Month: May 2026
Opinion on Georgia–US relations
Former Georgian ambassador to the UK Giorgi Badridze has analysed statements by Georgian government leaders claiming that the country is returning to the US agenda. He said that a visit to Georgia by US State Department officials does not signal a breakthrough in the strained relations between the two countries.
Foreign Minister Maka Botchorishvili of the ruling Georgian Dream party said that representatives of the US State Department will visit Georgia in May.
According to the diplomat, the United States viewed the Anaklia port as a project of strategic importance and did not want it to fall into Chinese hands, but the Georgian government took the opposite course.
Giorgi Badridze said:
“I would very carefully assess how much this statement [by Georgian Dream about a visit by US State Department representatives to Georgia] can be trusted. I remember very well how the same people were waiting last January for Trump’s inauguration.
It was all presented as if the complete breakdown in relations between the US and Georgia had been the result of bias on the part of the Biden administration, rather than the election of Bidzina Ivanishvili, his decisions, his anti-Western and anti-American behaviour, his demonstrative overtures towards the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and statements that he was establishing strategic relations with opponents of the United States.
Incidentally, these so-called strategic relations have not materialised. Despite a memorandum on strategic partnership signed between the governments of Georgia and China, there are no signs that China has begun any serious cooperation with Georgia.”
“We were previously promised an improvement in relations with the United States. I have not seen any concrete steps taken by this government to make Washington take the need to improve cooperation with Georgia more seriously. The fact that a State Department official may visit Georgia is not a sign of a breakthrough [in relations].
I do not see the Ivanishvili government’s efforts in this direction as being any different from what we are seeing in relations with the European Union or with individual countries. The government says: ‘We want cooperation and do not reject integration and membership of the European Union, but they must change their position’ — meaning that the EU should alter its fundamental principles and accept Georgia as Ivanishvili sees it.
In these circumstances, nothing will change in relations with the United States, whose current president places less emphasis on the quality of democracy in partner countries. I do not think Trump will be impressed by empty rhetoric about restoring relations.”
“The only message the US secretary of state left after his visit to Georgia during Trump’s first presidential term was that Anaklia is a promising project of strategic importance — it should be developed and not handed over to China. The Ivanishvili government did exactly the opposite, transferring the project to a Chinese company which, incidentally, has not lifted a finger or invested a single yuan in this or any other project.
I have often heard claims that China is making investments in Georgia. In reality, there are no such investments. These so-called strategic relations exist only on paper, and no funds are coming in — the irony is that money is in fact flowing out of Georgia to China.”
“When people see Chinese workers involved in major infrastructure projects and assume that China is the investor, that is the height of irony, because these are loan-funded projects financed by European and American international institutions. Chinese money is not flowing into Georgia, certainly not on a scale that would justify a rupture in relations with Europe and the United States.
All that is needed to prevent the Anaklia project from remaining frozen is political will. This would not only be a gesture towards the United States, but also a demonstration of Georgia’s value in the development of a strategic corridor that the United States has supported from the outset.”
Opinion on Georgia–US relations
Categories
Путин не убедил Трампа
“For Georgia” on the Geneva discussions
The Georgian opposition party “For Georgia” has called on the government to provide public clarification after Russia’s foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Moscow was exploring alternative formats for the current talks in the South Caucasus, including the possibility of moving the Geneva discussions to “neutral territory”.
After the August 2008 war, direct diplomatic dialogue between Georgia and Russia came to a halt. Under the 12 August 2008 ceasefire agreement, an international format of negotiations was established in Geneva, where Russia and Georgia, together with representatives of Sukhumi and Tskhinvali, as well as international organisations, discuss a range of humanitarian issues. Four rounds of talks are held in Geneva each year. According to Russia’s foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, the issue of potentially relocating the Geneva discussions to another venue, including Minsk, remains on the agenda, with particular attention given to the participation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
The party said the initiative raised serious questions about the direction of Georgia’s foreign policy and the protection of the country’s sovereignty. It called on the foreign ministry to confirm or deny its involvement in what it described as “confidential negotiations” and to clarify the government’s position on the process.
According to the opposition, in recent months the Georgian side has not disclosed either the substance of meetings held within the Geneva format or details of the Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism. In this information vacuum, they say, reports have periodically emerged from Russian-controlled media carrying what they describe as “alarming” signals concerning Georgia’s territorial integrity and security.
The opposition party’s statement also sharply criticises the government’s policy towards the occupied territories. “For Georgia” argues that the authorities’ actions create the impression that Tbilisi is gradually aligning with Moscow’s rhetoric, including in its assessment of the 2008 war.
In this context, the party pointed to a criminal case launched against former prime minister Giorgi Gakharia over the establishment of a police checkpoint near the village of Chorchana — a decision the government at the time described as a security measure. Today, critics say, condemnation of that move mirrors the rhetoric of the de facto authorities in Tskhinvali.
In 2019, Russian occupying forces began a process of so-called “borderisation” in a forested area near the village of Chorchana. On the decision of then interior minister Giorgi Gakharia, a police checkpoint was set up in the area. In response, the de facto authorities in Tskhinvali disrupted a meeting of the Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism and demanded that the Georgian checkpoint in Chorchana be dismantled. Georgia’s interior ministry rejected the request. Later, the Georgian authorities sentenced Gakharia in absentia to a prison term over the decision to set up the checkpoint.
The opposition argues that moving the Geneva discussions to a “neutral venue” would in practice weaken Western involvement, which it says would directly undermine Georgia’s position in the talks.
Against this backdrop, the opposition has raised a key question: is the Georgian government acting in line with the country’s national interests, or does its policy align with Russia’s strategic goals?
The government’s official position on the issue remains unclear.
“For Georgia” on the Geneva discussions