European Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos’ call for EU candidate countries to distance themselves from Donald Trump’s MAGA movement triggered a wave of criticism from Georgian Dream officials. GD figures portrayed the remarks as an ultimatum that undermines Georgia’s sovereignty, restricts its ability to conduct an independent foreign policy, and demonstrates the alleged incompetence and ideological bias of the EU bureaucracy.

Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze accused Kos of seeking confrontation with the US, arguing that European politicians should focus on resolving the EU’s problems and improving relations with Washington rather than “fueling conflicts.” Foreign Minister Maka Bochorishvili similarly blamed European bureaucrats for pursuing “self-isolation” and urging others to do the same. She argued that Georgia needs stronger ties with all major global actors.

Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili extended the criticism further. He described Kos’ remarks as “ridiculous,” claiming that the EU Commissioner was forbidding candidate countries from engaging with the US administration. Papuashvili dubbed it an attempt to impose direct ultimatums on the foreign policy of sovereign candidate countries, arguing that Brussels was now seeking to dictate their relations with both China and the US. He also questioned the competence of the EU’s foreign policy, claiming that such statements had made it difficult to take Brussels’ enlargement policy seriously. Papuashvili further alleged that Kos’ remarks were aimed at influencing Serbia’s upcoming elections, underscoring that Brussels was using the issue of ties with the MAGA movement as another pretext for political interference. He compared this with what he described as EU interference in Georgia’s 2024 elections, claiming that Brussels was violating the principle of national sovereignty and disregarding the electoral choices of sovereign states.

Other GD officials echoed the sovereignty and interference narratives. GD MP Archil Gorduladze questioned the logic of restricting candidate countries’ relations with the US administration while EU member states continue to maintain ties with Washington. He alleged that Marta Kos’ remarks amounted to imposing preconditions on candidate countries even before accession and demonstrated a lack of respect for their sovereignty and right to pursue an independent foreign policy. Gorduladze further questioned whether EU member states maintaining relations with the Trump administration would face similar restrictions, arguing that the EU bureaucracy had become detached from diplomatic norms and was attempting to impose an increasingly restrictive approach to international relations. GD MP Tornike Cheishvili similarly described Kos’ statement as another example of Brussels’ alleged interference in the internal affairs of sovereign countries. He asserted that the remarks reflected a recurring pattern of EU intervention in the affairs of candidate states, portraying the call to distance themselves from the MAGA movement as a direct attempt to influence their political and foreign-policy choices. 

Another GD MP, Levan Makhashvili claimed that Brussels was effectively telling candidate countries “whom to engage with” and how to conduct their foreign affairs, while Vice Speaker Nino Tsilosani similarly alleged that the EU bureaucracy was demanding “slavish obedience” from prospective members. She further asserted that bureaucrats who display particular aggression toward Georgia are now going so far as to ban any form of freedom.

GD officials also used the controversy to advance broader anti-EU narratives. Levan Machavariani accused the EU of pursuing an “isolationist” policy and claimed that strained EU-US relations could undermine Europe’s security as the EU might lose the security guarantor (the US), which has, in turn, made the EU significant for so many years. Irakli Kirtskhalia portrayed Brussels as opposing Donald Trump’s alleged “peace policy,” blamed the EU for supporting war, and compared its approach to “Soviet” methods. Rati Ionatamishvili and others framed the dispute as evidence of a broader crisis within the “Euro-bureaucracy.”

Pro-government propaganda media and Georgian Dream figures used the Alternative for Germany (AfD)’s victory in the Saxony-Anhalt regional elections to portray the result as evidence of growing dissatisfaction with Brussels and its policies across Germany and the EU.

Pro-government Imedi TV described the AfD’s victory as a “political defeat for Brussels bureaucracy” and argued that, despite alleged pressure and attempts to restrict the party, its growing support demonstrated increasing opposition to the EU’s “centralized policies.” The channel portrayed the AfD as part of a broader rise of national forces seeking to reduce the influence of Brussels’ “bureaucratic monster” and restore national sovereignty. Imedi also claimed that the EU could respond to the election result through punitive measures in the form of financial pressure, presenting this as a recurring tactic of the EU against democratically elected governments or political forces it dislikes.

Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili similarly linked the AfD’s performance to what he described as declining trust in Brussels. He argued that election results in Germany, France, and elsewhere reflected not only domestic dissatisfaction with ruling parties but also discontent with their EU and foreign policies.

GD MP Tornike Cheishvili, commenting on the German elections alongside Iceland’s EU referendum, claimed that the results had failed to prompt Brussels to reconsider its policies toward Georgia or other candidate countries. Instead, he argued, the EU bureaucracy continued to promote the same narratives and approach.

Bidzina Giorgobiani of GD-allied United Neutral Georgia argued that the AfD’s victory would provide an impetus for political change in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. He contrasted the German government’s policies with the AfD, portraying the latter as a non-establishment force more closely aligned with public concerns over the economy, migration, social issues, and the war in Ukraine.

Thus, through this coverage, government-aligned actors presented the AfD’s electoral gains as part of a broader backlash against Brussels, using the German elections to reinforce narratives of declining public trust in EU institutions and growing demands for national sovereignty.

Pro-Kremlin propaganda sources continued promoting recurring narratives about Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine:

• Pro-Kremlin actors continued to portray the West as responsible for the war in Ukraine, claiming that Western “globalists” orchestrated the 2014 change of government in Kyiv, labeling it a “bloody coup”, and sought to bring Ukraine into NATO;

• Citing Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, these messages framed Yanukovych’s removal and Ukraine’s alleged integration into NATO as the root cause of the current war, while also portraying Western efforts to weaken Russia as a long-standing strategy pursued through a “neo-Nazi regime in Ukraine”;

• The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service was quoted depicting the EU as pressuring Kyiv to expand mobilization, including through the discussion of mobilizing women. Brussels was showcased as expecting the “Kyiv junta” to continue fulfilling the demands of its “Western masters”;

• In turn, pro-Kremlin sources presented European financial support for Kyiv as funding terrorism and prolonging the war. EU member states and the UK were described as the “real customers and producers” of the conflict, allegedly investing in continued hostilities rather than seeking peace;

• These claims specifically linked European funding to an alleged increase in attacks and crimes against civilians, while Ukraine was portrayed as “cannon fodder” for European efforts to weaken Russia;

• Furthermore, Russian Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov was cited accusing European countries of deliberately freezing relations with Russia and pushing the continent toward a situation resembling the Cold War, thus underscoring that Russia and Europe are sinking into a state of extreme confrontation;

• Propaganda narratives also dubbed NATO’s military exercises in the Arctic as preparations for a military confrontation with Russia. The exercises were framed as demonstrations of NATO’s military capabilities and deliberate signals directed at Moscow, reinforcing the portrayal of the alliance as an offensive threat to Russia;

• Separately, some quoted Maria Zakharova attributing Germany’s dissatisfaction with Ukraine to insufficient military orders rather than concerns over Ukraine’s domestic conduct;

• These messages labeled German officials, including Chancellor Friedrich Merz, slaves serving the interests of the military-industrial complex and seeking greater military spending and arms contracts, framing Germany’s support for Ukraine as motivated by economic interests in the defence sector.

• Georgian and Russian-language Facebook users circulated fake Israeli passports allegedly belonging to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and First Lady Olena Zelenska. In reality, both passport images are fabricated and contain multiple flaws confirming their inauthenticity. Notably, Zelenska’s forged passport has circulated online since 2023;

• Pro-government news agency Akhla circulated a video out of context, falsely portraying Volodymyr Zelenskyy as urging Ukrainian citizens to flee, surrender, or fight while showing footage of forced mobilization. In reality, the statement was taken from a 2022 address in which Zelenskyy spoke to Russia’s population, including mobilized Russians. The misleading editing creates the impression that he was addressing Ukrainians;

• An AI-generated image falsely depicting Kyiv engulfed in flames following a massive Russian bombardment was disseminated on Facebook. In reality, the photo was artificially generated and significantly exaggerates the scale of destruction in the Ukrainian capital;

• Fake versions of The Economist’s purported 2027 cover, highlighting the absence of Ukraine from the imagery, are shared on social media. In fact, The Economist had not published an official The World Ahead 2027 cover resembling either of the circulating images as of September 2026;

• Another Video of British journalist Piers Morgan is spread on social media with a fake Russian translation, falsely claiming he praised the Russian education system over American schools. The footage, in reality, is from Morgan’s talk show, where he was discussing a new Steven Spielberg film with his guests.