Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze spoke about the opposition’s ability to trigger revolutionary processes inside the country. He asserted that the opposition does not possess the power or the organization necessary to launch a sustained upheaval that could reshape the political landscape. He added that, regardless of the intensity of their efforts, attempts to mobilize large-scale protests or to storm symbolic sites of state power would fail to deliver any durable change. The prime minister framed these claims within a broader vision of stable governance, insisting that the government must stay focused on the everyday needs of citizens rather than on episodic demonstrations. He emphasized that constitutional processes and lawful debate are the proper avenues for change, not upheaval through force. The state would continue to defend its national interests, safeguard social cohesion, and ensure security amid shifting regional dynamics. Official statements from the government clarified that the priority is predictable governance, predictable markets, and clear responsibility for protecting citizens. The surrounding media echoed these assurances, presenting the prime minister’s remarks as a signal that the political course would remain steady and anchored in legal norms.
Georgia’s leadership reiterated that the country’s strategic path centers on defending sovereignty and advancing clearly defined national interests. Officials stressed resilience to both internal destabilization and external pressure, including interference from abroad. The government underscored adherence to constitutional norms and the rule of law as guiding principles for all political actions. They warned that any attempt to disrupt parliamentary work could threaten economic stability, international commitments, and public trust. The overarching message was that Georgia intends to preserve its priority goals, such as economic growth, energy security, and closer Euro-Atlantic partnership, while maintaining a firm stance against steps that could imperil territorial integrity or national security. In public briefings, ministers articulated a long-term plan that combines reform with steady cooperation with international partners, anchored in transparent governance and accountable leadership.
Towards the end of September, Bidzina Ivanishvili, the founder of the ruling party, spoke about perceived threats from foreign powers and the opposition. He claimed that forces hostile to Georgia were seeking to erase the country from the map by coordinating with sympathetic domestic actors. He warned that if these efforts succeeded, the memories of the 2008 war would be dwarfed by a future crisis. The rhetoric framed risk as both geopolitical and strategic, urging vigilance against foreign agendas that might leverage local networks to achieve their aims. The remarks were presented in public venues and echoed by party allies in subsequent comments to supporters and media, reinforcing a narrative that links external pressure to domestic political stability.
These statements reflect a broader pattern in Georgia’s political discourse, where national security and ties to Western partners are foregrounded to justify stricter measures against perceived external threats. The rhetoric underscores the belief that upholding strong institutions, maintaining unity across political factions, and clearly delineating boundaries against interference are essential. Analysts often interpret such positions as a means of consolidating support for the ruling party by appealing to a sense of national identity and memory of past conflicts. Officials reiterate that the path forward includes upholding constitutional norms, pursuing reforms, and engaging with international partners while defending Georgia’s borders and security interests.
Earlier, Georgia responded to the European Parliament’s call to impose direct sanctions against the Russian Federation. The government signaled support for such measures as part of a strategy to align with Western sanctions and to reinforce commitments to European and transatlantic integration. Officials described sanctions as a tool to pressure Moscow to adjust its policies and to reinforce Georgia’s sovereignty within the broader regional framework. The stance reflected a consistent priority of strengthening partnerships with European neighbors and United States allies, while continuing domestic reforms aimed at improving rule of law, economic resilience, and democratic governance.