As society may know, after the publication of a letter by Bidzina Ivanishvili, the US Ambassador, Mme. Kelly Degnan had to change her position into the formulation that we initially were sure of. According to our logic, we were sure about the meeting of the Ambassador with Bidzina Ivanishvili after February 24 and now we have a clear answer to our question.

However, the latest vague statements of the Ambassador even further bolstered our grounded assumption that the hereof meeting was purposed to lead to certain outcomes from Bidzina Ivanishvili. If earlier the Ambassador was evading to give a clearer answer to our question about the meeting, now, she speaks about the context of this meeting with vague phrases. However, it is crystal clear that this meeting never served for the “USA-Georgia strategic partnership and support to democratic development”.

Besides, as the Ambassador urged, it was the first meeting, which is impossible to believe in. When the Ambassador meets with the former Prime Minister for three hours, it can never be considered as a personal meeting. Hence, the statement of the Ambassador about the “personal meeting” even further deepens our doubts that she has something to conceal. We are not naïve not to realize that no personal meeting would have been held based on the demand of the Ambassador a month after the war started.

Mme. Degnan also stated that she has never blackmailed Bidzina Ivanishvili. However, I personally strongly believe that the Ambassador at the meeting with Bidzina Ivanishvili would abstain from directly demanding the engagement of Georgia in the war with Russia. Diplomacy has an unwritten law that such demands shall be raised in an indirect form and when the Ambassador declares that she has never blackmailed Ivanishvili, these are void words similar to her statement that it has been “ages” since she last met Ivanishvili.
Blackmailing Ivanishvili can be a similar so-called perception for the Ambassador as duress on the Judge. As society is well aware, Mme. Degnan admitted the summon of Judge Chkhikvadze by the officer of the Embassy to report on a certain case, and his ban from the visit to the USA by noting that it was not duress on the Judge. She might use the same method of not blackmailing Ivanishvili as not coercing the Judge.

The duress on Ivanishvili could have been expressed in various forms, for instance, if Mme. Degnan expressed her discontent with the position of the Government concerning the war at the meeting with Ivanishvili and by indicating to this discontent, started to urge Ivanishvili to return to the authority, then everyone will agree that it was clear blackmail. And if it is further exaggerated with the fact that the Ambassador was pushing Ivanishvili to impose the sanctions on Russia, it gives as a complete logical chain of the blackmail leading to the war.

Naturally, Ivanishvili never needed direct blackmail from the Ambassador. When the Ambassador met Ivanishvili, the latter was already under grave blackmail – his money transfers have been terminated, as well as he was banned from removing the pictures from New York and London and inquiring his helicopter from Germany, which was widely broadcasted by the printed media. Under such circumstances, not blackmailing Ivanishvili is as true as the annulment of the visit to the USA of the Judge based on “routine grounds”.

Let me reiterate that diplomacy has its restrictions and the Ambassador could not demand the engagement in the war from Ivanishvili in the open form especially since the meeting was presumably held at Ivanishvili’s. However, the expression of discontent with the position of the Government concerning the war, the demand from Ivanishvili to return to authority and the urge to impose sanctions on Russia would constitute a logical basis sufficient for Ivanishvili to perceive the conversation as blackmail and it can be clearly read from the letter of Ivanishvili.

Hence, I would like to ask Mme. Degnan:
1. Has she expressed discontent at the meeting with Ivanishvili about the position of the Government concerning the war;
2. Has she, based on this discontent, demanded from Ivanishvili to return to the authority;
3. Has she demanded from Ivanishvili to impose the sanctions on Russia.

The answer to these questions will give our society a clear picture about the attempts of the Ambassador to blackmail Ivanishvili to force him to get engaged in the war. If the Ambassador had a conversation with Ivanishvili against the background of actual sanctions, it may serve as evidence of the blackmail.

Once again, to prevent the Ambassador from accusing me of the speculations, I reiterate that I do not protect the finances of Ivanishvili but want to know whether these finances are used for blackmail against our national interests.