Georgia Today Is Living in Putin’s Yesterday

How Anna Politkovskaya’s “Putin’s Russia” reads

like a warning now unfolding in Tbilisi

By Luka Tsereteli — I grew up in a country that long believed in the promise of a European future. As a journalist, I once trusted institutions — courts, press laws, election procedures — to keep basic democratic life intact. Over the last two years that trust has eroded. Reading Anna Politkovskaya’s Putin’s Russia now feels like reading a blueprint: the same methods, the same language of delegitimisation, the same slow construction of fear. Politkovskaya wrote, again and again, of how a state uses law, money, and outright violence to silence independent voices. Those tactics are echoing in Georgia today.

A short primer: what Politkovskaya warned about

Anna Politkovskaya documented how Putin-era power consolidated control by: capturing or intimidating independent media; weaponising the judiciary and law enforcement against political opponents; strangling civil society through bureaucratic and financial pressure; and normalising propaganda and fear so that dissent becomes risky or socially isolating. Her book is not abstract — it describes concrete tactics: laws that appear neutral on paper, targeted smear campaigns, and violent episodes that signal consequences for resistance.

Where Georgia shows the same playbook — four parallels

1) Laws that label and cripple independent actors

In 2025, Georgia’s parliament passed a law that requires NGOs and media organisations to register as “agents of foreign influence” if a set portion of their funding comes from abroad. The law’s vagueness and administrative grip mirror the early legal instruments used in Russia to tag civil society and independent media as foreign-controlled — a first step toward delegitimisation and prosecution. Freedom House and other watchdogs flagged this as a turning point that dramatically narrows the space for independent reporting and advocacy.

2) Financial and administrative strangulation

Independent outlets report dramatically fewer ways to survive after recent measures targeting foreign-funded journalism — from frozen accounts to heightened audits and onerous registration demands — which force some outlets to scale back or close. This is the same kind of economic pressure Politkovskaya described as essential to transforming a pluralistic media ecosystem into a state-influenced one.

3) Criminalisation and intimidation of journalists

Across 2024–2025 there has been a wave of arrests, prosecutions and legal harassment of journalists in Georgia. One high-profile example is the conviction and two-year sentence handed to journalist Mzia Amaglobeli after an incident during an anti-government protest. Human rights groups and international media observers described the case as politically charged and disproportionate — precisely the pattern of using criminal charges (or the threat of them) to deter reporting and protest.

4) A culture of threat, smear and physical attacks

Monitoring groups counted hundreds of attacks and incidents of intimidation against media workers in the past two years: coordinated smear campaigns, threats, cyber-harassment, and physical assaults. The intent is not always to imprison every critic — often it is to make independent journalism psychologically and materially unsustainable. Politkovskaya argued that fear, repeated and visible, is as effective as formal bans. Georgian journalists now describe that same atmosphere.

Why the comparison matters (and why it isn’t an exaggeration)

This is not to say Georgia has become Russia. Contexts differ — historical, geopolitical and social. But authoritarian models travel: legal templates, media tactics, and political rhetoric are copied because they work. When respected watchdogs, journalists on the ground, and independent NGOs sound the alarm simultaneously, the pattern is no longer anecdote but trend. Georgia’s recent legislative and enforcement moves make the country a test case for whether a post-Soviet democracy can be rolled backward under the cover of “security,” “regulation,” and rhetorical claims of protecting national interest.

From warning to response: what needs to happen next

1. International attention and conditionality. Western democracies and EU institutions must treat the rollback as real and link future cooperation to clear benchmarks for media freedom, independent courts, and civil society protection.

2. Protection and funding lifelines for independent media. Practical emergency support (financial, legal, digital security) helps outlets survive the immediate squeeze so they can continue reporting.

3. Solidarity journalism. Cross-border investigations, publication partnerships, and editorial support amplify reporting that a shrinking domestic space cannot carry alone.

4. Public-facing narratives. Journalists must keep explaining why these laws and cases matter to ordinary people — not just elites — because authoritarianism grows when people feel powerless or apathetic.

A closing, personal note

When Politkovskaya wrote of a Russia where rights were hollowed out step by step, she asked readers to notice and to act. As someone who has watched Georgia’s democratic institutions fray, I do not write this to inflame — I write to document and to call for attention. If Georgians lose independent media and civil society now, we will have much less chance later to contest that loss peacefully. And that outcome will not only be a tragedy for Georgia; it will be a warning for the region and a lesson for the West.

If you’re reading this outside Georgia and you care about free press and democratic norms, take this as a moment to pay attention: share reporting from independent Georgian outlets, hold politicians to account, and ask international institutions to apply real leverage — not platitudes.