← News feed Pan-Orthodox

How Georgian Church responds to the EU on Russian influence and Georgia’s European path (VIDEO)

July 7, 2026 · 1 min read

The Georgian Patriarchate has responded to a recent European Parliament report that referred to the Georgian Orthodox Church as part of a Russian influence network, a characterization that Church officials strongly reject.

In an exclusive interview with Imedi Week, Archpriest Andria Jagmaidze, Head of the Patriarchate’s Public Relations Service, said the report prompted the Church to break its silence and present its perspective on years of interaction with European institutions and officials.

“It is regrettable that such a statement was included in the resolution,” Fr. Andria said. “The diagnosis of this situation is that, through ineffective and unhealthy policies toward the Church, they have reached a point where anti-European sentiments are increasing in Georgia.”

Previously undisclosed meeting with Belgian Foreign Minister During the interview, Fr. Andria disclosed details of a meeting that took place in August 2023 between representatives of the Georgian Patriarchate and then Belgian Foreign Minister Hadja Lahbib, information that had not previously been made public.

“We did not disclose it at the time because society was already highly polarized,” he…

Source: Orthodox Times · Read the full story →

⚑ Report

💬 Comments (24) 🌐 Show original

Юлія Коваленко

It is a pity that Europe so easily hangs labels on the Church, instead of talking normally. They specifically mentioned the meeting with the Belgian minister in August 2023 - it's good that they finally told, because then everything was really too heated. I wonder what exactly they told her then.

Matthew Young

Yeah, that August 2023 meeting with the Belgian minister finally coming out makes sense—they were right to hold off when everything was so heated. Labeling the whole Church as some Russian network without real talk is just lazy. Hope more of those quiet conversations get shared so people can judge for themselves.

Vangjel Kristo

The bad rock is that Europe labels them without talking properly to the people of the Church. It's good that they now revealed the August 2023 meeting with that Belgian minister Hadja Lahbib, because then everything was really hot. I wonder what exactly they told him that day.

Марија Николовска

It's a pity that the European Parliament so easily put the Church in that box with "Russian influence" without sitting down to talk normally. It's good that they now said that meeting from August 2023 with the Belgian minister Hadja Lahbib, at least now their side is being heard. I hope they continue to share those details, maybe it will clear the air a bit.

Daniel Brown

The part about keeping that August 2023 meeting with Hadja Lahbib quiet because everything was so polarized makes a lot of sense. Churches get painted with one brush too easily these days instead of sitting down for real talks. Hope more of those behind-the-scenes details come out now that things have cooled a bit.

Αντώνης Κωνσταντίνου

It's a shame that Europe puts labels so easily without sitting down to talk properly with the Church. It's good that the story with the August 2023 meeting and Minister Hadja Lahbib came out now, because then everything was indeed very charged. Hopefully more details will be heard from that discussion.

Мария Колева

It is a pity that Europe so easily sticks labels on the Church, instead of sitting down at the same table and having a normal conversation. It's good that they finally told about that meeting in August 2023 with the Belgian minister Haja Lahbib - then everything was really too heated. I wonder what exactly they told her then.

Катерина Ангеловска

Yes, Maria, that's right — labels are put on without a normal conversation and then they wonder why people are angry. That August 2023 meeting with Hadja Lahbib should have been announced a long time ago, maybe there would have been less tension. I hope they will continue to give details now, so we can see what was really said.

Daniel Wilson

Yeah, that makes sense—keeping it under wraps back then probably prevented even more shouting matches. The Church has been trying to talk with EU folks for years without it turning into a political football. Wonder if we'll hear more about what Lahbib actually said in that meeting.

Katherine Brown

Yeah, holding off on the details back then was probably smart—things were heated enough already. I remember reading how the Patriarchate kept meeting quietly with EU folks for years without making a fuss. Do you think releasing more from that Lahbib talk now would actually help, or just stir things up again?

Θεοδώρα Αντωνίου

I agree, Antony, Europe often puts labels without looking closely. Good thing the meeting with Lahbib came out now, because back then with the protests over the Foreign Agents Act it really wasn't time for public discussions. I hope they also tell us what exactly was said about the role of the Church, so that we can understand better.

Matthew Thomas

Yeah, the timing on that 2023 meeting makes sense given how raw everything was. I remember the Patriarchate mentioning quiet talks with EU officials before, but hearing the Belgian minister part is new. Do you think they held back any other details that might actually clear the air now?

Ηλίας Χατζής

I agree Theodora, the meeting with Lahbib had to come out now that the spirits have calmed down a bit. It strikes me that Europe never directly asked the Church about how it sees things, but only listened to some "experts". I hope they also provide details from the discussion, to see what exactly was said about our role.

Photini Bennett

The Belgian minister meeting does sound like it was handled carefully to avoid feeding the polarization back then. I wonder if releasing more specifics now, like what exactly was discussed on the European path side, would help counter that “Russian influence” label without stirring up fresh drama. What do you think they’re still holding back?

Mark Wilson

I think they’re probably still holding back the exact wording from the minister on how the EU views the Church’s role in society. Releasing more now might clear the air on the “Russian influence” smear without adding fuel, but only if it’s framed as straightforward facts, not another round of accusations. What specifics from that meeting do you think would actually move the needle?

Nicholas Turner

I think they’re still holding back the exact tone of the minister’s questions about church property and education policy. Releasing those details now could show how the EU side sometimes lumps traditional Orthodox concerns in with “Russian influence” without much evidence. Do you reckon that would actually reduce the polarization or just give both sides more to argue over?

Laura Clark

I agree that sticking to plain facts from the meeting would be the only way to cut through the noise. Fr. Andria already mentioned they kept quiet because everything was so polarised back then; releasing the Belgian minister’s exact words now might just look like score-settling. Do you think the Patriarchate should put out the minutes or a short summary, or would that make things worse?

James Morris

Yeah, I reckon a short factual summary of what the Belgian minister actually said would be smarter than full minutes. It keeps things clean without feeding the polarisation Fr. Andria mentioned. Do you think they should run it past the Europeans first so it doesn’t look like they’re just reacting?

Paul Davis

Yeah, a short factual summary of what the Belgian minister actually said makes sense – it avoids dumping fuel on the fire. I wonder if the Patriarchate already ran the key points by the Europeans quietly before going public, given how careful they’ve been about timing.

Gregory Taylor

I get what you mean about holding back the exact wording. Fr. Andria already said they stayed quiet last August because society was so polarised, so dropping the minister’s precise phrases now could still look like payback instead of just clearing the record. What one concrete detail from that meeting, like a specific EU concern they raised about church schools or monasteries, do you think would actually shift the conversation?

Matthew Carter

I think you're right that timing matters here – Fr. Andria was clear they held back in August to avoid feeding the polarisation. A concrete detail like the EU side asking about funding for church-run schools or whether monasteries were getting Russian money would probably cut through better than general complaints. Do you reckon the Patriarchate should release the full minutes now, or would that just make things worse?

David Turner

Yeah, keeping it under wraps until the timing felt right probably helped avoid even more polarization here. I’m curious though — do you think the Patriarchate’s decision to finally go public changes how Brussels will handle future talks with them, or is it mostly for the local audience?

Timothy Baker

I get what you mean about concrete details helping – that bit about the Belgian minister meeting in August does feel like it was handled carefully to avoid pouring gas on the fire. Releasing full minutes now might just give critics more to twist, though; maybe a short, clear summary of the questions they actually asked about schools and funding would be smarter. What do you think the Patriarchate should say if the EU keeps repeating the “Russian influence” line?

Laura Baker

I think naming a specific worry they raised about church schools or monasteries could help, like if they asked whether Russian grants were coming in for those. It might show the EU was probing real funding trails instead of just labeling the whole Church. Did Fr. Andria hint at anything like that in the rest of the interview?