Month: July 2026
Georgian Dream Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili questioned the benefits of European Union membership if the bloc abolishes the unanimity principle in decision-making, a move he said major powers appear to be seeking and which would be “catastrophic” for smaller states, arguing that staying outside the EU could even be more “advantageous” for them.
In a July 27 social media post, Papuashvili argued that there is a “growing impression” that Europe’s major powers want to “take over” the EU, which, he said, “would pose a fundamental threat not only to Europe’s political balance and the enlargement process, but also to the values on which the European Union was founded and which have sustained it to this day.”
“According to the German Foreign Minister, twelve countries have already joined Germany’s initiative to abolish the principle of unanimity in EU decision-making. If this initiative is implemented, the European Union will, almost certainly, be transformed from a union of equal member states into a union ruled by the major powers,” Papuashvili wrote.
German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul called in early May for the EU’s unanimity principle to be scrapped, arguing that qualified majority voting should be used instead. At the time, Euronews reported that twelve countries had backed the initiative, which emerged amid repeated obstruction by Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of EU decisions on support for Ukraine.
Around the same time, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz reportedly floated the idea with top EU officials of “associate membership” for Ukraine, Moldova and the Western Balkans as a way to accelerate their integration into the bloc, potentially without granting them voting rights during an initial phase of membership.
“Membership of the European Union is not an end in itself,” Papuashvili argued. “Membership is a means by which a country can protect its national interests more reliably.”
According to Papuashvili, the unanimity principle is what guarantees this opportunity for smaller states. “It [unanimity principle ] gives a small state the right to block a decision that would be harmful to it and to demand that its national interests be taken into account,” he said.
If the unanimity principle is abolished, in Papuashvili’s view, smaller states will become “entirely dependent” on the will of major powers and will no longer be able to protect their “vital interests.”
“In such circumstances, the issue would no longer be one of sharing part of a country’s sovereignty through EU membership — a voluntary and balanced choice currently made in pursuit of broader economic, political and security objectives. Instead, it would amount to the almost complete loss of genuine sovereignty,” he said, adding that “from an independent political entity, it is reduced to a small region or province within a much larger political system.”
While such a move would benefit major powers, Papuashvili argued, it would represent a “catastrophic change” for smaller countries. He asked: “What is the point of membership if its principal benefits and instruments of influence are taken away from the outset?”
According to Papuashvili, if a country is deprived of the ability to support decisions that benefit it, advance its interests, and prevent decisions that would harm it, the EU itself becomes “stripped of its significance as a means of protecting national interests,” while “both the political appeal of membership and its fundamental rationale disappear.”
“Moreover, under such conditions, remaining outside the European Union might even prove more advantageous for a small state, since it would at least retain the freedom to make its own independent decisions,” he wrote.
Papuashvili suggested that one indirect objective of the debate could be to halt enlargement, claiming that it has become “increasingly clear” that “no one is contemplating the admission of new members into the European Union in its current form.”
“The central question, therefore, is not merely when we will be admitted to the European Union. The central question is: what kind of European Union are we being invited to join, with what rights and with what degree of equality as a member?” he said.
“For membership that deprives a country of its sovereign rights without providing mechanisms for their protection is not integration, but the abolition of sovereignty,” he concluded.
In June, Papuashvili similarly criticized what he called the “legal segregation of countries,” accusing the EU of viewing future members “as less equal than the others, in an Orwellian sense.” He made the remarks in response to comments by EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos on “new safeguards” in accession treaties.
Also Read:
- 09/07/2026 – Papuashvili Joins EU Candidate Countries’ Parliamentary Conference in Belgrade
- 19/06/2026 – Poll: 67% of Georgians Trust EU, 71% Support Accession, 40% Have Positive Image
- 12/06/2026 – EU-Georgia Visa Dialogue Ends With Brussels Official Calling It ‘Rather Unfruitful,’ While Georgian Side Keeps ‘Positive’ Outlook
- 21/04/2026 – Kos: EU to Involve Georgia in Connectivity to Extent Tbilisi’s Willing to Engage ‘On Other Areas’
- 05/01/2026 – Economic Crisis, Identity Loss – Kobakhidze Claims EU Is in Decline
Sociologist Iago Kachkachishvili says the Georgian government’s anti-European messaging has undergone a significant shift. In his view, Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili’s recent suggestion that Georgia could even benefit from remaining outside the European Union indicates that the authorities are no longer merely criticising what they describe as the EU’s current course. Instead, they are beginning to challenge the very idea of Georgia joining the bloc.
Earlier, Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili said that European Union membership should not be an end in itself, while criticising proposals that, he said, would weaken the principle of consensus in the bloc’s decision-making process.
He argued that if such changes were introduced, remaining outside the EU could become more advantageous for some smaller states, as they would have greater freedom to make independent decisions
Iago Kachkachishvili: “Shalva Papuashvili has openly written that it could even be beneficial for Georgia not to join the European Union, ‘because, at the very least, it would retain the freedom to make independent decisions.’
Openly discussing the benefits of staying out of the EU marks a significant shift in the anti-European propaganda of the ruling Georgian Dream party. Until now, it sought to convince the public—primarily its own supporters—that the problem lay with the EU in its current, liberal form. According to its narrative, liberal forces in the bloc would gradually be replaced by conservatives, right-wing parties would come to power across the EU, and they would then throw open the doors to Georgia, allowing it to join the European family ‘with dignity’. This has largely been the core message of Georgian Dream’s propaganda.
Why, until now, was Georgian Dream unable to abandon the goal of EU membership? First, Article 78 of Georgia’s Constitution obliges the authorities to ensure that ‘the constitutional bodies shall take all measures within the scope of their competences to ensure the full integration of Georgia into the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.’ In addition, every public opinion survey showed that even among Georgian Dream supporters, a majority—around 60%—favoured joining the EU.
The role of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán should also be taken into account. He was Georgian Dream’s main ally and one of the leading advocates of right-wing forces within the European Union. Nor should we forget that, following Donald Trump’s election as US president, Georgian Dream expected liberal forces around the world to suffer a major setback. The party also anticipated that Russia—seen as the European Union’s principal adversary—would prevail in its war against Ukraine.
What is the situation now?
Georgian Dream appears to have concluded that its narrative about a future right-wing European Union has largely failed. Orbán has suffered setbacks, while the Trump administration has shown little sign of actively promoting the global rise of the radical right. Meanwhile, even commentators loyal to Vladimir Putin have begun acknowledging Russia’s inability to win the war. At the same time, the latest EU-funded survey, conducted in 2026, found that 71% of Georgians support joining the European Union, 17% are neutral, and 10% oppose membership. Clearly, the government’s aggressive anti-Western messaging has had some effect, with support falling from around 80–85%—most likely due to declining enthusiasm among Georgian Dream supporters.
Although EU membership is still backed by a clear majority of the population (71%), Georgian Dream now appears to be going all in. Until recently, the authorities argued that Georgia’s path towards Europe had merely been temporarily delayed. Now, however, they are attempting to fundamentally redefine the value of the European choice itself. Their apparent goal is to reduce support for EU membership, at least among their own supporters. At the same time, they seek to eliminate the opposition as a political force, secure a constitutional majority in the 2028 elections, and amend Article 78 of the Constitution, which commits the country to European integration. The authorities’ daily suppression of public protest serves the same objective. All of this is taking place under increasingly authoritarian domestic rule, without any guaranteed backing from right-wing allies abroad.
The coming months will show whether this new phase of anti-Western politics delivers the results Georgian Dream hopes for. For those resisting the government’s course, however, the guiding principle remains unchanged: protest at home, sanctions from abroad.
Georgian government’s anti-European rhetoric
Peace needs balanced institutional language. 📘 AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT’S BIASED POLITICS ✍️ İlaha KHANTAMİROVA 🔗 https://t.co/ZuIlKBAe9m #SouthCaucasus
MMA fighter Giorgi Kartvelishvili, together with several associates, has announced the creation of a new civic movement in Georgia aimed at “protecting traditional values, culture and national identity.”
Kartvelishvili unveiled the initiative at a special briefing, saying the organisation would “respond immediately” to issues involving the country’s ancestors, religion, history and other matters that the group considers offensive.
“If necessary, we’ll even go to prison,” Kartvelishvili said.
It remains unclear who will join the movement, how it will operate or what form it will take. Kartvelishvili said those details would be announced at a later date.
Kartvelishvili’s rhetoric has already won the backing of Archil Gorduladze, an MP from the ruling Georgian Dream party, who said the initiative was “important and positive” but stressed that it “must operate within the law and fully comply with it.”
Lawyers, however, argue that the proposed group amounts to an illegal formation, and that establishing, leading or joining such an organisation is a criminal offence under Georgian law.
Kartvelishvili has previously been accused by some activists of mobilising titushky — organised groups of aggressive enforcers often used to intimidate opponents. Several days ago, pro-government media also described him as a friend of Niko Khurtsilava, who recently attacked comedian Onise Okriashvili.
What Kartvelishvili said
According to Kartvelishvili, Georgia’s identity, traditions, religion and cultural heritage have come under deliberate attack in recent years.
“Our identity, traditions, values and religion, as well as the achievements that have enriched Georgian culture throughout its history, have repeatedly been the target of coordinated attacks,” the MMA fighter said.
According to Kartvelishvili, these developments are being driven by “foreign-funded groups, politicians, activists and media representatives” seeking to undermine Georgian values.
He said the new movement would begin confronting individuals and groups that are “under the influence of external interests” and called on supporters to join the initiative.
Lawyers’ comments
Lawyer Boris Kurua told Netgazeti that it was unlikely Kartvelishvili had launched such an initiative without the approval of the security services.
Kurua said: “If anyone still had even the slightest doubt that they might not actually be planning to commit a crime, the statement made at the briefing — ‘we’re ready to go to prison’ — makes everything more than clear.
“If members of this group arm themselves with nothing more than wooden sticks, it would already fall under Article 223 of the Criminal Code. In other words, this would constitute an illegal formation, and establishing, leading or joining such a group is a criminal offence.
“Article 223 of the Criminal Code covers the establishment of an illegal formation, its leadership, joining such a formation, participating in it, or carrying out any other activities on its behalf. The offence is punishable by three to seven years in prison. If such actions result in serious consequences, the prison sentence increases to between four and eight years.
“If, for a moment, we imagine that this group is being created without the approval of the security services, then, assuming law enforcement is functioning effectively, those involved should be prosecuted even at the stage of preparing the crime. It’s difficult for me to imagine Kartvelishvili taking such an initiative without the security services’ approval.”
Lawyer Omar Purtseladze also commented on the situation for Netgazeti. In addition to the potential criminal offence, he argued that Giorgi Kartvelishvili’s briefing amounted to a political statement.
“The creation by individuals or groups close to the authorities of an organisation whose purpose is to persecute people on ideological grounds is not only a serious legal issue but also a political statement. I hope someone will show at least a minimum degree of prudence to prevent the situation from becoming even more radicalised in an already deeply polarised environment,” Purtseladze said.
Protecting traditional values in Georgia