By Giorgi Gvalia and Ivane Lomidze

Georgia’s foreign policy thinking is undergoing a notable shift. For much of the past two decades, the country’s strategic discourse was framed by democratic alignment and Euro-Atlantic integration. Today, however, the rhetoric of the ruling elite increasingly reflects a geopolitical logic, emphasizing survival, insecurity, and strategic calculation over value-based commitments. This shift is understandable for a small state operating in a highly vulnerable security environment. Yet the emerging approach also reveals an important limitation. While focused on avoiding risks vis-à-vis Russia, Georgia’s leadership gives insufficient attention to the equally important need to preserve and balance relations with Western partners that remain essential to Georgia’s long-term security, prosperity, and independence.

 Photo by Czerep rubaszny, 2020

BACKGROUND:

Georgia’s foreign policy has long been associated with a clear strategic orientation toward Europe and the transatlantic community. For years, the dominant language of Georgian statecraft emphasized democratic reform, integration with Western institutions, and a value-based foreign policy identity. That discourse has not disappeared entirely, but it is no longer the main organizing principle of the ruling elite’s public messaging. Especially since Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine, senior representatives of ruling Georgian Dream party have described foreign policy in much starker terms: the state must avoid steps that could trigger retaliation from Russia and must calibrate every decision with extreme caution.

This shift is rooted in Georgia’s hard security environment. Russia still occupies Abkhazia and South Ossetia and remains the overwhelmingly dominant military power in the region. The memory of the 2008 war continues to shape official thinking in Tbilisi, especially the lesson that strong Western political backing does not automatically translate into direct security protection. Against that background, the government has argued that Georgia cannot afford symbolic gestures that carry unclear benefits but potentially serious costs.

That logic was most clearly visible in the government’s refusal to impose sanctions on Russia after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Georgian officials have maintained that the country has cooperated with international efforts to prevent sanctions circumvention, but they have resisted taking additional unilateral steps that could be interpreted by Moscow as escalation. From the government’s perspective, such caution is not ideological sympathy for Russia but a practical response to Georgia’s exposed position. The argument is simple: a small country with occupied territories, no formal security guarantees, and limited means of self-defense should avoid unnecessary confrontation with a stronger and hostile neighbor.

This position has domestic resonance. Many Georgians remain deeply pro-Western, but there is also broad public sensitivity to the risks of war and instability. The government has used that sentiment to justify a foreign policy of restraint, presenting itself as the actor most capable of keeping Georgia out of the wider regional conflicts. In that sense, Georgian Dream’s message is not only strategic but political: it links restraint abroad to stability at home. The result is a more defensive and geopolitical foreign policy vocabulary than the one that dominated Georgian politics in the previous decades.

IMPLICATIONS:

The problem with Georgia’s current course is not that it recognizes geopolitical reality. Any rational Georgian foreign policy must take account of Russian power and the risks of direct confrontation. The problem, rather, is that the government appears to treat this as its overriding strategic priority, while underestimating the cost of alienating the Western partners that help Georgia offset its structural weakness. For small states, survival cannot be reduced to managing immediate threats alone. It also requires maintaining the external relationships that expand their room for maneuver and reduce the risk of abandonment.

Any viable national strategy must therefore be assessed along two dimensions simultaneously: whether it mitigates immediate threats and whether it preserves the external relationships on which long-term autonomy and resilience depend. In practice, this requires small states to reduce risks while sustaining partnerships that provide economic, political, and – over time – security support. However, recent developments suggest that Georgia’s current strategy has managed only one side of this equation. In other words, the government’s strategy appears to have minimized certain risks while simultaneously generating others. By prioritizing the avoidance of confrontation with Russia, Georgian Dream has struggled to maintain the political trust and strategic confidence of its Western partners.

Over the past years, Georgia’s relations with the West have deteriorated significantly. This trend has become increasingly visible in tensions surrounding Georgia’s EU candidacy process, the controversy over the “foreign agents” law, and growing Western criticism of the country’s political trajectory. Government officials have largely attributed this deterioration to Western pressure – particularly from the EU – for Georgia to adopt a harder line against Russia, including the imposition of unilateral sanctions following the invasion of Ukraine. However, that explanation is incomplete. Disagreements over sanctions policy alone do not account for the depth of mistrust that has emerged. Even where Tbilisi may have had legitimate reasons to resist certain Western demands, such differences could likely have been managed more effectively through sustained political engagement and clearer strategic communication. So far, Georgian Dream has not convincingly demonstrated that it has invested sufficient diplomatic effort in explaining Georgia’s security concerns to its Western partners while maintaining their confidence in the country’s broader strategic direction.

This matters because, for Georgia, relations with the West are not just symbolic. The EU remains central to Georgia’s trade, institutional modernization, and broader economic orientation. The U.S. has played a major role in strengthening Georgia’s state institutions and defense capacity. These links are not simply a matter of identity or values; they are practical assets that increase Georgia’s room for maneuver in a difficult neighborhood. If those relationships weaken, Georgia does not become more secure or more autonomous. It becomes more exposed.

The costs could rise further as the regional environment changes. Georgian policymakers have sought to position the country as a key corridor between Europe and Asia, especially through transit and connectivity projects crossing the South Caucasus. But Georgia’s geographic importance should not be taken for granted. Progress in the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process and the discussion of alternative transport routes could gradually reduce Georgia’s comparative advantage as a regional connector. If Georgia’s strategic value becomes less automatic, the quality of its political ties with Western actors will matter even more.

For Georgia, geopolitical thinking remains unavoidable. Geography and power asymmetries ensure that any responsible foreign policy must account for the risks posed by Russia. The real challenge, however, is how to apply that thinking in a way that manages immediate security threats while preserving the partnerships that remain essential for Georgia’s long-term prosperity and independence. For a small state caught between powerful neighbors and strategic partners, the art of survival lies precisely in maintaining that balance.

CONCLUSIONS:

Georgia’s foreign policy is entering a new phase defined less by idealistic rhetoric and more by the language of risk, constraint, and survival. That adjustment is understandable. Russia’s military presence on Georgian territory and the wider regional security climate leave little room for carelessness. But this approach, if applied too narrowly, can ultimately undermine its own objectives.

It is sensible to avoid policies that would impose immediate and disproportionate costs on the state. However, such caution is insufficient if it rests on the assumption that prudence vis-à-vis Russia alone can secure Georgia’s future. Over the longer term, the country’s sovereignty and prosperity remain closely tied to the preservation of robust relations with the West. If Tbilisi cannot preserve those ties while managing Russian pressure, it will trade one form of vulnerability for another. For Georgia, the central challenge of statecraft lies not merely in avoiding conflict in the present, but in doing so without eroding the external partnerships upon which its future security and development depend.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Giorgi Gvalia is Professor of International Relations and Jean Monnet Chair at Ilia State University in Tbilisi, specializing in small-state foreign policy, Realist IR theory, and South Caucasus geopolitics. Ivane Lomidze is Associate Professor of Sociology at Ilia State University, whose work focuses on the normative and theoretical foundations of political realism.