Paternalism, Poverty, and Piety Predict Pro‑Russia Views in Georgia

Why Georgian Views on Great Powers Matter

Georgian public opinion sits at the crossroads of competing great-power influence from Russia and the United States. David Siroky, Alan Simmons, and Giorgi Gvalia investigate which individual-level factors shape preferences for closer ties with these major powers and why mass attitudes in small states deserve more attention in studies of international influence.

How the Study Tests Competing Explanations

The authors analyze recent public-opinion survey data from Georgia and develop a framework centered on three potential drivers of foreign-policy orientation: political paternalism (deference to hierarchical authority and skepticism of liberal individualism), economic status (socioeconomic vulnerability or advantage), and religiosity (levels of religious commitment and identity). They evaluate these expectations using statistical analysis of survey responses that measure attitudes toward Russia and the United States.

Key Findings

• Political paternalism, lower economic status, and higher religiosity are each associated with a stronger preference for closer ties with Russia.
• Those same factors do not reliably predict pro‑American preferences, indicating asymmetric drivers behind pro‑Russia versus pro‑US sentiment.
• The results suggest that social and economic orientations help explain receptivity to Russian influence in Georgia, beyond pure geopolitical calculation.

What This Means for Scholars and Policymakers

As great powers promote their preferred political orders in neighboring small states, understanding who in the population is predisposed toward one patron or another helps explain variation in foreign-policy alignment. The study argues for incorporating cultural and socioeconomic dimensions into analyses of international influence and small-state foreign-policy preferences.