The streets of Tbilisi have been filled with flags. Under the glow of torches, thousands of Georgians, mostly young people, have gathered on Rustaveli Avenue. Their chants are not just against a draft law; they are a protest against what they see as a crucial choice for their nation's future. The focus of their anger is the "Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence." Despite its harmless title, this legislation has stirred deep geopolitical fears in the country. The bill, which is supported by the ruling Georgian Dream party, requires non-governmental organizations and media outlets that get over 20% of their funding from abroad to register as "agents of foreign influence." The similarities to the Russian law used to suppress dissent are clear and at the heart of the controversy. To grasp the significance of this reaction, we need to look beyond the law itself and into the fabric of Georgia's national identity. Georgia bears a painful scar: 20% of its internationally recognized territory has been occupied by Russia since the 2008 war. The memories of that conflict and the ongoing threat from Russia shape the country's politics today. Thus, any action that seems to bring Georgia closer to Moscow is met with strong opposition from many citizens. A 2023 report by the National Democratic Institute (NDI) found that support for European integration in Georgia remains consistently over 80%, one of the highest rates among EU-associated countries. The Georgian Dream government claims to support this goal, but its actions often suggest otherwise. Critics of the law argue it is a repressive tool disguised as transparency. The label "agent of foreign influence" carries a strong negative connotation, associated with spying and betrayal, especially in post-Soviet countries. Civil society groups engaged in election monitoring, anti-corruption efforts, and human rights worry that once labeled, they will face smear campaigns and lose public trust. This would financially and operationally choke the independent sector, which relies heavily on grants from Western sources. A 2022 study by Transparency International Georgia had already noted a shrinking civic space in Georgia, pointing to political divisions and verbal attacks from officials against journalists and activists. Therefore, this law is seen as a continuation of that trend. The international reaction was quick and firm. The EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Josep Borrell, issued a statement saying that the adoption of this law could harm Georgia's EU aspirations. This statement is a subtle yet clear warning. Georgia received candidate status for the European Union in December 2023, a historic moment celebrated in the same streets now filled with protests. European diplomats, speaking off the record to agencies like Reuters, argue that the passage of this law directly contradicts the EU's core values, which include a vibrant and free civil society. Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department expressed "deep concern," highlighting that Washington is one of the largest supporters of democracy and development in Georgia. The Georgian Dream government now stands at a risky crossroads, caught between a population demanding European alignment and internal political pressures — some believe influenced by Moscow — pulling it in the opposite direction. The current crisis goes beyond a legal debate; it reflects a deep divide in Georgia's political identity, a fight for the hearts and minds of its citizens between two sharply opposing views on sovereignty and security. On one side are the government and its supporters. They present the law as an essential tool for national sovereignty, aimed at exposing hidden influences in the nation's political and social life. Billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, the founder of Georgian Dream and often regarded as the powerful figure behind the party, rarely appears in public. Yet, his concept of "soft sovereigntism" informs the government's actions. This perspective argues that Georgia should maintain a balanced stance, avoiding unnecessary provocation of Russia while seeking economic connections with the West. From this viewpoint, Western-funded NGOs are not seen as champions of democracy; rather, they are viewed as threats promoting a liberal agenda that undermines traditional Georgian values and the nation's autonomy. On the other side, the protesters and united opposition argue that this rhetoric cloaks an authoritarian agenda. They highlight that the law closely resembles the Russian legislation from 2012, which Vladimir Putin used to dismantle organized opposition. A detailed 2023 report by the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), titled "The Kremlin's Playbook in Georgia," draws connections between the anti-liberal narratives used by the Georgian government and the Kremlin's themes of defending traditional values against a declining West. The protests, therefore, are not only for Europe; they also stand firmly against a future resembling the Russian governance model. The young people in Tbilisi's streets, many of whom were children during the 2008 war, do not share the Soviet nostalgia of older generations. Their identity is strongly European, and they see the law as a betrayal of their future. The battle is also intensely fought in the media landscape. Government-aligned outlets depict the protesters as foreign-funded "coup-mongers," playing on the established narrative about George Soros, and as radicals disconnected from reality. In contrast, social media and independent media platforms showcase activists documenting police repression as it happens and craft a narrative of peaceful civil resistance. Coverage by Civil.ge, a respected English-language news service funded by international grants, has been vital in informing the world about these events, highlighting exactly the kind of journalism the new law aims to label as a "foreign agent." The outcome of this crisis is highly unpredictable. The government, with its parliamentary majority, could pass the law in its subsequent readings, disregarding the protests. However, the political costs could be severe. The streets could become more radicalized, and the Western response might escalate beyond mere statements, potentially including the suspension of financial aid or, even more symbolically damaging, freezing the EU accession process. Georgian Dream seems to be banking on the appeal of "sovereigntism" and public fatigue with instability overshadowing the emotional allure of European integration. Meanwhile, the protesters are counting on their determination and numbers to compel the government to back down, just as in 2023 when widespread protests forced a similar bill's withdrawal. Ultimately, the streets of Tbilisi reflect more than just a protest; they illustrate a new cold war, where battles for influence are fought not with weapons, but with laws, and where a nation's identity is at stake with every shout, every placard, and every vote in parliament. Faced with a troubled past under the Kremlin's shadow and a bright future symbolized by the blue emblem of Europe, one must wonder: can a nation truly choose its fate if the voices of its own civil society are muted in the name of sovereignty?