The political situation in Georgia remains tense and deeply polarized, with little sign of meaningful progress. One could argue the country is politically split in two, with society divided along similar lines. Widespread protests reflect growing discontent across different social groups—particularly among youth and artists. In response, the government resorts to familiar rhetoric, claiming that only 150–200 people gather on Rustaveli Avenue (the capital’s main street) and that the protests are orchestrated from abroad. Consequently, the ruling party is unwilling to back down or compromise.
The opposition and much of the critical public continue to rely on pressure from the EU and the United States, while the government insists it is simply “fending off attacks” and hopes for long-term stabilization. At the same time, officials argue that the West is being unfair and applying double standards, claiming Georgia deserves a fresh start in its relations with the international community.
Recent foreign visits by top officials have been interpreted in contrasting ways. Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze’s attendance at the political summit in Albania, President Qavlelashvili’s visit to the Vatican, and several meetings by the foreign minister are seen as positive steps by the ruling party and its supporters. In contrast, critics (mostly on social media) mock such visits—asking, for instance, what there is to celebrate if French President Macron merely exchanged a couple of words with Kobakhidze.
Kobakhidze’s open letter to former U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance also sparked backlash and ridicule. But the real question is: what was the intent behind the letter, and how could it be perceived?
Kobakhidze himself noted that the letter received no reply, adding that “silence is also an important response.”
A Turning Point or Missed Opportunity?
Euronews published an article on PM Kobakhidze’s participation in the European Political Community summit, calling his appearance a significant shift in Georgia–EU diplomatic relations and a potential sign of warming ties.
According to Euronews, Kobakhidze took part in direct discussions with European leaders, including Emmanuel Macron. A short but warm exchange with Macron is seen as a possible indication that Georgia and the EU may be ready to move past previous disagreements.
Kobakhidze acknowledged the moment, saying: “There was a period of limited communication between Georgia and the EU, and it seems our European partners are ready to re-engage.”
Euronews noted that Kobakhidze framed this warming of ties as recognition of Georgia’s “vital importance for Europe,” adding: “Everyone understands the need to engage with Georgia and its leadership. That’s why so many initiatives are coming from European leaders.”
Back in Georgia, Kobakhidze told reporters:
“I can’t go into detail about my conversation with Macron, but I can confirm that we share a similar perception of events unfolding in Georgia.”
Injustice Without an Answer
Kobakhidze reflected on a roundtable in Albania:
“One-third of my speech was about how unfairly Georgia is being treated. The UK Prime Minister didn’t even raise his head—he didn’t like hearing the facts that prove the double standards. When we speak to people directly and present the facts, there is no reply—just vague, unsubstantiated statements. The deep state tried to instigate a revolution in Georgia through European bureaucracy. Those who attempted that have no legitimacy to demand anything from us. They should look inward and address their own hypocrisy before lecturing us. Let them explain why they denied us candidate status and blocked negotiations for three years. We expected the deep state to say no to candidate status to use it as leverage—and that’s exactly what happened.”
Georgia for Georgians or for Foreign Powers?
New laws in Georgia seek to curtail protests (blocking roads now incurs a 5,000 GEL fine—an enormous sum by local standards), restrict foreign funding of NGOs, and more—measures that resemble those of authoritarian regimes. Human rights organizations have reported police brutality and a shrinking space for press freedom. The arrest of journalist Mzia Amaghlobeli attracted significant attention.
These moves have triggered strong statements from Western countries, and some sanctions have already been imposed. Nevertheless, the ruling party continues to insist that Georgia is a sovereign nation and will not accept foreign interference.
A recent example:
After Lithuania’s Foreign Minister called for fair elections in Georgia, Tbilisi Mayor Kakha Kaladze responded:
“No one—not some European officials or representatives—has the right to tell Georgia, a country whose government was elected by the majority, what laws to pass. Their real issue is that they couldn’t dominate Georgia like they did with Ukraine. We’ve said it many times: ‘Ukrainization’ will not happen here. We will do everything to defend our country and its interests.”
Political analyst Ramaz Sakvarelidze added on Georgian public television:
“Sooner or later, the EU will admit that it has done all it could. But for now, it is the opposition’s benefactor. They’re not pushing for a new government—polls show that’s not realistic. What they need is chaos. That’s why European leaders hint at re-elections—without unrest, they can’t justify such claims. So it’s clear: the liberal West currently wants confrontation in Georgia. But with time, the climate—both political and natural—will change.”
Friendship or Hostility?
The European Parliament and the U.S. House of Representatives have strongly condemned the situation in Georgia. The MEGOBARI Act, passed in the U.S., accuses the Georgian government of democratic backsliding and proposes targeted sanctions against key figures, including informal leader Bidzina Ivanishvili and current PM Kobakhidze.
Kobakhidze’s open letter to Trump might be seen as a strategic move in this context. In it, he expresses dissatisfaction with the current U.S. administration’s lack of engagement, accuses NGOs like USAID and the NED of fueling anti-government sentiment in Georgia, and urges Trump to help “reset” relations.
He highlights Georgia’s historical support in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming it saved the U.S. $2.5 billion. He calls the MEGOBARI Act “absurd” and “hostile to the Georgian people” and urges Trump to help defeat the “deep state,” which he says influences both American and Georgian politics.
Kobakhidze:
“If President Trump manages to weaken the deep state, it will positively affect U.S.–Georgia relations. Otherwise, the current status quo will persist. Our interest lies in resetting and forming fair relations based on shared values.”
Foreign Minister Maka Bochorishvili added:
“The Georgian government has long expressed concern about the state of relations during the previous U.S. administration. We hope that a new administration will bring a qualitative shift, aligning bilateral ties with the national interests of both Georgia and the U.S.”
Nika Gvaramia, leader of the “Coalition for Change,” disagrees:
“This government poses a threat to the country. That letter to Trump wasn’t just about him—it was a statement to the entire democratic West. These people must go. Otherwise, our homeland will not survive.”
Opposition figures praised the MEGOBARI Act.
Tina Bokuchava (United National Movement):
“The MEGOBARI Act is crucial. It includes sanctions on Ivanishvili and his circle, and also offers positive elements like visa-free travel, increased aid, and investment opportunities. Under a pro-Western government, it could benefit Georgia. But under Ivanishvili’s Russian-style regime, it’s a tool to support the people and sanction the regime.”
Mamuka Khazaradze (Lelo):
“The MEGOBARI Act is the Georgian people’s answer to all the political crimes, violence, and repression committed by the Russian Dream over the past 13 years.”
What Did Marco Rubio Mean?
On May 21, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken testified before Congress when he was asked about Georgia. Congressman Joe Wilson, co-author of the MEGOBARI Act, asked what actions would be taken against “anti-American Georgian Dream.”
Senator Marco Rubio responded (as shared by the U.S. Embassy):
“The United States’ goal is to act in line with our national interests. So we must ask: is it in our interest for an anti-American government to control a strategically important region of the world? If not, we’ll take appropriate steps. This issue is currently under review. I can’t offer specific plans yet, but I can say that we’re evaluating the best response—especially based on local and regional recommendations.”
As expected, the two sides interpreted Rubio’s words very differently. Did he mean Georgia specifically or the region in general? Each side heard what it wanted to.
Foreign Minister Bochorishvili said on Rustavi 2:
“What we heard is that this matter is still under review. The U.S. has not yet finalized its position regarding Georgia.”
The opposition, however, insists the message is clear:
“Rubio confirmed that the U.S. sees Bidzina Ivanishvili’s government as anti-American. That’s deeply alarming. Most Georgians know U.S. support is vital, and we are losing it because of this government,” said Salome Samadashvili of the “Strong Georgia” party.
Tazo Datunashvili added:
“Rubio’s message was clear. The U.S. will decide on the most effective means of pressure based on local guidance. That’s unambiguous.”
Levan Tsutskiridze, leader of “Freedom Square,” concluded:
“Anyone who watched the full comment—not just fragments—knows the U.S. policy reflects the real situation in Georgia. That statement will be followed by actions.”
What’s at Stake
Georgia’s democracy stands at a crossroads. The country is facing:
- A political crisis, coupled with questions about the government’s legitimacy;
- Escalating unrest and erosion of civil liberties;
- Strained relations with the EU and U.S., threatening its Euro-Atlantic aspirations.
Can Georgia overcome this crisis and recommit to democratic, European ideals—or will it drift toward authoritarianism and isolation?
Time will tell—and the answer will depend both on domestic resolve and the international community’s stance.
