The process of democratisation in Georgia has its obstacles, mostly connected with cultural and socio-economic aspects. Political challenges are interlinked with societal attitudes and vice versa. The historical role of the Orthodox Church in preserving Georgian national identity throughout the centuries is over-compensated for, with frequent clerical involvements in public life. Non-democratic governments have made no effort to finalise the process of transition and for two decades the state has remained in the grey zone between consolidation and autocracy. 2012 was marked as a year for the new hopes of Georgian democracy, a new government was elected via free and fair elections, but democracy needs conditions to endure and this paper examines those conditions.

The conflict, which took place between the Ossetian and Ingush ethnic groups, had severe political consequences. The process of reconciliation has been ongoing for over two decades, but the results are still questionable. The Russian federation played a decisive role in the processes. The authorities of the Russian Federation mistreated the Ingush and supported the Ossetians; this condition encouraged the conflict and served as an obstacle in mediating the dialogue. The article examines the scale and effectiveness of intergovernmental agreements by analyzing the relations between the Ossetian, Ingushetian and Russian authorities. The research proposes a general set of political factors that have been shaping the societal attitudes of the conflicting parties. The work attempted to some key reasons which determined the Kremlin’s position(s) in the conflict and reconciliation.

Russia has always been active militarily; however, the current regime attempts to combine hard power with soft power tools. Russian-Georgian relations are wrought with tensions and clashes. The Western-oriented foreign policy of the latter causes worries in the Kremlin. Although the Russian federation has a strong standing in the Caucasus region, prominently due to its military presence there, the smart power policy is enacted to gain long lasting legitimacy. The mediums, such as pro-Russian non-governmental organizations, cultural intelligentsia and the Church clergy, promote the notion of a common culture and shared values. This promotion is usually accompanied by negative narratives directed towards the liberal West.