EditUkraine’s ambassadorial appointment to Georgia: walking a diplomatic tightrope
Kyiv names a new envoy after three years without an ambassador, but the move risks being read as de facto recognition of Georgia’s disputed president
For more than three years, since June 2022, Ukraine has not had an ambassador in Georgia. That situation is now set to change after President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a decree this week appointing Mykhailo Brodovych as Ukraine’s new envoy to Tbilisi.
The decision, however, raises a series of politically sensitive questions. To begin work, an ambassador must present credentials to the host country’s president. In Georgia’s case, this is not a mere protocol formality but a step with clear political implications, as it may be interpreted as Ukraine recognising the legitimacy of Georgia’s current head of state.
That position is currently held by Mikheil Kavelashvili, the first Georgian president not elected by popular vote but appointed by parliament. Following the widely contested parliamentary elections of 2024, which were marred by allegations of fraud, the legislature itself is viewed as having extremely low legitimacy. Georgia’s opposition refuses to recognise Kavelashvili’s presidential mandate, and Ukraine has so far held a similar position, albeit without issuing a formal declaration of non-recognition, as it has done in the case of Belarusian leader Alyaksandr Lukashenka.
Georgian Dream’s fear of losing grip fuels Ukraine coup narrative ahead of elections
Against this backdrop, appointing an ambassador could be interpreted as Kyiv de facto acknowledging Kavelashvili’s legitimacy – something Ukrainian authorities have until now avoided through what has been described as “strategic silence”.
According to information obtained by “European Pravda”, Ukraine’s foreign ministry had advised against taking this step. The president’s office ultimately chose otherwise.
It is still unclear, however, whether the newly appointed ambassador will actually travel to Tbilisi. Georgia’s response to the appointment appears to be pushing Kyiv to slow down or reconsider the implementation of the decision.
Why Ukraine needs an ambassador in Georgia
Once described as “strategic partners”, relations between Ukraine and Georgia have been in deep decline since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Georgia’s authorities have refused to impose sanctions on Russia, declined to provide weapons to Kyiv, and officials from the ruling party have repeatedly made anti-Ukrainian statements.
In this context, the lack of active diplomatic engagement has come as little surprise. In 2023, at Ukraine’s insistence, Georgia’s ambassador to Kyiv, Giorgi Zakharashvili, left the country and now works from Tbilisi.
Despite this deterioration, Kyiv has at times been ready to appoint a new ambassador. According to a source in the foreign ministry, Ukraine sent a request for agrément for Brodovych to Tbilisi at the beginning of last year. Georgia’s response was positive, yet Kyiv refrained from moving forward with the appointment.
The delay coincided with major political developments in Georgia. At the end of 2024, mass protests erupted after the authorities effectively abandoned the country’s course towards European integration. In December that year, a new president was appointed, whose legitimacy is rejected by large parts of pro-Western Georgian society.
Under such circumstances, appointing a Ukrainian ambassador risked being perceived as support for the Georgian authorities in their confrontation with a significant segment of the population. Later that autumn, controversial local elections further deepened the political crisis, extending the pause in Kyiv’s decision.
So why appoint an ambassador now?
According to sources familiar with the talks, Brodovych’s background offers a key part of the answer. In addition to serving as Ukraine’s ambassador to Slovenia between 2015 and 2022, he has extensive experience in consular affairs.
This expertise is seen as particularly relevant given the growing number of Ukrainians in Georgia, including those fleeing the war. An additional challenge is that Russia has increasingly deported Ukrainian citizens not directly to Ukraine or via Belarus, but through Georgia.
“These people often arrive at border crossings without documents, which requires intensified consular assistance,” a source told “European Pravda”. “In many cases, issues need to be resolved at the highest level – and that is precisely when an ambassador is needed.”
Still, questions remain as to whether appointing a full ambassador was the right choice. Other options existed that would not have implied de facto recognition of Kavelashvili. Kyiv could have limited itself to appointing a chargé d’affaires, such as a counsellor or minister-counsellor, or named a special envoy for Georgia.
Diplomats say there is no single assessment. Some argue the move will not set a European precedent, as several EU member states have already taken similar steps. France’s ambassador, among others, has presented credentials to Kavelashvili.
At the same time, Ukraine’s foreign ministry acknowledges that appointing an ambassador was not its recommendation. Officials say they provided the president’s office with an analysis of possible options, advising against steps that could be interpreted as recognition.
The decree therefore came as a surprise to the diplomatic service, which says it has not been informed why the president opted for this approach.
Signals from Tbilisi
The story may not yet be over. A presidential decree is a crucial step in the appointment process, but not the final one. A separate political decision is required to actually dispatch the ambassador, and that decision has not yet been taken.
One possible explanation is that the appointment was intended as a signal of Kyiv’s readiness for dialogue. Yet such a signal would require reciprocal gestures from Tbilisi.
So far, Georgia’s public response has hardly been conciliatory. Parliamentary speaker Shalva Papuashvili said he hoped the appointment indicated that Ukraine had reconsidered what he called “hostile rhetoric” and “anti-Georgian decisions”. Meanwhile, the pro-government television channel Imedi aired a report alleging that Ukraine had sold generators provided by Georgia as humanitarian aid.
These reactions suggest limited interest in dialogue from the Georgian authorities, leaving open the question of whether sending an ambassador to Tbilisi under current conditions is a step worth taking.
Human rights activists warn: Georgia is slipping toward a one-party future
The full article in Ukrainian, published by EUalive’s partner European Pravda, can be found here.
Caption: Georgian President Mikheil Kavelashvili attends a meeting with the Serbian president in Belgrade, Serbia, 18 December 2025.
Updated: January 31, 2026 - 07:54
