On June 4, 2025, the Georgian government announced the closure of the NATO and EU Information Center located on Freedom Square in Tbilisi. This decision has sparked widespread debate both within the country and internationally, becoming yet another episode in Georgia’s complex relationship with the West. The center, operational since 2005, served as a key tool for promoting Euro-Atlantic integration. However, its activities have elicited mixed reactions in the context of Georgia’s domestic and foreign policy. What does this decision mean for the country’s future and its place on the global stage?
The NATO and EU Information Center in Tbilisi was established in 2005 to inform the public about the goals and objectives of the North Atlantic Alliance and the European Union. Over the years, the center conducted educational programs, seminars, and campaigns aimed at bolstering support for Euro-Atlantic integration among Georgians. It became an important channel of communication between Georgia and Western institutions, as well as a platform for dialogue with civil society.
However, over time, the center came to be viewed by parts of the political spectrum as an instrument of external influence. Critics argued that it promoted an exclusively pro-Western foreign policy agenda, sidelining the interests of other regional players, such as Russia and Iran. Amid heightened geopolitical tensions, particularly following the 2008 conflict in South Ossetia, the center’s activities became a subject of controversy. In 2008, NATO had stated that Georgia could become a member of the alliance by 2023, a forecast that failed to materialize, further fueling skepticism about Western promises.
The decision to close the Information Center was made by the ruling Georgian Dream party, which, since 2012, has gradually recalibrated the country’s foreign policy course. According to official statements, the center’s functions will be partially integrated into the structure of Georgia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with some of its staff facing layoffs. The move is justified as a step toward strengthening national sovereignty and regaining control over the country’s information policy.
Critics of the pro-Western orientation argue that the center may have been used to support opposition forces opposing the current leadership. In the context of Georgia’s polarized political landscape, where the opposition actively advocates for closer ties with the West, the center could have been perceived as a tool for exerting pressure on the government. Furthermore, the rhetoric of potential NATO membership, actively supported by the center, was seen as a destabilizing factor in the region, particularly given Georgia’s strained relations with Russia.
The closure of the Information Center comes amid cooling relations between Georgia and the West. In recent years, the Georgian Dream party has faced criticism from the EU and the United States for steps perceived as backsliding on democratic standards. Notably, the adoption of the “foreign agents” law in 2024 triggered sharp reactions from Brussels and Washington, leading to the suspension of negotiations on Georgia’s EU membership. At the same time, Tbilisi has sought to diversify its foreign policy, strengthening ties with other regional players, including China and Turkey.
The decision to close the center can be seen as part of a broader strategy by Georgian Dream to reduce dependence on Western influence. It also signals an intent to pursue a more balanced foreign policy that considers the interests of all parties in the complex geopolitical environment of the region. However, this move risks further complicating relations with the EU and NATO, which remain important partners for a significant portion of Georgian society.
The decision has elicited mixed reactions. Pro-Western forces in Georgia, including opposition parties and civil society organizations, expressed concern, calling the move a retreat from Euro-Atlantic aspirations. They argue that the closure of the center limits public access to objective information about NATO and the EU and weakens Georgia’s position on the path to European integration.
On the other hand, government supporters view the closure as a necessary step to protect national interests. They argue that Georgia cannot afford to be a pawn in the geopolitical games of major powers, especially when Western promises of NATO membership remain unfulfilled. Additionally, tightening control over information policy is seen as a way to counter external interference in the country’s domestic affairs.
Internationally, Georgia’s decision has already drawn attention. Reuters, citing official sources, noted that the closure of the center is further evidence of fraying ties between Tbilisi and the West. Meanwhile, Russia and other countries with which Georgia seeks to maintain dialogue may view this move as a positive signal.
The closure of the NATO and EU Information Center in Tbilisi is not merely an administrative decision but a symbolic gesture reflecting Georgia’s pursuit of greater autonomy amid a complex geopolitical reality. For Georgian Dream, it is a step toward strengthening sovereignty and reducing external influence. However, it carries the risk of further distancing Georgia from its Western partners.
Comments