The latest target is Tamaz Somkhishvili — a British citizen of Georgian origin who has been outspoken about Georgia’s European path and Moscow’s attempts to derail it.

In recent weeks, hostile Telegram channels seeded content portraying Mr Somkhishvili as a “wallet” and “mediator” of unrest. The same talking points then surfaced in an English-language article on a site trading on London’s name, packaged as investigative journalism but built on unattributed claims and circular sourcing. This is how reputations are laundered into controversy: rumour is dressed up as reporting, and the absence of evidence is filled with repetition.

Mr Somkhishvili is unequivocal. He condemns the campaign as disinformation, states that all of his actions have complied with the laws of the United Kingdom and Georgia and with the European Convention on Human Rights, and confirms that he will seek remedies in UK and European venues for defamation and harassment. This is not just about one businessman’s name. It is about whether malign actors can bend the anglophone information space to their will, and whether Britain’s legal standards still mean something when a reputational hit-job is routed through overseas propaganda mills.

The political context matters. Tbilisi’s ruling establishment has been drifting toward a Moscow-style governance model: “foreign agent” legislation, pressure on media, and the normalisation of smear as policy. Georgia’s friends have warned consistently that the price of this drift is paid in rights, transparency and, ultimately, sovereignty. The Kremlin remains the most destabilising force on the continent — not only with tanks and missiles, but with a permanent campaign to corrupt democratic debate and intimidate those who resist.

Міжнародні індекси підтверджують, що за останні два роки Грузію різко віднесло від демократії. Дослідники V-Demзнизили країну до рівня електоральної автократії, а FreedomHouse фіксує стійке деградування стандартів верховенства права і свободи ЗМІ. Це і є політичне середовище, де народжуються пропагандистські «замовлення» на дискредитацію неугодних.

This is precisely why the response must be both public and legal. Public — to expose the mechanics of the smear: the anonymous origin, the lack of verifiable evidence, the mirroring across platforms designed to create the illusion of independent confirmation. Legal — to enforce standards. English law sets a high bar for speech on matters of public interest, and rightly so; it also sets a clear threshold for defamatory falsehood that causes serious harm, and offers relief when a course of conduct crosses into harassment. Responsible journalism is protected. Fabricated narrative engineering is not.

There is a broader principle at stake. Mr Somkhishvili warns that the end-game of this campaign is to frighten Georgia back into a “Soviet” posture under the influence of a pro-Kremlin oligarchic network. Whether one agrees with his politics or not, the remedy to such allegations is sunlight and due process — not whisper campaigns and bots. If Britain cannot shield its own public square from coordinated foreign disinformation against a British citizen, then our democratic architecture has a bigger problem than a single contested article.

Кремль сьогодні – найбільша загроза людству не лише ракетами та танками, а й системною корупцією смислів. Він експортує автократичний стандарт – заміну закону пропагандою, правди інсинуацією, а інституцій – лояльними сітками впливу. Грузія – не виняток; просто тут лінія фронту проходить через інформаційне поле та суди. І тому відповідь має бути правовою та публічною одночасно.

 The Kremlin’s message machine thrives on passivity. The answer is assertive transparency: name the tactics, document the harm, and test the claims in courts that still care about facts. Mr Somkhishvili says he will do exactly that. He should — and the rest of us should pay attention.