“It is alarming that, through the actions or inaction of Brussels and the EU Embassy, Brussels is increasingly aligning itself with hatred and violence,” Shalva Papuashvili, the Speaker of the Parliament of Georgia, posted on social media.

As Papuashvili emphasises, “It is crucial for Brussels to clarify whether it condemns the hate campaigns and acts of terror carried out by its funded individuals under the guise of ‘European values,’ and whether it plans to cease supporting groups that incite violence.”

“Yesterday, one of the EU Commissioners addressed the ‘Georgian people’ with the words: “Be strong, fight for European values, we are counting on you.” Our society has quickly understood that when Brussels addresses the people, it often means a marginal group of radical opposition figures and NGOs, many of whom are funded by European sources, who spread hatred and violence, thereby framing hatred and terror as ‘European values.’ The reality was confirmed within hours of this statement.
The incitement from Brussels had not yet subsided when Gedevan Popkhadze, a leader of the Gvaramia party and pardoned at Brussels’ request, announced victims for May 26. Shortly afterwards, Mariam Sichinava, one of the leaders of the Brussels-funded Droa party, attacked a member of parliament with highly obscene language and threats that were disturbing even to the Georgian ear.

It is deeply concerning that, through either action or inaction, Brussels and the EU embassy are increasingly associating themselves with hatred and violence. The EU was established as a peace project; however, the conduct of some European politicians and bureaucrats is betraying this fundamental principle.

Brussels must clarify whether it endorses the hate campaigns and terror propagated by its affiliated groups under the pretence of ‘European values,’ and whether it intends to stop supporting groups that incite violence and hatred.

P.S. To prevent speculation, I would like to clarify that this is not a matter of “bad language” or “personal attack,” but rather a “legitimate critique” that demands an appropriate response,” writes Shalva Papuashvili.