18 mar 2023 8:54 p.m
Just as in the EU, the US is also pursuing the goal of controlling civil society in Georgia. This is to be achieved through the maximum restriction of external information. However, the Georgian government refuses to enforce laws on foreign agent registration and disclosure of NGO funding. How does the situation in Georgia differ from the situation in the EU?
By Dmitry Evstafev
Two pieces of news follow one another: the refusal of the Georgian government to pass in parliament the law on compulsory registration of foreign agents, copied from the American source, and plans to oblige non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Europe to use foreign funding, also from private sources, in order to be able to assess a potential threat to “European democracy”.
Besides, it turns out it’s about them Preparation of Europe-wide legislation through foreign agents.
But this does not simply show the “democratic hypocrisy” of the contemporary West. There are also some nuances that reflect the fundamental difference between the situation in Georgia and European countries, especially Germany and France.
In Georgia, the Americans are pursuing the goal of a final de-sovereignization of the country and the absolute submission of the Georgian state to the influence of the pro-American NGOs who pull the strings. Their power is evident: the recent protests in Tbilisi did not come out of the blue, but they ended as if by magic.
The United States does not fear serious pro-Russian sentiment in Georgia. Of course there are pro-Russian people in Georgia, but their opportunities to speak out publicly are minimal. In the United States, it is fairly certain that society and the Georgian state are only exposed to the information policy influence of the USA itself. And they are right: there are simply no other players in Georgia’s information-political field. Maybe a little Turkey, but that’s purely a niche thing.
What is important, however, is that any outcome is acceptable to the US: if it manages to overthrow the current neutral government and bring openly pro-American proteges to power ‒ fine, especially after the statements by Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili that Georgia has no “second front” against Russia would open.
For Russia, even a purely political revanchism in Tbilisi, fueled from across the ocean, means the emergence of risks that will have to be addressed in some way.
Chaoticing the country isn’t a bad solution either, because Russia will still have a hot spot near its borders. Hence, the main slogan of the Americans is: maximum freedom “without borders”, which ideally means the elimination of state control over the media and NGOs. A qualitatively different situation arises in Europe. The United States, which sees European countries as subordinate satellites, fears a trend towards disillusionment in European public opinion. They link the emergence of such sentiments to pro-Russian propaganda, but it is only a will not to become a “bundle of firewood” that Washington will have no hesitation in throwing into the fires of a major European war. For the time being, however, all European investment resources and technologies will be drained to the max, and more importantly, the prospects of European-Chinese economic cooperation will be definitively undermined.
Washington has enough political resources, but civil society is not fully controlled, despite extensive brainwashing.
There are still remnants of European democracy from the 1970s and 1980s.
Also, the United States cannot afford the chaos in Europe, at least not at this point. The European Union must live out its destiny as the pillar of the anti-Russian political-military coalition to the bitter end, while Washington sucks the last drop of lifeblood from the European economy and pumps it into the shaky US financial system.
For this reason, both Washington and the European Commission need a situation in Europe that is the mirror image of what is being created in Georgia: maximum limitation of external information and political influence. Americans want a peace from the grave in Europe, and that means a civil society deprived of the possibility of open dialogue with representatives of other societies and even within their own countries, which can be viewed from a different viewpoint of the political and social perspective (not just the Russian, but also the Chinese) is cut off.
The screws in the areas of information and politics must be further tightened. Up to the characteristic cracking of the backbone of European democracy.
Translated from the Russian.
more on the subject – Double standard: good in the EU, bad in Georgia – obligation to register “foreign agents”
RT DE strives for a broad range of opinions. Guest posts and opinion pieces do not have to reflect the editor’s point of view.
By blocking RT, the EU aims to silence a critical, non-pro-Western source of information. And not only with regard to the Ukraine war. Access to our website has been made more difficult, several social media have blocked our accounts. It is now up to all of us whether journalism beyond mainstream narratives can continue to be pursued in Germany and the EU. If you like our articles, feel free to share them wherever you are active. It’s possible because the EU hasn’t banned our work or reading and sharing our articles. Note: However, with the amendment of the “Audiovisual Media Service Act” on April 13, Austria introduced a change in this regard, which may also affect private individuals. That’s why we ask you not to share our posts on social media in Austria until the situation has been clarified.