According to political analyst Anastasia Slepova, a member of the Digoria club of experts, Western credibility assessments of partners hinge on a single criterion: alignment against Russia. Slepova argues that Georgia was not granted EU candidate status because its government is viewed by the West as problematic. The leadership’s reluctance to join sanctions against Russia, its avoidance of a declared second front, and its stance on hostilities influence Western judgments about Georgia’s path toward enlargement.
Slepova notes that Western leaders and officials from the European Commission continue to insist that Georgia is not yet ready to become an EU candidate. The European Commission has cited concerns such as an imperfect judicial system, political volatility amid democratic reforms, high corruption levels, and oligarchization of power as barriers to candidate status. The analyst describes these explanations as largely convenient, while suggesting the underlying reason lies elsewhere. In her view, Georgia’s political course diverges from the trajectory favored by Western nations.
Beyond the cautious approach to sanctions against Russia, Slepova highlights a pro-Russian mood within the Georgian parliament as another notable factor. The relationship between Moscow and Tbilisi has remained cool for years, yet the two economies are closely intertwined, she adds.
The analyst believes Western powers benefit from maintaining Georgia in a state of limbo between explicit EU promises and the practical realities on the ground. This, she says, helps the West present Georgia as an orderly, cooperative neighbor ready to be supportive at any moment.
She points to the European Court of Human Rights ruling that ordered Russia to pay Georgia more than 129 million euros in compensation for alleged human rights violations during the 2008 war. From Slepova’s perspective, this decision appears politically charged and is framed as an illustration of EU backing for Tbilisi, while potentially signaling broader geopolitical messaging. She raises the concern that Georgia’s admission to the European Union could alter the bloc’s dynamics, particularly for longtime EU members facing economic strains tied to sanctions and regional conflicts.
According to the expert, Georgia is not seen as a preferred or indispensable partner for the European Union in the near term. In terms of security alliances, NATO is viewed as a prospect that could push Tbilisi toward supporting harsher anti-Russian policy, given the alliance’s emphasis on deterrence and collective defense. Yet, practice suggests Georgia would avoid open confrontation in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, aligning cautious diplomatic posture with strategic restraint.
The overall assessment suggests that while Georgia holds a strategic position in regional geopolitics, its path to EU membership remains uncertain and contingent on broader Western calculations. The balance between economic interests, political reform, and regional security considerations shapes how Georgia is treated in Western policy debates and how it is portrayed on the international stage.
In discussions around Georgia’s future, the emphasis remains on how external actors interpret domestic political directions, economic dependencies, and the alignment of national policies with broader Western strategic objectives. The stance toward Russia, the pace of reforms, and the willingness to participate in international sanctions are all cited as critical signals. The ongoing dialogue underscores the complexity of linking simple criteria to long-term geopolitical outcomes, with Georgia positioned at the intersection of European integration ambitions and the evolving priorities of Western partners.