Two Frontlines, One Enemy: Why Georgia and Ukraine Must Be Seen as the Same Fight

Author’s Note

This article is more than an analysis; it is a manifesto. It is written not only from the perspective of a security analyst, but also as a citizen of Georgia and a professional who has worked on the ground in Ukraine throughout its ongoing war. In both countries, I have witnessed firsthand the cost of defending a self-determined civilizational choice – one that is rooted in Europe and was made long before the current crisis. At the same time, I have observed how much of the democratic world either looks away or hesitates to act.

The struggle for a free and democratic Georgia is not a regional issue. It forms part of a broader confrontation between authoritarian imperialism and the fundamental principles that define the European project. Georgia and Ukraine are not separate cases; they are two frontlines in a single conflict over sovereignty, dignity, and the right of nations to determine their own future.

Yet this is not only about the right of Georgians and Ukrainians to shape their destinies. Their fate will also help determine the future of Western civilization itself. What is being tested today is not just the resilience of two nations, but the credibility and endurance of the democratic world.

A European Georgia remains not only possible, but essential. The international community must understand that developments in Tbilisi and Kyiv are not peripheral to Europe; they are central to its future. The Black Sea is no longer a border; it has become a battleground. The decisions made in this context will shape the global order for generations.

To borrow the words from what I consider one of the most powerful movies of all time – Gladiator: “What we do in life echoes in eternity.”

Слава Україні!

დიდება გმირებს!

— David Janjalia

Introduction: Not Separate Conflicts, but a Unified Warfront

Russia’s war against democratic neighbors did not begin with the 2014 annexation of Crimea or the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Nor did it commence with the cyberattacks and creeping borderization that Georgia has endured since 2008. The origins lie earlier, during the 1990s in Abkhazeti (Abkhazia), when Russian forces and military equipment supported separatist movements in a brutal conflict that left hundreds of thousands displaced and thousands dead. Ukrainian volunteers lost their lives defending Georgia in that struggle. Today, thousands of Georgian fighters serve on Ukraine’s front lines in a reciprocal act of solidarity.

Despite this deep historical and strategic linkage, Western governments continue to treat Georgia and Ukraine as separate cases. This artificial distinction plays directly into the Kremlin’s strategy. It weakens deterrence, obscures the nature of the conflict and fractures what should be a unified democratic front against authoritarian expansion. Russia does not see these as separate conflicts. It views them as components of a singular imperial campaign to reassert influence and control over its former empire through both overt and covert means. If Georgia is lost, the Black Sea would become a Russian lake.

If Georgia is destabilized, the Middle Corridor – the vital alternative trade and energy route between Europe and Asia may collapse. If Georgia is sacrificed, the message to every frontline democracy is unmistakable: you are expendable.

Georgia’s Strategic Role in Eurasian Security

Georgia is more than a neighboring state to Russia. It is a geopolitical keystone. Its position at the intersection of Europe and Asia, combined with its infrastructure and maritime access, makes it indispensable for regional stability. It serves as a key hub of the Middle Corridor, a trade and energy route connecting Europe to Central Asia and China via the Caspian Sea. This corridor bypasses both Russia and Iran, providing a strategically vital alternative to Russian-controlled channels.

Georgia is also home to major energy infrastructure, including the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan oil pipeline and the South Caucasus gas pipeline, both of which are central to Europe’s diversification efforts away from Russian energy dependency. Its Black Sea ports in Poti and Batumi, and the proposed Anaklia deep-sea port, are essential links in the East–West transport network.

Russia recognizes Georgia’s pivotal role. This is why it launched the 2008 invasion and continues to occupy 20 percent of Georgian territory, including Abkhazeti and the Tskhinvali Region (so-called South Ossetia). Control or disruption of Georgia’s territory allows Moscow to undermine European energy security, flank Ukraine, and fracture Eurasian connectivity.

Hybrid War in Georgia: A Conflict Without a Ceasefire

After the 2008 war, the international community failed to impose meaningful consequences on Russia. It remained in the G8. The United States initiated a "Reset" policy. France nearly completed the sale of advanced Mistral-class warships to Moscow. Western trade with Russia continued. All the while, Russian troops entrenched themselves in Sokhumi and the Tskhinvali Region.

Georgia, however, never experienced peace. It has remained the target of an ongoing hybrid campaign that includes creeping occupation through the erection of barbed wire and fencing, the kidnapping of civilians along administrative boundary lines, and political and economic coercion. These acts are reinforced by cyber operations, electoral interference, and propaganda intended to erode Georgian sovereignty.

On 20 May 2025, the State Security Service of Georgia reported that three Georgian citizens were abducted by Russian occupation forces near the village of Khurvaleti in the Gori municipality. Two remain in unlawful detention. According to the Anti-Occupation Movement, more than 3,500 Georgian citizens have been kidnapped since the end of the 2008 war.

These kidnappings are not isolated events. They are tools of psychological warfare, intended to terrorize border communities, instill fear, and normalize occupation.

Russian hybrid warfare is not confined to the region. Its reach extends globally, including across the Atlantic. The same techniques deployed in Georgia, such as disinformation, cyber intrusions, and societal destabilization, have also been used to undermine institutions in the United States and Europe. In 2016, Russian state-backed actors interfered in the U.S. presidential election through coordinated cyberattacks and large-scale social media manipulation. In 2020, the SolarWinds cyberattack, attributed to Russian-affiliated groups, infiltrated multiple U.S. federal agencies and critical infrastructure networks.

Moreover, many American citizens have been targeted by, and in some cases absorbed, Russian propaganda narratives. These efforts include amplifying divisive political content, promoting conspiracies, and subtly reshaping public perception to align with Kremlin objectives. The phenomenon illustrates how Russian information warfare seeks not only to destabilise foreign states but also to infiltrate the social and psychological fabric of their populations. The ideological battles that begin in the streets of Tbilisi or Kyiv can now be heard echoed in political discourse across the United States.

Georgia, therefore, should not be viewed merely as a regional case study. It is a frontline state in a broader global conflict between democratic governance and authoritarian expansionism.

Western Blindness: A Strategic Failure

Following the 2008 invasion, Georgia was incorrectly categorized as a "post-conflict" country. Western governments redirected attention and resources elsewhere, erroneously assuming stability. This negligence allowed Russia to entrench its influence within Georgia’s institutions, economy, and media landscape.

The failure to hold Russia accountable in 2008 emboldened it to annex Crimea in 2014 and later invade eastern Ukraine. The Kremlin learned that aggressive action carried little risk and significant reward. The costs of appeasement became apparent only after full-scale war erupted in Ukraine in 2022.

This is particularly unfortunate given Georgia’s remarkable post-2003 transformation. Following the Rose Revolution, Georgia implemented far-reaching democratic and economic reforms. So successful were these efforts that, after Ukraine’s Euromaidan in 2014, Kyiv recruited Georgian officials and experts to assist with reform efforts. This cross-national exchange highlights the shared struggle and mutual value of these two countries in advancing the democratic cause in Eastern Europe.

Georgia and Ukraine: Interconnected Resistance

Georgia and Ukraine are not merely parallel cases. They are interconnected fronts in a unified strategic struggle. In the early 1990s, Ukrainian volunteers died alongside Georgians in Abkhazeti, not only fighting separatists but also confronting Russian troops and hardware. Since 2014, at least 94 Georgian volunteers have been confirmed killed in Ukraine. While not the highest number overall, Georgian casualties represent the highest losses per capita and amongst European nationalities.

This interconnectedness is confirmed by the Kremlin’s own stated demands. According to the most recent Reuters investigation, citing three anonymous sources involved in peace negotiations, Russia explicitly demanded written guarantees that NATO would no longer expand eastward. This condition was not limited to Ukraine. Moscow’s demand included Georgia, Moldova, and other post-Soviet states, placing them all within the Kremlin’s strategic red lines. As reported, Russia insisted that NATO abandon its open-door policy in Eastern Europe entirely. In addition, Russia’s peace conditions included Ukrainian neutrality and the lifting of Western sanctions.

These demands leave little ambiguity. The war is not only about Ukraine. It is about preventing Euro-Atlantic integration across the post-Soviet space. Georgia and Ukraine are targeted together and they must be defended together.

If Georgia falls or is destabilized, Ukraine becomes vulnerable from the south. If Ukraine is weakened, Georgia loses a strategic partner in its own resistance. The security of one reinforces the other.

A Moment of Strategic Decision

The collapse of the Northern Corridor due to sanctions, warfare, and infrastructure degradation has increased the importance of the Middle Corridor. This makes Georgia's stability indispensable. However, recent domestic developments place that stability at risk. Although Georgia was granted EU candidate status, government rhetoric has turned sharply Eurosceptic. In November 2024, the Prime Minister’s anti-EU remarks prompted mass resignations among pro-Western officials. Despite European Union flags remaining on government buildings, the gap between public aspiration and official action has widened.

This political shift mirrors tactics seen in other countries affected by hybrid authoritarian influence. Gradual institutional capture has occurred under the guise of democratic continuity. The Georgian case exemplifies the boiling frog model, in which slow, deliberate erosion of sovereignty and public trust occurs rather than overt military suppression.

Georgia’s Democratic Legacy and Its Unfulfilled Promise

Georgia is not a newcomer to European values. As early as 1918, the First Democratic Republic of Georgia granted women full suffrage. In 1919, five women were elected to parliament, preceding similar reforms in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Despite Soviet occupation, this commitment to democratic identity endured.

In the present day, Georgian society continues to reflect this heritage. Public support for EU and NATO integration remains overwhelming and grassroots democratic sentiment is alive across generations. However, unlike Ukraine’s 2014 Euromaidan, Georgia’s current democratic crisis has not galvanized the same level of international engagement or solidarity. Protests in Georgia in 2024-2025

Western governments, media, and institutions played a visible and vocal role during the Euromaidan protests. Diplomats were physically present alongside demonstrators in Kyiv. Civil society received sustained international support. Global media coverage helped constrain authoritarian violence. In contrast, Georgia’s crisis in 2025 has unfolded with limited diplomatic presence, vague statements, and minimal visibility in international media. Few symbolic or material gestures of support have been extended, even as civil society organizations are increasingly targeted under proposed “foreign agents” legislation.

While Ukraine experienced a unified national mobilization against a clear betrayal, the rejection of the EU Association Agreement, Georgia’s opposition remains fragmented. Years of disillusionment, election manipulation, and fear of provoking Russian escalation have weakened collective resistance. The erosion of democratic norms in Georgia has been slow and concealed behind manipulated legality. This has denied the public a clear moment of awakening.

The Kremlin exploits this ambiguity. Many Georgians fear that unrest could justify direct Russian military escalation, especially given the proximity of occupied territories. This threat is compounded by the absence of consistent and credible Western support. In contrast to 2014, when the West sought to redeem its inaction in Georgia by supporting Ukraine, today’s response is marked by strategic ambivalence. Some Western actors maintain relations with Georgian elites or avoid open confrontation out of fear of destabilization.

The result is a dangerous vacuum. Georgia’s democratic aspirations remain vital, but increasingly isolated.

Protests have continued for over 190 consecutive days, reflecting an unwavering commitment to democratic values and European integration. The prevailing message voiced across streets, banners, and civic platforms is both defiant and aspirational: “We Are Georgia, Therefore We Are Europe.” This is not merely a slogan. It is a declaration of identity and direction.

Сonclusion: Strategic Clarity Cannot Be Deferred

Georgia and Ukraine are not two crises. They are two faces of the same strategic threat. To see them as isolated conflicts is to misread the nature of the danger. Russia views both countries as critical to its imperial ambitions and employs the same instruments – hybrid warfare, disinformation, occupation, and coercion in pursuit of its objectives.

Supporting Georgia is not a matter of benevolence. It is an act of strategic foresight. Allowing Georgia to fall would severely compromise European energy security, Black Sea stability, and the democratic credibility of the West.

Ukraine cannot succeed if Georgia collapses from the south. Georgia cannot endure if Ukraine is left isolated. The security of one reinforces the other. As Brzezinski argued, control over this space shapes “not only the fate of the region, but the global balance of power.”

Strategic clarity is not optional. It is imperative. And the time to act is now.

Author: David Janjalia

David Janjalia is a security analyst and geopolitical strategist specializing in hybrid warfare, Black Sea security, and Euro-Atlantic defense policy. His work integrates operational experience from high-risk environments in Georgia and Ukraine with a deep focus on historical patterns of authoritarian expansion. He provides strategic insights on democratic resilience, regional deterrence, and the evolving dynamics of post-Soviet geopolitics.