Opinion
Papers

The rise of a multipolar world has made alliances even more essential, as they remain the best guarantees of security and stability. Even powerful nations such as Germany, France, and the United Kingdom depend on strong alliances to meet today’s global threats and challenges. Therefore, isolation under the pretext of neutrality — distancing Georgia from its international partners and allies — could expose the country to existential danger. In such circumstances, neutrality becomes a condition fundamentally at odds with the national interests of small and developing states, as it renders them even more vulnerable. When discussing neutrality in Georgia’s case, several key considerations must be taken into account:

Regional Context – Georgia’s immediate neighbour is the Russian Federation, which occupies 20% of its territory. Consequently, neutrality would not shield Georgia from Russia; on the contrary, it would provide Moscow with more freedom to expand its influence over Georgia through both military and non-military means. Until now, Euro-Atlantic integration and the support of international partners have served as deterrents to Russian aggression. Neutrality would erase this crucial safeguard.

International Legal Dimension – When a state formally declares neutrality, according to the Fifth Hague Convention, no foreign troops are permitted to remain on its soil. In Georgia’s case, given the ongoing occupation and the presence of Russian forces on its territory, it is legally impossible to declare neutrality.

Strong Defence Capabilities – One of the main prerequisites for neutrality is a robust national defence. A country must be capable of protecting itself against existing and potential threats. In Georgia’s situation — sharing a border with a hostile major power that could strike at any time — and with defence capabilities sufficient to resist only for a few days, any discussion of neutrality sounds not only unrealistic but even naïve.

Russia’s Non-Compliance with International Obligations – History provides countless examples of Russia’s disregard for international commitments. The Kremlin follows a familiar formula: if an international agreement contradicts its interests, it simply refuses to comply. Time and again, history has shown that “Russia” and “respect for international law” are mutually exclusive notions.

Historical Experience – In 1918, Georgia declared independence as a neutral state. Despite this, Russia invaded and occupied Georgia in 1921. Similar patterns have appeared repeatedly throughout the history of Georgian-Russian relations.

Interests of Major Power – When a state declares neutrality — as in the case of Switzerland — there exists a broad consensus among the world’s leading powers regarding its status. Furthermore, a neutral country must not be a part of any major power’s foreign policy agenda. In this regard, Georgia and neutrality are entirely incompatible: multiple official Kremlin documents refer to Abkhazia and South Ossetia — both Georgian territories — as “independent states” with which Moscow seeks to “deepen relations.”

International Support – NATO integration plays an essential role in strengthening Georgia’s defence and security capabilities, granting access to valuable resources, training, and cooperation mechanisms. Declaring neutrality would cut Georgia off from these benefits, forcing it to develop and modernise its defence and security systems independently — an almost impossible task given current economic realities.

EU Integration – For Georgia, European Union integration represents sustainable development, justice, the rule of law, technological advancement, a modern healthcare system, Western-standard education at all levels, competitive agriculture, and a significant reduction in emigration. These are only a few of the benefits associated with EU membership. The EU also provides Georgia with substantial financial and political assistance to achieve these objectives. Declaring neutrality would mean rejecting these opportunities and forfeiting EU support — assistance that has fuelled Georgia’s reforms and progress for decades.

Historical Lessons from Other Countries – History has demonstrated that genuine neutrality is extraordinarily difficult to sustain and often ends in failure. Consider the following examples:

• Ukraine: Under President Yanukovych, Ukraine declared military neutrality to avoid provoking Russia, yet Moscow invaded in 2014 and occupied part of its territory.
• Moldova: In the early 1990s, Moldova declared neutrality in hopes of regaining Transnistria, but this effort proved futile.
• Belgium: Having declared neutrality in the late 19th century, Belgium was invaded by Germany during both World Wars.
• Switzerland, Finland, and Sweden: Long regarded as successful neutral states, even they were forced to reassess their security policies. Russia’s war against Ukraine prompted Sweden and Finland to abandon neutrality and join NATO. Switzerland remains neutral, but its status is sustained by centuries-old traditions and reinforced by its economy, defence system, geography, and culture — conditions incomparable to Georgia’s situation.

Neutrality and Russian Hybrid Warfare – For years, Russia has wielded the idea of neutrality as a geopolitical weapon against its neighbouring states. Its goal is to expand influence and restrict Western presence near its borders. Through propaganda, disinformation, and psychological manipulation, Moscow portrays neutrality as a pragmatic path to peace, promising protection from great-power rivalry. In reality, Russia seeks to keep its neighbours outside NATO and the EU, leaving them militarily exposed and economically dependent on Moscow. The Kremlin presents neutrality as a symbol of sovereignty, peace, and stability — while depicting NATO and EU membership as a humiliation or “Western servitude.” Such narratives are spread primarily by so-called conservative movements, pro-Russian media, experts, clergy, and Kremlin-aligned political parties. They often invoke religion and “traditional values” as ideological tools to promote neutrality.

Conclusion

It is evident that genuine neutrality is practically unattainable for Georgia. The country lacks sufficient economic and military capacity; 20% of its territory remains under Russian occupation; it operates in a highly volatile geopolitical environment and shares a direct border with Russia. In such circumstances, declaring neutrality would not bring peace, stability, prosperity, or security. On the contrary, it would neither deter the Kremlin nor facilitate the de-occupation of Georgian territories. Moreover, neutrality would deprive Georgia of even the limited security guarantees currently provided by its Western partners and the policy of non-recognition of the occupied regions.

In reality, neutrality constitutes a security trap for Georgia — one that would strip it of collective defence and leave it utterly exposed. Russia’s promotion of neutrality is an imperial strategy designed to create “grey zones” — weak, unprotected states outside the Western security system, unable to resist Russian coercion. In Moscow’s hands, neutrality is not a path to peace but a carefully engineered mechanism of subordination and control.

For Georgia, the only rational and pragmatic course is to continue its integration into NATO and the European Union, thereby joining global security mechanisms. At the same time, Georgia must strengthen economic and trade relations with major states in Asia and the Middle East.

Finally, around 20 countries worldwide currently maintain formal neutrality, but only Switzerland has done so successfully. Even there, in Bern, active discussions are now underway regarding potential revisions to its traditional neutrality — a reminder that even the most stable neutral models require continuous adaptation in an increasingly insecure world.

November 2025

* Initially, the article was published in Georgian language on MEDIUM and specially translated and updated for the EU Awareness Centre