Georgia’s foreign policy tug-of-war: When domestic politics shape the EU dream

Georgia’s path toward Europe has rarely been straightforward, but the latest clash between Tbilisi and Brussels highlights just how deeply domestic politics now shape the country’s foreign policy trajectory.

At the heart of the debate is visa-free travel- a cornerstone of Georgia’s relationship with the European Union since 2017. The prospect of its suspension has provoked both defiance from government officials and unease among ordinary citizens.

Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili took a hard line, declaring that “Brussels is not a court and cannot be a court.” For him, criticisms from EU officials amount to an overreach, an attempt to usurp the role of Georgia’s own judiciary. He defended the country’s justice system, pointing to acquittals in recent cases and arguing that Georgia outperforms some EU members in international rankings on corruption and the rule of law. In his view, Brussels’ assessments reflect political bias rather than objective standards, especially when, he noted, protests in EU capitals themselves are often suppressed with force.

Yet the government’s defensive posture contrasts sharply with public perception. A recent CRRC-Georgia survey found that if visa-free travel were suspended, a majority of citizens — 51 percent — would blame Georgian Dream and its founder, Bidzina Ivanishvili, not Brussels. Only a small minority would fault the EU. Younger Georgians and residents of Tbilisi were especially likely to hold the government accountable, underscoring a generational and geographic divide in political trust.

What remains consistent, however, is overwhelming support for Europe itself. Nearly 80 percent of Georgians say they want to join the EU, with backing highest among the under-35 generation. Even among older age groups, support never drops below 70 percent — levels of consensus that are rare in Georgian politics. For many citizens, Europe is not simply a foreign policy choice but a vision of modernity, opportunity, and democratic standards.

This divergence — officials positioning Brussels as unfair and overreaching, while the public continues to view Europe as Georgia’s natural destination — illustrates a widening gap in the country’s political landscape. The ruling party frames EU criticism as an attack on sovereignty; citizens, meanwhile, increasingly see European integration as inseparable from their own future prosperity.

The result is a paradox. In Georgia today, supporting EU membership often overlaps with opposing Georgian Dream, while defending the ruling party is sometimes portrayed as resisting “outside interference.” This dynamic turns foreign policy into a proxy battlefield for domestic politics, complicating Georgia’s path toward membership.

For Brussels, the challenge is equally delicate. Sanctioning Georgia by suspending visa-free travel risks alienating the very public that remains overwhelmingly pro-European. For Tbilisi, dismissing EU criticism may play well with its base but risks undermining the country’s long-term aspirations.

Ultimately, Georgia’s European future may hinge less on Brussels’ judgments than on how the country reconciles its domestic divides. As long as foreign policy remains hostage to internal political struggles, the road to Europe will remain a contested one.

Copied