For years, Russia has systematically, step by step, clearly demonstrated what it intends regarding the occupied territories, showing that it does not plan to revise its policy toward us or the region. Justifying silence with the argument that ‘we should not provoke Russia’ is completely unjustified. This is not pragmatism. We have long been in an ostrich-like position regarding the occupied territories,” said Giorgi Antadze, co-founder of the initiative “Georgia First” and a defense and security researcher, in the “Newsroom of the Day” program on PalitraNews.

He spoke about the ratification of the so-called “allied cooperation” agreement between occupied Tskhinvali and Moscow, which includes “expanded cooperation in the fields of defense, security, economy, infrastructure, and social policy, as well as the creation of conditions for the free movement of capital, goods, services, and labor.” According to Antadze, Russia’s declaration of interest in the occupied territories is not new, but the substance of the processes Russia is carrying out in these territories remains the same.

“From a formal point of view, we see an intensification of ties, but the substance of these processes has long been the same, serving the same goals, and it once again clearly shows that Russia is driven by its narrow national interests in our region and does not intend to deviate from them, I mean in terms of military and security interests. In these interests, the occupied territories are a crucial component, and this once again highlights that the much-discussed claim—that through some pragmatic relations or restoration of bilateral relations with Russia its policy toward the occupied territories would radically change—is, in my view, completely the opposite.

For years, Russia has systematically, step by step, clearly shown that it does not intend to revise its policy toward us or the region. Therefore, unless there are radical changes in Russia itself—both in terms of internal governance and foreign policy—it will continue its actions in the occupied territories, which it has been carrying out for a long time. Ultimately, this is aimed at the final annexation of our territories,” Antadze said.

According to him, it is clearly visible that Georgia’s foreign policy and national security system are institutionally completely broken.

“For a long time now, both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other agencies have effectively chosen a mode of silence toward Russia and are unable not only to take certain steps but even to make statements. This may have some impact on processes, and one of the fundamental reasons is precisely the foreign policy failure of ‘Georgian Dream.’ We no longer have a partner state with which we could take certain steps or apply pressure and actively defend our interests regarding the occupied territories and Russia in general.

Therefore, we now have systemic problems in the state. We must take steps so that Georgia’s state institutions serve national interests, not a party agenda. Institutions tailored to a single party’s interests can no longer perform vital functions for the country, neither domestically nor externally, because justifying silence with the argument that ‘we should not provoke Russia’ is completely unacceptable. This is not pragmatism; it is a policy of nothingness. Doing nothing is not politics.

Politics requires action, concrete steps, and engagement. If you are doing nothing, you cannot call it pragmatic policy. Politics implies taking steps that are pragmatic in substance and serve the country’s interests, but when you do nothing at all and remain silent… we have long been in an ostrich-like position regarding the occupied territories,” said Giorgi Antadze.

Regarding global politics, he also spoke about the U.S. President’s visit to China and the meeting between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping.

“From this meeting, it was very clear that the leaders of two states of equal importance were meeting, which in itself is very telling. As for victory or defeat, I would not call the actions of the United States and Israel a defeat; however, political goals have not been fully achieved and the situation is somewhat frozen. There is no agreement within the conflict, no type of treaty, and the fundamental issues raised before the start of the war have not been fully resolved.

Therefore, in terms of timing, Trump’s visit took place at a moment when these issues have not yet been fully completed, and this is what leads many to say that Trump is in a relatively weaker geopolitical position in this direction, because he still has the Iranian issue to resolve,” Antadze said.