Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze defended King Erekle II’s decision to sign the Treaty of Georgievsk with the Russian Empire in 1783, arguing that the agreement helped preserve Georgian statehood and the country’s eventual ability to develop ties with Europe. His comments linked the historical treaty to current arguments over Georgia’s sovereignty, relations with Russia, and the country’s European orientation.

Speaking at a government briefing on 18 August, Kobakhidze noted that Erekle II faced a severe security situation after years of conflict involving Persia and the Ottoman Empire and made the decision in what he described as an effort to preserve the country and its future. “By signing the treaty, whether the Russian Empire wanted it or not, Georgia still received a principled benefit,” Kobakhidze said. He argued that Erekle II’s decision ultimately allowed Georgia to survive as a nation and preserve its Christian and European cultural identity.

Kobakhidze described the decision as the “only correct and unavoidable” choice available to Erekle II and rejected criticism based on present-day political views. He noted that states have historically acted according to their own interests and that Georgia should assess its relations with foreign powers in the same way.

The prime minister used the historical discussion to criticize Georgia’s current Western partners. He claimed the previous US administration had applied political and diplomatic pressure on Georgia despite considering the country a strategic partner. He also accused the European Union of pressuring Tbilisi over legislation, sovereignty-related issues, and its position on sanctions against Russia.

Kobakhidze’s comments also followed renewed political discussion in Georgia over Russia’s historical role and the country’s current relations with Moscow. His remarks have particular relevance as Georgian Dream continues to present national sovereignty and a pragmatic foreign policy as central elements of its political position.

Former President Mikheil Saakashvili proposed a different interpretation of the government’s position, claiming that Russia had sent draft agreements to Bidzina Ivanishvili on restoring diplomatic relations and establishing separate arrangements involving Georgia and Abkhazia. He alleged that the proposals would also restrict agreements with third parties, including Western countries, and claimed that preparations were underway for their eventual signing. Saakashvili linked these claims to Kobakhidze’s renewed focus on the Georgievsk Treaty, arguing that the historical narrative was being used to prepare the public for a shift toward closer relations with Moscow. 

Nika Gvaramia, a leader of the Coalition for Change, also rejected the government’s rhetoric on restoring trust with Abkhazia and accused Georgian Dream of preparing a closer political relationship with Russia. He said September and October could bring what he described as a series of moves toward Moscow and further distance from the European Union.

For his part, Mamuka Pipia, leader of the Solidarity for Peace party, put forward a different position. Referring to Kobakhidze’s interpretation of the 1783 treaty, Pipia repeated his call for what he described as a “new Georgievsk Treaty” with Russia. According to him, such an agreement should establish an equal relationship and provide security guarantees for Georgia.

The discussion over the treaty tends to extend beyond its historical interpretation to Georgia’s current foreign-policy direction. Kobakhidze has presented the 1783 agreement as a decision taken to protect national survival, while others have drawn different conclusions from the same historical experience when addressing Georgia’s relations with Russia and the West.