Seventeen Years of Betrayal: Why Washington's Silence on Georgia Speaks Volumes
- Gocha Okreshidze
- 2 days ago
- 2 min read
Another August has arrived, and for Georgians, it’s a month forever marked by a deep scar. Seventeen years ago, in 2008, our nation was plunged into a devastating war. We remember the tanks, the fear, and the gut-wrenching loss of 20% of our territory. But we also remember the rhetoric that led up to it — the promises of NATO membership, the whispers of encouragement from Washington, the feeling that a great democratic power had our back. We were led to believe that standing up for our sovereignty was a shared value, a principle that would be defended by our powerful friends.
We were tragically mistaken.
This week, at the United Nations, that old wound was salted. As several members of the UN Security Council — including the UK, France, Denmark, Greece, and Slovenia — issued a joint statement condemning Russia's 2008 invasion and its ongoing, illegal occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, one voice was conspicuously absent. The United States, the self-proclaimed leader of the free world and our supposed strategic partner, did not sign.
Let that sink in.
The same nation that encouraged Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations, the same nation that supplied training and equipment, the same nation whose leaders in 2008 were adamant in their verbal condemnation of Russia, could not bring itself to join a simple statement reaffirming our sovereignty. While our European partners stood up to demand Russia comply with the 2008 ceasefire agreement, Washington remained silent.
This isn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a disturbing pattern. As the provided news report highlights, this silence mirrors the U.S. administration's shocking decision earlier this year to vote against a UN resolution that named Russia as the aggressor in Ukraine. The official reason given by Secretary of State Marco Rubio was that such language was "antagonistic" and hindered negotiations.
Antagonistic? Is it "antagonistic" to state a fact? Is it "antagonistic" to call an invasion an invasion? Is it "antagonistic" to stand by the core principles of international law that prevent powerful nations from carving up smaller ones at will?
For Georgia, this is more than just diplomatic maneuvering. We live with the consequences every single day. The "creeping occupation" is not a political theory; it's a reality of barbed wire fences advancing into our territory, dividing families and farms. Russia’s military bases in Abkhazia and South Ossetia are a permanent threat. And now, the "ally" who pushed us toward the confrontation has decided that even condemning it is too much of a bother.
The message Washington is sending is chillingly clear: principles are negotiable, and the sovereignty of smaller nations is a bargaining chip in a larger game with Moscow. The steadfast partner of the 2000s has been replaced by a wavering power afraid of its own shadow, one that prefers "softer" resolutions and moral ambiguity to avoid upsetting an aggressor.
An ally doesn't just show up for photo-ops and military exercises. An ally provides unwavering political and moral support, especially on the anniversary of a national tragedy it had a hand in shaping. What we saw at the UN this week was not the action of an ally. It was the action of a nation that has forgotten its promises and abandoned its friends. What an unreliable "ally" indeed.
Comentarios