By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Widespread protests erupted across Georgia following Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze’s postponement of EU accession until 2028, prompting police crackdowns with pepper spray and water cannons. These demonstrations, concentrated in Tbilisi but spreading to other major cities, involve thousands erecting barricades and clashing with authorities near the parliament building. The U.S. responded by suspending its strategic partnership with Georgia, citing the Georgian Dream party’s anti-democratic actions. President Zourabichvili condemned the government’s pro-Russian leanings, while Kobakhidze dismissed fears of a Ukraine-style revolution.
Read the original article here
Protests are erupting across Georgia in response to the government’s pro-Russia stance and rejection of closer ties with the European Union. The widespread demonstrations highlight a deep-seated desire among many Georgians to align their nation with the West, a sentiment seemingly at odds with their current leadership.
The belief that Russia is significantly influencing Georgian politics is prevalent among protestors. Many perceive the current government as a puppet regime, installed and manipulated by Russia to thwart Georgia’s aspirations for closer relations with the EU. This perspective frames the current unrest as a direct consequence of Russian interference in Georgian internal affairs, a pattern seemingly repeated across numerous global conflicts.
The economic disparity between Russia and the EU is frequently cited as a reason for Georgia’s strong preference for the latter. Russia’s comparatively weak economy, often described as significantly smaller than even individual states within the EU, is contrasted with the economic opportunities and stability offered by the European bloc. This contrast fuels the conviction that aligning with Russia is economically disadvantageous for Georgia.
Many see the situation in Georgia as mirroring the events that unfolded in Ukraine. Both countries initially saw democratic elections resulting in governments that, eventually, prioritized closer ties with Russia over EU integration. In both cases, this decision resulted in popular uprisings expressing the people’s desire for a different path.
Concerns are rising that the EU’s response to the Georgian protests could be interpreted as destabilizing interference, similar to criticisms leveled against the EU’s role in Ukraine. Some believe that the EU should allow the Georgian people to express their preferences through democratic means, rather than potentially contributing to internal conflict.
There’s considerable debate about the role and influence of oligarchs in both Georgia and Ukraine. Some argue that the oligarchic structures benefit from maintaining close ties with Russia, while others assert that EU integration would ultimately allow oligarchs to legitimize their assets and wealth more easily. The perceived self-interest of the oligarchy is seen as a key factor in the government’s anti-EU stance and a major point of contention among protestors.
A significant portion of the discussion centers on the relative economic power of Russia versus the EU. While some downplay Russia’s economic strength, calling it “tiny,” others point out that even if Russia isn’t the fourth-largest economy globally, it’s still not insignificant and possesses considerable influence, particularly within its geopolitical sphere. The accuracy of various economic metrics and the perception of Russia’s economic power are points of ongoing contention.
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine significantly impacts the perception of Russia’s capabilities and influence. While some believe Russia’s attention is diverted by the Ukrainian war, leading to a window of opportunity for the West, others contend that Russia maintains considerable power and influence, ready to act to protect its interests.
The involvement of figures from other countries in the Georgian protests is noted, with comments on the French President’s support for the protests. This highlights the international dimensions of the conflict, showing that the situation in Georgia is attracting attention and concern from beyond its borders.
The potential outcomes of the Georgian protests remain uncertain. Some fear a scenario similar to the conflict in Ukraine, while others express hope for a peaceful resolution that aligns Georgia with the European Union. The situation is seen as a critical juncture in Georgian history, potentially shaping the country’s future trajectory for decades to come.
Many are drawing parallels between the situation in Georgia and other countries experiencing political upheaval, especially those grappling with internal conflicts and external pressures. The protests in Georgia are viewed as yet another example of the global struggle between liberal democracies and authoritarian regimes, emphasizing the global reach of the political and ideological battles being fought.
The deep-seated desire for a more democratic and prosperous future is clearly driving the protests. The Georgian people are actively asserting their desire for self-determination and a path towards closer ties with Europe. Whether their aspirations prevail amidst external pressures remains to be seen, but the protests stand as a powerful expression of their will.