By Irakli Kiknavelidze and Tomáš Baranec

Ilia II of the Georgian Orthodox Church (GeOC) died on 17 March. Over nearly five decades, he consolidated the Church’s position as one of Georgia’s most influential and trusted institutions. His tenure was characterized by a dominant patriarchate, a relatively constrained Holy Synod, and a cautious approach to partisan politics and foreign policy alignment. The accession of Shio III marks the beginning of a new era for the GeOC, bringing expectations of a redefined balance between the patriarch and the synod, as well as potential consequences arising from the Church’s increased engagement in domestic and international politics.

BACKGROUND:

Under the 1995 Statute of Administration of the GeOC, the Holy Synod plays the central role in the election of the Patriarch. It is responsible for nominating three candidates and is the only body granted voting rights within the Extended Council, which selects the final candidate. All other participants, unlike under the pre-1995 system, serve solely in an advisory capacity.

Ideologically, the Holy Synod can currently be divided into three principal blocs. The conservative bloc is characterised by a dogmatic stance on cultural and ethical issues, scepticism towards Western integration, and, to varying degrees, openness to cooperation with the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC).

The national-conservative bloc often adopts an even more dogmatic position on cultural and ethical issues than the conservative bloc, while remaining strongly anti-Russian. Consequently, it is particularly sceptical of both the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and Georgia’s integration with Western institutions.

The liberal bloc, the smallest of the three, advocates more moderate positions on socio-ethical issues and is broadly supportive of Georgia’s political integration with Western institutions.

A heterogeneous yet numerically significant group within the Holy Synod consists of centrists, whose members are generally less ideologically committed and more pragmatic in their outlook than those belonging to the principal ideological blocs.

At its session on April 28, the Holy Synod nominated three candidates for the patriarchate, broadly reflecting the three principal ideological currents within the Church. Metropolitan Shio Mujiri, backed by the conservative wing, received 20 votes. The national-conservative bloc nominated Iob Akiashvili, who secured 7 votes, while the liberal wing put forward Grigol Berbichashvili, who also received 7 votes.

In the final vote held on 11 May, Metropolitan Shio Mujiri was elected head of the GeOC with 22 votes. Metropolitan Iob received nine votes, while Metropolitan Grigol secured seven. Mujiri was enthroned the following day, assuming the title Shio III.

IMPLICATIONS:

As one of the few senior figures within the GeOC to have received theological education in Russia, Shio has frequently been portrayed in the media as “Moscow’s candidate,” a characterisation openly used by Archbishop Zenon Iarajuli, among others. Critics have also pointed to his close relationship with Georgia’s ruling party. In contrast, Patriarch Ilia II maintained close ties with the Georgian state as an institution while generally avoiding overt alignment with any particular political party.

The accession of Shio III can be regarded as a significant success for the ROC, particularly with respect to the question of recognising the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), which is a fully independent, autocephalous national church. Both of Shio’s rivals, Iob and Grigol, stated that they would support recognition of the OCU’s independence if elected. Shio, by contrast, avoided taking a public position on the issue during the election process. Given his longstanding ties to the ROC, it appears unlikely that he will endorse recognition of the OCU and will instead support the Moscow-affiliated Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). As a result, the ROC can expect continued support from the GeOC on an issue of major strategic importance to Moscow, potentially for decades to come.

To an extent that remains uncertain, Shio’s accession is also likely to ensure the continuation of relatively close relations between the two Churches and to preserve a degree of ROC influence within the GeOC, at least intellectually and ideologically. 

Compared with Ilia II, the new Patriarch’s initial public statements and appearances indicate that he may adopt a more uncompromisingly conservative stance, which will be difficult to reconcile with Georgia’s integration with Western institutions.

In this way, Shio may contribute to the strengthening of anti-Western attitudes among segments of the Georgian population. Such a development would align with Russia’s broader geopolitical interests while simultaneously reinforcing the legitimacy of the ruling Georgian Dream party among parts of its domestic constituency.

Even before his accession, Shio departed from Ilia II’s principle of supporting state institutions rather than specific political parties. Moreover, unlike Ilia II, Shio III is likely to enter his relationship with Bidzina Ivanishvili, the de facto leader of the ruling party, as a junior partner, at least initially.

An important factor in assessing the outlook of the new Patriarch is his background as a black (monastic) priest. Orthodox monasticism has traditionally been closer to the ROC (which is based on monasticism) than to the Greek Orthodox Church, which relies more heavily on white (married parish) clergy. As a result, Shio’s affinity with the Russian Orthodox world extends beyond his education in Russia. Whereas Ilia II’s faith was based on "Georgian Orthodoxy;" a faith with regard to the interests of the state, Shio III emphasizes Orthodoxy as a superior and supranational religious identity.

Shio III’s ties to Russia and support for the government appear to stem from deeply held personal convictions rather than political expediency. Consequently, a significant shift in these positions during his patriarchate is unlikely.

Nevertheless, the impact of Shio’s enthronement is likely to remain limited, at least during the initial years of his patriarchate. The fact that, after the first round of voting, when his victory had become virtually certain, there was no significant shift of centrist support in his favour (his tally increased by only two votes) suggests that members of the Holy Synod are not subservient to the new Patriarch and are prepared to oppose him if necessary.

Shio III has yet to display the political acumen that characterised Ilia II. His leadership is constrained by dogmatism and introversion, although he has shown an ability to rely on politically skilled allies and possesses some political instinct. The first major challenges of his patriarchate will reveal which of these traits proves more influential.

The GeOC will soon face several important internal challenges, including the appointment of seven vacant episcopal positions and the reform of the 1995 Statute of Administration. While there is broad agreement within the Holy Synod that the current statute requires revision, opinions differ sharply regarding its replacement. In addition, some bishops are actively advocating for the Church to publicly call for the release of political prisoners.

None of these issues falls within Shio III’s formal authority to decide unilaterally. To advance his preferred policies, he will need to secure the support of the Holy Synod. His handling of these challenges will provide an indication of his ability to shape the Church in accordance with his worldview.

CONCLUSIONS:

If Shio III consolidates his position, he could enable greater Russian influence within the GeOC and bolster the legitimacy of Georgian Dream among conservative voters. In the long term, however, this may weaken the Church’s broader social authority and deepen political polarization in Georgia.

In an alternative scenario, the Holy Synod could gain influence at the expense of the Patriarch. Even so, a major shift in the Church’s domestic or foreign policy positions is unlikely, as the recent patriarchal election demonstrated the continued dominance of the conservative wing within the Synod.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Tomáš Baranec is a Research Fellow and Head of the Caucasus Program of the Slovak think tank Strategic Analysis. He worked for several years as a field researcher on the Georgian-Ossetian ABL. Tomas studied Balkan, Central European and Eurasian Studies at Charles University in Prague. 

Irakli Kiknavelidze is a Georgian journalist, television host, political commentator, and media professional specializing in Georgian politics, democracy, religion, and South Caucasus affairs. He has worked in television, print, and digital media, producing interviews, analysis, and public affairs programming. Throughout his career, Kiknavelidze has focused on political developments, international relations, and the intersection of religion and public life in Georgia.

By Mathieu Lemoine

Armenia’s June 2026 parliamentary elections were not only a contest over government formation. It was a test of whether democratic politics can provide legitimacy for a painful post-Karabakh recalibration. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s Civil Contract party won 49.81 percent of the vote, enough to continue governing, but not the two-thirds majority required to initiate constitutional change on its own. The result strengthens Pashinyan’s mandate to pursue peace with Azerbaijan and diversify Armenia’s foreign policy, but it does not remove the structural pressures shaping the South Caucasus.

BACKGROUND:

The election was Armenia’s first parliamentary vote since Azerbaijan’s 2023 takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh and the displacement of its Armenian population. It followed years of declining confidence in Russia’s security guarantees, growing Armenian engagement with the EU and the U.S., and a difficult peace process with Azerbaijan. The campaign therefore unfolded at the intersection of domestic legitimacy, post-war trauma and regional realignment.

Civil Contract’s victory confirmed that Armenian voters were not prepared to return the pre-2018 political elite to power. It also showed that Russia-oriented opposition forces, despite mobilizing dissatisfaction over Karabakh and Pashinyan’s concessions, could not convert that discontent into a governing majority. Strong Armenia received 23.29 percent of the vote, while the Armenia Alliance also remained well behind the ruling party, leaving Civil Contract with a clear lead and the ability to form a government. At the same time, the vote should not be read as a simple plebiscite on “the West.” Pashinyan campaigned on peace, sovereignty and a more balanced foreign policy, not on a clean rupture with Russia.

From an electoral perspective, the process mattered because Armenia’s foreign policy shift depends on the government’s ability to claim democratic legitimacy. International observers assessed the vote as competitive and generally well administered, while also noting a confrontational campaign environment and external pressure. Reuters also reported concerns over selective justice linked to prosecutions and arrests of opposition figures before the vote. This combination is important. The election produced a usable mandate, but not an uncontested political consensus.

IMPLICATIONS:

The first implication is that an electoral mandate is not a peace settlement. Pashinyan can now argue that voters endorsed continuity: negotiations with Azerbaijan, normalization with Türkiye and strategic diversification away from overdependence on Russia. Yet the most difficult questions remain outside the immediate reach of an ordinary parliamentary majority. Azerbaijan has demanded that Armenia amend its constitution to remove what Baku regards as an implicit reference to Nagorno-Karabakh. Pashinyan’s party did not secure the parliamentary strength needed to call a constitutional referendum on its own. This creates a gap between electoral legitimacy and constitutional capacity.

That gap will shape the next phase of negotiations. The Armenian government can continue talks, but it cannot easily present constitutional change as a purely technical step. For many Armenians, Karabakh is not only a legal issue but a national trauma. Any move perceived as closing the historical and political question of Karabakh will be vulnerable to opposition mobilization. In this sense, the election authorized a direction, but not every concession that may be required to complete it.

The second implication concerns Azerbaijan’s leverage. The vote strengthened the Armenian government domestically, but it did not alter the asymmetry created by Azerbaijan’s military advantage since 2020 and 2023. Border incidents and reports of renewed ceasefire violations, particularly around sensitive areas such as Syunik, show that negotiations continue under pressure rather than in a neutral environment. This matters because the unresolved implementation of transit arrangements, including the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity, leaves room for competing interpretations over sovereignty, customs, security and access between Azerbaijan proper and Nakhchivan.

Armenia can endorse connectivity as part of a peace agenda. Indeed, Pashinyan’s “Crossroads of Peace” logic depends on turning Armenia from a blockaded state into a regional connector. But if transit arrangements remain ambiguous or delayed, connectivity can also become a source of coercion. Syunik is not only a transport question. It is Armenia’s southern link to Iran, a sensitive zone in Azerbaijani-Turkish strategy, and a red line for Tehran. This is why the regional significance of Armenia’s election lies less in the result itself than in whether the government can convert its mandate into enforceable arrangements that preserve Armenian sovereignty while enabling regional trade.

The third implication is that Russia’s role is weakened but not eliminated. Moscow’s credibility as Armenia’s security patron has been severely damaged since 2020 and 2023, a reassessment reflected in Pashinyan’s own statement that Armenia’s reliance on Russia for security had been a “strategic mistake.” During the election campaign, Russian pressure appeared not only as geopolitical rhetoric but as a factor in the electoral environment: observers cited public threats and trade pressure, while media reporting also pointed to information operations aimed at influencing the vote. That is precisely why the Armenian case is instructive for the wider post-Soviet space: external influence no longer operates only through formal alliances, military bases or economic dependence. It also works through the campaign environment, information space, diaspora networks and the use of economic vulnerability.

The election showed that Russian pressure can be politically counterproductive. It did not prevent Pashinyan’s victory and may have reinforced his claim to be defending Armenian sovereignty. But Russia retains tools that can complicate Armenia’s post-election trajectory. Armenia remains economically exposed to Russia through trade, energy, labor migration and remittances. It also remains formally entangled in Russian-led institutions, even as the political basis for that alignment erodes. The region is therefore not simply becoming “post-Russian.” It is becoming less ordered, less predictable and more coercive.

The fourth implication concerns the West. The EU, the U.S. and several European states have more room to support Armenia after the election. Western political backing can strengthen Armenia’s institutional resilience, reduce isolation and support negotiations. But political support is not the same as hard security guarantees. Armenia’s strategic problem is not that it has chosen one patron over another. It is that the old patron has lost legitimacy, while no new actor is prepared to replace it as a security guarantor.

This creates a difficult policy environment for Yerevan. Armenia must deepen cooperation with Western partners without provoking expectations that cannot be met. It must maintain relations with Iran without undermining its Western outreach. It must manage Russia without returning to dependency. And it must negotiate with Azerbaijan from a weaker position while persuading Armenian society that peace is not capitulation. Elections can legitimize this course, but they cannot substitute for a security architecture.

For the South Caucasus, the broader lesson is that the regional order is moving beyond Russian-centered conflict management without yet acquiring a stable replacement. Azerbaijan is more powerful. Türkiye is more central. Iran is defensive about corridor politics and border changes. Russia is weakened but still disruptive. Western actors are more present but cautious. In this environment, Armenia’s election is regionally significant because it tested whether democratic legitimacy can support a small state’s strategic adaptation under pressure.

CONCLUSIONS:

Armenia’s election should not be interpreted only as a geopolitical choice between Russia and the West. It is better understood as a case of democratic mandate under strategic constraint. Pashinyan now has renewed legitimacy to pursue peace, normalization and diversification. Yet this legitimacy does not by itself resolve the constitutional question, Azerbaijan’s leverage, Russian coercive tools, uncertainty over transit arrangements, or the lack of enforceable Western security guarantees.

The vote therefore clarifies Armenia’s direction but not its destination. It gives the government political authority to continue, but the durability of that authority will depend on whether peace and connectivity produce tangible security rather than new vulnerabilities. If Armenia can translate electoral legitimacy into a credible settlement, stronger institutions and diversified partnerships, the 2026 election may become a turning point in the South Caucasus. If not, it may be remembered as a mandate that clarified the country’s intentions without resolving the regional pressures surrounding them.

The central lesson extends beyond Armenia. In a fragmented South Caucasus, elections can authorize strategic change, but they cannot replace security architecture. Democratic legitimacy is a necessary resource for Armenia’s post-Karabakh recalibration. It is not, on its own, a guarantee that the region will become more stable.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Mathieu Lemoine is a governance, rule of law and public sector reform professional with experience across UNDP, USAID, OSCE, EU institutions and election observation missions. He has worked extensively on governance, elections, civil society and regional dynamics in Central Asia, Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus.

By Stephen Blank

The Pakistan-Afghanistan war, on top of the war against Iran, is forcing Moscow to attempt to balance its security and economic interests in and beyond Central Asia with both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pakistan is critical to Russia because it provides an alternative to Iran, allowing Moscow’s transcontinental trade project INSTC to move forward and offering a gateway to Asia. Concurrently, Moscow has upgraded its ties with the Taliban in Afghanistan both to deter ISIS-K terrorists and to secure broader geostrategic aims. Yet it also increasingly appears that Moscow is willing to offer Afghanistan arms, ostensibly to deter terrorists. However, in the broader regional context, this move underscores Moscow’s propensity for playing a double game with and against its partners.

BACKGROUND:

The Iran war and Pakistan’s war with Afghanistan threaten the further erosion of Russian influence in Central Asia. Consequently, Russia has embarked on what can only be called a double game vis-à-vis Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pakistan has attacked Afghanistan because it claims Afghanistan harbors the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) terrorist group, which performs attacks against Pakistan. This complaint is more than a little ironic given Pakistan’s own long-standing and well-known record of sponsoring terrorism against India.  More significant, however, is the fact that this charge, if true, signifies that Kabul has escaped Islamabad’s tutelage. However, the war also disrupts Russia’s ambition to sell Russian gas to South and Southeast Asia through pipelines traversing Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

At the same time, Russia has steadily built a “full-fledged” and “pragmatic” partnership with Afghanistan to prevent it from sponsoring terrorist groups like ISIS-K and their targeting of Russia and Central Asia, where Russia still claims to be the ultimate security manager.  According to Sergei Shoigu, Secretary of Russia’s Security Council, full-fledged partnership includes bilateral defense and security cooperation. Indeed, Shoigu openly proclaimed Russia’s opposition to any third-party military presence in Afghanistan or neighboring countries, a shot across both Pakistan’s and the U.S.’s bow and a sign of its ambition to establish a protectorate over Afghanistan.

However, Russia’s interests transcend defense. The war against Iran has ruptured the feasibility of Russia’s, Iran’s and India’s major transit, trade and connectivity route through Central Asia and then through Russia to Europe, the INSTC (multi-modal International North-South Transportation Corridor). The other existing corridor, the increasingly lucrative Middle Corridor or TITR (Trans-Caspian International Transport Route) from China to Central Asia and then to the Caucasus and Europe bypasses Russia. Thus, since failure to find an alternative to Iran for INSTC will have dire geoeconomic and geopolitical consequences for Russia, it has turned to Pakistan for help. Pakistan cannot afford exclusion from transcontinental trade routes and has agreed to explore connecting its port at Gwadar either by land or by sea to INSTC.

IMPLICATIONS:

Moscow typically has sought to have a foot in both camps in every conflict scenario throughout the Global South and the Pakistan-Afghan war is no exception. But this case is far more central to Moscow’s interests than its power projection in for example Africa or the Middle East. In order to maintain its self-appointed “leading position” in Central Asia, it is crucial for Russia to exercise leverage over Afghanistan to deter an outbreak of Islamic terrorism targeting either Central Asia or Russia.

Likewise, it is critical to Russia’s economic health and continuing ability to finance its war against Ukraine and its heavily strained state budget that it continues to find Asian markets for its oil and gas. Doing so also entails developing trade routes like INSTC to Pakistan, India and Southeast Asia, especially given its desire to be acknowledged as an independent Asian power. Therefore, balancing between Pakistan and Afghanistan while developing alternatives to Iran’s connectivity have become requirements of Russian policies to realize vital Russian interests, especially as its economy is reeling and its position in Central Asia erodes.

Further erosion is inevitable if Islamic terrorism “migrates” to Central Asia without Moscow being able to deter or stop it. By the same token, exclusion from transcontinental trade routes will undermine Moscow’s ideological and rhetorical pretense of hegemony, and demonstrate that Russia lacks the means in terms of tangible material capability to back up its arguments or sustain a position that answers to Central Asia’s most pressing questions, i.e. economic development.

Concurrently, if Russia cannot develop let alone sustain viable, economically justifiable outreach to South and Southeast Asia, its hard-won influence and standing in those countries will diminish by an order of magnitude, negating its claims of being an Asian power and making it still more dependent on China.

Despite its vital need to keep the balance between Pakistan and Afghanistan, many recent reports suggest that Moscow is secretly negotiating an arms deal with the Taliban. Ostensibly, the aim would be to use the weapons to suppress ISIS-K and prevent further terrorist strikes in Central Asia and or Russia. While this makes sense if leveraging Russia’s Central Asian position and ambitions vis-à-vis Afghanistan are the priority; in reality, it highlights the priority of security over economic development in Russian policy.  It also illustrates the abiding temptation to make secret deals involving the security services or force structures as primary instruments of foreign policy.

Given the Taliban’s track record, it is unlikely that it can or will hold up its end of the bargain. Moreover, should these reports be true this news will enrage Pakistan and likely torpedo efforts to have it join INSTC. That trade project, unlike the Middle Corridor, never got off the ground and is therefore already being eclipsed. This has gravely serious and negative implications for Russia and is likely to aggravate all the trends making for the decline of Russian power in the Caucasus and Central Asia as well as South and Southeast Asia. 

An arms deal with the Taliban will further entrench the belief among governments who monitor Russian behavior that Moscow is cannot be relied on as a partner. It will also confirm the notion held by many Western governments that Russia, like the Soviet Union, remains a sponsor of state terrorism and must, at best, be kept at arm’s length.

CONCLUSIONS:

Thus Russia continues to play a double game towards its partners, attempting to have both an empire and prosperous foreign trade relations, even though their logics are quite incompatible. Moscow also has yet to grasp that it cannot denounce and support terrorism at the same time without paying an incommensurate price for its quest after short-term gains. In Central Asia, Russia still seeks to pursue wildly contradictory aims without paying the price for doing so. If Moscow does, in fact, arm the Afghan government, it will once again be playing with dynamite.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Stephen Blank is a Senior Fellow with the Foreign Policy Research Institute, www.fpri.org.