On September 24, Zaza Abashidze sat down with MEP Tobias Cremer. Having joined Germany’s Social Democratic Party at the tender age of fourteen, Cremer was elected to the European Parliament in 2024 and has served on the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Subcommittee on Security and Defence. In addition to his committee assignments, he is part of the parliamentโs delegations to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and for relations with the United States.
The conversation centered on Georgia, as well as developments in European defense and security. Full transcript follows, with minor edits for clarity.
Developments in Georgia
Thank you again for your time. Letโs start with Georgia and begin with something simple before moving into more complex issues. Do you sense a kind of โGeorgia fatigueโ here in Brussels?
I wouldnโt speak of fatigue. The problem is that we have so many crises happening at the same time, but they are all interconnected. For instance, I donโt think Parliament has changed its position at all. We stand very clearly, across parties, behind the resolutions we have passedโresolutions that very clearly state the problems with the rigged elections, call for free and fair elections, and strongly criticize the Georgian Dreamโs move toward more Belarusian-style methods. There is no questioning that in Parliament.
In fact, I would say there is a renewed interest at the moment. For example, the nomination of Mzia Amaghlobeli for the Sakharov Prize has received broad support across partiesโthe Social Democrats, Conservatives, Greens, and Liberals alike. This shows that the overall attitude has not changed.
As the local elections approach, I am confident that attention will remain very much on Georgia.
What is true, of course, is that given the Moldovan elections, naturally, there is a focus there as well. Moldova is currently drawing a lot of attention, as is the Czech Republic, where we are also seeing disinformation at play. But I wouldnโt say this means less attention on Georgia. Itโs the same phenomenon: the Russian playbook of intimidation, manipulation, and disinformation is unfolding in Georgia, in Moldova, and even in our own countries. We ourselves have just been the victims of several sabotage attempts.
That is why itโs so important to see the broader threat: Russia remains front and center. Moldova is one of the places where this is playing out and will therefore remain a priority for the European Parliament. At the same time, the nomination of Ms. Amaghlobeliโwhom I strongly supportโshows that the focus on Georgia is not shifting. Especially as the local elections approach, I am confident that attention will remain very much on Georgia.
Many in Georgia believe that for years, the EU has lacked a clear and consistent policy toward Georgian Dream. Some say that during that time, the party often used Brusselsโ hesitation to buy time, broke its commitments, and consolidated power. Looking back, do you think there were weaknesses in the EUโs approach to Georgian Dream?
Iโm not sure how productive it is to revisit history in this respect, especially since I wasnโt part of the decision-making at that time. Broadly speaking, you must deal with governments that are elected.
The real problem emerged when Georgian Dream began rigging elections, because we want to deal with the majority of Georgian people
Previously, the Georgian government did win elections. The real problem emerged when Georgian Dream began rigging elections, because we want to deal with the Georgian peopleโthe majority of them. I suspect that at this stage, Georgian Dream no longer represents the will of that majority, and that is where the real issue lies: the democratic backsliding we are witnessing.
So rather than focusing on what might have been done differently in the past, I think the priority is to look to the future and to state very clearly to Georgian Dream that they must step away from this dangerous path. They are only making themselves more dependent on Russia, and Iโm not convinced that is a strategy that leads to success. Just think about examples like Syria and other authoritarian regimesโonce you make yourself dependent, you are in a place you donโt want to be.
At the same time, itโs important to remember that 80% of Georgians still want to join the European Union. In the end, I donโt believe any regime can sustain a policy that runs counter to the will of 80% of its population.
My last question on Georgia is about the future. With the current government showing little intention of changing its trajectory, what do you see as the EUโs next steps?
I think it very much depends on what happens in Georgia this October. We are watching very closely to see how the local elections play out. I hope they will be taken as an opportunity to allow for genuinely free elections.
Iโm not sure that hope will be fulfilled, but it remains a chance for Georgian Dream to step back and acknowledge that their current direction is not sustainable, and that free and fair elections must be allowed. If that happens, then new ways of moving forward in a cooperative manner could become possible.
If we finally see free and fair elections, we will be dealing with a legitimately elected government
If we finally see free and fair elections, we will be dealing with a legitimately elected government. For Europe, our position has been clear: we have said, time and again, that the Georgian people deserve a European future. They deserve to be part of the European Union. The gates to freedom, the gates to Europe, will remain open. But it is up to Georgia to meet the criteria, and ultimately up to the Georgian people to claim that future.
Unfortunately, at the moment, we have a government that is actively trying to prevent its people from following this path. The criteria for accession are clear, and it is the Georgian government that has halted all negotiations. Still, I have great faith in the Georgian peopleโthat they will show Georgian Dream this is no way to govern, and that the government must listen to the majority of its own citizens.
European Defense and Security
Letโs turn to European security. Recently, weโve seen challenges largely coming from Russia. Under these circumstances, when the EU emphasizes the need for greater defense spending, do you think ordinary Europeans really grasp that defense is now essential? And do they accept that such spending will inevitably reduce resources available for other pressing issues?
I think what is essentialโthe primary mission and purpose of any governmentโis to protect the physical safety of its people. In this respect, it is our duty to defend our populations against Russian aggression. Russia is not only invading Ukraine but also waging a hybrid war against our societies and our cities. We have seen provocations in Poland, as you mentioned. We have seen Russian fighter jets violating Estonian airspace. We have witnessed hybrid attacks, including incidents that some suggest may be linked to Russia, targeting European airports. All of this fits into a Russian strategy designed to intimidate our populations, undermine our confidence, and cast doubt on our ability to provide security.
the more Russia pushes, the more support I see rising among our populations for a firm stance on defense
That is why we need a clear and decisive responseโto ensure people know they can rely on their governments, on the European Union, and on NATO to defend them. This is the number one responsibility. And the more Russia pushes, the more support I see rising among our populations for a firm stance on defense. Our citizens are, in fact, much more resilient than Russia believes. Putin should not underestimate the resilience and strength of democratic societies.
I do believe greater defense spending is necessary. But at the same time, it must be spent as efficiently as possible. Waste and inefficiency in procurement are unacceptable. The Draghi report, for instance, indicates that we are paying roughly 30% above reasonable prices, and this may be even higher now, given the defense industryโs rising costs as demand grows. That is not acceptable. We need value for money. These resources are also needed in other areas, so every euro must count.
How do we achieve this? Through coordinated and shared procurement. We do not need twelve different tank modelsโone or two would suffice. The same applies to planes and other systems. We must ensure interoperability, and ideally even interchangeability, by enforcing NATO standards through the EU. I would welcome a cooperation agreement between NATO and the EU. This could lay the foundation for what the EU does best: creating a common marketโin this case, a common market for defense. At present, such a market does not exist. We have it in many other areas, but not in defense, which leads to inefficiencies, inflated prices, and inadequate quantities. That must change.
We do not need twelve different tank modelsโone or two would suffice.
If our populations see that taxpayer money is being used effectively and transparently, support for defense spending will remain strong. Transparency and accountability from companies are essential. At the same time, I want to stress that security does not only mean tanks and dronesโalthough they are necessary. True security also depends on social resilience, social cohesion, and solidarity. Investments in infrastructure, cohesion, and resilience are just as important as investments in defense. This is especially critical in the face of Russian disinformation and efforts to polarize our societies.
A good example is what the German government has done: suspending the debt brake to increase defense spending, while at the same time launching a โฌ500 billion investment program in infrastructure. This demonstrates that defense and social resilience can and must go hand in hand.
You have often spoken in favor of the idea of European strategic autonomy. Youโve also been quite critical of the Trump administration and of isolationist tendencies in Washington. How do you see European strategic autonomy in practice? And how do you see the EU-US relationship evolving under these circumstances?
Donโt get me wrongโI remain a committed trans-Atlanticist. My wife is American, so this is also personal for me. But I think we often view the U.S. too simplistically, as if it were one block. In reality, there are deep political divides, and Trump does not represent all of America. I still trust U.S. democracy and institutions, even as they are being tested.
It doesnโt make sense for 350 million Americans to carry the main burden of defending 450 million Europeans against 140 million Russians.
That said, Trump is a symptom of larger trends: a U.S. shift toward the Asia-Pacific and a rise in isolationist sentiment. Frankly, some of that is understandable. It doesnโt make sense for 350 million Americans to carry the main burden of defending 450 million Europeans against 140 million Russians. Europe must do more.
And hereโs the point: whether the U.S. stays engaged or not, the recipe for Europe is the sameโwe need to strengthen our own capacity, invest more, and show both the capability and willingness to act independently if necessary. If the U.S. reduces its role, weโll need this capacity. If it stays, weโll be a stronger, more equal partner. Either way, Europe benefits.
European Unity and Diversity
Do you think there is genuine unity within the EU on these issues? I ask because of the positions of leaders like Mr. Orbรกn or Mr. Fico, who often send mixed or even opposing messages on Ukraine. And with elections in the Czech Republic, there is also the possibility of Mr. Babiลก returning to power. In reality, how big a challenge will internal divisions be for achieving your goals?
Ultimately, geography is destiny. Unfortunately, Georgians know that all too well, and we as Europeans know it too. When I go to the United States, many people tell me: Yes, we understand Russia is a threatโbut it is primarily a threat to you, because you live next to it. And therefore, you should carry more of the burden of deterring Russia. That is simply geography.
Sometimes I wonder about leaders like Orban or Fico, who boast about their close relationship with Donald Trump. Do they really believe that if Putin comes for them, Trump would make an exception and come to their rescue? I doubt it. In fact, we saw something rare but noteworthy from Donald Trump this week at the United Nations General Assembly. He said very clearly to Orban: Stop buying Russian gas. And for that I can only say: thank you, Mr. Trump.
I hope that in Budapest, Mr. Orban will start reflecting on who his real friends are
I hope that in Budapest, Mr. Orban will start reflecting on who his real friends areโwho, when push comes to shove, he can actually count on. It is in Hungaryโs own interest to return to Europe, because ultimately, that is also Hungaryโs destiny. We are in this together. It is in Hungaryโs interest not to be bulldozed by Russia. And I am not convinced that Donald Trump would make an exception for Hungary.
That said, I am cautiously hopeful. We have also seen encouraging flexibility within European institutions. Increasingly, if Hungary refuses to agree, then the other 26 move forward without them. This leaves Hungary in an uncomfortable positionโone that, I suspect, many Hungarians themselves are not happy with.
The good news is that in Europe and in the United States, we remain democracies. Ultimately, it is the people who will decide whether their interests are truly being served by those currently in power.
Finally, Iโd like to ask about your academic background. If Iโm not mistaken, your PhD research focused on Christianity and the far right. In your view, has cultural identity played a decisive role in the success of todayโs far-right movements, particularly in your own country and in France with figures like Le Pen and Zemmour? Do you think mainstream parties too often rely on technocratic language, losing their authentic connection with voters, while the far right fills this gap with simple populism? Could this explain part of their rise?
Iโll try not to summarize my PhD hereโthat would take hoursโbut I think what we see across our societies is, to some extent, the erosion of the traditional ties that once bound us together. This includes the decline of Christianity as people become more secular, the weakening of class identity, and even the erosion of regional identity. The ties that once gave people a strong sense of belonging are changing.
The ties that once gave people a strong sense of belonging are changing. The far right exploits that uncertainty
This is, in many ways, a massive sociological process. But it also means that the sources of identity people once relied on are being challenged. Across many parts of society, questions emerge: What connects us? Who are we? Who belongsโand who doesnโt? These questions can be normal outcomes of social change. But the far right seeks to accelerate them. They deliberately make people feel isolated, uncertain about their identity, and threatened. This is amplified by the bubbles created in social media, which foster polarization, loneliness, and the erosion of cohesion.
The far right then exploits this uncertainty. They do not provide an answer to who we areโinstead, they offer an answer to who we are not. They point to an external enemyโimmigrants, elites, or some other โother.โ
The challenge for centrist and liberal parties is not simply to respond with technocratic solutionsโsaying, if we just build this or fix that, everything will be fine. Instead, they must recognize the underlying crisis of identity and offer an alternative: a shared, inclusive identity, one that is forward-looking and unifying rather than exclusionary and backward-looking.
The challenge of the liberal parties is is to offer an alternative, a shared, inclusive, forward-looking identity
And there is much to be proud of in our societies. Despite our problems, I canโt think of anywhere in the world I would rather live than Europe. It is the only place where freedom, democracy, and solidarity come together. Sometimes we take these things for granted. Thatโs why going to places like Georgia can be inspiring. There, people have gone into the streets day after day for over 301 days, demonstrating for their freedom and for their countryโunder the European banner. That banner represents freedom, a better life, a European way of life.
This is not only inspiring for Georgians, but also for Europeans, reminding us of the immense value of what we already have. We should take pride in our achievements. Yes, we face challenges. But we should not forget that what we have built on this continent is remarkable. People across the world are not trying to move to China or Russia. They want to come to Europe. The European way of life is deeply attractive.
As leaders of centrist parties, we should not be afraid to say this openly: Europe is something worth defending. Our freedoms, our democracy, our solidarityโdespite the challengesโare extraordinary achievements. And we should have the confidence to be proud of them.
And finally, what would you say to the Georgians who have been on the streets for over 300 days?
For me, Georgia has been inspiring in this regard. Seeing people protest day after day for over 300 days, carrying European flags as symbols of freedom, is a reminder of how valuable our model is. We in Europe sometimes forget this, but itโs something worth defendingโand also worth celebrating.
