Georgian jets in fly-past during Independence Day parade © Defense Ministry of Georgia
The Republic of Georgia, a country in Eastern Europe that gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, is poised to capture international attention for reasons far removed from its shared name with the US state. As disputes intensify over the future direction of this former Soviet republic, the potential for escalation looms large. The involvement of Russia’s assertive and easily provoked president, Vladimir Putin, heightens the risk of the situation becoming increasingly intractable, perilous, and even bloody for those entangled in or proximate to the conflict. With Putin’s interest piqued, the likelihood of casualties rises, as is often the case in disputes that draw his focus. Georgia’s future now hangs in the balance, fuelled by the interests of Putin and other external actors, shrouding the country in uncertainty.
Georgia has, of course, been in the news before. Indeed, it was there, in the small town of Gori in 1878 (despite the claim in an official biography that it was a year later) that Ioseb Jugashvili first emerged into a world he would come to know very well. Some might say uncomfortably well. Jugashvili is better known by his adopted name: Joseph Stalin. He decided to be on record as one year younger than his real age only in the 1920s. It seems that nobody knows why, although the different ways of recording the passage of years in Russia may have something to do with it, so it could have been a simple error. In any case, Stalin’s 50th birthday was celebrated a year later than it should have been, to go by the church records of his baptism.
There is an excellent biography of Stalin, written by Oleg Khlevniuk that I would recommend to anyone wishing to know more about the man and the monster. Khlevniuk certainly doesn’t play down the horrors of Stalin’s blood-soaked rule. We should also perhaps note in passing that Georgian is not only a nationality but also a language in its own right and one that uses a unique and rather beautiful alphabet that seems at first glance to more closely resemble Arabic in appearance than it does, say, Cyrillic or Latin, which appear harsh and rather too angular by comparison. In fact, it seems to be unlike any other written language I’ve ever seen. I wish I could read it. In Georgia itself, of course it is in widespread use, certainly by some 88% of the people of Georgia, anyway.
But where does all this place us today? Georgia’s president, Salome Zurabishvili, has warned that the upcoming election there is far more than a regular and routine political event. It represents the chance for Georgian citizens to choose between lining up with the West or returning to Russia’s sphere of influence: European integration or the dominance of Moscow? Which would you choose? And, most importantly, which will the people of Georgia choose? The plain fact is that Georgia cannot afford to dither: making the right choice now is vital and will decide Georgia’s future into the years ahead. The current government, led by the Georgian Dream political party, does not have an unblemished record of governance. In fact, it has been responsible for several “mishaps”, caused by poor judgement, mismanagement and a lack of accountability, but opposition parties are reluctant to describe it as a “Russian government”, despite the strong Moscow influence.
It will not be easy for the opposition partes to position themselves as representing a bright new future for the country. The opposition is divided, too, rather than being a single party or even an alliance, and it will have to convince voters that it will stand against authoritarianism and give the ordinary people a chance to flourish. And “do their own thing” in the common parlance of today. Convincing voters of that intention will not be easy, despite the current government’s unpopularity. It goes without saying that Putin is engaged in trying to prevent democracy from taking hold, partly through its antidemocratic “foreign agent law”, the existence of which prevents Georgia having any chance of joining the EU. Originally introduced in Russia in response to criticism of Putin’s insistent control of any activities in Russia involving foreigners, it requires anyone in the country who receives support from outside Russia or who is seen to be under influence from outside the country to declare themselves to be “foreign agents”, which means being subjected to additional audits as well as marking any publications they publish with a 24-word disclaimer stating that they are being distributed by a “foreign agent”. The law, which is utterly ridiculous, was introduced in response to objections to Putin’s fears that voices other than his might gain an audience. Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, claims that the United States and France have such laws but that they are even tougher. This is, of course, an outright lie, but truth plays little part in the Putin rule book and hardly ever in any statements by Lavrov. Some might argue that Putin is only displaying sensible caution; others might say he is plainly displaying paranoia that is verging on madness. You choose.
| BEHIND THE GAY IRON CURTAIN
Lavrov also claims that the West is trying to impose LGBTQ rights on Russia, and now on Georgia, too, and he claims that the current Georgian government is only now becoming aware that the people of Georgia “have the values or Orthodoxy and national culture, which will be eroded, erased and subjugated by the ‘rules’ that the West is imposing on everyone, primarily in the context of the values of liberal democracy or, if you will, democratic liberalism.”
That would seem to suggest that personal freedom is a bad thing and that only Russian influence can save Georgia from adopting it. Only Russia can prevent Georgians from having free will. Lavrov seems oddly unaware that just because it’s not illegal to be gay doesn’t mean that it’s compulsory, either. The idea in much of the West, even if disapproved of in many places, is that those who feel gay can exercise their preferences without prosecution. They’re not forced into it, Mr. Lavrov; have no fear! In fact, following the October Revolution of 1917, the new Bolshevik rulers rewrote the country’s laws, and they left off the articles banning homosexuality. Indeed, a wedding was held in Petrograd (St. Petersburg, as it’s now known) between Russian sailors dressed in women’s clothes. In fact, one of the organisers was a member of the secret police and all the guests were arrested and accused of being counter-revolutionaries, but the case was thrown out and young gay men (I can find no reference to gay women) identified their preferences by wearing red ties, shawls or other fashions, or even make-up, and no-one seemed to mind. That doesn’t mean, of course, that the famed Red Army was gay. Even so, it’s a good job Lavrov wasn’t there. Despite Soviet Russia’s fairly open attitude to gay rights, homosexuality was criminalised eventually, although that changed after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia had been the first modern country to legalize homosexuality and same-sex marriage, which seems odd when one considers that conditions in much of the country were virtually feudal.
That was then and this is now, but in some ways Russia seems to be going backwards and trying to drag its former satellites along with it. Lavrov is clearly acting as Putin’s faithful lapdog, supporting his view that only his opinions about anything are right. He is wrong.
Georgian President Zurabishvili is portraying the election as a battle between those in favour of a western-style democracy and those who would prefer a Moscow-led state lacking individual freedoms, especially freedoms that stand in the way of a Russian hegemony and the obsessive one-man rule of Putin, our latter-day would-be tsar. The last time I was in Moscow was several years ago, when Putin was not trying to play at being the Tsar and matters were therefore rather more relaxed. Walking through Red Square was an enjoyable experience without the fear of imminent arrest. It was possible to admire the handsome, if somewhat austere, architecture. But Putin is opposed to freedom, of course, and seems to believe he should not only impose the law (which would be fair enough for any leader) but also his own narrow set of morals, too, (which would not). Poor old Georgia. I don’t imagine that many Georgians believe the Lavrov narrative that the West is trying to “drag them” into “a vortex of liberal democracy”. How could it be described as “a vortex”? Even if it were proved to be true, would many Georgians mind? Their choice is really between a pre-Soviet-style iron rule by one man and the freedom of personal choice offered by Western-style democracy.
| A QUESTION OF CHOICES
Voters who previously supported the discredited Georgia Dream party have been urged to open their minds to the alternatives. One opponent of Georgia Dream has defined it as “the party of disaster”, drawing attention to “the preventable tragedies that have occurred under their watch due to negligence and mismanagement”. Certainly, the party’s record in government has not won it many plaudits. Opposition parties must show their determination to prevail, despite the fear of violence and repression, both of which are ever-present when Russia opposes something. Politicians who are against the current government have expressed the fear that the country is being drawn inexorably into the bottomless pit of Russian rule, from which escape is all but impossible. Georgia has applied to join the EU, a policy that is now enshrined in its constitution, and an Association Agreement was signed in 2014, but some Georgian officials have tried to sabotage that move by supporting the country’s Russia-style “foreign agents” law, designed to silence independent media and suppress dissent. It will become illegal to criticise Putin. Lavrov would love it, as would the oligarchs who support him.
The plain fact is that there are Georgian businessmen with close ties to Russia and the FSB, Moscow’s secret service. Otar Partskhalaze, for instance, has been sanctioned by the United States, along with his FSB “handler”, Aleksandr Onishchenko. Then there’s Giorgi Liluashvili, Georgia’s head of state security and a close advisor to the current prime minister, who stands accused of helping companies to evade Russian sanctions. He also arranged and oversaw the Security Service’s private security escort for the daughter of Sergei Lavrov, Yekatarina, who travelled to Georgia in 2023 to participate in a wedding. It seems to be one law for rulers and oligarchs and very different ones for everybody else.
| BIDZINA IVANISHVILI : GEORGIA’S KINGMAKER
Bidzina Ivanishvili is a Georgian billionaire and influential political figure, best known for his role as the founder of the Georgian Dream party, which has been the ruling party in Georgia since 2012. He served as Prime Minister from 2012 to 2013, after leading Georgian Dream to victory against the United National Movement, led by then-President Mikheil Saakashvili. Ivanishvili formally stepped down from politics in 2013, though many believe he continues to exert significant influence behind the scenes.
Ivanishvili’s wealth was estimated at $7 billion in 2024 and informal power give him considerable influence over Georgian politics, including the upcoming elections. Even though he no longer holds an official position, he is seen by many as the de facto leader of Georgian Dream. His decisions and influence within the party often shape the party’s policies and strategies.
This influence could play a crucial role in future elections. Critics argue that his control over media outlets and business sectors gives him undue influence over public opinion and political outcomes in Georgia. As such, his actions, endorsements, or any shifts in the leadership of Georgian Dream could significantly impact the results of the upcoming elections and the direction of Georgian politics.
Opposition parties have long accused Ivanishvili, who made his fortune in Russia in the 1990s, of loyalties to Putin.
On 9 June 2022, the European Parliament issued a six-page resolution accusing the government of Georgia and Ivanishvili of eroding press freedom in the country. The resolution also described Ivanishvili as having “personal and business links to the Kremlin”, and recommended that the European Union sanction Ivanishvili for “his role in the deterioration of the political process in Georgia.” The resolution had a significant impact in Georgia, coming amidst a request for European Union candidate status.
The prime aim of Georgia’s Russia-sympathising officials seems to be power, influence and personal enrichment, not the good of the country. Despite everything, the EU is still Georgia’s largest and most important trading partner, and that trade is still growing, despite the likes of Putin and Lavrov, although the adoption of the “Foreign Agent” law may have a negative impact. Meanwhile, the EU has informed the Georgian government that it should reverse its controversial Russian-style law so that negotiations for full membership can proceed. They are currently suspended in the hope that Georgia will change course. EU leaders also expressed their wish to undertake short-term and long-term monitoring of elections and called for an end to increasing acts of intimidation, threats and physical assault against representatives of Georgia’s civil society, civilians, politicians and journalists and reaffirmed their solidarity with the Georgian people. As always with the EU, at the end of the day, it’s just words, however well-meaning, while Russia prefers to reinforce its views with threats and violence. The ghost of Stalin, it seems, still haunts the corridors of power, especially where Georgia is concerned. The EU believes that the “Foreign Agent” law, so closely based on Russia’s example, is intended to stifle debate ahead of this autumn’s elections. As we have seen, Putin doesn’t favour debate when simple threats and violence seem to work so well in his favour.
Interestingly, the new law was passed despite massive street protests by Georgians who have dubbed it “the Russian law”, with any organisation that receives more than 20% of its funding from overseas having to register as “acting in the interests of a foreign power”. It seems that Russia itself doesn’t count as “foreign”, although it very clearly is. The Georgian government, fervently pro-Moscow, argues that the new law will ensure transparency while protecting Georgia from “foreign influence”. Again, we must assume that “Russian” doesn’t count as “foreign”, at least in the eyes of some.
Meanwhile, there have been several examples reported of NGO workers, activists and opposition politicians being threatened and even physically assaulted at rallies up and down the country. The EU has described them as “increasing acts of intimidation” and called on the government to ensure that the elections are free and fair, although it’s by no means certain that it’s what the existing government really wants. Currently, the EU’s ambassador to Georgia, Pawel Herczynski, has said recently that Tbilisi and the European Union were going through “a difficult period”. Despite this – and despite the enormous block on further integration caused by the “foreign agents” law – there has been progress in the reform of laws relating to human rights. In the area of Common Foreign and Security Policy, following Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, Georgia has aligned itself with international and EU initiatives in support of Kyiv (which is a lovely city in my memory, as well as being the seventh most populous city in Europe, and an important industrial, scientific, educational, and cultural centre). When I was there, there was some sort of fancy-dress event taking place, presumably linked to the university, and I especially recall one young woman walking proudly through the main square dressed as Minnie Mouse (I’m only assuming it was a woman because she was wearing a headdress that completely covered and hid her face). Georgia has supported resolutions on the subject of Ukraine adopted by the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council as well as the Council of Europe, although it did not align with the EU’s proposed restrictive measures against Russia and Belarus. Some might argue that a small helping is preferable to an empty plate, if only just in this case. Certainly, protests against the “Foreign Agents” laws have attracted thousands. It’s a very unpopular idea, however much Putin and Lavrov may like it.
| IS HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF?
Georgia has had a very chequered past, after it was first established as a unified kingdom in the early 11th century by King Bagrat III, who assembled the country from a number of the ancient kingdoms of Colchis and Iberia. The current country became independent in 1991, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Back in those early years it had rulers with such wonderful names as King David IV “the Builder” and Quyen Tamar the Great, back in the days before it succumbed to a Mongol invasion in 1243. It later re-emerged as an independent kingdom under George V “the Brilliant”, who lost it in turn to the Timurid Empire in 1403. That didn’t last and by 1490 it had been broken up into a lot of petty kingdoms and principalities which struggled to retain their independence against the Ottoman Empire and then the Iranians (or Persians, as they were then), finally becoming a part of the Russian empire in the 19th century. It enjoyed brief independence as the Democratic Republic of Georgia before being swallowed up by the Soviet Union prior to its dissolution. In its present form, it has only been an independent state since 1991, and now, it seems, Russia has its eyes on Georgia once again. Mr. Putin is a greedy man.
We should not forget that Russia seized Abkhazia and South Ossetia back in 2008 and they’re still there, despite protests. Few people believe the message picked out in stones that reads “thank you Russia”, which is assumed to have been put there by Russians. Most of the Georgians living there have protested against Russia’s unwelcome presence and there have been demonstrations against it, too, but it takes courage to participate in them: Moscow doesn’t like dissent. Babies born in any territory under its control must be registered as “Russian”, whatever their parents may say. In fact, Putin seems to be basing his policies on those employed by Attila the Hun: invade, capture, control, silence any opposition. Just like Putin today, Attila and his brother failed to keep their promises over the years that followed. At one of the anti-Russian demonstrations in South Ossetia, one man can be seen holding a placard that reads: “Russia is an occupant!!!” (note all the exclamation marks). That message is something that no-one can deny and an attempt by Georgia to seize back its territory met with defeat, despite both territories being recognized internationally as Georgian, not Russian.
Several Georgian towns, a military airport and a Black Sea port were bombed by the Russian air force, while several Georgian villages in South Ossetia were completely destroyed. Putin doesn’t do things by halves.
As it is, hundreds of Georgians were killed in the ensuing conflict and thousands were displaced by Russian forces. We must suppose that Putin wants people to desire Russian rule and to enjoy it, but he has a very odd way of showing it. As it is, the “foreign agent” law is impacting on charitable organisations trying to improve social care and health, such as Sotsium, a small local charity working to stem the spread of HIV. To describe Putin’s law as immoral falls far short of reality, but don’t expect him to change his mind. In his address to the parliament of the Russian Federation on the first anniversary of the war against Ukraine on February 21, 2023, Russian Putin labeled those Russians who share Western liberal ideas as “national traitors.” He also said: “the West will obviously try to undermine and split our society, betting on national traitors, who at all times have the same poison of contempt for their own fatherland and the desire to make money by selling this poison to those who are willing to pay for it.” He would appear to believe that he and he alone should be in charge of everything. What he is saying is, it seems, that unless you would like to trade democracy for a one-man dictatorship by someone who may be mentally unstable, you are a traitor. Such self-obsession is hard to imagine and impossible to justify. Putin is, clearly, a very disturbed and some might say evil man, so a few extra deaths probably won’t bother him, based on current evidence. It’s hard to try to think how he thinks, although large-scale bank robbers and gangsters running organised crime probably share similar ideas. He talks about the need for high morals although his own have been called into question by some.
Where does Georgia go from here? It’s a big question, because the indications are that if the elections don’t bring the results Putin would like, it won’t end there. He’s not known for “letting sleeping dogs lie”, as the saying goes. Would he plunge the whole of Europe and perhaps the wider world into war just because he wants to be in charge? Based on the evidence so far, that would appear to be the case. I’m beginning to suspect that even Stalin would be shocked.
