Interview with Georgian expert, head of the analytical center Geocase, lawyer Viktor Kipiani.

- The wave of protests in Georgia is not abating. Every day there are protests not only in Tbilisi, but also in the regions. How do you think this protest will end?

Yes, this is a completely new type of protest that we have not seen before. What makes these protests unique is that they are not limited to Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, but are a nationwide movement encompassing various layers of society.

As for how this might end, it is very difficult to provide a precise answer at the moment. I often ask myself: what should or could be the solution to this political crisis?

The answer to this question is multifaceted, as the ruling party in Georgia has shown no willingness or desire to make concessions. On the other hand, it seems likely that the protests will not subside. The expectation that the government will succeed by simply "waiting out" the protests seems unrealistic.

However, if we consider a possible resolution to this crisis, the most predictable option appears to be new parliamentary elections. The question then becomes: how can this solution be achieved, and how flexible and willing will the authorities be to make the necessary concessions on this critical issue?

- How objective do you think is the assessment of some politicians, including former representatives of the Georgian Dream, that the line between the Georgian Dream and the National Movement has been erased and an equal sign has been put?

- Yes, I think this statement is largely true. Despite the fact that the Georgian Dream party came to power back in 2012 with a program to correct the mistakes made during the rule of the United National Movement, this period of time demonstrated that the type of governance remained very similar to what we observed under the previous government.

At the moment, given the lack of a proper justice system, independent investigations, as well as the lack of real institutional capacity, the problem of human rights, along with the decline in the prestige and image of the country over the past few years, is becoming obvious. In this context, it can be said that, unfortunately, the Georgian Dream no longer inspires optimism regarding the future of Georgia, its competitiveness and aspirations for integration into Europe.

Thus, in the end, the Georgian Dream reached the same position that the United National Movement was in, seeking to consolidate power at any cost and with all possible efforts. Therefore, at this point, the difference between what we saw under the United National Movement and what we see under the Georgian Dream has practically disappeared.

- On January 8, the political council of the Georgian Dream issued a statement. The last part of the letter expressed hope that Trump would defeat the Deep State and the Global War Party in America and Europe, and that Georgia would continue its path to Europe. How would you rate this statement by the Georgian Dream?

- Conspiracy theories are one of the main problems of the Georgian Dream. The party's latest statements confirm the prevalence of conspiracy theories in its political style. Such rhetoric is unacceptable for a serious state and a political party that claims a significant role. Moreover, such statements negatively affect the country's international image. The terms used, such as the "global war party" and "Deep State", have no factual basis.

In addition, against the backdrop of the degradation of Georgia's state institutions, the ruling elite of the Georgian Dream is gradually turning into a kind of Georgian "Deep State". In this situation, blaming other countries while ignoring one’s own internal problems is irresponsible.

As for Donald Trump, Georgian Dream had high hopes for his possible second presidency. This is explained by the idea that agreements can be made with Trump, bypassing traditional democratic norms. There is an opinion that Trump could reach an agreement with Vladimir Putin on the division of the post-Soviet space. As a result, Georgia could find itself behind a new “iron curtain” under the influence of Russia. According to Georgian Dream’s calculations, this would ease pressure from the West and allow the party to strengthen its power. However, the fulfillment of these expectations remains in great question.

- Salome Zourabichvili stated that she was going to attend Trump's inauguration and, according to her, was planning high-level meetings in the United States. How do you see her role in the upcoming political processes?

- Ms. Zourabichvili is in a situation in Georgia that can be described as a constitutional and legal case. As is known, she continues to position herself as the President of Georgia, basing this on allegations of falsification of the parliamentary elections. As a result, in her opinion, the parliament is illegitimate, and therefore the election of President Kavilashvili, which took place on the basis of decisions of this parliament, is also invalid.

In this regard, Ms. Zourabichvili, including her recent trip to the United States, continues to present herself as the current President of Georgia. However, it should be noted that this situation is a legal case that has both supporters and opponents. The problem is that the current events in Georgia have long gone beyond the constitutional law. This process was initiated by the ruling party, after which both opposition parties and individual political figures began to ignore legal norms to a certain extent.

Thus, the current situation around Ms. Salome Zourabichvili is a continuation of the general legal uncertainty in the country. Despite the discussions regarding her official status, her significant political influence both inside and outside the country remains an indisputable fact. Most likely, she will continue to play an important role in the political process of Georgia in the future.

- What are the prospects for the further development of the strategic partnership between Armenia and the United States? Can we say that this strategic agreement between the United States and Armenia is the result of the deteriorating relations between Tbilisi and Washington and that the United States has chosen Yerevan in order to have a physical presence in the South Caucasus?

- We should not rush to conclusions that the increased US interest in Armenia is directly related to the deterioration of US-Georgian relations. These are two independent topics with different contexts and content.

Georgian-American relations have been going on for more than three decades, and their current sharp deterioration is a regrettable fact that leads to a significant minimization of bilateral cooperation.

As for the Armenian-American relations, each country, including our neighbor Armenia, has the sovereign right to choose a geopolitical course. The signing of the recent document between the United States and Armenia confirms that Washington continues to show interest in the South Caucasus region. This is a significant fact for Georgia as well, since it indicates that the region remains in the field of view of American policy. However, the success of Armenia's rapprochement with the West, including the US and the EU, largely depends on Georgia maintaining its pro-Western vector. If Georgia remains committed to the course of Euro-Atlantic integration, this will strengthen the opportunities of the entire region, including Armenia, on this path.

As for the impact of this process on Georgia, it is important to note that the country has not formally withdrawn its aspirations for membership in the European Union. Any initiatives by neighbors towards European integration help attract additional attention, investment and support from the EU. From this point of view, Armenia's course towards rapprochement with the European Union can be viewed as a positive factor that gives additional significance to the region and creates new opportunities for Georgia. Tbilisi welcomes this vector, since it helps strengthen the position of the country and the region as a whole in the international arena.

- How would you explain the terms of the Charter if it only outlines the obligations of the United States and does not say a word about what Armenia undertakes to do?

- I am sure that the Armenian side carefully studied and assessed this document before signing it, acting with full awareness of all the circumstances. In addition, the South Caucasus is a region with a high degree of sensitivity, so I adhere to the principle of caution in commenting on internal processes in neighboring countries. I treat the specifics of both the domestic and foreign policies of any state, be it the Republic of Armenia or the Republic of Azerbaijan, with understanding and respect.

- To what extent can the Washington-Yerevan relations, especially in the sphere of defense and security, as stated in the Charter, be considered logical, given that Russia and Armenia have created a joint group of troops and the Russian 102nd military base has become part of the Joint Group together with the 5th Army Corps of the Armed Forces of Armenia. That is, how can two opposing poles create deep cooperation as subjects of international law in one space in the sphere of defense and security?

- This is a truly important and pressing question facing our Armenian colleagues. In the context of competition between two geopolitical camps - Russian and Western (primarily the United States) - Armenia will have to solve the difficult task of finding a balance. To what extent this balance will be maintained remains an open question.

Given the current geopolitical situation, as well as the events in Ukraine, maintaining a neutral position will become increasingly difficult over time. At the same time, it should be understood that Armenia's turn towards the West is a relatively new phenomenon, and it is premature to draw hasty conclusions. Assessing and adjusting this course is the task of Armenian politicians.

It is important to note that Armenia still has strong economic ties with Russia, and the degree of its dependence in this area remains high. The key question is to what extent Yerevan will be able to develop relations with the United States without worsening relations with Russia and without jeopardizing its economic and strategic interests.

This process promises to be complex and multifaceted, and we will certainly witness it. It is in Georgia's interests to strengthen Armenia's pro-Western course and distance itself from Russia. However, how quickly and with minimal costs Armenia will be able to make such a turn remains one of the most complex and multilayered questions.

- To what extent can this agreement be considered in the context of the strengthened relations between Tehran and Moscow, given that the strategic partnership between Russia and Iran was signed almost at the same time? Can we say that all the major powers have thus outlined their lines of interest and occupied a configuration on the map of the South Caucasus?

- I often raise this issue at various forums: today the South Caucasus has become an arena of competition not only for traditionally interested countries, but also for those that have historically had no relation to this region, such as Israel, Pakistan, India and even China. This is especially relevant against the backdrop of the growing influence of countries such as Iran and Russia, which have confirmed their interest in the region by signing relevant agreements. This, of course, should not surprise us.

However, something else is most important. The main task for Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan is to avoid oversaturating the South Caucasus with the influence of external, extra-regional powers. It is necessary to preserve as much space for interaction between our three countries as possible, leaving more autonomy to Tbilisi, Yerevan and Baku to make decisions that correspond to the interests of the region and do not depend on external factors.

It is very important to avoid turning the South Caucasus into an arena of proxy and influence from other countries that, directly or indirectly, show interest in our region. This issue is one of the most pressing tasks facing all three countries of the South Caucasus.

-Does the strengthening of Armenian-American ties affect Armenia's relations with its traditional partners, such as Russia and Iran? If so, how?

-Perhaps, there is no need to even guess how exactly the strengthening or development of American-Armenian relations will affect Armenia's ties with countries such as Russia and Iran. It is important to understand that against the backdrop of growing competition in the Eurasian region, which also involves the South Caucasus, Iran and Russia on one side, and the United States on the other, are direct competitors, and painlessly dividing this space between them will be extremely difficult.

Thus, the development of relations between Armenia and the United States can have a direct impact on the worsening or strengthening of the confrontation with Russia and Iran. However, the scale of this impact and the degree of narrowing of ties will only be shown by the further implementation of the agreement between the United States and Armenia. After all, signing a document is one thing, and implementing it in practical life is quite another.

-What steps are Georgia and Azerbaijan taking to adapt to the changing political dynamics brought about by the strengthening of the Armenian-American partnership? Given the visits of the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister of Georgia to Baku, to what extent are these visits related to this geopolitical configuration?

- As for the interaction between Georgia and Azerbaijan, such visits have always been part of the daily agenda. These relations, in my opinion, do not require special discussion, since all issues, regardless of the political situation, are resolved in an open and relaxed format.

I would like to highlight two key points. The first is the preservation of the traditional style of relations, which was laid down under President Eduard Shevardnadze and Heydar Aliyev. This continuity and stability in relations continue to have a positive impact today. The second point is new projects, such as the “Middle Corridor” project and the laying of an electric cable along the bottom of the Black Sea. These initiatives will further enrich bilateral relations, deepening economic interaction between our countries. The higher the level of economic cooperation, the more attractive the region becomes for investment, which in turn contributes to the development of trade relations and strengthening stability in the South Caucasus.

It is necessary to consider this issue as the development of bilateral relations and regional ties, and not as a confrontation with someone. A positive agenda opens up more opportunities for interaction than a negative one, focused on counteraction. I believe that the best response to any negative phenomena and processes is to increase the competitiveness and quality of our relations. This will be the most effective way to respond to challenges.