Having just been released from prison, I myself certainly did not recall Gilauri, about whose renewed interest in politics I had heard nothing. I found myself with Gilauri at his [Saakashvili’s] own initiative and through the mediation of a member of Saakashvili’s party and the figure most trusted by him at that time, one of the leaders of the “Coalition for Change,” Nika Gvaramia, writes on social media.

As Gvaramia states, “Saakashvili himself was one of the supporters of Gilauri’s figure entering the political field: he sent friends, both his own and Gilauri’s, and wrote letters.” According to Gvaramia, among those sent by Saakashvili are also his friends, and they were together with Gilauri.

“A choice had to be made for one subject, and Gilauri chose number 4. He could have chosen another. After all, UNM was even begging him: leave them alone, fund us and be our candidate for prime minister. Those who went there with these texts, as well as those sent by Saakashvili, will, I suspect, find it very difficult to deny this,” Gvaramia writes.

As for the accusations by the “National Movement” and Iago Khvichia’s “Girchi” that the Gilauri brothers funded the “Coalition for Change” with 40 million, according to Gvaramia, “the story of spending 40 million did not correspond to the truth; 10 million lari was spent, and among the funders Gilauri was only one of them and not the only one.”

“Since the joint (I would say, orchestrated) campaign of the governmental Girchi and the ‘National Movement’ has not ended, I will also speak a little more extensively. I will mainly touch on the issue that concerns the mythical 40 million of Gilauri directed against our coalition and me personally.

Today the ‘Kotsi’ Rakhviashvili himself said, and we already knew, that this governmental so-called opposition had meetings with Ivanishvili even when the country was collapsing outside, people were being poisoned, mercilessly beaten, their heads smashed, and thrown into prison. What he did not say, but we know, is that they also took money for blackening the protest and for the entire accompanying anti-opposition propaganda. Including and primarily in the blackening of our coalition and me personally. Ivanishvili ordered this, paid money for it, and they are carrying it out conscientiously.

This is neither new nor surprising from them. What is new, surprising and regrettable is that the ‘National Movement’ and especially several of its spokesmen turned out to be completely non-accidentally involved in all of this. UNM also has its own Iago-Khvichias.

Look at the broadcasts of the governmental propagandist Khvichia and count which party predominates among the oppositionists who come to him. From what I recall, only UNM sits with Iago, who curses the opposition and the protest, and they often curse other oppositionists in unison, especially and non-accidentally our coalition. This can also serve as one of the indicators for you.

The fact that the governmental ‘Girchi’ and Saakashvili had correspondence is also known. Both ‘Kotsi-Girchi’ says this and the ‘National Movement’ does not deny it.

What is particularly regrettable for me personally is that Saakashvili himself became very actively involved in this campaign, who knows perfectly well the story of Gilauri and also that the 40-million story is a fabricated lie and unimaginable absurdity. He knows because he himself was one of the supporters of Gilauri’s figure entering the political field: he sent friends, both his own and Gilauri’s, and according to my information, wrote letters. Among those sent by Saakashvili are also my friends, and we have been together with Gilauri. I suspect they will find it very difficult to deny this. Moreover, having just been released from prison, I myself certainly did not recall Gilauri, about whose renewed interest in politics I had heard nothing. I found myself with Gilauri at his own initiative and through the mediation of a member of Saakashvili’s party and the figure most trusted by him at that time.

Ultimately, it became clear that no one intended to unite around Saakashvili’s party, and sociological research also showed that unification would produce the opposite effect. The full unity of the opposition was excluded from the outset - neither ‘Lelo’ nor Gakharia’s party had even seriously considered this possibility under any circumstances. I think for completely understandable and logical reasons. As for the unification of the ‘Natsis’ and ‘former Natsis,’ all four leaders of our coalition excluded it from the beginning, and our parties were also unanimous in this. Especially because a large number of new, successful and interesting people appeared in the coalition who neither then nor ever intend to compete on the political stage under the label of ‘former Natsis.’ And this is entirely understandable and very correct.

Sociological research also showed that the Coalition ‘For Change’ would easily overcome the barrier and, with a good campaign, would show a better result than UNM (which ultimately happened). Without unification, these two parties would achieve a greater total result, and there was no sign that votes would be lost (and they were not lost, but were rewritten by Dream’s CEC).

Accordingly, a choice had to be made for one subject, and Gilauri chose number 4. He could have chosen another. After all, UNM was even begging him: leave them alone, fund us and be our candidate for prime minister. Those who went there with these texts, as well as those sent by Saakashvili, will, I suspect, find it very difficult to deny this.

Even if Gilauri had chosen UNM, we would certainly not have collapsed. It is a myth that without Gilauri we would not have been able to go to the elections and that we were dependent only on him. Yes, it would have been more difficult for us, yes, we would have had fewer opportunities, but we would certainly not have been at zero.

And yes, Gilauri would have been a good prime minister.

And yes, this was mutually beneficial political cooperation and agreement.

And yes, the coalition never hid this and it was said publicly many times and unambiguously.

And yes, parties should not operate in elections by selling seats or with secret funders, but with funds obtained through openly declared political cooperation.

And yes, 40 million in any currency, even 20 or even 10, is absolute nonsense and a lie. We spent 10 million lari, we did not hide this, and among the funders Gilauri was only one of them and certainly not the only one.

We told the Georgian voter completely openly and in detail what we were ready for and what we were not ready for in exchange for our funding. The voter knew exactly whom and what he was choosing by voting for us, and also what political price he would pay.

And yes, this is the correct formula (while Ivanishvili is climbing this country) and the problem is not in mutually beneficial and open cooperation, but in the selling of seats and other types of secret financial-political deals about which the voter knows nothing and, accordingly, is not informed about whom and what he is voting for, what political price he is paying.

That the campaign against us between ‘Kotsi-Girchi’ and UNM is coordinated, I personally have no doubt, and I rarely make mistakes in such matters, neither media analysis is difficult for me nor political processes.

And I am not at all concerned and do not attach importance to who encouraged whom, who how reached this immorality, who paid whom, who is acting directly on the orders of the ‘Kotsi’ and who is using the ‘Kotsi’s’ bought person for his own dirty interest, who is a direct secret agent of the ‘Kotsi’ and who is a situational ally.

The fact is that both UNM and Saakashvili know perfectly well that they are behaving immorally and spreading lies. They know and still do it. I am not interested whether it is to save a dying party, or at the price of some deal, or whether they have simply gone mad and fallen into madness without motivation. I do not intend to engage in divination on this. I see what they are doing and I see whose mill this is pouring water on - only Ivanishvili’s.

I never intended to speak on these issues and would not have started if I were not a witness to an anti-campaign that is both of astonishing moral degradation and of suspicious purpose.

I also do not know whether it was right that I remained silent until now. Whether it is right that I replaced my personal principles and established vision of how I should not behave, no matter what someone else dares, with undeservedly casting a shadow on the reputation of my teammates.

I also do not know whether my principled silence was worth the astonishment, nervousness and difficult but still asked questions of my children about what 40 million is being talked about.

In any case, I now considered that the time had come to say this and I know exactly that I do not intend to apologize. To no one.

I hope that when the time comes (sooner rather than later), Nika Gilauri himself will introduce more concreteness into this issue,” Nika Gvaramia writes.