By undertaking discussion on the aspect of special forms of commemoration, we may obtain a lot of useful information about the remembrance policy of a given country. That is why the analysis of the issue of the sites of memory seems to be of key importance for understanding problems related to the state’s interpretation of the past from the perspective of an authoritarian regime, political transition and democracy. The aim of this paper is to address one of the elements of a broader issue, i.e. the study of the politics of memory. This element focuses on the presentation of the most significant sites of memory in two countries with the experience of authoritarianism – Chile and Georgia – emphasizing changes which took place in the sphere of commemoration from the beginning of democratic transformation to the moment of achieving full democracy. By describing these places we are showing the main directions and framework assumptions of the remembrance policies of Chile and Georgia, reflected in the form of spatial and visual objects of the “living history”. 

On February 3, 2014, the American task force, including the command ship USS „Mont Whitney” entered the Black Sea. The ship was a flagship during the last few military operations of the USA on the Mediterranean Sea for example against Libya or in the area of Syria. The American task force appeared on the Black Sea without giving the official reason. It is possible that it happened in frameworks of anti - terrorist operations by the way of the Olympic Games in Sochi but it is also possible that it was to support Georgia and to represent American political interests.

Georgia’s national brand in the European Union – is it possible “to sell the nation”?

In the era of globalization, the product development and marketing strategy (that were the domain of international corporations and small, private companies) are being taken over by the public sector. This exchange of roles causes that the state enters the branding space. It creates an offer involving goods and services of nongovernmental organizations, domestic enterprises, and government itself, and as a result creates a strong brand, called the state brand.
The brand of the state consists of three equal elements: national brand, country brand, and political brand. The aim of the article is to present the construction of one of the components of a state brand, the national brand. The Author tries to answer the question whether Georgia adequately develops its national brand, can it “sell the nation” to the European Union? The article was made as part of the “Georgia’s political brand” project conducted in Tbilisi, Georgia. The project was financed by the Faculty of Political Science and International Studies of the University of Warsaw as the “DSM 2017” project. It was made in cooperation with Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University. During the project the Author created the series of articles about Georgia’s state branding: about the political brand, the country brand, the above national brand, and generally about the studies of state branding (the basic terminology).

Pytanie badawcze tekstu sprowadza się do rozważań nad możliwością aplikacji teorii postkolonialnych w przypadku postsowieckiej Gruzji. Krytyka postkolonialna niemal ominęła sferę postsowiecką, pozostawiając ogromną przestrzeń polityczną w monopolu idei interpretacji przez badania systemowo-tranzycyjne. Przez rozważania nad potencjalnymi limitacjami dla możliwości przepisania teorii w odmiennych uwarunkowaniach politycznych autor próbuje rozwinąć szerszą perspektywę dla interpretacji socjopolitycznych procesów w postsowieckiej Gruzji. Przypadek Gruzji jest interesujący dla teorii postkolonialnych, gdyż zgodnie z hipotezą Gruzja podlega dwoistości postkolonialnego doświadczenia. Z jednej strony podlega procesom dependencyjnym ze strony byłego hegemona, z drugiej w ten sam sposób (jako kolonialny dzierżawca przemocy) postrzegana jest przez mniejszości etniczne w „lokalnym” imperium. Zatem, używając nomenklatury postkolonialnej, tekst stara się zredefiniować transformacyjne i postkolonialne doświadczenie Gruzji.

The problem of effectiveness of reaction to external crisis expressed by participants of the international system is very much a live issue. In view of growing military conflicts in many parts of the world, the question how effective the relations between the players are in the international arena is a category worth analysing. This article concerns the Russian-Georgian crisis, whose most important manifestation was the military conflict in August 2008 and most significant result – the loss of Georgia’s territorial integrity and the strengthening of Russia’s position in the post-Soviet area. The analysis, conducted according to the presented scheme, focused on the effectiveness of external activities undertaken by the Republic of Georgia in the face of the Moscow-Tbilisi crisis.

Georgia’s political brand in the European Union: building the political product and the political brand

We live in a world full of brands, where the names, symbols, and logos of big corporations, such as McDonald’s, Adidas, and Coca-Cola are extremely recognizable. Nowadays, in the era of globalization, the product development and marketing strategies that were the domain of private companies and corporations are being taken over by the public sector. This unusual exchange of roles causes the state to enter the branding space, and to create an offer that includes the goods and services of national businesses, government, and non-governmental organizations, and also to create a brand. The brand of a state consists of three equal components: a national brand, country brand, and political brand.
Georgia is a “model democratic state” in the South Caucasus, which cooperates consistently with the European Union. The multi-level specificity of this state and the implemented model of systemic transformation, directed the foreign policy and created the state brand towards the West.
The aim of the paper is to present the construction of one of the components of a state brand, the political brand, and to analyze the strategy of political branding in Georgia’s foreign policy created towards the European Union. The author will answer the question of how the political, and economic institutions of Georgia are building the political brand.

Polish-Georgian relations in 1918 – 1921

The tradition of Polish-Georgian relations is many centuries old. It manifested itself differently over the course of history, originally based on the ideology of the Sarmatism and a diplomatic alliance in the war against Turkey. Later, when they were annexed by the Russian Empire, it was based on their fight for independence against a common enemy. Their relations have a political and historical background, and are associated with the resettlement policy of Russia. Establishing diplomatic relationships during the short period of the Democratic Republic of Georgia’s existence meant acknowledging Georgia internationally, first de facto, and then de iure. The cooperation was focused mainly on providing safe return for large Polish minority living in Transcaucasia, and on Marshal Józef Piłsudzki’s federalist agenda which supported newly emerged states. Both countries’ relations were reinforced by signing a military alliance and creating Polish-Georgian Industrial and Trade Union. The cooperation was finally ended by Soviet Russia’s assault on Georgia in year 1921.

The subject of this article is the analysis of the conflict between the Russian Federation and Georgia in 2008. The conflict has opened a new stage in Russia’s strategic drive to make decisions and implement them in areas recognized as important for the security of the country, even if they are outside its borders. The Georgian case clearly indicated that Russia wants to maintain its dominant position in the entire post-Soviet area. The region of the Caucasus remains an extremely important area for Russia, where it wants to maintain strategic control. The author proves in his article that the main determinants influencing the policy of the Russian Federation in the Caucasus region are: maintaining the greatest possible impact on the internal situation of the countries of the region, the maximum hindering possible integration with the Euro-Atlantic structures, the largest economic dependence on Russia, taking control over key sectors of the economy, maintaining military presence, isolation of the North Caucasus from Georgia, maintaining a monopoly on energy supplies, interest in Azeri mineral resources, striving to take over control of natural gas transport.
The Russian-Georgian conflict of 2008 was one of the elements of Russia’s demonstration of the consequences of maintaining its dominant position in the post-Soviet area. The sphere of influence extends not only to Eastern Europe but also to the socalled Putin’s doctrine extends, in fact, to the entire area of the former USSR.

The relations between Georgia and Western Europe and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1453–1783

The article presents the history of contacts between Georgia and Western Europe as well as Georgia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth between the mid-15th and the end of the 18th centuries. In the article, the role of the Georgian diplomatic missions is emphasized in the process of forging anti-Osman coalitions.

The protection of cultural heritage does not only have social but political and economic consequences as well. While the contents of a national and personal identity are closely tied to inherited cultural heritage, this heritage, as far as material culture is concerned, requires political support often beyond the means of the countries concerned. International support is rendered by organizations such as UNESCO with its World Heritage List, which includes World Cultural treasures as well as Natural Monuments. Politically, cultural heritage can be either a cohesive force or a divisive one when exploited for political purposes directed towards political hegemony. Economically, the cost of preserving cultural heritage can be a lucrative source of income as a result of the global promotion of cultural tourism. By this research, we can come to the idea that the State should facilitate the community empowerment through preservation and development of the cultural heritage – its organic environment, because without protection of the cultural environment and misusing the opportunities offered by it we cannot achieve the proper – i.e., feasible, sustainable – social and economic development of a country.

In 2018, a mandatory funded pension model (second pillar) was introduced in Georgia. At present, the Georgian pension system has three pillars, but the reform does not apply to current pensioners. If society does not trust all three pillars, the chances of reversing the pension reform will rise for two reasons. First, the replacement rate from the first pillar (state redistributive pension) is much lower than in any of the OECD member states. Second, for the majority of participants of the second pillar, pension payments will start in 20-25 years’ time. Such a long period creates uncertainty for many about whether long-term economic growth will be achieved, which in turn would make possible an adequate level of retirement income. This paper attempts to identify means of increasing replacement rates for the state redistributive pension and coverage of the voluntary funded third pillar. The research provides recommendations to enhance the Georgian pension system.

Status and Role of the Young Generation in the Social and Political Space of Georgia

The aim of the paper is to examine the status and role of the young generation in the social and political space of Georgia. The paper states that the young generation of Georgians does not enjoy high social status, even though the young can and probably will constitute the future elite of Georgian society. To analyze this research problem, I have used a number of research methods based partly on secondary sources. Three main research methods have been used in the study-desk research method, comparison, and the statistical method based on secondary data that have been extracted from the Caucasus Research Resource Center (CRRC) database. The paper is a snapshot of studies on the theory of notions of “status” and “role”, and it presents the work of Polish scholars. Moreover, the paper opens the door to further research on the young and democracy in Georgia. The studied issue is essential for analyzing the perception of democracy and democratization among the generations in Georgia. The paper is part of a series of articles on the opinion of the young generation of Georgians about democracy and democratization.

The course of economic cooperation between Poland and the Eastern Partnership countries after 1992

The article presents the current state of conditions for the development of economic ties between Poland and the Eastern Partnership countries after 1992. Over the next few years, relations between Poland and the former USSR states gradually evolved as a result of the introduced economic reforms, the opening of economies and changes in the international environment. From the formal and legal point of view, the development of trade and the broader economic ties between Poland and the Eastern Partnership countries began in 1991, and we have had adequate, relatively comparable statistical data since 1995. The most important changes took place when Poland joined the European Union. An important platform for intensifying cooperation with the former USSR states was created by the launch of the EU Eastern Partnership initiative, which covers Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Therefore, the study covered the state of economic ties between Poland and the Eastern Partnership countries. The study attempts to show the place of Poland in the foreign trade of the EaP countries and vice versa, outlining the trend of the dynamics of trade between the above-mentioned partners and determining the degree of complementarity of the trade structure.

Borderization in the politics of Georgian and South Ossetian power elites

The dissolution of the Soviet Union led to both the restoration of independent states and the emergence of entities with the status of unrecognized states. In the aftermath of the five-day Georgia-Russia conflict of August 2008, the borderization incidents have intensified. The process involves the installation of barbed fences along the Administrative Boundary Line (ABL) between Georgia and South Ossetia, and shifting border marks deep into the Georgia-controlled territory to transform the official ceasefire line into an international border by the Russian FSB border guards. The paper aims to examine how ‘borderization’ activities have affected the politics of Georgian and South Ossetian ruling elites. By becoming a part of the political and social debate, border incidents have allowed victimization the Georgian nation to be presented to the world. However, especially in 2012-2013, the two main political parties in Georgia differed in their perceptions of borderization. From South Ossetian perspective, in turn, the process has served as a manifestation of strengthening national identity, independence from Georgia, and above all, the belief in Ossetian statehood guaranteed by Russia’s military presence and the growing importance of the military elite. The methodology of the work is based on the case study approach, as well as critical analysis of literature, documents, web content and a review of archival materials. The paper also includes data obtained during the 2018 and 2019 field research in Abkhazia and in the IDPs camp in Shavshvebi, near the Georgian-Ossetian border.

“Little war” of Russia and Georgia and the start of the drone armor race

This article examines drone usage by Russia and Georgia in Five-Day War during 2008. Rapidly increasing the use of lethal drones profoundly shapes the ability of various countries and armed groups to wage war. This could have serious consequences for regional security. The rapidly increasing use of drones and robots as well as data-driven military analysis are likely to have a significant impact on the future of hostilities in military operations. In this article, the authors want to answer the most important questions related to this five-day war: what were the causes of Russo-Georgian war, who started this war, who were the winners of this war and who lost it, who helped to end this war. Authors emphasize that the war showed weaknesses in NATO and EU security systems, as they did not react effectively to the forced border change and Russia’s territory occupation of an independent state. The war also showed cracks in Europe between Western powers that wanted to maintain good relations with Russia and Eastern European Countries at the same time.

Georgia is one of the most democratized states in the post-Soviet space. This article presents the mechanisms of instrumentalization and ideologization of the Georgian constitution and its political and social context. The absence of a consolidated state of the law was found to have four causes: 1) colonial experiences of the Enlightenment; 2) heritage of Soviet legislation; 3) rapid Westernization of the legal system; 4) political actors and parties manipulating the constitution in the name of particularistic interests.

Today, the (Western) geopolitics dominant in the decade following the Cold War must consider the rivalling (Eastern) geopolitics. The present article deals with the use of the military bases situated abroad to support separatism in neighbouring countries. In the relations between Abkhazia, Southern Ossetia, Georgia and Russia in 1989 – 2008, special attention is paid to the periods of political standstill when the war was continued as the war of statements conducted by representative bodies in which even the UN Security Council came to be included. The article also focuses on the change of geopolitical visions of Georgia following the Rose Revolution or the waning of the myths of Shevardnadze and Russia’s foreign policy intentions.

The aim of this article is to present the dependence path and the number of factors which influenced its shape in the process of achieving transitional justice on the post-Soviet area. In comparative studies carried out in Estonia, Georgia and Poland, it has been demonstrated that there were a number of factors that diversified the process of transformation from the authoritarian to democratic system. The need to settle accounts with the Soviet authoritarian regime was diverse and depended on historical and geopolitical conditions, as well as on the political system which was adopted by individual states after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It has been observed that in Georgia the process of achieving transitional justice was not initiated but replaced, after consolidating the democratic system, by the process of achieving historical justice; however, in Estonia and in Poland, the problem of settling accounts with the outgoing authoritarian regime constituted one of the key issues of the transformation.

In recent years, Armenia and Georgia have carried out constitutional reforms bringing about a radical change in their respective political systems with a shift to a parliamentary model of government. To permanently democratize both countries, the role of presidents in political systems was weakened and their election was introduced indirectly. The paper discusses the main elements of presidential electoral law in both countries with their main similarities and differences. In Armenia, the president is elected by the parliament, while in Georgia by a special electoral body. The following paper argues that the constitutional reforms in both countries are intended to prevent crises of power caused by an excessive concentration of power in the hands of presidents, although the reforms do not provide a guarantee of genuine democratisation and authoritarstability of governments. The possible outcomes of the reforms can be different: in Armenia – the increase of the dependence of the president on the main political parties, in Georgia – strengthening his independence.

Georgia, deprived of its own hydrocarbon resources, relies exclusively on the import. It has abstained from purchasing those from the Russian Federation for political reasons, which, combined with the lack of LNG terminal infrastructure, has led to the factual monopolization of crude oil and natural gas supplies from Azerbaijan. For geopolitical reasons, Georgia remains the only export route for Azerbaijan for these resources. Easy access to those resources due to its position as a transit state has an impact on the tempo of energy transformation in Georgia. On the one hand, the significantly lower than expected dynamics of the development of renewable energy sources, and on the other hand, the growing role of Azerbaijani national companies in the market of liquid fuels and natural gas in Georgia, are visible consequences of the emergent status quo.