Furthermore, maintaining strategic partnerships and balance policies with the East, particularly with China, would offer significant advantages for Georgia.
It is anticipated that Georgia’s exploratory attempts to gauge reactions will not persist for long and that the country will normalize relations after assessing the responses from national and international public opinion as well as the West. In line with the expectation of resuming negotiations with the EU in the near future, Georgia’s foreign policy objectives are predicted to take shape. The Georgian Dream Party (GDP) is not expected to maintain its current stance, as attempts by the West, particularly through NGOs, to instigate regime change or increase internal tensions under the guise of “color revolutions”—as seen approximately 21 years ago during the 2003 Rose Revolution—are unlikely to be risked by the GDP in the long term. Moreover, considering that the GDP secured power with 53% of the vote in the October 2024 parliamentary elections, it is unlikely to take steps that would make the situation even riskier.
In conclusion, Georgia must adopt a balanced and strategic policy to overcome the current crisis. Reducing tensions in relations with the West, accelerating democratic reforms, and fostering constructive dialogue with the opposition (seen as feasible if the opposition moves away from its radical pro-Western stance) are critically important for maintaining the country’s internal stability and international reputation. However, Georgia’s transformation into a regionally isolated actor under increasing political and economic pressures, and its shift to a more vulnerable position in the search for strategic balance between the West and Russia, does not appear likely in the current order. Just as Europe’s importance forms the foundation of Georgia’s geopolitical position, Georgia’s significance remains vital from the West’s perspective. In this context, it is anticipated that Georgia will formulate a policy that considers not only its internal dynamics but also regional and global power balances during this process.
[1] “Georgian PM Announces Gov’t’s Halt of EU Accession Talks Until 2028, Refusal of Bloc’s Grants”, Agenda.Ge, https://agenda.ge/en/news/2024/41832, (Access Date: 04.12.2024).
[2] Matthew Miller, “Statement on Georgia’s Suspension of European Union Accession”, U.S. Department of State, https://www.state.gov/statement-on-georgias-suspension-of-european-union-accession, (Access Date: 04.12.2024).
[3] Lex Harvey, “Georgia is Being Rocked by Growing Protests. Here’s What You Need to Know”, CNN World, https://edition.cnn.com/2024/12/02/europe/georgia-tbilisi-eu-protests-intl-hnk/index.html, (Access Date: 04.12.2024).
[4] “Situation in Georgia: Secretary General exchanges views with President Salome Zourabichvili and Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze”, Council of Europe, https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/situation-in-georgia-secretary-general-exchanges-views-with-president-salome-zourabichvili-and-prime-minister-irakli-kobakhidze, (Access Date: 04.12.2024).
[5] “Premiyer Gruzii zayavil, chto popytka ‘nats maydana’ provalilas”, TASS, https://tass.ru/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/22571923, (Access Date: 04.12.2024).
