Small State, Grand Strategy: Higher Education as a Pillar of National Security

Authors: Anuki Abashidze, Zaza Rukhadze

Introduction: Education as a Domain of Strategic Sovereignty

In an era defined by hybrid threats, information warfare, and global volatility, the architecture of national security can no longer be conceived solely in terms of military hardware and border defense. For small states-particularly those located in contested geopolitical regions-the foundations of resilience are also cognitive, cultural, and institutional.

Georgia, situated at the nexus of Russian revanchism, Western integration, and regional instability, exemplifies the challenges faced by post-imperial small states. Its vulnerabilities include territorial occupation, cyber aggression, demographic erosion, and strategic dependence on external actors. Within such a framework, higher education emerges not as a peripheral cultural good, but as a central instrument of civilizational defense and strategic continuity.

This blog advances a realist, conservative thesis: Georgia must integrate higher education into its national security doctrine. Drawing on comparative examples from Israel, Finland, Estonia, and South Korea, it argues for the reconceptualization of universities as strategic institutions tasked with preserving identity, producing leadership, and forecasting risk. Without such recalibration, Georgia risks ceding the long-term battle for sovereignty-not on its borders, but in its lecture halls.

1. From Economic Utility to Strategic Infrastructure

Mainstream policy frameworks often reduce higher education to an economic function-preparing human capital, driving innovation, and enhancing global competitiveness. While this is valid in larger or more stable polities, it is insufficient for small, strategically exposed nations.

In Georgia’s context, education must be seen not only as an economic sector but as strategic infrastructure, foundational to the country’s sovereignty, democratic endurance, and informational integrity.

This model is not theoretical-it finds precedent in countries like:

• Finland, where universities are embedded within the national “total defense” doctrine, fostering digital literacy, civic preparedness, and research aligned with national priorities (Mattila, 2020);

• Israel, where academic institutions cooperate with national security agencies to advance technological innovation, societal cohesion, and identity continuity (Avnon, 2020);

• Estonia, which integrated cybersecurity education into its post-2007 defense strategy, aligning universities with digital resilience efforts.

By contrast, Georgia’s higher education sector remains caught between neoliberal marketization and donor-driven standardization. Neither model addresses the deeper need for strategic alignment. Without sovereign educational planning, Georgia risks becoming intellectually dependent and strategically misaligned.

2. The National Security Landscape: The Role of Universities

Georgia’s contemporary security environment is shaped by a complex blend of conventional and hybrid threats:

• Unresolved territorial conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia;

• Cyber vulnerabilities and persistent foreign disinformation campaigns;

• Brain drain and declining youth retention;

• Institutional dependency on foreign donors, consultants, and rankings.

Universities, within this context, should serve as:

• Think tanks of strategic foresight;

• Incubators of leadership;

• Guardians of national narrative coherence.

Yet the current paradigm remains focused on short-term competitiveness, external validation, and procedural compliance. As Beridze (2021) notes, this produces fragmented academic ecosystems, unable to nurture informed, strategically aware leadership.

By contrast, Estonia’s response to cyber threats led to the institutionalization of cybersecurity education, e-governance studies, and strategic communications programs-all housed in university departments working closely with the state.

Georgia, facing similar threats, has not yet operationalized a comparable educational-security interface. This omission is not benign; it erodes preparedness and reduces long-term autonomy.

3. Strategic Functions of Universities in a Security-Conscious State

A realist approach to educational policy in Georgia entails the recognition of universities as strategic actors. Their core functions must be redefined in light of national security imperatives. These include:

• Intellectual Security

Universities must restore core curricula that develop analytical citizenship, constitutional literacy, and historical depth. The marginalization of Georgian constitutional thought, legal traditions, and philosophy is not merely a cultural loss-it is a security risk that opens space for cognitive asymmetries and value erosion.

• Leadership Incubation

Georgia must cultivate a generation of administrators, diplomats, analysts, and civic leaders whose training is rooted in national values and strategic awareness. Elite public service academies and governance schools should be anchored within major universities.

• Resilience Research

Higher education institutions should be empowered and resourced to conduct interdisciplinary research on:

• Disinformation and hybrid warfare.

• Demographic change and population policy.

• Strategic communications and state narrative building.

• Crisis forecasting and public response strategies.

South Korea’s academic involvement in pandemic management-where universities shaped testing, data analytics, and risk communication-demonstrates the feasibility of this model (Choi & Kim, 2021).

• Cultural Continuity

Higher education is central to the transmission of civilizational memory. This includes Georgian studies, regional languages, Orthodox and multicultural traditions, and classical literature. Without institutional support for these domains, identity continuity becomes unsustainable.

4. Policy Recommendations: Building Strategic Education Infrastructure

To realize this vision, the following structural reforms are proposed:

• National Strategic Education Council

An inter-ministerial body comprising educators, security experts, and policymakers, tasked with aligning education with national strategy. This council would guide curriculum development, approve academic partnerships, and set resilience research priorities.

• Flagship Programs in Strategic Disciplines

Georgia should launch dedicated degree programs and centers of excellence in:

• National security and defense policy.

• Regional and Black Sea diplomacy.

• Cybersecurity and digital governance.

• Constitutional theory and legal culture.

These programs must be housed in universities with long-term institutional stability and should be supported by state grants and recruitment pipelines into public service.

• Academic Sovereignty Safeguards

Georgia must audit foreign university partnerships, donor influence, and curriculum imports through a sovereignty filter. Legislation should protect universities from undue political pressure while ensuring alignment with national interests.

• National Academic Resilience Hubs

Modelled after Israel’s resilience centers, these hubs would coordinate among academia, government, and civil society to analyze threats, propose responses, and serve as strategic advisors.

• Service-Academia Integration

Voluntary national service schemes - linked to academic scholarships - can incentivize students to serve in public sectors such as defense, health, diplomacy, and education, reinforcing both civic ethos and national cohesion.

Conclusion: Security Begins in the Seminar Room

In the 21st century, a nation’s capacity to survive and thrive is determined not only by its defense budget or military alliances, but by the strategic depth of its knowledge systems. In Georgia, where security threats are as much informational and institutional as they are territorial, higher education is not an adjunct to state policy-it is a pillar of sovereignty.

To ignore this reality is to jeopardize national autonomy in the long term. But to embrace it is to position Georgia as a confident, resilient state-capable of defending not only its borders, but its civilizational integrity and future agency.

References

• Avnon, D. (2020). Democracy and the Political in Israeli Higher Education. Israel Affairs, 26(1), 101–118.

• Beridze, T. (2021). Academic Dependency in Post-Soviet Georgia. Caucasus Journal of Social Sciences.

• Choi, Y., & Kim, J. (2021). Higher Education’s Role in South Korea’s Pandemic Response. Policy and Society, 40(3), 456–472.

• Mattila, P. (2020). Education for National Resilience: The Finnish Strategy. Journal of Strategic Studies, 43(6-7), 1021–1043.