Georgian Parliament official: European Parliament’s resolutions against Georgia stem from Government’s refusal in February 2022 to allow country to be used as proxy state against Russia

Levan Machavariani, the First Deputy Chair of the Georgian Dream parliamentary faction, on Friday claimed that the European Parliament’s resolutions against Georgia stemmed from the Government’s refusal in February 2022 to allow the country to be used as a proxy state against Russia.

In an interview with Imedi TV, Machavariani commented on the European Parliament’s latest resolution concerning Georgia, arguing that the reasons behind the criticism directed at the country had been discussed repeatedly.

“We have spoken many times about the grounds and reasons. In February 2022, Georgia refused to allow our country to be used as a proxy state, just as Ukraine was used in this war. Everyone is now saying this openly, and Donald Trump and his administration were among the first to assess the situation. They called it what it is. They said this was a proxy war between the West and Russia and that Ukraine had been used as a satellite state. They wanted to use Georgia as well”, he said.

Machavariani also pointed to two laws that he said had been cited in connection with the EU’s decision to suspend accession negotiations with Georgia: the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence and legislation on the protection of family values and minors.

“That is precisely when the injustice began, along with all the lies, disinformation and resolutions directed against our country. When Brussels suspended negotiations with Georgia in 2024, it cited two laws as grounds for its decision. The first was the Law on Transparency, which the US ambassador at the time and European bureaucrats shamefully labelled the Russian law. The second was the law on so-called LGBT propaganda. The entire nation agrees that this law was acceptable”, Machavariani noted.

He concluded that Georgia’s refusal to become involved in the war and its decision to remove what he described as a source of external influence through wealthy non-governmental organisations had prompted a hostile response from Brussels.

“All of this - the refusal to enter the war in the first place and, secondly, the removal of a lever of influence in the form of wealthy NGOs that directly participated in state decision-making - has led to an aggressive attitude towards our country because we refused to accept their agenda”, he concluded.