As I sat down a few nights ago near midnight to begin this article, social media was already ablaze with a new wave of terror videos — gangs of state-backed thugs beating people senseless in the streets of Tbilisi. Framing by the Quincy Institute is distorting that picture beyond recognition.
Ryan Sherman is a lecturer and project manager at Ilia State University in Tbilisi, Georgia
One video, posted less than an hour earlier, showed six masked men on an empty side street. They surround a man lying on the ground, kicking him — one stands on the man’s back, gripping the shoulder of a comrade for balance as he jumps up and down on the man’s head. The victim is local TV cameraman Giorgi Shetsiruli.
Shortly after, another video surfaced: this time a mob of at least 20 similarly masked assailants was filmed storming the opposition office of the Coalition for Change. They confront two bystanders at the top of the stairs, a few pushing past to surround them. Suddenly, one of the bystanders is punched in the face and shoved down the staircase. This is 57-year-old Koba Khabazi, a member of the Coalition for Change. As he lay at the bottom of the stairs, the circle of assailants beat him. His companion receives the same treatment shortly after.
For nearly two weeks, each morning, those of us who have gone to bed at all wake up to the next round of such videos. Scenes of violence have flooded television screens and social media feeds daily, alongside reports of illegal house raids, arrests of opposition figures, journalists targeted, water cannons and excessive teargas unleashed on protesters, gangs chasing people through the streets, student activists abducted into unmarked vans by unmarked men…
This follows a similar flood of news broadcasts and videos just over one month ago, showing clear election fraud taking place in broad daylight. “A sophisticated, widespread, and well-orchestrated scheme,” was how it was described by Antonio López-Istúriz White, leading the European Parliament’s delegation as part of the OSCE/ODIHR monitoring mission. At the same October 27 press conference, Iulian Bulai, head of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s monitoring delegation, called it “a widespread climate of pressure and party-organized intimidation and the feeling [that] ‘Big Brother is watching you.”
Grassroots Protests vs Distorted International Narratives
“This is our last chance to stop him,” one protester told me, referring to Bidzina Ivanishvili, the shadowy oligarch who wields absolute complete control over the ruling Georgian Dream party.
Marika Mikiashvili, a prolific commentator who has been on the ground nightly, described the protests this way: “All these endless crowds at the Rustaveli Avenue on the 11th day of protest differ from their previous protests in two key components: one is that they are there to remove the regime. They don’t expect concessions from the regime and there is no more hope in ever having elections in this country again; the second is that, this isn’t just some momentary, angry outpouring anymore – everyone realizes that the regime must be unseated and that it might take a lot of commitment and a lot of sacrifice.”
The past few years have seen the capture of every state institution by Ivanishvili’s regime, save for the presidency. President Salome Zurabishvili, the lone holdout, will see the end of her term next week, though she has stated she will remain in office until elections are re-run. The Georgian dream, meanwhile, has pre-selected Mikheil Kavelashvili — a devout anti-Western loyalist and former footballer with no higher education — to take over the office which, for the first time, will not be decided through direct elections but by an electoral college controlled by the ruling party.
Several misprints have occurred in international media, confusing things on the international stage. Outlets like The Guardian and Reuters noted that while the OSCE monitoring mission — the most prominent European monitoring body — observed widespread election irregularities, they refrained from labeling the election as “fraudulent.” Yet these outlets reliably omit a crucial point: taking an official position on the legitimacy of an election is beyond the OSCE’s mandate. Though their assessment was damning, the OSCE’s role is only to observe, document, and report on the process, not to pass judgment on its overall validity. (This, while numerous other respected reports have gone into minute detail about election fraud — see WeVote, ISFED, Edison Research, Harris X, Hans Gutbrod, Transparency International, GYLA).
Meanwhile, several publications, including The New York Times, have mischaracterized the crisis as a clash between the opposition and the ruling party, overlooking its spontaneous nature, and grassroots origins.
Yet, at this critical moment, one U.S. think tank has stood out as a key source of misinformation and refuge for authoritarian apologists, who masquerade under a mission to “cherish peace and pursue it through the vigorous practice of diplomacy.” This think tank is the Quincy Institute.
The Quincy Institute and Almut Rochowanski’s Biased Narrative
The Quincy Institute is a well-funded organization that has attracted substantial funding from diverse backers, including the Charles Koch Foundation, George Soros’s Open Society Foundation, and the Ford Foundation.
Over the past year, their online magazine Responsible Statecraft has published a series of articles about Georgia, defending the ruling party and adopting a dismissive view of the election fraud, anti-democratic actions, and popular unrest. The latest example comes from Almut Rochowanski, whose recent article “Streets on Fire: Is Georgia Opposition Forming Up a Coup?” frames Georgia’s current crisis as a Western conspiracy in league with opposition partners to undermine Georgian sovereignty.
Rochowanski positions herself as an authority on Georgian affairs, offering an ideologically-driven analysis from afar. Based on her article, she seems unaware of years of deterioration under Georgian Dream’s oligarch-controlled government, including attacks on media freedom, capture of the judiciary, and the weaponization of state agencies against civil society and opposition leaders. Instead, Rochowanski insists the Georgian Dream is engaged in good faith efforts at reform, while likening the E.U.’s treatment of Georgia to “occupied Afghanistan or Iraq.”
Particularly astonishing at the present moment is Rochowanski pinning of the violence unleashed upon the streets squarely on the heads of the protesters for being “angrier and more violent than usual,” which is “drawing a greater crackdown from the police.”
Rochowanski does not engage with any report on electoral fraud, contending that “the most recent crest of protests” are the result of “an election that the opposition claims (but has been unable to prove) was marred by fraud.” Her sole evidence is a link to a single podcast episode — an interview with Joshua Kucera — which, as it turns out, at no point claims what she asserts. What Kucera says is that, while evidence of irregularities has surfaced, there is, as of yet, “no smoking gun,” — a statement that addresses an entirely different issue.
In one of the most meticulous reports on the October 26 election fraud to date, Hans Gutbrod makes the exact same point, showing how widespread election fraud was implemented through a combination of manipulative tactics with cumulative effects. This is exactly how autocrats orchestrate stolen elections today — through a web of interwoven strategies designed to distort outcomes without leaving a singular incriminating trace — so as to befuddle the international community and reduce risks of popular backlash. (See The Dictator’s Dilemma at the Ballot Box by Masaaki Higashijima).
Rochowanski owes her readers, and presumably the Quincy Institute, not a podcast link but good faith reasoning that addresses the relevant facts and accounts for her conclusions. Yet she consistently fails to elaborate on her claims, asserting them briefly before awkwardly jumping to unrelated points.
Nowhere in her analysis is there attempt to account for the years of democratic erosion, the systematically weakened institutions, suppressed the media, silenced dissenting voices, and weaponized state agencies to intimidate opposition figures and civil society. She fails to mention the expedited judicial appointments of regime loyalists, the obstruction of President Salome Zurabishvili’s meetings with European leaders, or the punitive measures taken against her for persisting in advocating for Georgia on the international stage.
Nowhere does she address the charges of a “constitutional coup,” based on widespread electoral fraud and the unilateral suspension of EU integration enshrined in the Constitution.
Nowhere do we learn that under Bidzina Ivanishvili, fast-tracked amendments to the Tax Code that have effectively transformed Georgia into a personal tax haven, shielding his wealth and that of his associates, and placing the once independent National Bank of Georgia directly under parliamentary control — in fact, Ivanishvili is not mentioned even one time in her entire article. With Georgia now firmly established as his financial fortress, his party is now accelerating the ejection of Europe and total capture of the country through terror — this is what is playing out in the streets before our eyes.
Despite all this, Rochowanski and her colleagues claim that the Georgian Dream party remains committed to “robust integration with the West.” She goes so far as to allege Western leaders of trying “indeed to end the ruling Georgian Dream party’s hold on power.” Yet, instead of explanation or evidence, she merely links to an August 2024 speech by German Ambassador Peter Fischer, expressing his deep concern over Georgia’s turn away from the EU.
Unfinished Homework
What exactly is Rochowanski up to? (And why are we being compelled to do her homework for her?) The first hint comes when she sneeringly refers to the status of an “EU associated country,” like Georgia, as “a sort of half-way house for Europe’s periphery.”
For her, the EU is an imperialistic force, meddling in Georgia’s internal affairs under the guise of reform. Of little relevance is the fact that EU membership is overwhelmingly supported by the Georgian population, enshrined in the nation’s constitution, and remains the stated goal of every major political party. Instead, Rochowanski portrays EU engagement as a coercive effort aimed at eroding Georgia’s sovereignty and self-determination.
Her mendacious mischaracterizations pile up. In 2022, the EU outlined 12 priorities for Georgia to address before advancing to candidate status, focusing on democratic reforms, judicial independence, anti-corruption measures, and human rights protections. Rochowanski portrays these priorities as coming with “poisoned pills” hidden in the small print, claiming they demand that Georgian Dream “share power with the opposition, let EU-appointed foreign experts vet senior judicial appointments, allow NGOs agitating to get the government-sanctioned and deposed to participate in law and policy-making, and more.”
Rochowanski again provides no evidence for her claims, leaving it to others to do her homework for her. Her mention of “power sharing” may be a reference to the 2021 Charles Michel Agreement, which aimed to reduce polarization by stipulating that some parliamentary committee chairs be assigned to opposition members, rather than allowing the ruling party to monopolize all these roles. Her claim about NGOs is a blatant distortion of the EU recommendation, which called for a non-binding input mechanism for NGOs and other local stakeholders — in no way does this grant NGOs decision-making powers. Likewise the recommendations did not advocate for “EU vetting” of judges, but for consultative roles for international experts to offer non-binding opinions—a standard practice for EU countries fully consistent with Georgia’s stated goal of aligning with these EU norms.
Instead of addressing these facts, Rochowanski serves up what amounts to little more than a puff piece for Georgian Dream, casting its leader Irakli Kobakhidze as a defender of sovereignty against Western “overreach.” Parroting Georgian Dream propaganda, she absolves the regime of its authoritarian actions and dismisses the grassroots protests sweeping Georgia as mere pawns of Western conspiracy.
Perhaps most puzzlingly, Rochowanski seems to think that Georgia remains firmly on its EU path, stating, “No one is quitting; Georgia has not withdrawn from the accession process and remains a candidate for EU membership.” For evidence for this claim, she inexplicably links to a page about Iceland’s EU membership application. But the implication — if we squint — seems to be that until Georgia’s status is officially revoked, its accession process pushes on as normal.
Meanwhile, EU Ambassador to Georgia Pawel Herczynski stated unequivocally: “Due to the course of action taken by the Georgian government, EU leaders have stopped Georgia’s accession process.” The European Parliament has condemned Georgia’s authoritarian turn, citing flawed elections, systemic violations of electoral integrity, laws granting sweeping powers to the state to target individuals and organizations, and the erosion of democratic norms. These full-throated condemnations from EU bodies and leaders are dismissed as “hot air.”
Going further, The European Parliament has called for targeted sanctions, an independent investigation into electoral fraud, and urgent action to restore democratic principles. But Rochowanski does not even attempt to analytically downplay these developments — she simply dismisses them, as she dismisses the Georgian people and the deliberate and devastating sabotage of Georgia’s EU aspirations and its functioning as a democratic state.
A History of Bad Faith
Nor is this the first time Almut Rochowanski has drawn sharp criticism for her problematic and uninformed takes on Georgia. A May 2, 2024 article in Lefteast (republished by Jacobian and Moscow Times) drew a sharp and angry response from left wings academics in Georgia in a Lefteast response piece entitled “There’s more at stake in the fight against the Foreign Agents Law than liberal NGOs: Why the left should show solidarity with the protests in Georgia.”
This piece is well worth reading. The Georgian academics sum up their criticism of Rochowanski’s piece saying, “the dismissal and ridicule of a sustained mobilization against the tightening grip of Georgia’s oligarchic government is a grave error as such an approach could foreclose possibilities for solidarity from the international left.” In the next sentence, they prophetically add “everything is still in flux and the worst might still be ahead of us.”
Rochowanski’s colleague and Quincy Institute mentor, Anatol Lieven, drew a similarly outraged response by Hans Gutbrod, in a response to a July 30 2024 article. Gutbrod sharply criticized his analysis as overly simplistic, dismissive of the complexities of Georgian politics, and complicit in whitewashing the authoritarian tendencies of the Georgian Dream government.
False “Realism” as a Shield for Authoritarianism
Responsible Statecraft claims a commitment to an approach of “realism and restraint,” advocating for U.S. foreign policy to prioritize global engagement through peaceful cooperation among nations.
“Realism and restraint.” Realist analyses are important, precisely because they ask us to set aside hope, morality, and sentiment to take a cold, hard examination of inconvenient facts. A well-reasoned realist approach to the Georgian crisis would be valuable. However, by claiming to rely solely on cold facts, such analyses must meet the highest standards of accuracy.
A more nuanced analysis, for example, might contend that the EU’s response came too late, engaging in a prolonged strategy that prioritized democratic reforms without appreciation of the risks at play — this is a view with which many in Georgia, including myself, wholeheartedly agree. Alternatively, a realist’s analysis might ask us to momentarily set aside moral outrage to consider the crisis as a manifestation of global power struggles — this is a standard realist fallback position which must carefully and faithfully track both internal and external factors.
Rochowanski fails on every metric a realist approach demands — it is a case study in how analysts, eager to put in their two-cent, think-tank take on the latest crisis, will twist ideological assumptions into flawed narratives. Rochowanski’s account absolves the Georgian Dream government of accountability, rationalizes state violence, and shifts the blame entirely onto a manipulative European Union. In true conspiratorial fashion, she presents unsupported claims, vague details, and cherry-picked evidence, all delivered with a knowing look of certainty.
But at this point, we are not only doing Rochowanski’s homework for her, we are attempting a crash course in how to write a passable political science essay.
If I may speak directly to Rochowanski — please, come to Georgia. Perhaps the Quincy Institute can pick up the tab. Talk to people. Spend time in the streets with people outraged that their country is being stolen from them. And run from the water cannons, the tear gas, the “robocops”, and the thugs in black masks. You might learn something.
The views and opinions expressed on Civil.ge opinions pages are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Civil.ge editorial staff