5th Annual UGSPN Conference

This research analyzes contemporary trends of radicalization within Georgia, with a specific focus on the
young adult demographic. Central to this study is the deconstruction of mobilization strategies employed by the radical right, understanding their appeal among young supporters, and illuminating the motivations behind their engagement with various radical-right discourses and groups. Additionally, the analysis unpacks the commonly attributed “pro-Russian” label associated with the Georgian far right and explain the nuances of this association.

While the Georgian radical right has been narratively labeled as pro-Russian almost since its widespread resurgence in recent years, this designation is still in need of deconstruction. Association with Russia is a multidimensional process, varying from value association to practical links and financial networks. While all of it could be considered contributive to the destruction of liberal democracy, the nuanced understanding of “pro-Russianness” within Georgia’s radical right is salient at least for the following reasons: it assists in identifying the core of the challenge and focusing solution-oriented discussion on the matter; moreover, it reflects on the indirect ways of influencing the youth’s ideological inclinations and positions on democratic values; and finally, it contributes to tailoring policy suggestions to the nuances of the issue. 

The pro-Russian sentiments within certain political and non-governmental organizations in Georgia are evident, despite their reluctance to openly identify in this way. Following the conceptual framework, those entities falling under the pro-Russian category exhibit distinctive features such as a marked anti-Western stance, strong pro-Russian rhetoric, viewing the West as a primary threat, considering Russia a civilizational choice, and advocating for military neutrality or alignment with Russia. Their narratives, while fitting all four points of the pro-Russian type within Silagadze’s framework, extend further to underscore a shared perspective. This perspective emphasizes that dialogue with Russia stands as the sole pragmatic path forward, representing the cornerstone for addressing pressing issues, notably the resolution of the long-standing challenges posed by the occupied territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. While not explic- itly self-proclaimed as pro-Russian, their alignment becomes evident through an analysis of their discourse. 

“If the political ends are vague or unspecified, how can you choose methods and means that are fit for purpose” – Colin Gray

Author: Shalva Dzebisashvili

Abstract

Since the Bucharest summit declaration that promised the NATO-membership to Ukraine and Georgia, the option of the membership action plan (MAP) – formally the only mechanism for joining the alliance – became increasingly controversial, politicized and questionable, putting the credibility of the Alliance and its promises under the big question mark. The article doubles down on the debatable value of the MAP from the perspective of military deterrence and argues that the current version of the membership action plan does nothing whatsoever to increase the deterrent of a membership candidate, and in contrary, may lead to a much higher probability of military threat, i.e. aggression. Hence, the MAP appears to acquire a purely formal nature, with no practical applicability and military value to secure the membership process itself. Realizing this but not admitting it openly, the alliance is therefore trapped in its hesitance to decide on membership, thus effectively “donating” the veto right to a revisionist country that actively opposes the enlargement policy. The rapid inclusion of Finland and Sweden in NATO without formally activating the MAP-procedure, is reviewed as the vivid demonstration and testimony of the accuracy of arguments provided in the article.