Almanach
Kennedy’s Dilemma - and Ours: Georgia’s Search for Strategic Balance, Legitimacy, and Resilience?
Recently, returning to the works of the distinguished British historian Paul Kennedy – which I would humbly recommend that some of Georgia’s current politicians read again, if only at random – I was reminded of one of his enduring observations.
A great power, if it wishes to preserve its position over time, must accomplish three difficult tasks – and must do so simultaneously.
First, it must provide military security for itself and its allies. Second, it must satisfy the economic needs – and increasingly the expectations – of its population. Third, it must generate long-term economic growth strong enough to sustain both security and prosperity.
In Professor Kennedy’s memorable formulation, a state must be able to “stockpile guns while churning butter.” His warning was equally sobering: to maintain security without growth, or prosperity without strength, is ultimately to invite decline.
Kennedy wrote about the burdens of great powers; however, Georgia’s dilemma is different.
For a country like Georgia, the question is not how to preserve dominance. It is how to preserve statehood. And in that sense, Paul Kennedy’s dilemma becomes our own – translated from empire to survival.
This raises a difficult but unavoidable question: can a state that is not fully trusted by its own citizens (at least with a half of it) ever truly be protected by others?
External guarantees are never absolute. More importantly, “protection” itself is never politically neutral. Russia understands protection one way. Europe another. China another. The United States is yet another. Behind every promise of protection stand interests, calculation, and strategic culture. What one power calls protection, another may call influence; what one ally calls partnership, another may quietly expect as alignment.
But the deeper problem lies within. Trust – the true foundation of any durable state – cannot be inherited, borrowed, or proclaimed. It must be built.
In Georgia, that trust has too often remained uneven, fragile, and politically exhausted.
Trust in courts. Trust in law enforcement. Trust in political authority. Trust in the opposition. At times, even trust in the legitimacy of the governing system itself. When citizens begin placing greater faith not in institutions, but in personalities, symbols, or temporary moral anchors, something essential begins to weaken. A state cannot permanently outsource legitimacy.
Yet beyond institutional distrust lies something even more dangerous: polarisation.
A polarised society does not merely disagree. It gradually loses the ability to recognise itself as a political community. Trust erodes vertically – between citizens and the state. Then horizontally – between citizens themselves.
Neighbours become camps. Opponents become enemies. Politics becomes suspicion. And eventually, disagreement becomes a permanent condition of public life.
But no state can survive indefinitely on fragments of trust. It requires at least a minimal shared confidence – a belief, however imperfect, that institutions matter, laws matter, and fellow citizens are not existential adversaries.
This is where Paul Kennedy’s dilemma, translated into the reality of a small state, acquires a different meaning. For Georgia, the three hard tasks are not about preserving power. They are about preserving survival.
First: Legitimacy
To build a state trusted by its own citizens. Without legitimacy, external support becomes fragile, reforms become performative, and stability becomes temporary. A state distrusted at home cannot remain strategically secure abroad.
Second: Strategic Balance
To navigate between larger powers without being absorbed by any of them. For Georgia, balance must mean discipline – not hesitation. Clarity – not improvisation. Strategic anchoring – not drift. Balance must never become ambiguity. And caution must never become paralysis. For small states, drift is rarely neutral. It is often a slow surrender of initiative.
Third: Economic Resilience
To secure a productive economy that serves society rather than merely sustaining those who hold power. Without economic resilience, sovereignty becomes rhetorical. A weak economy narrows strategic choice, deepens dependency, fuels internal frustration, and quietly erodes state capacity. Security without resilience is brittle. Growth without legitimacy is unstable. Alignment without a strategy is dependency.
These three tasks must be pursued simultaneously.
None can replace the others. External support cannot compensate for internal weakness. Strategic alignment cannot substitute for legitimacy. Economic growth cannot stabilise a system built on distrust. Failure in one eventually weakens all three.
For a small state in a difficult geography, survival is not an event. It is a discipline. To remain legitimate at home. To remain strategically anchored abroad. To remain resilient in the economy.
And perhaps the hardest lesson is also the simplest: Before searching for protection abroad, a nation must ask whether its foundations at home are strong enough to sustain it. Before looking outward for guarantees, it may need to look inward first.
And, if necessary, into the mirror.
22 May 2026
