We can draw the following solid conclusions from your statements and silence: you not only do not distance yourself from the war-oriented rhetoric, but you support and incite it yourself, you sympathize with Bakuriani revolutionary gathering and share the demand for the resignation of the government and the formation of a technical government, you confirm the interference in the independence of the judiciary, and moreover, you approve it, you confirm that you met with Bidzina Ivanishvili after February 24 and it is not difficult to guess what message you would have to convey to him - the fact that your protection was decided at the level of the spokesperson of the State Department gives us one additional piece of information that everything you do represents not your personal decisions, but it is America's current strategy towards Georgia, reads another open letter of Georgian Dream departees, Sozar Subari, Dimitri Khundadze and Mikheil Kavelashvili addressed to US Ambassador Kelly Degnan.

The joint letter states that true partners who respect friendly people, the state, its sovereignty and institutions do not behave like this.

"More than two weeks have passed since we addressed you with an open letter and several questions that are of particular interest to the Georgian society. However, unfortunately, none of our questions were answered.

We clarify once again that the purpose of us asking questions was not to attack the USA, but to protect its positive image and reputation. It was important for us that the Georgian society did not lose confidence in its strategic partner and did not even get to the level of suspicion that its goal is to return the National Movement to power and to make Georgia a second front in order to better deter Russian military aggression in Ukraine. We thought that in case of deepening of such doubts, the high trust of the society towards Western institutions, in strengthening of which the current government of Georgia makes a special contribution, would be severely damaged. Our main goal was to avoid undermining the public's trust in the USA and to prevent damage to the reputation of Western institutions. That is why we felt obliged to ask you some questions, to which we expected to receive clear answers instead of insults.

I remind you once again about the content of the mentioned questions:

1. We were wondering if you disagreed with the rhetoric of Georgian radicals, their foreign lobbyists and the highest-ranking representatives of the Ukrainian government, which was aimed at opening a second front in Georgia (we will no longer recall Gigauri, Lomjaria, Usupashvili, Margvelashvili, Chergoleishvili, Chiaberashvili, Mshvildadze, Sanaia, Podoluak one by one, the direct or indirect appeals and statements of Arestovych, Honcharenko, Danilov, Arakhamia, Kasianov, Ilves and others, which were aimed at maturing the idea of ​​war in Georgia; we will not recall the heaviest provocations related to the imposition of sanctions and the sending of volunteers; We will not recall Zelensky's recalling of the Ambassador due to non-imposition of sanctions and non-sending of volunteers). Madam Ambassador, you called the facts listed by us lies, however, all the statements we mentioned were made in public space and they were widely covered by the media. By not answering the question, you have left us with the only way to conclude that not only do you not distance yourself from the rhetoric of war, but it is your principled decision to encourage it. Your demonstrative meeting with Nino Lomjaria after the publication of our open letter is an unmist­akable proof of this. This logical conclusion of ours was confirmed by Lomjaria herself when she said that your meeting was aimed at openly stating your support for her. By meeting with Lomjaria, you openly told the Georgian society that between the non-imposition of sanctions by Georgia and the "fire of bombs" in Georgia, you too give priority to the fire of bombs in Georgia. Perhaps, tomorrow you will meet another one of your favorites, Eka Gigauri, who expressed what she had to say even more clearly and said, "Russia is losing the war in Ukraine, it does not have the resources to be there, so it cannot start military operations in all directions, and we must do everything to use this window of opportunity." Here we will recall that a couple of days ago you made a significant statement - "More than ever, it is important that now Georgia and Ukraine are united against Russian aggression". Against the backdrop of open support for the rhetoric of war, this phrase ultimately reinforces our belief that supporting a campaign by radicals is not an expression of your political subjectivism, but a premeditated plan;

2. Our next question was about Bakuriani meeting. We were wondering if you would distance yourself from this gathering, where the representatives of the radical opposition and related NGOs and media outlets were trained by Peter Ackerman, who came from America, to organize a revolution. We were also interested in whether you disagreed with the demand made later by the participants of the Bakuriani gathering for the resignation of the legitimately elected government and formation of the so-called technical government. Hearing the answer to this question was especially important for the public considering that most of the people who made this request from the stage are funded by the American taxpayer. However, we did not hear your answer to these questions, which we perceive as a proof that, unfortunately, you sympathized with Bakuriani gathering and supported the resignation of the government and the request to form a so-called technical government;

3. As you know, first by the TV stations belonging to the National ­Movement, and later by the judges, information was spread that: a) Judge Chkhikvadze was summoned by an employee of your Embassy; b) The employee of the Embassy requested a report on the Gvaramia case from judge Chkhikvadze on your behalf; c) At the end of the meeting, the employee of the Embassy informed the judge Chkhikvadze about his removal from the planned visit in a few days. We wondered if you would confirm this fact, which is, unequivocally, a gross violation of the Constitution of Georgia and the Vienna Convention and a gross violation of the independence of the court. It was desirable to hear from you a negative assessment of such a possible fact, which would strengthen the public's belief that none of the employees of the American Embassy will attempt to interfere with the independence of the court and introduce clan elements into the system in the future. However, you neither denied nor evaluated this fact, which finally strengthened our belief that the information spread first by the National ­Movement and then by the judges is true, and you want to present such a gross interference in the independence of the court as a norm;

4. Finally, we could not get an answer to the question whether you had a meeting with Bidzina Ivanishvili after the war in Ukraine. A negative answer to this question would shed light on many unanswered questions and dispel many doubts, among them, at least to some extent, it would dispel the doubt about the possible connection between the actions of the Swiss bank and the interest of Georgia's involvement in the war. However, leaving the question unanswered by you, on the contrary, finally confirms this suspicion.

To summarize, we can draw the following solid conclusions from your statements and silences: you are not distancing yourself from war-oriented rhetoric, but you are supporting and inciting it yourself. You sympathize with Bakuriani revolutionary assembly and share the demand for the resignation of the government and the formation of a technical government. You confirm the interference with the independence of the judiciary and you even approve of it. You met Bidzina Ivanishvili after February 24, and it is not difficult to guess what message you would have to convey to him.

Since you claim that you can actively intervene in Georgian politics and justice, naturally, you should also be aware of proper accountability to the Georgian society. However, instead of answering our legitimate questions, you chose to involve the State Department spokesperson in the matter. When you avoid the legitimate questions of parliamentarians elected by the Georgian people, prevent us from understanding the truth and want to silence us, this clearly shows your attitude towards the sovereign state. True partners who respect friendly people, the state, its sovereignty and institutions do not behave like this. In addition, the very fact that your protection was decided at the level of the spokesperson of the State Department gives us one additional piece of information - everything you do repseresnts not your personal decisions, but the current American strategy towards Georgia.

The same applies to the issue of the second front. Of course, the involvement of Georgia in the military conflict would be a serious help for Ukraine against Russia. We see that you supply Ukraine with weapons every day, and therefore neutralizing Russia's military advantage in Ukraine is a principled task for you. In addition, we understand that the second front would further undermine the image of Russia, which would keep European countries motivated to help the Ukrainian front. However, when such a goal drives you, you have to be brave and tell the Georgian people about it openly. Most importantly, you should give people a chance to choose and you should not try to convince or force their government behind their backs. We will also say that we have quite detailed information about what conversations were held in specific offices, however, we will refrain from disclosing the details of these conversations.

We also ask Bidzina Ivanishvili, since the American Ambassador did not answer the question about the meeting, to tell the public whether the meeting between her and Kelly Degnan took place after February 24, and if so, at whose initiative and what issues were discussed.

We keep hope that Georgia­n Dream will defend its positions until the end and will not get involved in such a war, which may have some advantages for global goals, but promises complete destruction of our country. However, in order not to allow even the slightest risk of events developing in a different scenario, we think that our maximum activity and telling the truth to the public is necessary, which we will take care of as much as possible in the future," reads the statement.