A Georgian MP from the People Power movement, Sozar Subari, criticized President Salome Zurabishvili after her parliamentary address, labeling much of her speech as a challenge to the nation rather than a call for reform. The remarks were highlighted by the television channel Imedi, amplifying the debate over the president’s recent rhetoric.
Subari described Zurabishvili’s address as hostile toward Georgia, arguing that it did not reflect the responsibilities of the presidency. He stressed that labeling the speech as critical fell short, insisting that it read more like the speech of a foreign agent than that of Georgia’s head of state.
In his view, the president’s recurrent assertions about constitutional norms constituted an act of hostility to the country. He warned that when a president travels abroad or meets international colleagues and publicly questions Georgia’s prospects for joining the European Union and securing candidate status, such statements amount to a hostile stance against the nation.
Zurabishvili, for her part, has accused the ruling Georgian Dream party of promoting anti-Western propaganda while fostering ties with Russia. She contends that the party’s strategy relies on provocations, including moves to restore air traffic with Russia and the arrival of a Russian cruise ship at Batumi, which she views as signals of influence from Moscow.
Earlier, the president proposed the creation of a single platform dedicated to outlining Georgia’s future within Europe. This initiative aimed to unify various stakeholders and present a clear path toward shared European integration goals, even as political debate continued over the best approach to relations with Western allies and neighboring powers.
The public discourse surrounding these developments illustrates the deep divisions in contemporary Georgian politics. Supporters of Zurabishvili argue that the presidency should push for closer alignment with European standards and institutions, while opponents contend that strong rhetoric is necessary to challenge what they see as concessions that could undermine national sovereignty. The exchange reflects ongoing debates about Georgia’s strategic orientation and the methods by which leadership communicates with both domestic audiences and international partners.