Russian expert comments on U.S.-Georgia cooling

ArmInfo. There was no turn towards Moscow named after Mimino and Georgia-film, inflating expectations is not only unnecessary, but also dangerous. This is how Russian political scientist Sergei Markedonov commented on the latest processes in Georgian-American relations. The expert stated that relations between Georgia and the United States are increasingly demonstrating the need for the second law of dialectics for analyzing international processes. According to him, the quantity of problems is gradually turning into their quality.

"Official Washington, through Antony Blinken, announced that the United States would suspend financial aid to the Georgian government in the amount of 95 million US dollars. State Department spokesman Vedant Patel made a small but important clarification: Washington is ready to redirect financial flows to support NGOs and "civil activists." Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Jim Risch proposed the "Georgian People's Act," which offers both "sticks" and "carrots" for Tbilisi. Deputy Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs James O'Brien strongly recommends that the Georgian authorities think again about implementing a joint project with the Chinese to build a deep-water port in Anaklia. The word "sanctions" has already been put into circulation, and the corresponding lists have been compiled. In general, the goals are clear and the tasks have been defined," the political scientist noted.

In this vein, Markedonov asked himself what it is about Tbilisi's behavior that Washington is so unhappy with. The expert is sure that to answer this question, it is extremely important to discard the rhetorical tinsel that complicates understanding the real reasons for the discord between the strategic allies. He noted that for many years, Georgia's foreign policy turn to the West was presented as a kind of "value choice." Markedonov noted that both the Americans and EU representatives contributed to the rooting of this idea.  "Of course, Georgian intellectuals also contributed to the establishment of this explanatory model.  Meanwhile, the so-called "Euro-Atlantic choice" of Tbilisi was not a given once and for all. Georgia joined the CIS in 1993-1994, signed the Collective Security Treaty, and agreed to the presence of Russian troops and border guards on its territory. There were hopes that Moscow would "return" Abkhazia and South Ossetia. When these plans were not realized for various reasons, the eyes of the Georgian establishment were turned not to "the sun rising from the North, but to the sun rising from the West." Just business, nothing personal," the political scientist believes.

In this vein, he recalled that one of the most insightful and less dogmatized British experts on the Caucasus, Thomas de Waal, even

cited data from opinion polls.

"When choosing between the options of "joining NATO/EU" and "restoring territorial integrity," Georgian respondents overwhelmingly choose the latter! Ideological "Westernism" is a fairly superficial phenomenon. It can be defined by Arnold Toynbee's formula as a "critical minority," or it can be called "loud." But the passions surrounding the so-called "foreign agent" bill showed that this is not the "voice of the whole people." Contrary to the predictions of many external observers, "the whole people, as one man," did not rise up against it. This problem is of a peripheral nature for the majority of the population (if you like, the "deep

Georgians")," the expert noted.

At the same time, Markedonov is confident that the current Georgian political class did not "see the light" overnight. According to him, his disappointment in the "political West" is a long and multidimensional process.

"Here are memories of 2008, and promises to marry into NATO/EU with vague prospects of membership, and relations based on the principle of political expediency (Ukraine appeared, Moldova became relevant, Georgia, as a "beacon", was forgotten). In the collision between national interests and abstractions of "democratic solidarity", Bidzina Ivanishvili and Co. chose the former. Once the ancestors of today's Georgian politicians chose the "sun from the North" in comparison with the prospects of the Turkish and Persian luminaries. Then new generations turned to the West, when the warmth from the "northern sun", in their opinion, ceased to warm. If necessary, tomorrow they will choose the "sun from the East" with a Chinese soul, if it promises benefits. No turn to Moscow named Mimino and Georgia-film happened, inflating inflated expectations is not only unnecessary, but also dangerous. But the awareness of that, "It is useful that foreign policy is not built on values alone," the political scientist concluded.