Cognac battles: Armenia, Georgia at odds over transit and quality checks  Experts discuss root causes

The so-called “cognac conflict” between Armenia and Georgia continues. The two countries have yet to reach a clear agreement, while the Armenian side accuses Tbilisi of ignoring the issue altogether.

Armenia claims that the Georgian authorities’ decision to inspect the quality of Armenian alcohol is driven by demands from the Russian side. Meanwhile, several Armenian media outlets report that Georgia has rejected a request from Armenia’s Minister of Economy to appoint a special representative to liaise between Georgian authorities and Armenian producers through the Georgian Embassy in Armenia.

So what is at the root of this “cognac conflict” between Armenia and Georgia—and who might be behind it? Caliber.Az posed these questions to Armenian and Georgian experts.

Thus, Georgian political analyst and expert Gia Kutchava noted that Russia has accumulated numerous complaints regarding the alcohol contained in Armenian cognac.

“Last year, the Russian side issued a statement claiming that nearly 90% of Armenian cognacs were unsafe, and half of them contained non-grape spirits.

Let us recall the words of Vladislav Reznik, president of the Russian ‘Anti-Counterfeit’ Association, who said that Russia and Georgia agreed on the need to create barriers against counterfeiting and fakes.

It is interesting why Armenia ignores this information, which actually provides answers to their questions — why and for what purpose,” the expert said.

At the same time, according to him, Georgia itself has no reason to block Armenian cognac exports to Russia for competitive purposes, if only because the annual export volume of Georgian cognac is only 1.5 million bottles, while Armenian exports amount to 20–25 million bottles. However, quality must be ensured.

“The point is that, by agreement between the Russian and Georgian sides, if counterfeit products, technical spirits, or anything else are found during the monitoring of the quality of transit cognac, then Georgia simply will not let it pass — the goods will not reach Russia,” Kutchava noted.

Regarding the Armenian authorities’ complaints about Georgia allegedly refusing to constructively address the issue, in his opinion, it is actually the Armenian side that lacks sound logic.

“They demand the appointment of a special representative to handle transit issues at the Georgian embassy in Yerevan. In my view, this is a somewhat absurd request, since the diplomatic mission already works to resolve many tasks and issues between the countries — so why create a separate position specifically for this problem? There are other structures for these matters. I believe Georgia should not act as some kind of arbiter or monitor the quality of Armenian products — that is the responsibility of Armenia and Russia; let Russia carry out those checks. Our job is to ensure transit and provide the necessary support for that process,” Kutchava emphasised.

In turn, Armenian political analyst and activist Ishkhan Verdyan considers the story of the difficulties arising in the transit of Armenian alcohol through Georgian territory to be a curious and multifaceted case. In fact, in his opinion, it touches upon several levels of the formation of a new world order, particularly in the South Caucasus.

“If we look at the issue strictly from a legal point of view, it is logical that the Georgian side has the right to demand inspections of any foreign products crossing its border. This is an exercise of Georgia’s sovereign rights, and in this case, it is primary. However, the logic of global trade and transport logistics shows that, in most cases, transit goods are not subjected to additional inspections by the transit country. This is convenient, fast, saves resources, and does not overload the country with unnecessary protocols and administrative procedures.

It is clear that at the heart of this issue is Georgia’s desire to promote its own wines and cognacs on the international market. I sincerely wish success to Georgian winemakers — may their quality wines be sold in Italy and France as well. But then a reasonable question arises: ‘How would Georgia itself perceive it if, say, Türkiye decided that all wine transit through the Bosporus and Dardanelles must undergo mandatory inspection?’” the political analyst asked.

In his view, this is a telling moment, demonstrating how vulnerable food and goods supply chains become when national interests begin to dominate over the logic of economic interaction.

“Be that as it may, Georgia certainly has the right to act as it sees fit. However, what is happening once again highlights the necessity for Armenia to diversify its logistics and trade routes, possibly including transit through Azerbaijan,” Verdyan concluded.