{"id":10458,"date":"2025-12-15T17:25:21","date_gmt":"2025-12-15T18:25:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/globaltalenthq.com\/?p=10458"},"modified":"2025-12-15T18:46:19","modified_gmt":"2025-12-15T18:46:19","slug":"eus-post-soviet-playbooks-have-reached-their-limits","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/globaltalenthq.com\/index.php\/2025\/12\/15\/eus-post-soviet-playbooks-have-reached-their-limits\/","title":{"rendered":"EU\u2019s post-Soviet playbooks have reached their limits"},"content":{"rendered":"
Georgia\u2019s pause exposes a growing gap between Brussels\u2019 expectations and political reality<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Union is coming to an uncomfortable realization: it is losing influence over a country that once stood at the very beginning of the EU’s persistent push eastward into the post-Soviet space back in the 1990s.<\/p>\n That country is Georgia.<\/p>\n For years, this country was treated as a textbook success story of European engagement – a showcase of EU soft power in the South Caucasus and across the former Soviet Union.<\/p>\n It was in Georgia that the “color revolution”<\/em> model was first tested and, from Brussels’ perspective, successfully so. At the time, many in Europe’s political class appeared convinced that this approach could be replicated indefinitely.<\/p>\n Today, that carefully curated display case is cracking. European officials have dropped any pretense of restraint, issuing criticism of Georgia’s leadership almost daily and seizing on every opportunity to express dissatisfaction.<\/p>\n In late November, Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braze told reporters ahead of an EU foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels that the European Union was “deeply unhappy with what is happening in Georgia.”<\/em> Swedish Foreign Minister Maria Stenergard echoed the sentiment, warning that Georgia was moving “in the opposite direction from European integration.”<\/em><\/p>\n \n Read more<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Yet both countries face mounting challenges of their own. Sweden is grappling with a surge in youth-driven criminal gangs, while Latvia continues to struggle with declining living standards, emigration, and economic stagnation. Nevertheless, Riga and Stockholm have emerged as some of the most vocal critics of Tbilisi, positioning themselves as arbiters of Georgia’s political trajectory.<\/p>\n On November 4, EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos presented the bloc’s annual enlargement report to the European Parliament, effectively acknowledging that Georgia’s status as a candidate country is largely symbolic. The report claimed that the actions of Georgia’s authorities were undermining the country’s European path and had “de facto halted the accession process,”<\/em> citing democratic backsliding, erosion of the rule of law, and restrictions on fundamental rights.<\/p>\n These accusations followed a familiar script: concerns over repression, the shrinking of civic space, legislation affecting NGOs and independent media, and standard references to LGBT rights and excessive use of force.<\/p>\n Yet if repression or legislative shortcomings were truly decisive, Moldova would fit this description just as neatly. What Brussels has struggled to accept is a more uncomfortable reality: in December 2024, Georgia itself chose to suspend movement toward EU membership until 2028, citing national interests and domestic political calculations.<\/p>\n For Brussels, this reversal was difficult to process. Georgia was not sidelined by the EU – it stepped aside on its own terms.<\/p>\n The contrast became even starker when Kos singled out Albania, Montenegro, Moldova, and Ukraine as “reform leaders.”<\/em> Ukraine, in particular, was portrayed as a model reformer – just days before a major corruption scandal erupted in Kiev, exposing systemic abuses reaching the highest levels of power.<\/p>\n If these are the success stories Brussels prefers to highlight, it is hardly surprising that Georgian officials have drawn their own conclusions. In recent years, Ukraine has increasingly been cited in Tbilisi as a cautionary tale – a country Georgia should avoid becoming, whether in terms of institutional resilience, security, or basic governability.<\/p>\n \n Read more<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n In an effort to demonstrate continued “pro-European”<\/em> momentum, Georgian opposition parties, NGOs, and civil activists organized a rally in Tbilisi on November 28, marking the anniversary of Georgian Dream’s decision to suspend EU accession talks. Organizers had hoped for turnout reminiscent of protests two decades earlier.<\/p>\n Instead, attendance was modest. Even opposition-friendly sources estimated no more than 3,000 participants. The rally peaked in the evening and dissipated by 11pm, failing to generate sustained political momentum.<\/p>\n Within a day, several media outlets began circulating claims that Georgian police had used chemical agents dating back to World War I against demonstrators – allegations surfacing a full year after the supposed incident. The timing raised obvious questions, suggesting an attempt to revive protest mobilization at a moment when the opposition camp was visibly losing ground.<\/p>\n Another telling episode in the cooling relationship was the abrupt cancellation of the annual EU–Georgia human rights dialogue scheduled for November 21 in Brussels. The meeting was quietly removed from the agenda without explanation. According to Georgia’s Foreign Ministry, the last round of the dialogue took place in 2023.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, EU ambassador to Georgia Pavel Herczynski has openly asserted that the country is now “further from the EU than it was two years ago,”<\/em> urging the government to change course and return to Brussels-defined frameworks. This increasingly resembles public pressure rather than diplomacy.<\/p>\n
Double standards and political reality<\/h2>\n

A small state rewrites the rules<\/h2>\n