Over the past several years, the South Caucasus has emerged as one of the most strategically significant regions in Eurasian geopolitics. Intensifying competition among major global powers, the development of alternative transport corridors linking Europe and Asia, growing concerns over energy security, and the evolving security architecture of the Black Sea region have all substantially increased the region's geopolitical importance. Within this framework, Georgia continues to serve as a vital bridge between Europe and the Caspian Basin, playing a central role in the implementation of regional transport, energy, and infrastructure projects.

At the same time, Tbilisi's relations with the European Union and NATO are experiencing a period of political strain. Critical statements from European institutions, parliamentary resolutions, and diplomatic signals have fueled debate over whether the current situation reflects a temporary crisis of confidence or a deeper recalibration of Western policy toward Georgia. The answer carries significance not only for Georgia itself but also for the future security architecture of the South Caucasus, the development of the Middle Corridor, and the broader geopolitical balance across the region.

In an interview with the CASPIA Analytical Center, political scientist and international relations analyst Giorgi Kajaia discusses the reasons behind the cooling of relations between Tbilisi and its Western partners, the prospects for Georgia's Euro-Atlantic integration, the country's role in regional politics, and the most likely scenarios for the future development of Georgia-West relations.

— In recent months, the European Union and NATO have sent a series of political and diplomatic signals to Georgia. Should these be interpreted as evidence of a shift in Western policy toward Tbilisi?

— In my view, what we are witnessing is primarily a change in the tactics of Georgia's Western partners rather than any weakening of their strategic interest in the country. The European Union and NATO have indeed adopted a more critical stance toward Georgia's domestic political developments, but this should not be interpreted as a decline in the country's geopolitical significance.

Georgia remains one of the key states in the South Caucasus. Therefore, the current actions of Brussels and several Western capitals should be viewed primarily as instruments of political influence on decision-making in Tbilisi rather than as an abandonment of long-term cooperation or a revision of Georgia's place within Western strategic planning.

There is no doubt that relations between Georgia and its Western partners are currently experiencing a period of strain. However, responsibility for restoring mutual trust lies with both sides. In Tbilisi, many Western statements and assessments are increasingly perceived as political pressure rather than dialogue between equal partners, further deepening the existing trust deficit.

At the same time, Georgia has maintained all major channels of engagement and has repeatedly reaffirmed its readiness to develop cooperation based on mutual respect, national sovereignty, and equal partnership. Consistent and pragmatic diplomacy remains the key to gradually normalizing relations.

— To what extent does the current domestic and foreign policy course pursued by the Georgian government affect the country's prospects for joining the European Union and NATO?

— In recent years, Georgia's policy has increasingly focused on protecting national interests, ensuring security, and pursuing a pragmatic foreign policy. It is precisely this approach that has generated disagreements with both the European Union and NATO on several issues.

The Georgian leadership has consistently emphasized that European integration should not come at the expense of national sovereignty, domestic stability, or the country's sovereign right to make independent decisions on matters of national importance.

Therefore, the current disagreements are predominantly political in nature and should not be interpreted as Georgia abandoning its European aspirations. Rather, they reflect differing views on how integration should proceed and how relations between partners should be structured. Future progress toward closer integration with the European Union and NATO will largely depend on both sides' ability to rebuild trust and establish cooperation based on mutual respect and consideration of each other's interests.

— Do the European Union and NATO still regard Georgia as a strategic partner in the South Caucasus, or is their perception of the country's role gradually changing?

— Absolutely. Despite the existing political disagreements, Georgia continues to be one of the European Union's and NATO's key partners in the South Caucasus.

This is determined by a combination of objective factors: Georgia's favorable geographic location, its contribution to Black Sea security, its participation in major energy and transport-transit projects, and its role in maintaining regional stability.

Consequently, the current criticism from Western partners is related primarily to specific political issues rather than any reassessment of Georgia's strategic importance. On the contrary, as geopolitical competition intensifies, the strategic significance of the South Caucasus continues to grow, along with Georgia's role as a vital transit hub and political partner. From a practical standpoint, replacing Georgia in most regional initiatives would be extremely difficult, which is why its importance to Western strategy remains consistently high.

— What implications could the current situation have for the security architecture of the South Caucasus and the regional balance of power?

— The developments unfolding in the South Caucasus today affect not only regional but also European security. For this reason, any further deterioration in relations between Georgia and its Western partners would serve the interests of neither side, as it could weaken regional cooperation and undermine the resilience of the broader security architecture.

Under these circumstances, it is particularly important for Georgia to maintain a balanced foreign policy that combines the protection of national interests with constructive engagement with international partners. Such an approach would contribute to preserving regional stability, strengthening security, and supporting the long-term development of the South Caucasus.

— Could the deterioration of relations with the West encourage Georgia to seek alternative foreign policy directions?

— European and Euro-Atlantic integration remains the cornerstone of Georgia's foreign policy. Therefore, the current disagreements with Western partners should not be interpreted as evidence of a strategic reorientation. Rather, they represent a complex political dialogue that inevitably accompanies relations even between close allies.

Georgia's primary objective today is not to seek alternatives to its existing foreign policy course but to strengthen its role as a responsible international partner committed to defending national sovereignty, upholding international law, and promoting regional cooperation.

— Is it possible that the European Union and NATO will revise their policy toward Georgia in the near future? Under what conditions could this occur?

— Such a scenario is certainly possible, as international relations are constantly evolving under the influence of both regional and global developments. However, any potential policy adjustment should not be viewed solely through the prism of Georgia meeting specific expectations or demands from its Western partners.

Improved relations will become possible if both sides demonstrate a genuine willingness to restore trust and return to constructive political dialogue. This is the only path toward strengthening long-term strategic cooperation.

It is also important to recognize that Georgia is an independent regional actor with a significant role in promoting security, stability, and cooperation across the South Caucasus. Accordingly, Tbilisi's interests should be taken into account both in shaping European Union policy and in developing the broader Euro-Atlantic strategy for the region.

— What consequences could the current process have for Azerbaijan's regional interests, the development of the Middle Corridor, and the geopolitical dynamics of the South Caucasus?

— Relations between Georgia and Azerbaijan remain one of the strongest examples of strategic partnership in the South Caucasus. They are built not only on good-neighborly relations but also on converging economic, energy, and geopolitical interests. For many years, both countries have jointly implemented projects whose importance extends well beyond bilateral cooperation and has a profound impact on the development of the entire region.

The development of the Middle Corridor occupies a particularly important place in this context, as it is becoming one of the principal transport routes connecting Europe and Asia. Georgia plays a system-forming role in this initiative by providing the essential link between the Caspian region and the Black Sea, thereby facilitating access to European markets. Combined with Azerbaijan's transport, logistics, and energy potential, this creates an integrated strategic space that strengthens both countries' positions within international trade.

For this reason, Georgia's relations with its Western partners cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader regional context. Georgia's political stability and its strategic partnership with Azerbaijan directly affect the security of the South Caucasus, the resilience of regional transit corridors, and the prospects for sustained economic development.

As global competition over transport corridors and energy resources continues to intensify, the importance of the Georgian-Azerbaijani partnership will only grow. Today, Georgia is far more than simply a transit country—it is an independent strategic partner capable of making a substantial contribution to regional stability, international connectivity, and the long-term economic development of the South Caucasus.

— Looking ahead to the end of 2026, what scenario do you consider the most likely for the future of relations between Georgia and the West?

— In my opinion, the most probable scenario by the end of 2026 will be the gradual restoration of pragmatic cooperation between Georgia and its Western partners.

Most likely, relations will gradually shift away from political disagreements toward practical cooperation in such areas as security, economic development, trade, energy, transport connectivity, and regional stability.

Accordingly, the most realistic outcome is not a deeper confrontation but the emergence of a new model of partnership grounded in pragmatism, mutual respect, and shared strategic interests. Such a framework would provide a stronger foundation for sustainable, long-term cooperation that serves the interests of both Georgia and its Western partners.