The conventional wisdom says that material and structural
constraints push small states into a more or less predictable
foreign and security policy. Georgia’s case shows that, together
with these limitations, the foreign policy of small states is also
influenced by the way the ruling elites perceive the smallness of
their state. This article explains why at different periods of time
Georgia demonstrated diverging and even contradictory foreign
policy behaviours, despite not achieving significant economic and
military strength or witnessing crucial systemic changes in its
security environment. I argue that the way ruling elites
interpreted smallness influenced their understanding of Georgia’s
foreign policy capacity and agency in the international system.
This in turn pushed Georgia into fundamentally different paths,
stretching from a passive and mostly reactive foreign policy to a
highly ambitious, uncompromising and hawkish one.