The United States secretary of defense has visited Georgia and pledged a new level of military cooperation, even as the Georgian government is increasingly coming under criticism from Washington for its drift toward illiberalism and authoritarianism. Military aid already makes up a significant portion of the U. In , the U. The two countries regularly carry out large-scale military exercises in Georgia, and thousands of Georgian soldiers have been trained by U.
It was not immediately clear how the new program would add to the existing military cooperation. But the show of support from Austin was significant, coming amid a rocky patch in relations between Tbilisi and Washington.
In recent months U. And the State Department this summer hinted that it was considering imposing some kind of sanctions against Georgian officials following large-scale, government-endorsed right-wing pogroms against LGBT activists and journalists. By far the greater emphasis of the visit, however, was on security and foreign policy issues. The visit came during a period of heightened political tension in the country, following shortly after the arrest of opposition leader and former president Mikheil Saakashvili and just ahead of a second round of local elections, scheduled for October All mainstream political forces in Georgia embrace a strongly pro-Western, anti-Russian foreign policy orientation.
The opposition nevertheless accuses the ruling Georgian Dream party and its leader Bidzina Ivanishvili of being Russian stooges and has tried to frame politics in the country as a geopolitical struggle, a West-vs-Russia proxy battle. The format would include the three countries of the South Caucasus and their three big neighbors: Russia , Iran , and Turkey.
Russia has not withdrawn its armed forces from Abkhazia and South Ossetia as stipulated in that agreement. This article has been republished with permission from Eurasianet. As it weighs the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard for the position of Director of National Intelligence, the United States Senate faces a fundamental choice: Should it reject those like Gabbard who challenge conventional wisdom, or should it recognize that sensibly questioning orthodox views is essential to avoid the kinds of intelligence and foreign policy failures we have experienced in such places as Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Ukraine?
