Українською читайте тут.
Detector Media analyzed the main narratives of Russian propaganda targeting an international audience following the parliamentary elections in Georgia.
Parliamentary elections in Georgia took place on October 26. According to information from the Central Election Commission, the ruling party, "Georgian Dream," garnered 53.94% of the vote. Opposition parties collectively received nearly 38% of the vote according to the announced results: "Coalition for Change" — 11.03%, "Unity — National Movement" — 10.17%, "Strong Georgia" — 8.81%, and "Gakharia — for Georgia" — 7.77%.
However, according to two exit polls commissioned by opposition television channels, the united opposition gained over 50% or 48% of the vote, respectively. Meanwhile, a third exit poll commissioned by the pro-government Imedi channel gave "Georgian Dream" more than 56%.
On the evening of October 27, Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili, who has become the informal leader of the diverse Georgian opposition, stated that she would not recognize the parliamentary elections due to fraud and called on people to take to the streets in mass protests.
Recently, the Georgian government has notably distanced itself from Western capitals while simultaneously courting Moscow. In May 2024, a law was passed, mirroring Russia’s so-called "foreign agents" law, imposing additional control over non-governmental organizations and media. In September, the Georgian parliament also limited the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community in the country. This led to reactions from human rights activists and the West. The United States also imposed sanctions on specific Georgian officials for anti-democratic actions.
The rhetorical standoff has reached a heightened intensity. Ahead of the elections, the top candidate of the ruling "Georgian Dream" party, Bidzina Ivanishvili, stated that in 2008, Georgia and Ukraine were not admitted to NATO to be kept as "living resources" in a war against Russia. Additionally, he placed the responsibility for the 2008 Georgian-Russian war on former president Mikheil Saakashvili rather than on Moscow. Russian leaders have also begun expressing conspicuous demonstrable friendliness toward the Georgian authorities. Last year, even air connections between Georgia and Russia were restored.
According to the results of a survey from spring 2024 within the "Caucasus Barometer 2024" study, 69% of surveyed Georgians consider Russia an enemy. According to an NDI survey from fall 2023, 79% of Georgian citizens desire integration into the EU, while 67% support integration with NATO.
One of the reasons why the government, despite such public opinion, manages to pursue a course of distancing from the West and aligning with Moscow is the Russia-Ukraine war. The country's leaders promote the narrative that the West wants to involve Georgia in a war with Russia — and to avoid this, it is worth accepting a temporary deterioration in relations. This narrative was one of the main messages during this election campaign. Here, we describe how Russian media commented on the election results for both international and Georgian audiences.
The narratives in Russian English-language media regarding the Georgian elections somewhat differ from the pro-Russian platforms in Ukraine or Georgia. In particular, on international platforms, Russian propaganda was less focused on its central thesis in the post-Soviet information space and in Georgia in recent months about the critical choice in this campaign between an inevitable, fatal war with Moscow if the pro-Western opposition won and the opportunity to preserve peace if "Georgian Dream" prevailed.
This likely reflects an attempt to appeal to a broader audience than those ready to believe in "the cynical Western elites' desire to open a second front against Russia in Georgia." In contrast, propaganda in international media exploited older narratives about the West’s general ambition to subjugate and control the governments of various countries, including Georgia, allegedly even being willing to incite "another color revolution" for this purpose. This message resonates more with anti-colonial sentiments in the so-called Global South or with widespread anti-Americanism and Euroscepticism in Europe.
"Georgians legitimately chose the national interest"
RT (Russia Today) published a piece by its regular columnist, Rachel Marsden, in a polemic and ironic tone. Marsden contrasts the reaction to the elections from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who called for an investigation into violations during the elections, and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, whose country currently holds the rotating EU presidency. During his visit to Georgia, Orban congratulated the Georgian government on its victory and urged them to disregard Western authorities' criticism of the elections' undemocratic nature.
"European politics has its own playbook: when liberal parties win, democracy is there; when conservatives win, it's absent. Since conservatives won, there will be warnings — which should not be taken seriously," Orban is quoted as saying in the article.
Orban also congratulated the Georgian people for "not allowing their country to become a second Ukraine." His words were speculatively interpreted in the article as a warning against "allowing the Western establishment to turn Georgia into a haven for militants and weapons aimed against Russian interests." In response, on October 28, ministers from thirteen EU countries signed a statement asserting that Orban did not represent the European Union during his visit to Georgia.
Meanwhile, Ursula von der Leyen, referred to in the article as the "unelected," receives the following lesson: "Well, since she evidently needs this explained, it seems that 54% of Georgians voted for a populist party they trust to put their own interests first, rather than those supported by the Western establishment... If, as von der Leyen says, Georgians 'fought for democracy,' then it seems they succeeded. She simply doesn’t like the result."
In the usual Russian media conclusions, Orban is portrayed as the embodiment of an alternative view on the EU, one that supposedly respects the sovereignty and democracy of nations, contrary to the dominant view in the West. However, under Orban's premiership, Hungary has become one of the EU's lowest-ranking countries in the Democracy Index by the Economist Intelligence Unit and the Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International.
A similar thesis of Georgia’s sovereign choice was echoed by Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova in an interview with RT: "What is happening in Georgia is the people's fight for their national historical existence... The West tells them, 'If you don't march in sacred circles with rainbow flags, we'll sever ties with you.'"
Georgia-oriented Russian media primarily aimed to legitimize the election results, frequently referencing their acknowledgment by leaders of other countries. Such news dominated the "Sputnik Georgia" feed, with headlines like: "Georgia Successfully Conducted Elections – Chinese Foreign Ministry," "UAE Leaders Congratulate Georgian Prime Minister on Georgian Dream's Victory," "Azerbaijani President Congratulates Georgian Prime Minister on Ruling Party's Election Victory," "Erdogan Congratulates Georgian Prime Minister on Georgian Dream's Victory."
Criticism of the elections was countered by appealing to the opinions of international leaders, such as Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó, or so-called "experts": "The U.S. Treats Georgia Like a Colony – Venezuelan President," "The EU Can't Digest That Georgia's Government Isn’t Appointed from Brussels – Szijjártó," "Georgian Dream’s Victory Was Expected, Opposition Will Let Off Steam on the Streets – Expert," "Szijjártó: The EU Is No Longer the Same – Georgia Can Give It New Energy."
Interestingly, the publication "Sputnik Georgia" attributed a crucial role in the Georgian Dream's "convincing" victory to businessman and party leader Bidzina Ivanishvili, who supposedly made a successful "intervention" at the end of the campaign. Such reports bore the hallmarks of sponsored content.
Russian media also freely interpreted the preliminary findings of the international observer group, which included representatives from ODIHR, OSCE, PACE, NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and the European Parliament. The observers’ preliminary statement was titled "The Elections in Georgia Were Marred by Unequal Conditions, Pressure, and Tension, but Offered Voters a Broad Choice: International Observers." This statement typically listed both positive and negative aspects of the electoral process, noting overall worsening conditions due to recent trends, including financial imbalances, hostility towards the opposition and civil society, cases of voter intimidation, and negative impacts from recent legislative changes. However, the absence of an explicit rejection of the election’s legitimacy allowed Georgian authorities to use the statement to their advantage. Consequently, Russian outlets published similar stories in Georgia with headlines like: "OSCE ODIHR Conclusion Confirms Legitimacy of Georgia’s Elections – Papuashvili," "Observers Confirm Legitimacy of Recent Elections in Georgia," "Austrian Observers Give Positive Assessment of Elections in Georgia," etc.
"A color revolution is unlikely to happen"
One of the most popular topics in Russian international media has been speculations on the likelihood of a new color revolution in Georgia, which propaganda traditionally interprets as "staged by Western elites." RT published an article with the telling title, "Is Another 'Color Revolution' Awaiting This Former Soviet State?" However, the article didn't analyze the likelihood of revolution. Instead, it provided a brief overview of Georgia's recent history since the collapse of the USSR, presented in a characteristically biased Russian interpretation.
Another lengthy RT article focused entirely on the so-called “gray cardinal” behind a potential color revolution in Georgia, identified as Michael Roth, Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Bundestag and a Social Democrat. The article is densely packed with personal jabs at Roth, making the Georgian elections seem merely a backdrop for voicing these criticisms. "Roth’s positions are a mix of lazily predictable—and predictably wrong—and sometimes shockingly arrogant, even by his standards," reads a representative sentence from the text.
The author of this piece is Tarik Amar, a former researcher of the history of Lviv and now a regular RT columnist. From 2007 to 2010, he was the academic director of the Center for Urban History of East Central Europe in Lviv, and in 2010, he was awarded the Golden Emblem by the Lviv City Council, an honor he declined in 2018, citing the city’s glorification of Stepan Bandera.
Another article on the potential color revolution for RT was written by Fyodor Lukyanov, Director of Research at the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai Discussion Club. At Valdai, Russian political elites, including Putin, often engage in a habit of voicing geopolitical speculation. Lukyanov considers a "color revolution" unlikely, citing the West’s alleged shift in priorities and the current Georgian government’s resilience to external influence. "Ultimately, an attempt at forceful revision is possible, especially since the current president is still part of the opposition. However, conditions for success are not very favorable," Lukyanov writes.
Sputnik columnist Stanislav Tarasov echoes this sentiment in his article, "Unrest in Georgia is Part of the West’s Grand Strategy to Use Russia’s Neighbors as Pawns in Hybrid Warfare." According to him, the protests are not aimed at a change of power but rather at pressuring the "Georgian Dream." Tarasov explains the potential Western sanctions against the Georgian government as a form of pressure: "They’ll impose sanctions... They can't just send in armed forces or an expeditionary corps. First, they support them with some investments, then impose sanctions; first, they open visa regimes, then impose restrictions, and so on... This is a primitive scheme of American-style colonial rule applied to Georgia."
Tarasov also claims to understand the goal of this alleged Western plot: "In this case, the plot isn’t aimed at destabilizing the internal situation but is purely a political tactic designed to force 'Georgian Dream' to accept the idea of a coalition." The participation of the Georgian opposition in a coalition would supposedly allow the West to block unfavorable economic projects in the region.
The opinion that mass protests are unlikely to happen is repeated by other "experts" consulted by Sputnik in both its international and Georgian media branches.
Intimidation with "Ukrainian snipers" and "civil war"
One of the main topics discussed in Russian media involved disinformation about the arrival of Ukrainian snipers in Georgia to carry out a false-flag operation. “The West, trying to destabilize Georgia's internal political situation after the elections and provoke another color revolution, does not shy away from any methods: snipers trained in Ukraine have arrived in the country,” Russian propaganda agency TARS quoted an alleged anonymous source.
This claim was widely spread by Russian international outlets. For instance, Sputnik almost verbatim repeated the TASS story but cited its own informed source in Georgia. Local pro-Russian Telegram channels also circulated this unverified information. Earlier in October, during the election campaign, Russian media, including RT, had already spread a false story about the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) training Georgian militants to participate in anti-government protests.
Another form of intimidation was the threat of civil war for the opposition. "If this struggle moves to the streets, it reeks too much of civil war, and after a civil war, the opposition will have no real chance. In the new parliament, where 'Dream' will enter with a different composition, nothing will remain of the opposition," wrote one of the authors at "Sputnik Georgia." The author added that if the opposition didn’t want to see "such a miserable outcome for itself, it would be better to recognize the elections and join parliament." These statements are clearly intended to intimidate potential protestors.
On October 30, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy commented on the elections in Georgia: “We must acknowledge that in Georgia, Russia has won. First, they took part of Georgia, then changed the policy, changed the government—and now there's a pro-Russian government with pro-Russian positions. Their choice is friendship with Russia, their choice is not to join the EU. They have changed their position.” He added that “if Western countries do not stop the rhetoric about red lines, they will lose Moldova as well within a year or two.”
Georgia has become a bitter example of a country that, despite suffering aggression and the occupation of its territories by Russia, is at least indirectly turning into the orbit of its influence. Russian propaganda will fully exploit this example as evidence of its decisive influence in the post-Soviet space, insisting that any peace agreements regarding Ukraine must recognize this informal extra-legal principle.
The methods and manner that Russia uses to achieve this decisive influence are also revealing. Foremost among these has been the intimidation of Georgia's elites and its people with the threat of war, which accompanied the entire election campaign. If the spread of this precedent is not halted, international politics may quickly devolve into acts of force, including nuclear blackmail. A rational and farsighted decision would be to refuse to play along with such intimidation.
Main page illustration: Natalia Lobach
