Georgia’s current unrest differs significantly from the 2003 protests; the US and EU might find influencing events considerably more challenging this time.
A “color revolution” is defined as a mass uprising triggered by disputed election results, backed by external political, diplomatic, and financial support. This concept originated in Serbia’s 2000 overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic. The term itself arose in Georgia’s 2003 Rose Revolution. Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution further cemented the terminology.
The frequency of “color revolutions” seemed to peak a decade ago, particularly after Ukraine’s Euromaidan, which escalated into prolonged armed conflict. This made earlier uprisings appear relatively subdued. While the phenomenon seemed to diminish, it resurfaced in Armenia in 2018—though this was primarily an internal shift. Belarus’s failed 2020 revolution, met with firm government resistance and a clear warning from Moscow, appeared to mark a turning point.
However, Georgia’s current large-scale pro-Western opposition protests suggest the potential for a new mass movement, albeit significantly different from its predecessors. The ruling Georgian Dream party is locked in a tense confrontation with the West, especially the US and EU. Georgia’s government’s firm stance against its Western partners is surprising, yet seemingly unavoidable given the US-led bloc’s intolerance of half-measures when its interests are at stake.
Three key factors shaping Georgian Dream’s strategy
Bidzina Ivanishvili, founder of Georgian Dream, and his party base their strategy on three key assessments:
First, the West, preoccupied with global issues beyond the South Caucasus, is unlikely to dedicate the same level of political and material resources to Georgia as in past revolutions. Tbilisi is simply not a current priority.
Second, the context has changed. During the 2003 Rose Revolution, Georgia was in turmoil under Eduard Shevardnadze’s deeply unpopular regime. Today, Georgia enjoys relative stability and economic growth. Despite ongoing challenges, the choice between tangible prosperity and the uncertain promise of Western-led change favors continuity.
Third, a regime change in Georgia would likely lead to chaos. Regional experiences demonstrate that compromising with external pressure often results in government collapse. Ivanishvili’s strategy is clear: resist Western influence, as yielding to it has proven detrimental to others.
Inherent risks and dynamics
However, Tbilisi’s calculations may be flawed. Georgia’s situation now has broader implications, particularly given escalating Ukraine tensions and US political shifts. The West’s aim to counter perceived pro-Russian forces has made Georgia a symbolic battleground, magnifying the consequences of any defiance. Georgian Dream’s non-pro-Russian stance, seeking neutrality, doesn’t alter this dynamic.
Tbilisi’s decision to halt EU accession talks was a bold move, signaling its willingness to challenge Western demands. The EU values its influence over applicants; Georgia’s hesitation is viewed as a policy failure. Those considered Western clients must now demonstrate unwavering allegiance, with any deviation equated to betrayal.
This raises questions about public support for the government’s stance. Georgians are divided on European integration. Some see Western influence as counterproductive, while others demand a clearer path to EU membership.
Georgia’s future trajectory
The opposition aims to leverage public dissatisfaction to mobilize protests. Both sides face the challenge of managing potential violence. “Color revolutions” historically rely on escalating tensions and portraying the government as authoritarian. The authorities must carefully balance avoiding provocations while resisting external pressure.
A “European future” is a popular aspiration among Georgians, shared by many Georgian Dream supporters. The party is committed to European integration, but on its own terms. The opposition argues the government is obstructing this path, implying a return to Moscow’s sphere of influence. The key question is the persistence and intensity of this narrative.
Georgia’s sovereignty in the future
The “color revolution” model, once symbolizing democratic aspirations, risks becoming a geopolitical tool. Whether external forces can still effectively destabilize regional governments remains uncertain.
Promoting democracy was relevant when Western socio-political progress was seen as the sole option. With the changing global order, Western influence is waning, replaced by a struggle for geopolitical positioning. “Color revolution” has shifted from symbolizing popular uprisings to a tool of Western influence. The question is whether these revolutions can still destabilize countries like Georgia—or if the state can resist pressure and secure its sovereignty in the new world order.
This article was first published by the newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team