As long as France is in EU no other country on earth can import good wine. Cheap - probably, heavily controlled and in many cases partially owned by French or in some rare cases other European companies (like in Chilean or Argentinian cases). This market is rather hardcore and kinda monopolized in EU. Go ask anyone who knows wine market or works at a Georgian (or any ex-Soviet restaurant).
Georgian wine enjoyed this kind of monopoly in USSR so no surprise here. During that time wine from Moldova wine was an affordable great quality underdog.
What are you talking about, there are multiple wine-producing regions in the EU, and there is absolutely no problem finding Spanish, Italian or even German wine in any EU country. Even Georgian wines can be found, if you know what to look for
Seconding all of this. The food is truly fantastic, and the Georgian people are awesome, but the way they've let Putin slide in to just the right places is holding back the country.
I've never been so invested in a puppet show as the puppet theater in Tblisi.
I love Sakartvelo, but its ottoman/turkish food meets slavic food.. I can't think of a single dish (khachapuri/khinkali/etc).. that is from Georgia, that also doesnt exist in its neighboring countries in the middle east under a different name, russia/ukraine, and the balkans. Dont tell them that though, they don't like it! Its a total crossroads of a country
To be fair, this is true of all the Middle East. Döner, baklava kunefe, coffee, börek, etc. But the combination of common elements is still delicious, and every region has their own unique opinions about what makes a dish “correct”. I would easily believe the balkans (or any costly neighboring countries) are the same.
Yes, that's why it's great. They have the best of everything around and have imo perfected it. It's difficult to think of certain foods that are actually unique to any "country", tbh.
I doubt they will benefit from that integration much. But I'm pretty sure the way there will hurt. Georgia's economy is tied to Russia at the moment, and as you said Westerners are not exactly lining up to travel to Georgia and order its wine (Russians are).
The narrative "people want EU (aka freedom and democracy), but bad dictators won't let them" is a populist one. And EU has been using it like carrot and stick to steer Georgia away from Russia, disregarding the cost of it for Georgia. That time when EU declared Georgian elections illegitimate (with no actual basis provided) to me was a violation of Georgia's sovereignty.
Elections in Georgia are very competitive. I've heard that government was slowly putting pressure on media, but I don't remember anything major. Georgia could be the most democratic of ex-USSR except Baltics today.
I've been to Georgia 10 years ago and there were a lot of tourists from Germany and France. Both the buses with organized trips for retired people and youngsters renting AirBnbs for cheap.
The problem we faced was with the inconsistency in price/quality in restaurants and services. Some places are really cheap - a huge dinner for two in a "I want this, this and this and two bottles of wine" manner costed 25EUR, while a 15 minute transfer could cost 50EUR. This inconsistency is something that leaves a bad aftertaste for many tourists, who would otherwise want to go there again and again to enjoy the beautiful nature, food, wine. And the tap water is literally Evian. That was in Kutaisi.
If it wasn't for the sudden grab of power fueled by Russian money and the influx of people fleeing from Russia because of war, give Georgia another 10-20 years, and the living standards would rise dramatically. Similar to how it happened in early 2000s.
Let me guess, you think that Ukrainians also really want to be part of Russia and that they are just being manipulated by Westerners and that true Ukrainians wanna be part of Russian Empire? And that Russians are just liberating them.
Not sure where you got that. Sounds like trying to use tropes from a superficial Hollywood action movie in real life, not my thing.
I think that a Ukrainian in his sane mind would want to look at options he's dealt and pick the one that leads to most safety and prosperity to him and his family. At the same time the government ideologues are trying to indoctrinate him with nationalism to sacrifice it all for their goals. More or less the same for an average Russian in his sane mind.
I personally believe that 2014 (and not complying with Minsk 2) has set Ukraine on course that's much worse for the safety and prosperity of an average citizen (albeit better for the nationalist ideologues). Complying with Minsk 2 would give Russia a lot of control over Ukraine (pro-Russian East gets autonomy, but gets to vote on national elections), which would be bad for nationalists who are afraid (and rightfully so) of Ukraine's young statehood sink into oblivion. But would be alright for a citizen: no dramatic change, you keep gradually improving your life, no war, you don't die for nothing.
Do you think that it is meaningful to think about things being good or evil in a manner that is separate from what is "safe" or "prosperous"? If someone points a gun at you and demands all your money, the safe thing is to give it to them. Does that mean it's a good outcome for all?
> Elections in Georgia are very competitive. I've heard that government was slowly putting pressure on media, but I don't remember anything major.
The OCSE report on the 2024 election was that they were significantly biased[0]
> Reports of pressure on voters, particularly on public
sector employees, remained widespread in the campaign. This, coupled with extensive tracking of voters on election day, raised concerns about the ability of some voters to cast their vote without fear of
retribution. The legal framework provides an adequate basis for democratic elections, but recent frequent amendments marked a step backwards, raising concerns over its potential use for political gain.
Preparations for the elections were well-administered, including extensive voter education on the use of new voting technologies. A significant imbalance in financial resources and advantage of incumbency contributed to an already uneven playing field. The polarized media environment and instrumentalization of private outlets for political propaganda affected impartial news coverage, hindering voters’ ability to make an informed choice. Effectiveness of campaign finance oversight was undermined by limited enforcement, and concerns over the impartiality and political instrumentalization
of the oversight body.
And in 2025, OSCE again complained about the democratic limitations to protest[1]
> “Peaceful protesters in Georgia continue to be detained, sentenced, and fined for exercising their rights. The authorities have an obligation to implement their OSCE human rights commitments and international obligations, including respect for the right to peaceful assembly”, said Maria Telalian, ODIHR Director. “I would like to urge once again the Georgian authorities to ensure that civil society and human rights defenders are not targeted and that their voices are heard, as their work is crucial in fostering a vibrant democratic society.”
We can agree this is still a western-oriented view, but I think it's pretty undisputable that Georgia in 2026 is a less open society than Georgia in 2016.
I don't like using "western-oriented" as synonym for free/democratic/good, but otherwise I agree it's gotten worse. Your use of the word "backsliding", I think, was appropriate.
Are we talking about EU spokesperson calling Georgian elections illegitimate? If so, I believe your quotes show that there's no basis for that claim. The OSCE specifically says that, despite a bunch of concerns, Georgia's legal framework is "adequate". To me, that reads as "it passes the bar".
> The narrative "people want EU (aka freedom and democracy), but bad dictators won't let them" is a populist one.
Former eastern block members that are currently in the EU beg to differ.
It's no accident that there's such a developmental gap between those of the former communist states which turned to the west vs those who remained in Russia's sphere of influence.
> It's no accident that there's such a developmental gap between those of the former communist states which turned to the west
You've established a link between the two, but you've not shown which of the two is causing the other if any. Put aside your fatalist racist "Russia bad" for a moment and think. Maybe the reason is not that EU magically turns everything it touches into gold (while Russian orcs turn it to crap, obviously), but that EU is carefully choosing who joins and doesn't let the bad prospects in? EU countries are all close to each other, were already connected historically with logistics and culture, this reduces integration's overhead and makes it super beneficial.
Georgia, on the other hand, is surrounded by non-EU countries its cultural and economic ties have historically been outside of EU. Not all of Georgian population today is happy about EU. Georgia is super patriarchal and conservative, I won't be surprised if it's more anti-LGBT than Poland. Georgia exited USSR poorer and less industrialized than Eastern Europe, keep that in mind when you try to stretch your "Russia bad" to explain its trajectory.
> Former eastern block members that are currently in the EU beg to differ.
Also, mind that flirting with EU is not the same as entering it. Sometimes EU may use the prospect of someone entering it to gain leverage and cause instability to its rivals and sway its allies. To answer the quote: Ukraine begs to differ. Ukraine is much worse than it was before 2014, and is arguably much worse that it would have been without the 2014 revolution/coup if Yanukovich kept his course towards Russia. Almost any option would be better than what is now.
If it's that simple, why doesn't everyone "want in" and get those precious living standards? There must be a lot of stupid governments if they literally refuse free stuff. Or your statement is naive and overly simplistic. Guess which of the two is more likely?
Does Georgia "want in"? I'm not so sure what that means. The population has mixed feelings about it, as I understand from friends there. The current government who represents them doesn't want in.
> Just having access to the european free market
Again, do you think this just offers you free stuff? A marked doesn't just offer you "access", it assigns you a role you're going to be playing in it. And some roles are worse than the others, even if the marked is "good".
> Maybe the reason is not that EU magically turns everything it touches into gold (while Russian orcs turn it to crap, obviously), but that EU is carefully choosing who joins and doesn't let the bad prospects in?
The EU gives certain conditions and it's up to the elites in a given country to meet them, as that necessarily means reining in corruption - to an extent. Fortunately for me, the ones in my mine decided that this is the best course of action and we all benefited.
Also when you look at the examples of Greece or Orban's Hungary, occasionally a member will go off the rails. But again, it's the elites that let this happen.
Meanwhile corruption is an inherent feature of the Russian system, which is why doing business with them is broadly speaking a bad idea. Also it's a rather small economy producing largely low value products despite vast natural resources - there's no benefit in associating with them in this day and age. The cheap gas is not worth it.
> Also it's a rather small economy producing largely low value products despite vast natural resources - there's no benefit in associating with them in this day and age. The cheap gas is not worth it.
Why it's not worth it? I don't see how the quote would imply it. I don't see why they wouldn't encourage Russia to join EU too given what you wrote. In the worst case you'll get one more Hungary.
And if Russia is corrupt, you can still deal with them if you're ruled by foreign courts. Russia did comply with European Court of Human Rights IIRC right until the invasion. Something as minor as a politically partial court decision in Russia could be appealed in ECHR and Russia would pay a compensation to its citizen. If you're a business, I'm pretty sure you'll find a way to defend your interests in pre-2022 Russia.
It's terrible that people think like that, especially in Georgia where they are still not tied to the debt fueled pyramid scheme that is the EU.
They still think of Europe as how it was 20 years+ ago, they always only look at the surface and never if the whole concept really works out long term.
Russia is a tiny tiny economy built on corruption. Their whole economy is about selling energy. and right now their economy is failing. They're exporting less and less and less. They even have to import fuel because they can't produce enough for their own economy.
"They still think of Europe as how it was 20 years+ ago, they always only look at the surface and never if the whole concept really works out long term."
Poland today seems in a way better spot than in was 20 years ago, so it seems it worked out for them. Likewise all the other eastern EU members where I travelled around. As soon as I left EU territory, things looked way worse.
Oh, is the CIA at it again? brainwashing people to hate the good old Ruzzian empire and the tzar? If only those Georgians could travel to Ruzzia and Europe and make their own minds if they want to be like Ukraine and Belarus that sucked on Putin or they want to be like Poland or Romania ... /sarcasm
No idea dude why all this KGB attempts to pretend that Ruzzia is some kind of big nice brother to Georgia after they fucking invaded them and grabbed their lands , the big brother is a bit violent if he drinks too much and unfortunately he is always drunk on power and dreams of making the empire great again ?
No, there isn't. Caucasus is a place that exists now, and people who live there now have more basis to be called that. Some of them are White, some aren't. There's many ethnicities there, but they have a ton of cultural things on common. In the Russian-speaking parts of the world "Caucasian" refers to those cultural features, just like you may use the words "Asian" or "European".
You can only use Caucasian as white if you're completely uneducated about geography and unaware of life outside of US.
In Florida it wouldn’t be confusing to refer to someone from Hawaii as “Hawaiian,” but in Hawaii it means something much more specific about ancestry, and it’s considered rude and even offensive to misuse it.
In NYC they pronounce Oregon as “Ore-gone,” even though Oregonians pronounce it “Ore-gun.” In Portland, mispronunciation marks you as an ignorant outsider.
Every place has idiosyncratic misuses of terms that come from somewhere else. Of course you are correct about “Caucasian,” but wherever you are from, I’m sure you misuse some other term.
Labeling it as uneducated and unaware is a form of snobbery that you’re unlikely to be entitled to. None of us are.
We all have things we misuse, but I think those things may characterize us sometimes. For example, in Russian we often misuse the word Hindu to mean Indian. It may mean that the person is uneducated and maybe even unaware of the difference. A couple of my friends who've been to India or are nerds about other cultures, don't misuse the word, some even go around ranting about it.
I personally feel that the way Americans use "Caucasian" is a more blatant misuse than others, and maybe that's what made me react that way. Like what is exact idea one has to miss and be unaware of to use "Caucasian" for "white"? What adds to it is that, if I understand correctly, using "Caucasian" instead of "white" in English makes you sound more official and important. I guess I can see that it's being used due to legal tradition and that's hard to change.
No, Caucasian is a bogus term whose origin is in a misinterpretation of the Bible.
In the Genesis, humans were partitioned in descendants of Japheth, Ham and Shem, hence terms like Hamites and Semites.
However the meaning of this partition was completely other than its naive interpretation that was common during Medieval times and until recently.
This partition had absolutely nothing to do with race or with the languages spoken by people, which were pretty much irrelevant in the Antiquity. The partition was based purely on political dependence.
The descendants of Ham were the people politically dependent on Egypt and the descendants of Shem were the people dependent on Assyro-Babylonia.
An example of people closely related and who spoke a very similar language, but who were divided based on political allegiance is that the Phoenicians were counted as descendants of Ham, because they belonged to Egypt, while Hebrews were counted as descendants of Shem, because they belonged to Assyro-Babylonia.
Japheth refers to Caucasus and the descendants of Japheth were the people from Anatolia, where Indo-European kingdoms, like that of the Hittites, were dominant.
During Medieval times, this grouping of people from the Bible was completely misunderstood and it was believed that it refers to race, so it was believed that "descendants of Ham" refers to Africans and "descendants of Japheth", i.e. Caucasians, refers to "white" Europeans, hence the stupid name used in America of "Caucasian".
You got it the opposite way. basically some pseudoscientist thought that the schools of people from the Caucasus had the most beautiful skulls when they were dead. and since he was white he thought that this must be where all white people are coming from. So he claimed that white people are Caucasian. Even if this is of course not true that most Anglo-Saxon people are coming from the Caucasian mountains.
They're very proud of it too, but having spent time in Tbilisi (strong recommend!), there's a very simple reason you can buy French and Australian wine at your local shop, but nobody has bothered to make sure there's a good selection of Georgian wine there.
Germany and especially Austria produce some rather poor reds but have carved out a niche for Riesling and Gewürtztraminer. Is there a similar niche for Georgian wine?
I'm not who you asked, but the niche for Georgian wine is orange wine, which is white wine left to sit on the grape skins for a couple days, so it pulls more tannins. It's not exclusive to them alone, but the more distinct niche is orange wine aged in clay pots that gives it a distinct earthiness. If you appreciate understanding food anthropology, this is more similar to how wine was produced in ancient times, as opposed to a cabernet or modern varieties aged in oak or stainless steel.
You can usually find maybe one variety of orange wine in the US at larger wine stores with a substantial international selection.
You can also find orange (or skin contact) wine in the US at smaller boutique natural wine shops, which are becoming more common. Orange wines are cultivated in Sonoma and other wine regions in the US as well.
Georgia makes wine in its traditional style or 'european' style. Traditional style is where the crushed grapes including branches is stored in clay pots (called Qvevri) for fermentation and aging. This means Georgian wines often have a different colour and can be cloudy.
European is the style of how most wine is made in Europe
The most famous style is Saperavi which is a Red wine.
It's a pity the country has been democratically backsliding for a while, which has limited their hopes of tighter integration with the EU.
I've never been so invested in a puppet show as the puppet theater in Tblisi.
The narrative "people want EU (aka freedom and democracy), but bad dictators won't let them" is a populist one. And EU has been using it like carrot and stick to steer Georgia away from Russia, disregarding the cost of it for Georgia. That time when EU declared Georgian elections illegitimate (with no actual basis provided) to me was a violation of Georgia's sovereignty.
Elections in Georgia are very competitive. I've heard that government was slowly putting pressure on media, but I don't remember anything major. Georgia could be the most democratic of ex-USSR except Baltics today.
The problem we faced was with the inconsistency in price/quality in restaurants and services. Some places are really cheap - a huge dinner for two in a "I want this, this and this and two bottles of wine" manner costed 25EUR, while a 15 minute transfer could cost 50EUR. This inconsistency is something that leaves a bad aftertaste for many tourists, who would otherwise want to go there again and again to enjoy the beautiful nature, food, wine. And the tap water is literally Evian. That was in Kutaisi.
If it wasn't for the sudden grab of power fueled by Russian money and the influx of people fleeing from Russia because of war, give Georgia another 10-20 years, and the living standards would rise dramatically. Similar to how it happened in early 2000s.
I think that a Ukrainian in his sane mind would want to look at options he's dealt and pick the one that leads to most safety and prosperity to him and his family. At the same time the government ideologues are trying to indoctrinate him with nationalism to sacrifice it all for their goals. More or less the same for an average Russian in his sane mind.
I personally believe that 2014 (and not complying with Minsk 2) has set Ukraine on course that's much worse for the safety and prosperity of an average citizen (albeit better for the nationalist ideologues). Complying with Minsk 2 would give Russia a lot of control over Ukraine (pro-Russian East gets autonomy, but gets to vote on national elections), which would be bad for nationalists who are afraid (and rightfully so) of Ukraine's young statehood sink into oblivion. But would be alright for a citizen: no dramatic change, you keep gradually improving your life, no war, you don't die for nothing.
> Elections in Georgia are very competitive. I've heard that government was slowly putting pressure on media, but I don't remember anything major.
The OCSE report on the 2024 election was that they were significantly biased[0]
> Reports of pressure on voters, particularly on public sector employees, remained widespread in the campaign. This, coupled with extensive tracking of voters on election day, raised concerns about the ability of some voters to cast their vote without fear of retribution. The legal framework provides an adequate basis for democratic elections, but recent frequent amendments marked a step backwards, raising concerns over its potential use for political gain. Preparations for the elections were well-administered, including extensive voter education on the use of new voting technologies. A significant imbalance in financial resources and advantage of incumbency contributed to an already uneven playing field. The polarized media environment and instrumentalization of private outlets for political propaganda affected impartial news coverage, hindering voters’ ability to make an informed choice. Effectiveness of campaign finance oversight was undermined by limited enforcement, and concerns over the impartiality and political instrumentalization of the oversight body.
And in 2025, OSCE again complained about the democratic limitations to protest[1]
> “Peaceful protesters in Georgia continue to be detained, sentenced, and fined for exercising their rights. The authorities have an obligation to implement their OSCE human rights commitments and international obligations, including respect for the right to peaceful assembly”, said Maria Telalian, ODIHR Director. “I would like to urge once again the Georgian authorities to ensure that civil society and human rights defenders are not targeted and that their voices are heard, as their work is crucial in fostering a vibrant democratic society.”
We can agree this is still a western-oriented view, but I think it's pretty undisputable that Georgia in 2026 is a less open society than Georgia in 2016.
[0] https://www.osce.org/sites/default/files/f/documents/1/6/584...
[1] https://odihr.osce.org/odihr/598675
Are we talking about EU spokesperson calling Georgian elections illegitimate? If so, I believe your quotes show that there's no basis for that claim. The OSCE specifically says that, despite a bunch of concerns, Georgia's legal framework is "adequate". To me, that reads as "it passes the bar".
Former eastern block members that are currently in the EU beg to differ.
It's no accident that there's such a developmental gap between those of the former communist states which turned to the west vs those who remained in Russia's sphere of influence.
You can't meaningfully prosper with Russia.
You've established a link between the two, but you've not shown which of the two is causing the other if any. Put aside your fatalist racist "Russia bad" for a moment and think. Maybe the reason is not that EU magically turns everything it touches into gold (while Russian orcs turn it to crap, obviously), but that EU is carefully choosing who joins and doesn't let the bad prospects in? EU countries are all close to each other, were already connected historically with logistics and culture, this reduces integration's overhead and makes it super beneficial.
Georgia, on the other hand, is surrounded by non-EU countries its cultural and economic ties have historically been outside of EU. Not all of Georgian population today is happy about EU. Georgia is super patriarchal and conservative, I won't be surprised if it's more anti-LGBT than Poland. Georgia exited USSR poorer and less industrialized than Eastern Europe, keep that in mind when you try to stretch your "Russia bad" to explain its trajectory.
> Former eastern block members that are currently in the EU beg to differ.
Also, mind that flirting with EU is not the same as entering it. Sometimes EU may use the prospect of someone entering it to gain leverage and cause instability to its rivals and sway its allies. To answer the quote: Ukraine begs to differ. Ukraine is much worse than it was before 2014, and is arguably much worse that it would have been without the 2014 revolution/coup if Yanukovich kept his course towards Russia. Almost any option would be better than what is now.
Just having access to the european free market would do that, without considering the money that pours in from the eu to developing countries.
When Ukraine wins the war and joins, you'll see how much better they get, too.
Does Georgia "want in"? I'm not so sure what that means. The population has mixed feelings about it, as I understand from friends there. The current government who represents them doesn't want in.
> Just having access to the european free market
Again, do you think this just offers you free stuff? A marked doesn't just offer you "access", it assigns you a role you're going to be playing in it. And some roles are worse than the others, even if the marked is "good".
The EU gives certain conditions and it's up to the elites in a given country to meet them, as that necessarily means reining in corruption - to an extent. Fortunately for me, the ones in my mine decided that this is the best course of action and we all benefited.
Also when you look at the examples of Greece or Orban's Hungary, occasionally a member will go off the rails. But again, it's the elites that let this happen.
Meanwhile corruption is an inherent feature of the Russian system, which is why doing business with them is broadly speaking a bad idea. Also it's a rather small economy producing largely low value products despite vast natural resources - there's no benefit in associating with them in this day and age. The cheap gas is not worth it.
Why it's not worth it? I don't see how the quote would imply it. I don't see why they wouldn't encourage Russia to join EU too given what you wrote. In the worst case you'll get one more Hungary.
And if Russia is corrupt, you can still deal with them if you're ruled by foreign courts. Russia did comply with European Court of Human Rights IIRC right until the invasion. Something as minor as a politically partial court decision in Russia could be appealed in ECHR and Russia would pay a compensation to its citizen. If you're a business, I'm pretty sure you'll find a way to defend your interests in pre-2022 Russia.
They still think of Europe as how it was 20 years+ ago, they always only look at the surface and never if the whole concept really works out long term.
Poland today seems in a way better spot than in was 20 years ago, so it seems it worked out for them. Likewise all the other eastern EU members where I travelled around. As soon as I left EU territory, things looked way worse.
No idea dude why all this KGB attempts to pretend that Ruzzia is some kind of big nice brother to Georgia after they fucking invaded them and grabbed their lands , the big brother is a bit violent if he drinks too much and unfortunately he is always drunk on power and dreams of making the empire great again ?
It was basically all dark skinned people on the planet before then.
You can only use Caucasian as white if you're completely uneducated about geography and unaware of life outside of US.
In NYC they pronounce Oregon as “Ore-gone,” even though Oregonians pronounce it “Ore-gun.” In Portland, mispronunciation marks you as an ignorant outsider.
Every place has idiosyncratic misuses of terms that come from somewhere else. Of course you are correct about “Caucasian,” but wherever you are from, I’m sure you misuse some other term.
Labeling it as uneducated and unaware is a form of snobbery that you’re unlikely to be entitled to. None of us are.
We all have things we misuse, but I think those things may characterize us sometimes. For example, in Russian we often misuse the word Hindu to mean Indian. It may mean that the person is uneducated and maybe even unaware of the difference. A couple of my friends who've been to India or are nerds about other cultures, don't misuse the word, some even go around ranting about it.
I personally feel that the way Americans use "Caucasian" is a more blatant misuse than others, and maybe that's what made me react that way. Like what is exact idea one has to miss and be unaware of to use "Caucasian" for "white"? What adds to it is that, if I understand correctly, using "Caucasian" instead of "white" in English makes you sound more official and important. I guess I can see that it's being used due to legal tradition and that's hard to change.
In the Genesis, humans were partitioned in descendants of Japheth, Ham and Shem, hence terms like Hamites and Semites.
However the meaning of this partition was completely other than its naive interpretation that was common during Medieval times and until recently.
This partition had absolutely nothing to do with race or with the languages spoken by people, which were pretty much irrelevant in the Antiquity. The partition was based purely on political dependence.
The descendants of Ham were the people politically dependent on Egypt and the descendants of Shem were the people dependent on Assyro-Babylonia.
An example of people closely related and who spoke a very similar language, but who were divided based on political allegiance is that the Phoenicians were counted as descendants of Ham, because they belonged to Egypt, while Hebrews were counted as descendants of Shem, because they belonged to Assyro-Babylonia.
Japheth refers to Caucasus and the descendants of Japheth were the people from Anatolia, where Indo-European kingdoms, like that of the Hittites, were dominant.
During Medieval times, this grouping of people from the Bible was completely misunderstood and it was believed that it refers to race, so it was believed that "descendants of Ham" refers to Africans and "descendants of Japheth", i.e. Caucasians, refers to "white" Europeans, hence the stupid name used in America of "Caucasian".
You can usually find maybe one variety of orange wine in the US at larger wine stores with a substantial international selection.
You're missing out on some rather nice German reds. You can definitely find some excellent Spätburgunders out there.
European is the style of how most wine is made in Europe
The most famous style is Saperavi which is a Red wine.
Austrian reds are some of my favourites.
In London, Georgian orange wines are very popular and that seems to be what most people who are cursorily into wine would know them for here.