А. K. Dudaiti. Georgia and the USA: Regional Implications of Partnership for the South Caucasus

https://doi.org/10.15507/2413-1407.129.033.202503.483-499
EDN: https://elibrary.ru/dzlytw
УДК / UDC 327-048.87 (479.22) (73)

Abstract

Introduction. The South Caucasus remains an area of geopolitical rivalry between the United States, Russia, China, and the European Union, driven by its role in energy transit and the East-West military balance. The Georgian-American partnership is a defining factor in regional dynamics, but its implications for the politics, defense, and economy of the South Caucasus remain understudied. The goal is to identify the scope and direction of the influence of US-Georgian cooperation on regional processes.

Materials and Methods. The research is based on an analysis of intergovernmental agreements (2008–2024), strategic documents, statistical data, and media discourse. A set of qualitative methods was applied: historical-political analysis of partnership phases; comparative assessment of responses from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia, Turkey, and Iran; critical discourse analysis (CDA) of security rhetoric; and event analysis of key initiatives (military exercises, infrastructure projects).

Results. Georgia has faced strategic dilemmas: enhancing defense capabilities through Javelin missile supplies and the Noble Partner exercises has increased its dependence on the US. Economic projects have transformed the country into a transit hub but have also created competition with Azerbaijan. Russia has reinforced its base in Gyumri, Iran has developed a transport corridor, and China has intensified its initiatives. Collectively, these developments have contributed to heightened societal polarization, constrained autonomy, and increased sanctions risks for Georgia.

Discussion and Conclusion. While the partnership with the US has facilitated infrastructure and armed forces modernization for Georgia, it has also rendered the country vulnerable to external market conditions. Ensuring the resilience of the South Caucasus necessitates the diversification of foreign policy strategies and balanced engagement with regional actors. These findings are applicable for developing energy security strategies and managing transit risks.

Keywords: US-Georgian relations, South Caucasus security, military-technical cooperation, energy transit, geopolitical competition, Trans-Caspian corridor, strategic partnership, regional balance of power

Conflict of interest. The author declares no conflict of interest.

For citation: Dudaiti A.K. Georgia and the USA: Regional Implications of Partnership for the South Caucasus. Russian Journal of Regional Studies. 2025;33(3):483–499. https://doi.org/10.15507/2413-1407.129.033.202503.483-499

REFERENCES

1. Chavleishvili G., Japharidze E. Problems and Prospects of Regional Development of the South Caucasus. History. Archeology. Ethnology. 2024;(12):515–527. Available at: http://www.sciencejournals.ge/index.php/HAE/article/view/641(accessed 03.11.2024).

2. Malikova Z. Russia's South Caucasus Policy in the Context of Geopolitical Interests. Georgian Scientists. 2024;6(3):18–26. https://doi.org/10.52340/gs.2024.06.03.03

3. Asadov M. The “New Great Game” Conflict and Cooperation Area South Caucasus: From Competition to Cooperation between Turkey and Russia. Ordu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2023;13(2):1955–1974. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/2769556 (accessed 03.11.2024).

4. Gelashvili P. Interests of Foreign Countries in the Regions of Georgia Populated by Ethnic Minorities and their Impact on Demographic Situation and Stability in the South Caucasus. Bulletin of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences. 2022;16(1):135–142. Available at: http://science.org.ge/bnas/t16-n1/21_Gelashvili_Demology.pdf (accessed 03.11.2024).

5. Butorov A.S., Rumiantseva A.K. Features of US Foreign Policy in the South Caucasus at the Present Stage. Post-Soviet Studies. 2023;5(6):556–566. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) Available at: https://www.postussr.org/journals/230605/Буторов%20А.С.pdf (accessed 03.11.2024).

6. Gachechiladze R. The Making of the South Caucasus Region: a Geographical Approach. Environment and Society. 2024;(14):156–177. Available at: http://es.tsu.ge/index.php/es/article/view/230/79 (accessed 03.11.2024).

7. Irkhin A.A., Moskalenko O.A. The Black Sea Region in the Contest of Geopolitical Projects of the Great Powers, 1991–2019. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations. 2021;21(3):498–516. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2021-21-3-498-516

8. Irkhin A.A., Moskalenko O.A., Demeshko N.E. Turkish Balance, or Türkiye’s Foreign Policy Strategy in the Black Sea Region Following the Special Military Operation. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations. 2024;24(1):7–22. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=65443590

9. Moskalenko O.A., Muradov G.L., Irkhin A.A., Demeshko N.E., Nagornyak K.I. The Montreux Convention after the Beginning of the Special Military Operation. Status Quo or Denunciation: Discourse of International Actors and Possible Geopolitical Implications for the Black Sea Region. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations. 2023;23(4):643–661. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=59563898

10. Manukyan V. From Conflict to Peace? Stateness Assessment of the South Caucasus Countries at the Crossroads of Political Processes from 2017 to 2022. Journal of Political Science: Bulletin of Yerevan University. 2023;2(2):11–33. https://doi.org/10.46991/JOPS/2023.2.5.011

11. Kruessmann T. The “Russian Factor”: Implications for the EU’s Policy in the Black Sea/Caucasus Region. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies. 2024;24(3):447–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2024.2387412

12. Rezapour D. The Foreign Policy of Russia and the United States of America in the South Caucasus Region (2004–2024). The Review of International Affairs. 2024;75(1192):361–381. https://doi.org/10.18485/iipe_ria.2024.75.1192.3

13. Poghosyan B. Thirty Years of Interaction: The US Policy in the South Caucasus after the End of the Cold War. USA and Canada: Economics, Politics, Culture. 2021;52(1):67–87. https://doi.org/10.31857/S2686673022010059

14. Yatsenko A., Tkeshelashvili I., Hurak I. NGOs’ Development in Ukraine and Georgia: Social and Political Dimensions. Przegląd Europejski. 2022;(1):161–176. https://doi.org/10.31338/1641-2478pe.1.22.11

15. Markhulia G. West or East-Georgia's Geopolitical Trajectory. Caucasus and the World. 2024;(27):125–133. https://doi.org/10.52340/isj.2024.27.20

16. Museyibzada J. International Organizations as a Means of Building Image and Reputation: the Case of Azerbaijan. Eurasian Research Journal. 2024;6(3):75–89. https://doi.org/10.53277/2519-2442-2024.3-05

17. Krylov A. South Caucasus: Stages of Post-Soviet History. Russia and New States of Eurasia. 2021;(2):147–162. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.20542/2073-4786-2021-2-147-162

18. Davtyan V., Khachikyan S. The U.S. Energy Diplomacy in the Condition of World Energy Markets Transformation (South Caucasus Vector). Vectors of Social Sciences. 2022;(4):38–50. https://doi.org/10.51895/VSS4/Davtyan/Khachikyan

About the author:

Albert K. Dudaiti, Dr.Sci. (Hist.), Professor, Head of the Chair of World History, North Ossetian State University (44–46 Vatutin St., Vladikavkaz 362025, Russian Federation), ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7103-959X, Researcher ID: HRC-3837-2023, Scopus ID: 59479344100, SPIN-code: 8088-1683, adudaiti@mail.ru

Availability of data and materials. The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the author on reasonable request.

The author has read and approved the final manuscript.

Submitted 01.04.2024; revised 30.01.2025; accepted 06.02.2025.