Georgian parliament votes to terminate mandates of 49 opposition MPs
The vote effectively brings the total number of Georgian parliamentarians down to 89 of the 150 elected in the disputed — all of which now sit under the Georgian Dream party banner.
Although 49 elected MPs formally requested to resign their mandates in protests, a further 12 opposition MPs from the "For Georgia" party have refused to attend parliamentary sessions.
The October election, which was widely disputed by the opposition and international observers, re-elected the Russian-friendly Georgian Dream party. The ruling Georgian Dream party, founded by oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili, has drawn criticism for steering Georgia closer to Russia while hindering its EU accession.
Following the election, mass protests erupted in Tbilisi over the results, as well as amid a political crisis sparked by Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze's announcement that Georgia's EU integration could be delayed until 2028.
Anti-Western politician Mikheil Kavelashvili, an ally of the ruling Georgian Dream party, was inaugurated as the country's sixth president on Dec. 29 in a move seen as illegitimate by the opposition.
Georgia's fifth president, Salome Zourabichvili, said she would vacate the presidential palace but stressed she remains the only legitimate head of state, pledging to continue the struggle against the ruling party.
Since the election, a number of Western countries have imposed on Georgia over the perceived democratic backsliding. On Jan. 27, the European Union parts of its visa facilitation agreement with Georgia.
Read also: Multiple Georgian opposition leaders arrested as pro-EU demonstrators block highway in Tbilisi
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
20 minutes ago
- Newsweek
What 'Superman' Says About Gaza—And Us
When audiences left early screenings of James Gunn's new Superman, many carried more than popcorn and superhero nostalgia—they carried the unmistakable feeling that they had just watched a parable of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And that, in itself, says something profound. Despite fierce controversy and calls for boycott by some pro-Israel commentators, Superman is topping the box office charts, making over $220 million globally during its opening weekend. Gunn has repeatedly insisted that Superman is not about the Middle East. "When I wrote this the Middle Eastern conflict wasn't happening," he told The Times of London. He emphasized that the fictional war between Boravia and Jarhanpur was crafted before the Hamas-led attacks on October 7, 2023, and Israel's ensuing war on Gaza. He even said he tried to steer the narrative away from Middle Eastern analogies once real-world violence erupted. And yet, despite these denials, the allegory has taken hold. Why? Because the movie's central dynamic—a powerful, U.S.-backed aggressor invading a poor, largely defenseless neighbor—is all too familiar. Boravia, with its military might, international impunity, and stated mission to "liberate" Jarhanpur from supposed tyranny, mirrors in disturbing ways Israel's ongoing bombardment and occupation of Gaza. The imagery is searing: tanks and drones lining up at a border fence, a young boy clutching a national flag as civilians scatter in fear, and a so-called "just war" increasingly exposed as a campaign of domination. That such scenes resonated so strongly with viewers is not the fault of the audience's "left-wing brain," as Ben Shapiro dismissively put it—it is a reflection of the moral clarity that emerges when oppression is laid bare, even in fictional form. Online, the reaction was swift and divided. Some called it the most "openly pro-Palestine" content to ever appear in a blockbuster. TikTok creators, influencers, and activists lauded the film's unflinching portrayal of invasion and resistance, with one user declaring, "Superman is antizionist and leaves no room for doubt." Others—particularly in right-wing circles—branded it "Superwoke," accusing Gunn of injecting ideology into entertainment. Whether or not the film was meant to be about Israel and Palestine, it functioned as a kind of cinematic Rorschach test. When seeing injustice portrayed on the screen, viewers brought with them the images that have been burned into global consciousness after nearly two years of siege on Gaza—images of children killed, hospitals bombed, and international law flouted with impunity. When you witness a conflict where one side wields F-35s and the other buries its dead in mass graves, any story of asymmetrical warfare will inevitably call Palestine to mind. LONDON, ENGLAND - JULY 02: James Gunn, David Corenswet, Rachel Brosnahan, Nicholas Hoult and Peter Safran attend the "Superman" Fan Event in London's Leicester Square on July 02, 2025 in London, England. LONDON, ENGLAND - JULY 02: James Gunn, David Corenswet, Rachel Brosnahan, Nicholas Hoult and Peter Safran attend the "Superman" Fan Event in London's Leicester Square on July 02, 2025 in London, be clear, Superman is not a perfect political text. The film's Jarhanpurians—coded as Middle Eastern or South Asian—are largely passive. One of the few named Jarhanpurian characters is a falafel vendor, Malik, who serves as emotional fuel for Superman's arc before being killed off. As The Forward noted, the Jarhanpurians' purpose is less to assert their own dignity than to highlight the hero's morality. And so, while some audiences saw pro-Palestinian messaging, others rightly questioned whether the film reinscribes a savior narrative—centered on a white alien-immigrant superhero—rather than empowering the oppressed to resist on their own terms. Indeed, as Middle East Eye pointedly observed, Palestinians are not waiting for a white superhero to rescue them. The real heroes are the medics treating the wounded under rubble, the journalists livestreaming amidst bomb blasts, and the people who keep marching for their right to exist. Superman may deliver lines about morality, kindness, and justice, but in the real world, those words are being lived by people with far less privilege and far greater courage. Still, the film revealed how deeply the public has absorbed the reality of Gaza, how far sympathy for Palestinians has spread beyond Arab or Muslim audiences, and how badly establishment media and politicians have underestimated this shift. When a Warner Brothers tentpole provokes hashtags like "#SupermanIsHamas," it is not because the film is agitprop—it's because the world now sees Gaza everywhere. Even Gunn's framing of Superman as "an immigrant" touched off fierce debate, with conservative pundits recoiling at the suggestion that a refugee from Krypton could embody the American immigrant story. But that, too, is part of the tension: if Superman is a refugee who stands up to bullies, who uses his power to shield the powerless, then what happens when audiences draw connections between that ethos and the very people being demonized by Western governments? The film doesn't just expose geopolitical parallels—it exposes cultural contradictions. America wants to believe in Superman's values, but recoils when those values are applied consistently, especially when they implicate allies like Israel. It wants to celebrate rebellion in fiction but criminalize resistance in reality. And it wants to embrace immigrants in theory while deporting, detaining, and defunding them in practice. That's why Superman matters—not because it offers a perfect analogy for Gaza, but because it unintentionally lays bare the moral hypocrisy at the heart of so much political discourse. The discomfort it generates is revealing. When people see children under fire and think immediately of Gaza, the problem isn't that the film is too political—it's that reality is too brutal to ignore. This isn't the first time a Hollywood film has echoed global struggles, and it won't be the last. But what's different now is the speed and intensity with which audiences connect the dots—and the growing unwillingness to let sanitized narratives obscure the truth. Even in the heart of a superhero spectacle, people are demanding moral clarity. In the end, Gunn may not have set out to make a film about Palestine. But the world saw Gaza in it anyway. And that, in itself, is a kind of justice. Faisal Kutty is a Toronto-based lawyer, law professor, and frequent contributor to The Toronto Star. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Business Insider
22 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Russia is pouring money into its war machine — but it's still struggling to create new, advanced systems
Russia is spending record amounts on defense. But it's falling behind in building the advanced, modern military it needs for future wars, according to a new report. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine triggered sweeping sanctions that not only damaged its ability to procure advanced technology but also weakened its military-scientific base, wrote Mathieu Boulègue, a consulting fellow in the Russia and Eurasia program at London-based Chatham House, in a report published on Monday. "This damage, in turn, affects the rate of military innovation and R&D. More importantly, it determines how the Kremlin will wage war in the future," wrote Boulègue, a specialist in Eurasian security and defense issues. Russia is set to spend 6.3% of its GDP on defense this year — a post-Cold War high. However, the country's military-industrial complex has been "degraded" by trade restrictions and the demands of wartime production, according to Boulègue. "Russia's ability to produce military hardware has been severely impacted, and its ability to innovate and adopt modern military technology constrained as a result of these challenges," he added. With sanctions cutting off access to critical imports, Russia has been left scrambling to replace advanced components with inferior stand-ins. As early as August 2022, Russian state-owned carrier Aeroflot began stripping spare parts from working aircraft due to sanctions-induced supply shortages. In October, Russia filmed its troops using a Soviet howitzer, showing its military stockpiles were under strain. Boulègue assessed that the state of Russia's military-industrial complex is one of regression, not progress. "Russia will likely have to simplify and slow its military production, accept reduced quality of outputs and manage a form of 'innovation stagnation' in its research and development," he wrote, referring to Russia's state armament programme from 2025 to 2034. As a result, Russia's pathway to military innovation is likely to remain incremental — built on small tweaks to old systems rather than genuine breakthroughs. "Innovation generally takes the form of integrating technological solutions directly into proven, older-generation systems — which in turn makes them 'modern,'" Boulègue wrote. Russia's military sector has adopted a "retain-and-adapt" approach because military production is no longer innovation-led. "In other words, Russia 'innovates' through 'smart adaptation' under technical and economical constraints that have a negative, cumulative effect at the tactical level," he added. In the short term, Russia's military-industrial complex will likely keep producing systems that are "good enough" to pose a clear and constant threat to Ukraine, NATO, and the West. But its long-term ability to compete with advanced military powers is eroding. The stresses on Russia's military-industry complex also mean the broader economy is under increasing strain, despite initial signs of wartime growth. "The war economy brings 'good' macroeconomic results, but is causing real-world problems such as increased inflation, decreasing wages and purchasing power, and a liquidity crisis in the banking sector," wrote Boulègue. Russia's economy has shown signs of fatigue recently. Manufacturing activity contracted sharply in June as weak demand and a strong ruble affected exports and jobs. Low oil prices are also hitting the country's all-important oil and gas sector. Meanwhile, a demographic crisis and competition for labor with the military are also hurting the economy in the long and short term.
Indianapolis Star
23 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Todd Young's political survival means never fully crossing Trump
Sen. Todd Young has been one of the most outspoken Republican critics of President Trump's tariff rollercoaster — within limits. "What I've been pushing for is more clarity so that our investors and businesses know when they can deploy capital and what return on investments they can project and all the rest of it," Young told NPR in April. Three months later, economic uncertainty reigns. Trump is still trying on new tariffs as casually as red ties and he's floating the idea of firing Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell over interest rates that are likely stuck in place because of the president's tariffs. Young's professed quest for clarity has stopped short of concrete action — even though he's the Republican senator you might most expect it from. Young opposed Trump's nomination for president, signed onto a bill to reassert congressional authority over tariffs and is a longtime advocate for congressional independence. Yet, when the Senate has taken up resolutions to push back against the president's tariff power, Young has voted with Trump. So far, Young's approach has turned out … fine. Tariffs are beginning to push prices up, but the overall effects have fallen far short of the worst-case scenarios that I and others have warned about. The economy's steady hum has justified Young's measured approach. Therein lies Young's tightrope act. He is balancing career aspirations against statesmanship, with no margin for error. He is betting on his own effectiveness, his reelection and America's resiliency under an erratic president. For Young to survive, all three elements must remain in equilibrium. Young's tolerance for the president's chaos is most maddening to Democrats and Never Trump Republicans who want to see Young use his power. Young is one of 53 Republican senators, a narrow majority that gives him an often consequential vote. He could pose a serious threat to Trump's agenda. He'd also be burning down his Senate career. Young almost certainly will face a Trump-friendly Republican primary challenge in 2028 when he'll make his case to Indiana voters who have overwhelmingly supported the president. MAGA Republicans will seize on Young's history of disloyalty, even though he has more recently positioned himself as a "team player" for Trump. With every Trump act that Young might oppose, the senator has to weigh the short-term efficacy of standing up to the president against the long-term gains he believes he can make as a behind-the-scenes policy grinder in the Senate. Young is focused on preserving and implementing the CHIPS and Science Act, a crucial Biden-era law to bring microchip manufacturing to the U.S. He wants to build more ships in America. He's warning that the U.S. is at risk of losing a biotechnology race with China and urging his colleagues to make it a higher priority. Briggs: Jim Banks would let Trump commit any crime you can imagine As I've written before, these are not the types of issues that land politicians on cable news, but it is the work that drives Young to keep going — presumably beyond 2028. "I'm motivated to try and get more big things done and inclined to keep trying to do that for a while," Young told me during a recent conversation. If Young directly challenges Trump on tariffs, or pretty much anything else, he could lose allies and become less productive on policy work. He'd also give fuel to Republican adversaries who'd like to further weaken his already damaged reelection prospects. If you view Young from outside the confines of MAGA, you can argue that principles should drive him toward courageous self-inflicted obsolescence. But you can just as easily argue that something would be lost if Young went down. Briggs: Mike Braun's tuition freeze for Indiana colleges is a marketing gimmick Young is navigating a political movement that has claimed the careers of so many other moderate Republicans. If he outlasts Trump, he could be the sole survivor in the tradition of former Sen. Richard Lugar. Young has sacrificed neither his conscience nor his influence. Would Young throw away his career, his future, to take a stand against Trump? What line would Trump have to cross? Young has maneuvered through six months of Trump's second term without showing his cards on those questions. Unlike so many other Republicans, Young remains upright, still keeping his balance.
