Georgia faces sharp EU criticism as Yerevan summit highlights shifting South Caucasus dynamics

The eighth European Political Community summit brought dozens of world leaders to Yerevan, signalling Europe’s deepening interest in the South Caucasus.

For Georgia, however, the optics were complicated: present at the table, yet accused by the EU’s top diplomat of moving in the wrong direction.

Kallas: Georgia “not taking real steps”

When Kaja Kallas spoke to reporters ahead of the summit, she did not mince her words.

Georgia, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy said bluntly, is “not actually taking real steps” towards EU membership, despite claiming it wants to join.

The Georgian government, she added, is heading in “the wrong direction” - a shift that has consequences for how Brussels allocates funding.

The setting amplified the criticism. Yerevan was hosting one of the most high-profile gatherings of European leaders the region has ever seen, including French President Emmanuel Macron, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Armenia - once firmly in Moscow’s orbit - had pulled off a significant diplomatic coup. Georgia, long considered the EU’s most enthusiastic partner in the South Caucasus, now appeared in a more uncomfortable position.

“The Yerevan summit shows how important the Caucasus is, especially now, when there is a war in Iran,” Kallas said.

Strategic stakes and funding warnings

Kallas was clear about the practical implications of Georgia’s trajectory.

“This gives us limitations, for example, in terms of allocating funding,” she said.

The warning was not abstract. EU financial support has already been affected by Tbilisi’s political course, which Brussels views as incompatible with the reforms required for accession.

She also highlighted the region’s growing strategic importance. With instability spreading across the Middle East - including the war in Iran - the South Caucasus has become a vital corridor.

The so-called Middle Corridor, linking Central Asia to Europe via the Caucasus, featured prominently in discussions.

“What we see in the Middle East means everyone is discussing how to diversify trade routes, reduce the risks of closing one trade route,” Kallas said. “Connectivity and these routes are extremely important.”

Georgia pushes back

The Georgian government rejected Kallas’s assessment outright.

Foreign Minister Maka Bochorishvili argued that EU funding decisions are political tools rather than neutral policy mechanisms.

“This is a decision made by them, which was used as an instrument in relations with Georgia,” she said.

“We remember very well how statements were made by the EU bureaucracy about the suspension of this or that programme, which were then used to create a political agenda within the country.”

She insisted that any reduction in EU funding had not created serious problems for Georgia.

Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze went further, framing the dispute in terms of sovereignty and external interference. He claimed there had been five attempted “revolutions” in Georgia over the past four years, involving what he described as externally funded non-governmental organisations, media outlets and political parties.

The laws criticised by Brussels - particularly legislation modelled on Russia’s “foreign agents” law - were, in his view, necessary to defend national interests.

“When there is a blatant political interest, arguments certainly do not cut it,” Kobakhidze said.

He also alleged that Georgia had faced pressure to become directly involved in the war in Ukraine.

“There was a demand for direct involvement in the war. This demand was directly voiced at a specific meeting, and this was followed by blackmail of the Georgian people and Georgia,” he said, without naming those responsible.

He added that “unfortunately there is a lot of dirt in politics, including in Europe.”

A brief thaw with Ukraine

One notable moment at the summit was a short meeting between Kobakhidze and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy - their first direct encounter in some time.

The discussion, initiated by Ukraine, lasted only a few minutes and included both countries’ foreign ministers.

Zelenskyy later wrote on X: “I met with the Prime Minister of Georgia, Irakli Kobakhidze. There are indeed unresolved issues between our countries. It is important that there is a dialogue at all levels.”

He reaffirmed Ukraine’s respect for Georgia’s sovereignty.

Kobakhidze described the meeting as “friendly and interesting”, calling Ukraine “a friendly country”. While declining to share details, he said the exchange reflected a tradition of historical friendship.

Bochorishvili noted that Georgia has maintained “a consistent and firm position” in support of Ukraine and added that “it is important for us to see the same attitude from the Ukrainian side” - a remark suggesting frustration in Tbilisi over Kyiv’s characterisation of Georgia’s stance.

Infrastructure and strategic relevance

Away from the political tensions, Kobakhidze emphasised Georgia’s strategic importance during a roundtable on connectivity and economic security.

He pointed to major infrastructure projects - including the Baku–Tbilisi–Kars railway, the Anaklia deep-sea port, high-speed highways, the Southern Gas Corridor and a planned Black Sea submarine cable - as evidence of Georgia’s central role in regional connectivity.

Bochorishvili reinforced the message.

“This means that this is a very important topic for Europe both in the context of security and in the context of economic development,” she said.

The argument marked a clear attempt to shift the narrative: from concerns over democratic backsliding to Georgia’s role as a key infrastructure partner.

• New Georgian-language broadcaster backed by TVP sparks debate over influence and trust
• Armenia and Georgia to co-host 2029 FIFA U-20 World Cup
• Armenia–Georgia border delimitation seen as key step for South Caucasus stability

Armenia’s rise - and Georgia’s dilemma

For summit host Armenia, the event underscored a major geopolitical shift.

After decades of close alignment with Russia, Yerevan has moved steadily closer to the EU, pursuing visa liberalisation and hosting a civilian EU monitoring mission.

Hosting the summit was the clearest sign yet of its changing foreign policy direction.

For Georgian opposition figures, the contrast was stark.

Elene Khoshtaria, the imprisoned leader of the opposition movement Droa, described Armenia’s role as “an event of the greatest importance”, adding that Georgia was increasingly sidelined.

“For the first time in history, Armenians are much closer to the European Union and much further from Russia than Georgians,” wrote opposition leader Nika Gvaramia.

He also warned that Georgia could lose its visa-free access to the EU - just as Armenia moves towards securing it - and called for protests in Tbilisi on 26 May.

A region in motion

The Yerevan summit was more than a diplomatic gathering. It offered a snapshot of a region undergoing rapid change.

Armenia is accelerating towards Europe. Georgia’s trajectory is increasingly contested, both domestically and internationally. And the EU is more engaged in the South Caucasus than at any point in recent years.

Whether Georgia’s government views this shifting landscape as an opportunity or a threat may shape its course in the years ahead.

Tags

News Georgia Yerevan Armenia EPC summit