Georgian Parliament Speaker recalls US Ambassador Kelly Degnan’s pressure on Gov’t back in 2022 to join Russian sanctions amid Ukraine war uncertainty

Georgian Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili on Friday issued a detailed statement regarding Georgia’s strategic partnership with the West, reflecting on the expectations, mistakes, and disappointments associated with it.

In a social media message, Papuashvili recounted a pivotal moment in February 2022 when Georgia refused to impose sanctions on Russia, despite significant pressure from the West.

“On the morning of 24 February 2022, the Russian Federation attacked Ukraine, extinguishing the faint hope that had lingered until the previous day that war could still be avoided. As we recall, this intervention was preceded by several months of tensions. The moment the war began, the West naturally condemned Russian aggression and approved the first package of sanctions on 23-24 February. On 25 February, Georgia’s Prime Minister ruled out joining the Western sanctions imposed on Russia. This refusal, which, from today’s perspective, has proven to be prudent and justified for everyone, triggered a negative reaction from certain Western governments, Georgia’s radical opposition, and affiliated nongovernmental organisations at the time. The opposition and nongovernmental organisations immediately launched an aggressive campaign against the authorities, branding them a “pro-Russian Government”. Anti-government demonstrations began in front of Parliament”, the Speaker said.

The Speaker revealed that shortly after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the United States Ambassador Kelly Degnan strongly urged Georgia to join the sanctions.

“It is evident that the United States holds the greatest influence in Georgia amongst Western countries, given the strategic partnership, the history of bilateral relations, and areas of cooperation. At that moment, US Ambassador Kelly Degnan was not in Georgia, but she returned a few days after the war began and, while still in the United States, requested a meeting with me. On 28 February 2022, I met with her and her accompanying delegation at the Parliament building. The first thing she addressed was conveying the “confusion and disappointment” her Government felt regarding the Georgian Prime Minister’s decision and his 25 February statement. In her words, this was a moment when Georgia had to choose whether it was “on the side of light or the side of darkness”, which, first and foremost, meant joining the sanctions against Russia. The Ambassador emphasised and clearly articulated this demand, while her special assistant meticulously recorded my responses. At that moment, the scale and consequences of the unfolding war were still uncertain. “Georgia, which is not consulted on the Western sanctions imposed against Russia – their content, duration, or any specifics – cannot sign off on such a blank page”, I responded. “It is unclear what such a drastic demarche would bring to Georgia, what retaliatory measures we might face, and what risks we would be drawn into. We are a unique case – Russian troops are stationed on our territory, and we must act with caution. We are neither a NATO nor an EU member, meaning we are not protected by NATO’s nuclear umbrella or the European Union’s mutual economic assistance commitments”, Papuashvili noted.

He further noted that Georgia stood firm, arguing that it was not consulted on the sanctions, had “unique security concerns” due to Russian troops on its territory, and lacked NATO or EU membership protections.

“Along with this unequivocal position, I also responded that the Georgian authorities had already taken certain steps, including in the banking sector, to prevent the circumvention of sanctions. I noted that on the international stage, Georgia consistently sided with Ukraine in discussions and votes across all formats. However, the US Ambassador was categorical and unwavering. The only response she was willing to accept was an agreement to impose sanctions. She repeatedly circled back to the same question – whether we intended to join the sanctions – and after every refusal, she demonstratively signalled to her assistant to record it in her notes. With time, it became evident that the sanctions' policy was determined through negotiations amongst Western countries, with each seeking to tailor the sanctions to its own interests and needs. Namely, taking most of their interests into account, the energy sector was largely exempt from sanctions. Even as the war continued, Russian gas continued to flow to Europe through Ukraine. Meanwhile, Lithuania became a leading exporter of wine to Russia, despite not producing wine itself”, the Parliament Speaker said.

“I also explained to the US Ambassador that what Ukraine needed at that moment was not sanctions but military assistance – troops, weapons, and defence systems. I pointed out that Zelensky was asking the Georgian authorities to send fighters, so perhaps the US should consider this issue instead. In response, she immediately asked, “Do you want a nuclear war to start?” To which I replied, “You see, you exercise caution, but you disapprove of our caution. In reality, given the current situation, any escalation and potential war for us would be equivalent to nuclear war”. After our conversation, the Ambassador hurried to the State Chancellery to speak with the Prime Minister. It seems that the conversation with me, the Chair of the legislative body elected two months ago, was merely a warm-up. The discussion with the Prime Minister, however, was much broader and more direct, extending beyond just the issue of whether to impose economic sanctions. All the Ambassador’s attempts proved unsuccessful. The Georgian authorities refused to engage in reckless and unreasonable escalation. I do not know whether this was merely a coincidence, but the day after these dramatic conversations, Ukrainian President Zelensky withdrew his Ambassador from Georgia under precisely this pretext. This further exacerbated the situation and poured fuel on the fire of the ongoing anti-Government protests in Tbilisi. As sanctions against Russia intensified, a well-coordinated campaign was launched to blame the Georgian authorities for circumventing them. Representatives of foreign governments, members of the European Parliament, the radical opposition, and allied nongovernmental organisations actively participated in this campaign. The accusations were used as a means to maintain constant pressure on the authorities. It took nearly two years for us to secure an official acknowledgement – through a high-ranking delegation that visited Georgia and included sanctions coordinators from the US, the UK, and the EU – that Georgia had never violated the sanctions regime. However, during those two years, the Georgian government had to withstand relentless and baseless attacks aimed at damaging its reputation. In the end, opponents still benefited from this; reputational accusations were circulated by aligned media, achieving their intended effect”, he continued.

The Speaker emphasised that Georgia’s refusal to join sanctions was a calculated decision to avoid economic collapse and military escalation.

“Despite everything, Georgia’s decision not to join the sanctions, to avoid increasing the country’s security risks, and to prevent further escalation was driven by several factors – factors that, as a responsible government, we fully understood, unlike our destructive opponents: First, we were not part of the process in which the sanctions policy was discussed and decided. Therefore, we could not simply adopt sanctions that have been agreed upon by others without considering our national interests, the price we would have to pay, and the consequences we would face in return. Second, imposing sanctions on Russia would have reignited open conflict with Russia and provoked retaliatory measures, potentially asymmetrical ones, which could have led to the collapse of Georgia’s economy. Third, in the event of military escalation, we would have faced devastation and destruction on a scale similar to what has been unfolding in eastern Ukraine for the past three years. As for the threat to our statehood, territorial integrity, and sovereignty, everyone can now see what that would mean by looking at the ongoing discussions about possible ways of ending the war in Ukraine. And finally, in diplomacy, only weak and subjugated countries are asked to sign off on carte blanche – not friends and partners, which is how we saw ourselves. What angered some was the realisation that Georgia actually has its own national interests and is capable of defending them. [By the way, these days, we are witnessing the struggle for national interests on the global stage more clearly than ever…]”, Papuashvili said.

Reflecting on discussions with the United States officials, Papuashvili said he asked whether this approach was how strategic partners should behave.

“Last spring, I shared this story with US Assistant Secretary of State Jim O'Brien during his visit to Georgia. I had only one question for him – is this how strategic partners should behave? The only justification I heard was that at the time, all ambassadors were instructed to involve their respective countries as much as possible in the policy against Russia, and perhaps it was a mistake not to have considered Georgia’s specific situation and the possible consequences. “Yes, and now you see that, more than two years after the war began”, I replied. “But what would have happened if we had blindly trusted the Ambassador at the time and followed her without any guarantees or a security umbrella? Where would we be now? Whose tanks would be outside?” The response was silence. The moral of this story is that in difficult situations and real crises, no one will do your job for you. The full risk and responsibility are yours to bear, and if you fall into a pit, in the end, you may be left with nothing but expressions of regret, concern, and sympathy. At the onset of a dangerous regional conflict or other threats, Georgia’s expectation was that its Western strategic partners would stand by our side and provide protection. Instead, some did the opposite, urging us toward conflict with Russia and contributing to internal unrest within our country. Before the war began, considering the threat posed by Russia, the West had called for “strategic patience”, advising us to stay within our shell and exercise caution toward Russia. Yet when the danger became real, instead of encouraging even greater caution, they urged us toward reckless escalation”, he noted.

He concluded by warning that, in times of crisis, a country must rely on its own judgment rather than blindly trusting external partners.

“We value strategic partnership, but we also know that partnership should not be merely about using one another – it must be based on mutual respect and the consideration of each other’s national interests. Fortunately, we exercised foresight in a timely manner. Now, three years later, this lesson is clear to everyone except for the desperate followers of the “pseudo-liberal International”, who fail to learn from either their own experience or anyone else’s”, Papuashvili concluded.