The Dynamics of the ‘Two Rs’: Populist Revisionism, Revanchism, and Georgia’s Security Dilemma

Abstract

In recent years, the interaction between populism and security strategies has increasingly shaped the dynamics of international security, particularly in regional conflicts and the strategic choices of small states. While existing scholarship extensively examines the impact of populism on domestic politics, its implications for foreign policy formulation and conflict generation remain comparatively underexplored. This article addresses this gap by conducting an in-depth analysis of how populist narratives interact with revisionist and revanchist security logics, thereby creating one of the most complex and unpredictable environments for contemporary conflicts. In this study, revisionism is defined as a structural drive to alter the international status quo, manifested in attempts to revise existing rules, norms, and territorial arrangements. Revanchism, in turn, refers to the emotionally charged, historically grounded (often rooted in collective trauma) and frequently aggressive radicalization of this process, which claims to rectify historical "injustices" and justifies doing so even through the overt use of force. The main distinguishing line between these two concepts runs between strategic calculation and emotional, identity-based motivation. The main thesis of the article is that populist politics often transforms security issues into moralized and identity-driven conflicts, where strategic choices are perceived not merely as pragmatic calculations but as tests of loyalty, dignity, and civilizational belonging. In this context, the dynamics of the "Two Rs" (the mutually reinforcing logic of revisionism and revanchism) creates a dangerous synergy where structural aspirations are fueled by emotional narratives, which in turn significantly increases the risks of conflict escalation, coercive diplomacy, and open military confrontation. This process acquires particular relevance for Georgia, as a small and strategically vulnerable state that simultaneously experiences a double pressure: on the one hand, clearly expressed external revisionist pressure (Russia's occupation of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali regions, the instrumentalization of "frozen conflicts," constant military threat), and on the other hand, the detrimental impact of domestic political polarization, institutional weakness, and the erosion of democratic standards. The Georgian case clearly illustrates how domestic vulnerability undermines a small state's capacity to resist external challenges. Following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, coercive diplomacy, the normalization of the use of force, and aspirations for territorial revision have significantly intensified in the region, creating additional, often disproportionate, pressure on small states. The research demonstrates that the populist discourse accompanying these processes not only exacerbates existing conflicts and reduces the space for compromise but also facilitates the emergence of new, identity-based confrontations in which the opposing side is perceived not as a negotiation partner but as an existential enemy. Methodologically, the research is largely based on a selective qualitative analysis of political discourse (drawing on principles of critical discourse analysis) and the case study method, with Georgia as the critical case. The analysis examines in detail: (a) public speeches of political leaders, (b) official foreign policy documents and strategic communication materials, and (c) analytical reports of international organizations (European Commission, Freedom House, V-Dem Institute). The analysis focuses on three main aspects: the formation of the "people" versus "enemy" dichotomy, the politicization of historical narratives (e. g., the Treaty of Georgievsk, King Erekle the Second, World War II), and the transformation of security issues into moralized, identity-driven conflicts. As a result, the article offers an original, empirically grounded conceptual framework that explains how populist narratives influence security strategies and the choices of small states in a competitive geopolitical environment. Ultimately, the research confirms that for a small state caught in the dynamics of the "Two Rs," security is no longer merely a matter of external protection, alliances, or military capabilities – but rather, and perhaps primarily, a function of internal resilience, institutional strength, democratic sustainability, narrative consistency, and political unity. These internal factors determine whether a small state turns external revisionist pressure into a cause of strategic defeat or into an opportunity for adaptation, resistance, and ultimately survival.