„პუტინის შემდეგ: ალტერნატიული ძალის ცენტრები, ინტერესთა თანხვედრა და კონფლიქტი“

Disclaimer:
This article was first published in Un cambio de época: América del Norte y la intervención rusa en Ucrania. Geopolítica y nuevas dinámicas de la globalización.

Abstract

This paper examines the evolving dilemma of European defence integration through the prism of the debate between “more EU in Europe” and “more EU in NATO.” It analyzes the structural, political, and strategic tensions shaping EU–NATO defence cooperation in the context of renewed great-power competition and Russia’s war against Ukraine. The study situates the discussion within broader debates on European strategic autonomy, transatlantic burden-sharing, and institutional duplication, assessing whether deeper EU defence integration strengthens or fragments the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. By exploring initiatives such as PESCO, the European Defence Fund, and the EU Strategic Compass alongside NATO’s force posture adaptation and enlargement dynamics, the paper evaluates the degree of complementarity and competition between the two organizations.

The analysis argues that the core challenge is not a binary institutional choice but the management of functional interdependence between the EU and NATO. While greater EU defence capabilities may enhance European resilience and contribute to fairer burden-sharing within NATO, misaligned political visions, capability gaps, and strategic divergences risk reinforcing fragmentation. The paper concludes that sustainable European security requires calibrated integration: strengthening EU defence instruments while anchoring them firmly within NATO’s collective defence framework. The future of Euro-Atlantic security will depend on whether policymakers can reconcile ambitions for European autonomy with the enduring strategic centrality of NATO.

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the transformation in Sino-Georgian relations since 2012, highlighting how bilateral ties have evolved from limited economic engagement into a formal strategic partnership. It situates this evolution within China’s more assertive foreign policy under Xi Jinping, embodied in the Belt and Road Initiative and Georgia’s strategic recalibration under the Georgian Dream government. The study examines China’s motivations, including logistical access via the Middle Corridor, political diversification in the Black Sea region, and symbolic partnership with a cooperative democracy. It explores Georgia’s calculus in seeking alternative sources of investment, hedging against Western conditionality, and leveraging the relationship for domestic legitimacy. The article then assesses key risks: the asymmetry of power and unmet expectations, the tension between Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations and deeper ties with China, the waning momentum of the BRI, and the fragility of a pragmatism-based partnership. In conclusion, it argues that without stronger institutional mechanisms and clearer strategic objectives, the Sino-Georgian partnership is likely to remain symbolic rather than transformative, offering cautionary lessons for small-state diplomacy in a multipolar world.

Youth resistance in Georgia has emerged as a key actor within the landscape of non-parliamentary opposition. This paper examines how university students mobilised during the 2024 protests, not simply to contest a piece of legislation, but to engage in broader acts of political redefinition and identity reclamation. Drawing on twenty-eight ethnographic diaries, the paper investigates how emotional, symbolic, and generational practices are deployed by young activists to articulate belonging, citizenship, and resistance outside formal political institutions.
Rather than acting in coordination with the parliamentary opposition, students build their own oppositional identity through emotionally charged practices such as “identity marches,” protest rituals, and symbolic appropriation of public space. These actions reveal how emotions—particularly anger, hope, fear, pride, and confusion—function as more than expressive tools: they structure participation, forge horizontal solidarities, and sustain collective motivation over time.
The analysis highlights how students reinterpret national and European belonging as affective and civic projects, positioning themselves in opposition to both Russian influence and domestic political elites. Their actions suggest a transformation of Europeanisation from a top-down institutional narrative into a lived, grassroots civic identity. This case contributes to broader discussions on how extra-institutional opposition actors generate political agency in post-communist hybrid regimes.