Georgia’s ruling party is rapidly escalating its confrontational rhetoric toward the European Union. The government has sent an open letter to the leaders of European institutions, accusing the EU of deviating from democratic principles, a “crisis of values,” and double standards. Formally, the pretext was the events in Copenhagen, where police dispersed a protest, but the letter itself goes far beyond a single episode and effectively questions the current direction of the European Union’s development.
The Georgian government has addressed an open letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, European Council President António Costa, and European Parliament President Roberta Metsola. The decision, as stated by Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze, was made after consultations with the political team of Georgian Dream.
In the letter, the authorities emphasize that Georgia is “historically and culturally” part of Europe and still aspires to become a full member of the EU. However, this formula is subsequently used not to reaffirm the course toward European integration, but to criticize the bloc itself. The ruling party effectively contrasts “European civilization” with current European institutions, arguing that the EU is increasingly deviating from the principles of democracy, human rights, and societal identity.
The letter separately states that the political dialogue between Tbilisi and Brussels was terminated at the initiative of European structures, and Tbilisi’s proposals for cooperation were allegedly repeatedly rejected. At the same time, the Georgian side does not link the deterioration of relations to the criticism that the EU has leveled against Georgian Dream itself—over democratic backsliding, pressure on civil society, anti-Western rhetoric, and laws that contradict EU recommendations.
The main pretext for the letter was the events in the Danish capital, Copenhagen. The Georgian authorities stated that police brutally dispersed a peaceful demonstration: according to Kobakhidze, protesters were beaten with batons, and then dogs were deployed against them. On this basis, the government asks European leaders whether such actions comply with the standards of democracy and human rights protection that the European Union constantly preaches.
However, the letter is not limited to the topic of police violence. Through the episode in Denmark, Georgian Dream transitions to a broader accusation: according to the Georgian authorities, the EU is experiencing growing “democratic backsliding,” economic stagnation, a migration crisis, the “diminishing of historical memory,” the weakening of national and gender identity, and the destruction of societal uniqueness. Thus, a single specific incident is used as proof of Europe’s general “crisis of values.”
In this logic, Georgia is presented not as a country criticized by the EU for deviating from democratic standards, but as a candidate country that has the right to demand explanations from Brussels. The ruling party effectively flips the narrative: it is no longer the European Union asking Tbilisi about meeting the conditions for European integration, but the Georgian government asking the EU “where Europe is heading.”
The key political formula of the letter is the division between Europe as a civilizational space and European institutions as a political bureaucracy. Georgian Dream is trying to maintain its pro-European rhetoric while simultaneously challenging Brussels’ moral authority to criticize the Georgian authorities. In other words, the letter is built on the premise that Georgia remains part of the “real Europe,” while the current European Union is allegedly retreating from this Europe.
According to George Melashvili, head of the Europe-Georgia Institute, the appeal to European leaders fits into the party’s contradictory foreign policy line.
“On the one hand, Georgian Dream is trying to establish transactional relations with the United States, Ukraine, and the European Union. On the other hand, they are trying to distance Georgia from its European future as much as possible, so that it is not they who reject the European Union—which already happened once and triggered mass protests in Georgia—but rather that the European Union rejects Georgia. The goal is for Georgian Dream to establish relations with the EU similar to those of Azerbaijan, where it’s ‘money upfront, and we’ll talk about everything else later.'”
At the same time, Melashvili believes that the letter is addressed not only to European leaders but also to a domestic audience. According to him, almost all actions of Georgian Dream are primarily aimed at the domestic market: the party is trying to retain its own base while remaining a hostage to the propaganda narrative it has itself created.
“They have genuinely come to believe all the nonsense and rubbish they spread about the Deep State, the ‘Global War Party,’ and similar nonsense that we have, unfortunately, heard for a very long time and very often,” the expert notes.
Added to this, he says, is the authorities’ attempt to promote an ultra-conservative agenda, which is inherently incompatible with the value framework of the European Union. As a result, Georgian Dream’s criticism of the EU becomes not only a tool of foreign policy pressure but also part of domestic mobilization—by contrasting a “traditional” Georgia with a supposedly lost-its-way Europe.
Melashvili also points to a deeper problem: in his opinion, Georgian Dream does not understand how the European Union is structured, how decisions are made within it, and what principles it is based on. This, the expert believes, creates a mixture of conspiracy theories, post-Soviet political thinking, and belief in their own propaganda.
Against this backdrop, the ruling party is trying to simultaneously distance itself from an openly pro-Russian image and reduce support for European integration within Georgian society. According to Melashvili, direct rapprochement with Moscow remains electorally dangerous for Georgian Dream.
“On the other hand, improving relations with the European Union is a problem for Georgian Dream because they would have to give up the completely unfair, absolute power they currently hold,” Melashvili says.
The potential consequences of such a policy, in his assessment, will depend on the European Union’s reaction. The analyst believes that from the very beginning, Brussels tried not to punish Georgian society, but rather to find ways to pressure representatives of the ruling party. However, previously, tougher decisions were blocked by Hungary, which remained Georgian Dream’s main ally within the EU.
Now, with the opposition camp coming to power in Hungary, this protective mechanism has weakened, the expert believes. If the party continues its current line, the European Union could move to more serious steps—ranging from sanctions to reviewing specific formats of cooperation with Tbilisi.
“If Georgian Dream continues with this erratic behavior that we have observed all this time, then, of course, the European Union will take much more serious steps,” Melashvili is convinced.
