Georgia’s New Party Aims to Rewrite Its Euro-Atlantic Future

A new political force is emerging in Georgia, poised to challenge the nation’s declared Euro-Atlantic aspirations. The public movement “United Neutral Georgia” (UNG) has announced its transformation into a political party, intending to contest the upcoming 2028 parliamentary elections. Led by figures like Vato Shakarishvili, the nascent party advocates for a radical shift in Tbilisi’s foreign policy, explicitly opposing membership in both NATO and the European Union, a stance that directly contradicts the country’s constitutional mandate for Euro-Atlantic integration.

Shakarishvili, speaking at the party’s presentation, articulated a strong critique of Western powers. He asserted that the European Union and the United States have been engaged in an “unequal struggle” against Georgia, aiming to reinstate “their agents” in power. He further contended that European values have “practically completely degraded,” with Brussels bureaucrats serving “informal oligarchic rulers” rather than a true European ideal. A similar “deplorable situation” was described in the US, where, according to him, “informal oligarchic rule” persists despite verbal opposition from the Trump administration against the “deep state.”

Consequently, UNG plans to push for Georgia’s withdrawal from the “morally, politically, and economically degraded” European Union. This rejection, they argue, should persist until the EU actively combats “propaganda of non-traditional relations” and genuinely champions democracy and “just values.” The party posits that a neutral status would unlock significant opportunities for the republic, crucially hoping that disengaging from Euro-Atlantic integration could facilitate rapprochement with the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Intriguingly, UNG’s public commitment to challenging the Constitution has not extensively alarmed the ruling “Georgian Dream” party. On the contrary, members of the parliamentary majority have welcomed the emergence of a new competitor advocating for neutrality. Irakli Zarkua, a “Georgian Dream” MP, even hinted at the possibility of amending the fundamental law concerning EU and NATO membership, stating that any topic could be subject to discussion as the “world changes.” He emphasized, “If the question arises, if it becomes a subject of discussion, we will discuss it.”

This openness to debate, however, stands in stark contrast to previous statements from Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze. Just weeks prior, on October 10, Kobakhidze had underscored that “Georgian Dream” was responsible for enshrining Euro-Atlantic integration in the Constitution and would not abandon this achievement, emphatically stating, “There will be no discussion of such an issue.” This apparent divergence highlights an internal tension within the ruling party regarding the country’s long-term geopolitical orientation.

Adding another layer of complexity, President Mikhail Kavelashvili has reiterated Tbilisi’s desire to join the European Union but acknowledged a misalignment of values. He asserted that Georgian authorities would not compromise national interests for the sake of Euro-integration. The President emphasized Georgia’s 3,000-year history and its accumulated experience in preserving its identity amidst numerous challenges, stating, “This process has not stopped, but we are a country… which has amassed enough experience… to preserve its identity.”

Opponents of “Georgian Dream” view the formation of UNG with deep suspicion, seeing it not merely as another step away from the EU but as a calculated move to reconfigure the nation’s political landscape. Pro-European forces, including the “United National Movement,” the “For Change” coalition, and “Strong Georgia – Lelo,” are currently facing legal challenges that could lead to their prohibition. Critics suggest that UNG and similar “neutral” organizations, potentially controllable by the government, are being prepared as alternatives for voters, thereby marginalizing pro-Western voices.

This is not an unprecedented strategy in Georgia; President Kavelashvili himself was a key figure in “People’s Power,” a conservative group comprising former “Georgian Dream” members. Political analyst Petr Mamradze, while cautious about UNG’s immediate prospects, believes it could become a significant force if it produces a charismatic leader. Mamradze notes a growing segment of the population that favors neutrality, and with “Georgian Dream” still nominally committed to EU entry by 2030, a “niche” for neutralist sentiment is widening. He concludes that the taboo surrounding the rejection of Euro-integration is “gradually lifting.”