Garry Kasparov's Blog, page 20

Putin tightens grip on Russian dissent behind a new Iron Curtain | PBS | April 15, 2022

In invading Ukraine, Vladimir Putin’s “biggest mistake was he underestimated, as every dictator before him, the will of free people,” @Kasparov63 tells @nickschifrin. https://t.co/uF0MQgTTUr pic.twitter.com/HvI8RUV3eI

— PBS NewsHour (@NewsHour) April 15, 2022

You can watch the original interview at PBS.

By Nick Schifrin

“Since the invasion of Ukraine the Kremlin has further stifled what little freedom Russians had to criticize the government. Garry Kasparov, prominent Russian opposition figure, a chess grandmaster, former world champion and now chairman of the Renew Democracy Initiative, which promotes democracy in the U.S. and abroad, joins Nick Schifrin to discuss.

Read the Full Transcript

Judy Woodruff:

Since the invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin has further stifled what little freedom Russians had to criticize the government.

Under Russian law, describing the war in Ukraine as war can lead to 15 years in prison, and Russia recently forced international organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to close their operations in the country.

Nick Schifrin takes a deeper look at the suppression of dissent.

Nick Schifrin:

Behind a new Iron Curtain that Vladimir Putin seems determined to build, there appears to be no irony. After a woman held up a poster that literally said “Two words,” she was detained by seven officers in riot gear.

This man arrested for holding up a blank piece of paper. On Sunday, police detained Konstantin Goldman for holding Tolstoy’s “War and peace,” or as it would be called under new rules, “Special Military Operation and Peace.”

And, last week, Nobel laureate Dmitry Muratov, editor of one of Russia’s few remaining independent newspapers, was attacked with red paint. Since the invasion, independent human rights activists say police have arrested more than 15,000 people for criticizing the war.

This week, they detained prominent opposition politician Vladimir Kara-Murza. He’s long oppose Putin and accuses the Kremlin of poisoning him twice. In 2017, we interviewed him and his wife, Evgenia, in the U.S. as he recovered from the second attack.

Vladimir Kara-Murza, Russian Opposition Politician:

I felt just life slowly going out of the whole body. And I remember that distinct feeling: Well, this is it. This is the end. Now I’m going to die.

Evgenia Kara-Murza, Wife of Vladimir Kara-Murza: It is terrifying. I’m not going to lie to you. But I want him to continue to do what he thinks is important, what he thinks is right.

Nick Schifrin:

The West has punished Putin with unprecedented sanctions and cut off access to American technology.

This week, he admitted the sanctions have stymied Russia’s vital energy industry. But on a Tuesday visit to a space center in Russia’s far east, he claimed the sanctions also create Russia unity.

Vladimir Putin, Russian President (through translator):

They wanted very much that everything that is happening would impact domestic political processes in Russia. They always make that kind of mistake, without understanding that, when faced with difficult conditions, Russian people always unite.

Nick Schifrin:

Putin has been preparing for this moment for years, building up reserves, destroying the opposition, silencing critical media.

Director of Central Intelligence Bill Burns, the former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, yesterday said Putin and his insular advisers are driven by imperial dreams and revenge.

William Burns, CIA Director:

Putin has stewed in a combustible combination of grievance and ambition and insecurity. An apostle of payback, his risk appetite has grown as his grip on Russia has tightened. His circle of advisers has narrowed, and, in that small circle, it has never been career-enhancing to question his judgment or his stubborn, almost mystical belief that his destiny is to restore Russia’s sphere of influence.

Nick Schifrin:

To talk about Putin’s motivations and his restriction free speech, I’m joined by Garry Kasparov, a prominent opposition figure, former world chess champion and chairman of the Renew Democracy Initiative, which promotes democracy in the U.S. and abroad.

Garry Kasparov, welcome to the “NewsHour.”

The independent Levada Center says that, since the invasion, Putin’s popularity has grown to 81 percent. Do you think that’s an accurate reflection of Russian opinion?

Garry Kasparov, Chairman, The Human Rights Foundation:

I don’t know. And nobody knows.

Poll means that you make a phone call to someone who most likely will not be happy to answer. So, I bet you that probably 90 percent immediately hang up, and the remaining 10 percent do whatever they think is safe for them.

There is a genetic memory for people who were born and raised in the country controlled by KGB. Now, with KGB back in power, with Putin’s ruthless dictatorship, I doubt that we will ever hear what people think by being asked by the stranger.

Nick Schifrin:

Because, of course, it is illegal for them to criticize Putin, even when a pollster calls.

Garry Kasparov:

Yes.

Nick Schifrin:

Fifteen thousand, as — as — 15,000 detentions. As we talked about, international organizations, the few independent media outlets that used to be open have now been closed.

How unprecedented, in your opinion, is this crackdown, even for Putin?

Garry Kasparov:

I don’t think he has much of a choice, because they have to hide the truth about war in Ukraine.

It didn’t go Putin’s way. He failed to take over Kyiv in three or four days and to have a military parade on Khreshchatyk, the center of Kyiv. And now, with the mounting losses, it’s probably about 20,000 Russian soldiers killed in action. I would probably say four times this amount is wounded.

With massive losses of Russian heavy armor and now the Russian flagship in the Black Sea, he has to hide the truth. He’s desperately trying to win the war. And he doesn’t want Russians to receive any objective information. That’s why he’s trying to close every hole in the information space that he can.

Nick Schifrin:

And, as you say, Russians are not receiving that truth that you just mentioned. Russian TV says that the West or Ukraine started this war. It says that there are no civilian casualties.

Today, Alexey Navalny’s organization called on the West to invest millions in online advertisements inside Russia to try and get that truth into Russia. How do you think the truth can be delivered to Russians inside Russia?

Garry Kasparov:

I wish it can be done, but it’s not easy, because they simply block one app after another.

But propaganda is the most important, Putin’s weapon. He increased the spending on military and security apparatus by 20 percent from the beginning of the war, and he added billions and billions of dollars for propaganda machine.

So far, propaganda is the number one weapon Putin has been using to protect his power. So, that’s why I agree with Navalny’s team analysis that investing in propaganda can help us to offset Putin’s poisonous influence.

Nick Schifrin:

As we just heard, Bill Burns, director of central intelligence and, of course, the former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, said that hubris and isolation led to Putin’s decision to invade.

What do you think led to Putin’s decision to invade and his continuing to pursue this war and its goals?

Garry Kasparov:

I would add to this list impunity, two decades of impunity, of no consequences.

Vladimir Putin has a long record of war crimes, beginning with the Second Chechen war in Grozny in year 2000. And the list is simply too long. And I think he believed that he could get away with this invasion of Ukraine same way he get away with annexation of Crimea or carpet-bombing of Syrian cities.

He made a mistake. And his biggest mistake was he underestimated, as every dictator before him, the will of free people, the Ukrainians that are fighting like heroes, fighting like hell, and inflicting heavy damages on Russian occupation forces.

And the free world now understand that we have to help them, not just to survive, but to win this war.

Nick Schifrin:

The U.S. estimates that more than 200,000 Russians have left the country since the beginning of this war. What’s the impact of that brain drain?

Garry Kasparov:

I think the number actually is much bigger.

So, I would say that the number may be close soon to a million. Everybody’s trying to leave. And it’s the best the country can offer. We had brain drain, by the way, even before the war, if you look at the numbers, from Putin’s return to power, official return to power in 2012. So the numbers kept growing.

And in the year to 2020, we had more than half-a-million leaving. Now these numbers could be staggering. And that means that Russia will be a pariah and will be pushed back to a technological Stone Age. But we all hope that, with Ukraine winning the war and Putin regime crumbling as a result of that, we all hope that we can return, come back and rebuild our country.

Nick Schifrin:

On the flip side, though, we have seen students turn in their own teachers, for example, for questioning the war

In about the 45 seconds that we have left, Garry Kasparov, is Putin right. Are there some Russians, are there many Russians who are indeed rallying around the flag?

Garry Kasparov:

Yes, I’m sure.

I would say 25 to 30 percent definitely are rallying behind the flag. I would say 20 percent at least are just against the war, and 50 percent are in the middle. That’s normal. You always have people that can buy this propaganda. And they want — they want to get an advantage out of the government crackdown.

Nick Schifrin:

Garry Kasparov, thank you very much.

Garry Kasparov:

Thank you for inviting me.”

Stand with Ukraine in the Fight against Evil | TED | April 12, 2022

When I retired from chess in 2005 to form the anti-Putin opposition, many said, “Garry, this is not chess! Politics is not black and white!” Putin’s war on Ukraine is not chess, it’s true. But it is black and white, good vs evil. My TED Talk: https://t.co/o6v7UrpEB8

— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) April 12, 2022

You can watch the original recording at TED.

“Ukraine is on the front line of a war between freedom and tyranny, says chess grandmaster and human rights advocate Garry Kasparov. In this blistering call to action, he traces Vladimir Putin’s rise to power and details his own path from chess world champion to pro-democracy activist in Russia. His message is a challenge to global leaders to rise in support of Ukraine — and to choose life and love over death and hatred. “The price of stopping a dictator always goes up with every delay and every hesitation,” he says. “Meeting evil halfway is still a victory for evil.””

Garry Kasparov on Putin and the ‘Virus of Imperialism’ | WSJ Free Expression | April 11, 2022

Listen to the podcast episode at Free Expression.

This article is a reprint. You can read the original at the Wall Street Journal.

“This transcript was prepared by a transcription service. This version may not be in its final form and may be updated.

Speaker 1: From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Free Expression, with Gerry Baker.

Gerry Baker: Hello, and welcome to another episode of Free Expression with me, Gerry Baker, from the Wall Street Journal editorial page. We are delighted that you’re listening to this podcast. If you enjoy it, please be sure to subscribe at Apple Podcast or wherever you listen to your podcast, and please also be kind enough to leave us a favorable review. Now at the journal’s editorial page, we believe strongly in free expression. And so each week on this podcast, we explore in depth and candor with the help of a leading commentator, a major issue of topical importance, events of historical significance, which is something that we find fascinating. This week as the war in Ukraine rages on, I’m very pleased to be joined by Garry Kasparov. Gary was born and raised in the Soviet Union and of course is a former world chess champion, and one of the most recognized chess grand masters in the world. But in recent years, he’s been an outspoken commentator and a strong proponent of liberal democracy. He’s been a particular fierce opponent of Vladimir Putin, and he left Russia a decade ago and lives in New York now. In 2015, he published a book called Winter Is Coming, in what now looks a remarkably prescient warning that Putin would take advantage of the appeasement he was facing from the West to expand Russia’s global power by force if he wasn’t stopped, and seven years later here we are with Vladimir Putin invading Ukraine. Garry Kasparov, thank you very much indeed for joining us.

Garry Kasparov: Thank you very much for inviting me.

Gerry Baker: So you were indeed right. A lot of people were skeptical and indeed the whole history of the West’s perhaps engagement with Vladimir Putin over the last decade or so has been repeatedly refusing to see what was in front of its face in terms of what his real intentions were and his determination to go about achieving them. Do you think that this invasion of Ukraine has now changed everything? Do you think we really do now fully understand and grasp the threat and the need to do something about it?

Garry Kasparov: I can only hope so, because to understand Putin, all we had to do was to listen. My first article of warning was published in the Wall Street Journal in January 4th, 2001. And all I did, I just was listening to Putin’s own words. And when Putin said that there were no such a thing as a former KGB agent, I knew that Russia’s fragile democracy was in danger. And when Putin said, actually repeatedly said that collapse with the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of 20th century, I knew Russians knew the independent neighbors were at risk. And eventually when Putin talked at the Munich Security Conference, 15 years ago in 2007, about return to (inaudible) of influence I knew he was ready to launch his attack because that was the language of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pack, language used by Hitler and Stalin to divide Europe. And of course, next year he attacked Republic of Georgia. And I remember that after this attack, which for me was just the most convincing proof of his intentions, the West didn’t respond. They tried to spread the blame between the Republic of Georgia and then President Mikheil Saakashvili and Putin’s Russia though, technically Putin was not the president at the time. He was puppet master behind the stage, having his shadow man Medvedev sitting in Kremlin. And America, instead of doing something, offered a reset policy. And I wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal, and I predicted attack on Ukraine. And later people asked me, “How did you know?” I said, “I looked at the map.” And then of course Crimea. I mean, what else did you need to understand that Putin would not respect any international treat signed by Russia. And for him, Crimea was a very important step in this direction because American and Great Britain had some kind of legal responsibilities to defend Ukraine because in 1994, there was a so-called Budapest Memorandum, when after heavy pressure from Clinton administration, Ukrainians gave up their nuclear arsenal, which few people remember was a third largest in the world. Ukraine have more nuclear warheads than China, France, and Great Britain combined. And then, what we heard is, “Oh, memorandum is then not a binding document.” And Putin heard what he wanted, so where he could continue his expansion, recovering Soviet Russian influence without any consequences, because the sanctions that were announced, though they were (inaudible) as something very powerful, they had almost no impact on Russian economy.

Gerry Baker: Well, why do you think, as you spell out the history very clearly. And if you look at the successive American administrations, George W. Bush famously, of course, said he looks into Putin’s eyes and saw his soul. And then as you say, invasion of Georgia happened in 2008. Nothing was really done about it then. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when they came in 2009, talked about the reset with Russia. Then we had the war in Eastern Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea nothing was done about it. I mean, what were they doing? Why were we willfully suspending our skepticism or indeed our concern about Putin? Was it because we thought there were bigger geopolitical concerns and that Russia in the end was no longer the big threat that we thought it was during the Cold War.

Garry Kasparov: I think we have to start earlier. We have to start was Bush 41, was not, was Bush 43. I often suffered criticism from those parties while criticizing president from another party. And my response is I have a record actually on the pages of the Wall Street Journal, criticizing six consecutive presidents, three for Republicans and three Democrats, four of their policies. I’m nonpartisan, but I believe that for current failures of American foreign policy, we have to go back as far as 1991. I think that this administration now, Biden administration, is having the same kind of fear as Bush 41 had in 1991. It was infamous speech in Kiev a few months before the collapse on the Soviet Union.

Gerry Baker: So called Chicken Kiev speech (crosstalk)-

Garry Kasparov: Chicken Kiev allegedly penned by Condoleezza Rice. And the message was-

Gerry Baker: By the way, she denied that on this very podcast, she denied that she’d written it, but-

Garry Kasparov: Maybe (inaudible). Whoever wrote it, so that it’s somebody there from general school of stuff. Maybe it was Jim Baker. It doesn’t matter who actually wrote it, he delivered it. And the message was absolutely clear. So Ukraine must stay in the Soviet Union because it could have drastic consequences for Ukraine and for the Soviet Union if they follow nationalists or for choose a succession. And I understand the fear that because they didn’t know what to expect after the collapse of the Soviet Union, same problems, because of nuclear weapons and chaos. And I think now we are seeing the repetition of the same unfortunate US policy failure. It’s a fear that a Putin’s military defeat Ukraine could lead to the collapse of is a dictatorship and eventually, a collapse of Russia. So I think that going back to the ’90s is the problem with, now we’re going to Clinton administration, was that the end of the Cold War was a big surprise for Americans as well as anyone else. And instead of coming up with a new game plan, because America was a winner, the free world won the Cold War, but it was time to think about new strategy, time to think about game plan for the world. Same way as Truman administration worked out a plan in 1946. At that time, they had to face George of Stalin and his unsatiable due political ambitions. And this administration, Harry Truman’s administration, built all the institutions that helped America to stop communism and eventually defeat it four decades later. And there was a plan. You had presidents from both Democrats and Republicans having maybe some differences, but still following the plan. And in 1991, we needed something else than simply being stuck with the old international institutions, one of the problems with United Nations. It was created 1945 to prevent a war, another war, most likely between Soviet Union and the United States. But in 1991, we needed organization that could help us solving problems, not freezing them. And I think that the fact is that Bill Clinton became president when America was all-powerful and could basically dictate its terms to the rest of the world. And when he left, Al-Qaeda was ready to strike. Already now, it was an indication that something was wrong.

Gerry Baker: I mean, and also to be fair, a part again, Al-Qaeda was ready to strike, Al-Qaeda did strike, and of course, Russia, Putin, was very quick to offer support and help to the United States then. So I suppose there was some… Again, we were strategically distracted first by terrorism and then subsequently by China and maybe that explains why we were kind of willing to turn a blind eye to a lot of what Putin was doing and saying, and eventually doing.

Garry Kasparov: Yes. But there were indications about the rise of Russian nationalism, even on the Yeltsin, the Iranian problem, which it’s still a big headache today and it’s known no one knows how to solve it. The Iranian problem goes all the way back to 1994, when Bill Clinton visited Moscow, having bipartisan resolution that enabled him to threaten Yeltsin to cut any funding of Russia that was like a lifeline, for Russia (inaudible) at the time, if Russia continued its nuclear corporation with Iran, and he did nothing. Oh, it says, “Yeah, fine. Let’s move on.” So that was not a big issue.

Gerry Baker: Sorry to interrupt Garry, because I’m fascinated by this, but you describe what’s happening in Russia to Putin’s expansionism and his aggression, but there are other people. People from George Kennan to Robert Gates, who I actually had on the podcast last week and in Russia from Boris Yeltsin to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn who said particularly about Ukraine, that Ukraine was a particularly important, valuable, sensitive issue for Russia and that it’s not just Putin, that it’s ingrained in sort of Russian self-identity and Russian geopolitical outlook. Like, and Ukraine could not simply be allowed to go along with the West and joining NATO or joining the EU because that would represent something that would really tear at the heart of Russia itself. You don’t agree with that?

Garry Kasparov: Yes and no. You’re right. It’s ingrained in the matrix of Russian nationalism, of Russian imperialism. But we are in 21st century. I mean, if we want to solve global problems, we have to eradicate the virus of imperialism. And as for Russian nationalists, I know quite well, (inaudible) the different factions there and they’re not very cohesive. So yes, there are some of these groups and of course, Putin belongs ideologically to these groups that believe that Russia has rights for Ukraine and even for other parts of Russian empire. But there are many, and by the way, most of them are in exile now or in jail, who believed and still believe that Russia is having criminal war in Ukraine because the future of Russia, it’s an integration in Europe maybe as a consideration of Russian republics. They are less concerned about Russian through their integrity. If Tatarstan or Chechnya would like to be separate, fine. But again, it’s an ideological fight inside even this nationalist moment. But of course, the free world had to respond at early stage at any sign of recurring Russian nationalism. That’s why I mentioned Boris Yeltsin. And then of course, Putin demonstrated it and spoke about it quite frankly. And I think every time when he spoke about it, that’s why I mentioned the conference in Munich in 2007, he had no response. The moment when Putin talked about (inaudible), Americans had to respond even harshly to tell him that just remember it’s 21st century, this is not 19th century. And it’s not surprising that Putin eventually got a message, what he wanted to hear, same way as Hitler (inaudible) is. “Oh, I could do that.” And then he thought that he could go even beyond Europe. We talked about 2014 Crimea. I it think was a result of Obama’s blinking in 2013, when he decided against intervention in Syria, that’s, I think for me it was mandatory because he draw the red line and he had to shoot when Assad crossed it.

Gerry Baker: We need to take short break there, but when we come back, we’ll have more with Garry Kasparov on the future of Russia and the world. Welcome back. We’re talking with former world chess champion and a current champion of liberal democracy in the world, Garry Kasparov. Let’s look at what’s going on now, again, whatever the intent of Putin, whatever his larger ambitions. I think we can all agree that the war in the first six, seven weeks has not gone according to his expectations or frankly, according to pretty well anyone’s expectations. The Ukrainians have been putting up a hell of a fight significantly with weapons from the West, from NATO countries and others, and is really rebuffing. Looks like the Russians have essentially withdrawn from Kiev or the areas around Kiev, which there was their initial target to seize the capital quickly. They’ve fallen back there. Seem to be fighting, concentrating their forces now in the east and the south. What’s your sense, knowing Putin as you do, and knowing his geopolitical ambitions, what’s your sense now of what Putin’s objectives are now that he’s clearly failed to achieve that first knockout strike that he seemed to be going for? What do you think he might be willing to accept (inaudible) of that?

Garry Kasparov: Frankly speaking, I don’t care what he might be willing to accept. I think we all owe Ukrainians every resource, every weapon they need to win this war. So I think that’s a very wrong concept. What do you say now? This is Western strategy. The Western policy is still looking for any means or ways to offer Putin off ramps.

Gerry Baker: And again, in the end, the Ukrainians, we have to do what we can for the Ukrainians.

Garry Kasparov: No, we don’t agree with that, yes, but let’s not forget. In 1994, United States pressed Ukraine to give up nuclear weapons. I think that it’s maybe not today, but definitely before the war, this administration have been pressing the Ukrainians to accept so called Minsk deal that would offer Putin political control of Ukraine. Ukraine was a destruction for this administration and still a destruction now. And when you said Putin expected to win the work quickly, yes. So CIA and so Pentagon. So yes, I’m shocked now that the Director Burns and General Millie, those who blundered here, because they talked about Ukraine capital would fall in 96 hours. That Ukraine would not last for more than three or four days. They are still calling the shots. And I think this administration now is just has no clear strategy how to work with Ukraine. It blocks supply of modern weapons for Ukraine to win the war. You said that western weapons. 99% of the weapons supply to Ukraine, it’s based on the concept that it will be another Afghanistan of Vietnam. Those are the countries that were brought in by American officials because they thought Ukraine army would be destroyed and then we’ll talk about real war. So fine, javelin stingers and all sorts of this small arms, but you do not win war with this kind of weapons. And planes, a long range artillery, a missile that can hit Russian warships that are shelling Ukraine cities from Black Sea. Heavy armor. So all this is blocked by the United States.

Gerry Baker: So, again, I think we have to agree that it’s up to the Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his government what kind of terms they end this war on. But in your view, we in the West should urging him to fight for victory, to go for all out victory, defeat Russia, get them completely off the territory of Ukraine and do whatever we can to achieve that. Is that what you say?

Garry Kasparov: No. Again, as you said, urging him. We have no moral rights to urge Ukraine to do whatever. If they decide to give a part of the territory, that’s their choice. If they want to fight to the bitter end, that’s their choice. We have to support them and offer them every resource, every weapon, to win the war and that’s what we are not doing. And for us to be real friends of Ukraine, and also to take care about our own safety, because God for forbid, Putin wins in Ukraine, he will not stop there. And are you sure that this piece of paper called Article 5 will stop him? I’m shocked to that oh, we have no obligations to defend Ukraine because it’s not member of NATO, but we will fight for every inch of NATO territory. How come? Are you going to fight in (inaudible) in Poland against Martians or against the same Russians? If you’re afraid of Putin’s nukes, why these nations should believe America that America will come to their rescue facing Putin army, (inaudible) army that will be fresh of success in Ukraine. Right now, we have a unique opportunity to destroy Putin’s war machine using Ukrainian manpower and determination and their spirit and all we need is to offer them real help, give them weapons. And also, in the strategy and strategy includes not only tanks, but also banks.

Gerry Baker: Again, I don’t fundamentally disagree, but we do have a different moral obligation, don’t we, to members of NATO than we do to Ukraine. I mean the whole point of being a member of NATO and the whole point, I think of why NATO has so far declined to admit Ukraine is because we are prepared to do whatever it takes to defend NATO countries and that if you are, by definition, if you’re outside that alliance, we aren’t under the same obligation to you.

Garry Kasparov: But why Ukraine was not admitted in 2008? They ask (inaudible) 2008 to be admitted. The war would not take place if Ukraine are member of NATO. And also it’s either… You’re talking about obligations. I don’t know what’s moral obligations, or you’re talking about piece of paper. Again, Budapest memoranda was now in the same piece of paper. I don’t want for us to check if Article 5 is also piece of paper the moment Putin crosses a native borders in Lithuania or Poland, actually most likely Lithuania, small country that doesn’t have the same resource as Ukraine to fight back. But again, I bring us back to strategy, because right now it’s what I see, actually what I don’t see, it’s a cohesive strategy by the free world to oppose Putin, because we hear so many statements about what America and the West will not do, but we don’t hear anything about what we will do and Putin reads them and moves on. “We will not close skies.” Great. “We will not respond to the Russians use of WMDs.” Okay. For me, that’s disastrous because that will (inaudible) Putin and also will give sense of impunity to his generals and admiral that will have to carry this criminal order if it, God forbid, comes from Kremlin.

Gerry Baker: What do you think are the risks and again, what’s concerning the Biden administration and presumably most other NATO countries, although not those immediate neighbors, I think it’s fair to say, but certainly the western flank of NATO anyway, is this concern that Putin will escalate, that he will use either on the Ukrainians or God forbid, even beyond that, he will use weapons and mass destruction and possibly even escalate and this part of this, this idea of escalate to deescalate, that’s part of Russian military doctrine. Do you think that’s one, either overrated, that either the fear of that is overrated or two, doesn’t matter. The stakes are so high here that frankly, even if he is going to escalate, we’d have to face him down.

Garry Kasparov: By way, do you remember when Russia included this nuclear element in its military doctrine so it’s the Russian doctrine actually allowed to use nukes in the regional conflicts in 2009?

Gerry Baker: Yeah. Yeah.

Garry Kasparov: In 2009. So at the time where Obama and Clinton were busy just working with (inaudible) policy, Russia upgraded “its military policy” to include nukes as permmitable tool for regional conflicts. Now speaking about this is again, use, again, I heard you saying, “Oh, if Russia uses it in Ukraine or God forbid beyond Ukraine in NATO territories.” For me, that’s constitutes a real problem. What if they use, let’s start with chemical. A chemical warhead that lands in a Western Ukraine, one mile away from Polish border. Are we going to start measuring this is a distance?And by the way, Putin can do it, same with nukes. So it could land in Ukraine, but it will definitely affect NATO countries. Is it aggression against NATO? I bet you know there will be people in Washington are in Brussels in other European capital saying, “No, no, no, no, no. We had experts there. They found out that it did not hit NATO territory. And we promised to defend every inch of NATO territory, but it was five inches on Ukrainian side.” So that’s a problem. Because the adequate response means that NATO and of course, it reads America, must say now that any Russian military base or warship that fires warhead missile with a nuclear or chemical warhead will be immediately destroyed. And then that we have a chance, a very good chance in my opinion, that those who are responsible to carry Putin’s order, these admirals in generals, they will be seriously considering whether they have to push the button because they will die in five minutes or they will have to sabotage? Right now, the escalation is in Putin’s hands. He keeps escalating. And by the way, killing civilians in thousands probably now in 10s of thousands doesn’t qualify as escalation or we don’t care.

Gerry Baker: Your concern then is your critique is actually that we’ve moved a little, but maybe appeasement is too strong, but we are still not really facing up to the threat that Putin represents. And this restraint that we are exercising, no to a no-fly zone, no to offensive weapons, very cautious response to anything that Putin may do, that’s still in a way represents just a kind of higher level of appeasement. Is that right?

Garry Kasparov: Look again. I don’t ask you to waste time in all the subtle definitions, offensive, defensive. I believe that Ukraine is fighting aggression. Every weapon for Ukraine is defensive because it fights for survival. Actually, it’s fighting for all of us.

Gerry Baker: I get that. My point is, I’m sure you still really think that despite all the warnings we’ve had for 20 years, or all the warnings you’ve written about and you’ve spoken about, despite the ultimate warning, that the existential warning of him actually crossing the border and invading Ukraine, you still don’t think we’re quite up to the challenge. We’re quite grasping the scale of the threat that he represents. Is that right?

Garry Kasparov: I’m not thinking, I’m just looking at the facts. Since the beginning of the war, European Union offered Ukraine and assistance for over a $1 billion, a €1 billion, actually. At the same time, Europe paid for Russian oil and gas €35 billion. Again, what should I think about it? “Oh, we can’t do it because the prices. Everything will go up.” Absolutely. But you have been doing it for 20 years. Now, the difference is you pay more for gas. All prices will go up, but Ukrainians are paying in black now. Europe is still funding Putin war machine because this money is being used to fund Putin war efforts in Ukraine. And again, going back to America, where is American leadership? It’s same old story, leading from behind. It also brings me back to Harry Truman, 1951, he said, “We can’t lead the voices of freedom from behind.” And that’s America now is trying to find it’s it. I think the administration is trying to muddle through without taking risks, without taking stand because America must come up with a strategy. And strategy, it’s not just Biden saying, “Oh, for God’s sake, this man cannot stay in power.” And then the statement being backtracked by administration, he keeps repeating it and then backtracking. It’s a vicious circle. I want to hear that the sanctions that are being imposed in Russia will not be lifted until Ukraine and territory is clear, Crimea included. And I think that the problem with, with this administration and of agents, I mentioned CIA and Pentagon and others, they are terrified by the fact that if Putin loses the Ukrainian War, it could lead to his demise and collapse of Russia. That’s the biggest concern. That’s why I don’t think they’re ready to work for Ukraine to win the war and for Putin to lose.

Gerry Baker: I want to ask you about that. We don’t have a lot of time left, but that’s the next question I wanted to ask you. Is there any vulnerability? Does Putin face any domestic vulnerability? I mean, everything we see from Russia opinions, no, you can’t count on opinion polls, but we know that Russians are getting a completely different picture of this war, both in terms of the justification for it. In fact, they can’t even describe it as a war, and the progress of it that Russian people are being told. It’s all going incredibly well. And the process of denazification of Ukraine and all of that is going brilliantly and the Russian’s are doing magnificently. So he doesn’t seem like this there’s much threat from domestic. I mean, the unrest, obviously they’re unhappy with the economic sanctions, some of the implications of them, but he doesn’t seem to be facing widespread broad public opinion hostility and Russia does not have a history of palace coups, right? I mean, people don’t generally move against the leader. Is he vulnerable at all?

Garry Kasparov: Oh, by the way, speaking about palace coups Russia had plenty of palace coups in the 18th century. Yes. Thinking about palace coups. And by the way, we still don’t know what’s happened to Joseph Stalin. There are many indications that some (inaudible) members led by Lavrentiy Beria, they actually decided to end Stalin’s life prematurely because Stalin was planning World War III. He definitely looked at the global map and he was unsatisfied with Russia and Soviet gains in Europe and the peace resolution in Korea in Asia. So again, it’s a speculation.

Gerry Baker: They did the later to push (Kristof) out too, so…

Garry Kasparov: Bingo. Russia history has many cases where the groups in power, they unsatisfied or scared by the policies of the leader, they conspired against him. So now with Putin, it’s different because it’s a dictatorship, a fascist dictatorship and he has all the power. I think he has even more power than Stalin because Stalin and (inaudible) and people like (inaudible). Putin is surrounded by his cronies and henchmen with no aspirations to take over. But even the worst covers can act out of their fear if they understand that the ship is going to sink and the precondition for any change in Russia, whether it’s the social-economic world on the streets with millions of people getting to the streets and protest protesting, or with Putin’s entourage deciding it’s time to act and to find scapegoat, which is always a dictator. It’s a military defeat in Ukraine. Until Russian troops are defeated in Ukraine, decisively, that you cannot hide this anymore, nothing will happen. And that’s why I think that state of free-world must supply you Ukraine with everything they need to win the war, unless it happens, there will be no revolt on the streets or what you call palace coup. And Putin needs to demonstrate that he gets something in Ukraine. That’s why now they, as you said, they are removed troop from Kiev. They fail to take it in three, four days. Then they had a few other attempts, they failed. And the troops in Kiev, in Northern Ukraine were open for the (inaudible) from the West. So they concentrated everything in the east and the south. And I think the plan now is to cut Ukraine from the sea. So to control territories from Luhansk to Odessa and Ukraine is fighting back. The outcome of this battle is still unknown, but every day that they do not receive a weapons, sophisticated weapons, increases Putin’s chances to claim more territories and then he has still hopes. He could go back to negotiating table because his diplomatic isolation is not complete. Recently, we had the Austrian prime minister visiting Moscow, and we still don’t know what happens if Putin decides to go to Indonesia to G20. Will Americans attend it? Will Brits attend it? So what about isolation? What about blockade? What about making clear to not just to Putin, but to his top bureaucrat, to his generals, to Russian public that Russia is completely isolated.

Gerry Baker: One question Garry, and this is a fascinating conversation, which we could talk longer. But as a Russian born, you were born in the Soviet Union, obviously, is there a, and forgive this because this is a Western cliche about Russia, but it does look as though this is a (inaudible)… all the… You’ve said about Vladimir Putin and his own personal ambitions and his own personal character, this pattern of Russia seeming to fall under authoritarian, autocratic rule, despite repeated attempts to democratize. You can go back to, I was in (inaudible) Alexander II trying to democratize, liberated the serfs and democratize and then he was assassinated, and it went back into autocracy. You had the 1905 and then the 1917 revolution. 1917 revolution was supposed to be a great liberation of the (inaudible). It turned out to be one of the most oppressive regimes ever. 1990 comes along. We get another revolution. The repressive authoritarian regime is overthrown again. And then within a decade, we’ve got Vladimir Putin and we now see what’s going on? Is this just inevitable? I mean, the Russian people just doomed to this kind of autocratic rule?

Garry Kasparov: I don’t think so. By the way, you mentioned 1917, there was a great democratic revolution in February 1917. What’s happened in October 1917 was the Bolsheviks stakeholder. Actually it was counter revolution that moved Russia away from its passed to democracy. Yes, 1991 was great moment and we celebrated the fall of the evil empire. And we had a chance. Again, it was a very feeble democracy in the ’90s and it didn’t withstand history test when (inaudible) took over. But I would not be so pessimistic because I look around, let’s look at Korea. If the country was divided 953. So the north, south now the north is the biggest Gulag in history, because the whole country is one Gulag and the South Korea is one of the most vibrant economists in the world and liberal democracy. They even impeach their president and put the head of the largest corporation behind bars for white collar crimes. So I don’t think anything is determinated by genetic (inaudible), but I think we are now reaching a point where the future of Russia will depend whether we can, as I said, already eradicate the virus of imperialism. Russia has to make this transition from imperial state, from an empire to a national state, that may be smaller in size there though I don’t think we’ll lose many territories, but we’ll go back to the family of civilized nations. I think there’s a strong push for that inside of Russia. And you can see millions of people now just living Russia, they don’t want to be part of Putin’s suppressive regime. And I believe that Russia will have a chance. At least we have to give Russia a chance because the future, you already mentioned China. The future of the free world will depend on our fight against Chinese imperialism, against Chinese communism and Russia must be our ally must be ally, the free world. And I think this is a very good chance and that’s why winning this war in Ukraine and making sure that Putin regime will collapse, that’s the best hope for the free world that the 21st century will not see another cold war with unpredictable result, but rather will lead us to another a new trend.

Gerry Baker: Can Russia can be an ally, you think in the end?

Garry Kasparov: It has to be an ally because again, my dream is, and I’m willing to contribute to this goal for Russia, stop being a permanent problem, but to become a part of the global solutions.

Gerry Baker: That’s a uplifting note on which to end. Surprisingly one. Thank you very much, indeed, Garry Kasparov. Thanks for joining us.

Garry Kasparov: Thank you for inviting me.

Gerry Baker: Well, that’s it for this week’s episode of Free Expression with me, Gerry Baker from the Wall Street Journal editorial pages. Thank you very much for listening and please do join us again next week for another deep exploration of the issues that are driving our world. Thanks for listening and goodbye.”

 

The only way to end Putin’s war crimes is to help Ukrainian forces win | Philadelphia Inquirer | April 7, 2022

If #Germany, other #NATO countries don’t deliver the weapons systems #Ukraine needs NOW to beat #Putin, they will be fighting #Russia in the #Baltics. https://t.co/KQCacMUtP0 @Kasparov63 @PhillyInquirer

— Trudy Rubin (@trudyrubin) April 10, 2022

This article is a reprint. You can read the original at the Philadelphia Inquirer.

By Trudy Rubin

“The gruesome images of slain civilians in Bucha and other liberated towns near Kyiv have been met with furious rhetoric from Western politicians.

Yet there is only one way to stop Vladimir Putin’s forces from committing more hideous war crimes.

It is not by placing more sanctions on Russia (though they are welcome). It is not the suspension of Russia from the U.N. Human Rights Council (it should be suspended from the U.N. General Assembly). And it is not “peace” talks that Putin permits primarily to fool some European leaders.

Putin can only be stopped if Washington and NATO allies provide Ukraine with all the weapons it needs to defeat Russian forces. The critical battles will happen in the coming weeks in eastern Ukraine, as soon as Russian forces recoup from being pushed back from Kyiv.

Yet the most critical weapons systems and vehicles have yet to arrive.

“How many Buchas have to take place for the West to do what we are asking?” Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, asked plaintively at an emergency NATO meeting on Thursday.

That is the question NATO members need to answer — now.

In fairness, more Western weapons are pouring in every day, and the United States has committed $1.7 billion in defense aid to Ukraine this year. (Ukrainians tell me they are grateful Donald Trump is no longer president, since he justified Putin’s annexation of Crimea and praised the Russia leader’s “genius” at the beginning of the current invasion. Trump’s open disdain for Ukraine and for President Volodymyr Zelensky and his affinity for Putin have not been forgotten in Kyiv.)

Still, U.S. and NATO aid has ramped up much too slowly. In a bitter tweet, the Russian chess star and anti-Putin activist Garry Kasparov argues: “The issue with Western response hasn’t changed since Putin first invaded Ukraine in 2014: Horrified by what has happened, unwilling to act to stop it while it is happening, unable to plan so it doesn’t happen again.”

Each week, as NATO countries face more outrages by Putin, they up the ante with weapons delivery, but they always appear behind the need of the moment.

U.S. deliveries of Javelin anti-tank weapons and Stinger short-range antiaircraft missiles have been essential in helping Ukraine hold off the Russians and remain critical. But the systems necessary to defeat Moscow in upcoming battles still haven’t arrived.

Ukraine has been unable to close the skies to the missiles and bombs that have ravaged Kharkiv, Mariupol, and other cities. Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Greece have Russian-made S-300 anti-missiles systems, but have not been willing to loan them to Ukraine unless the United States is willing to loan those countries comparable systems in the meantime.

Nor has Kyiv received the anti-ship missiles it needs, immediately, to help save the port city of Odessa, even though the United States, Norway, and Poland have such systems.

“The [U.S.] bureaucracy simply hasn’t been told that it’s wartime,” I was told by the former deputy secretary general of NATO, Alexander Vershbow. “The MiG 29s [airplanes] haven’t moved, long-range air defenses haven’t moved. It’s so frustrating.

“The pipeline of weapons is moving very slowly at a time when Russians are more vulnerable than they will be in a few weeks,” added Vershbow. By that time, he fears that “the Russians will be capable of fixing their performance.”

Indeed, as I have been speaking this week with Ukrainian friends and contacts in Kyiv, I have heard the same message over and over: “We are expecting Putin’s forces to come back here after they regroup in Belarus.”

That means the next few weeks are crucial, as Russian troops reorganize — and as many Russian soldiers, troops, and mercenaries move toward eastern Ukraine for a big land battle in the Donbas region. The Czech Republic has offered Ukraine desperately needed tanks, but Ukrainians worry whether they will get there in time.

The Ukrainians believe Putin’s current goal is to expand Russian occupation of big swathes of eastern and southern Ukraine, finally taking Mariupol and maybe Odessa, then enter into inconclusive peace talks that drag on for years. Ukraine would be left with a rump state, cut off from the sea, its infrastructure and economy destroyed, unable to join NATO or the European Union.

Flush with “victory” in Ukraine, Putin could then set his sights on territory in East European states and the Baltics, unconvinced that Washington would stand by their side.

On the other hand, a Ukrainian win in eastern Ukraine — a victory that delivers Russian troops another huge blow — would force Putin to rethink his strategy as his military flounders further.

But Ukraine can’t win unless we and NATO allies treat their war with Russia with the urgency we’d muster if U.S. troops were involved, giving Ukraine the tools for protecting their skies as well as winning land battles.

Indeed, Ukraine’s war is our war. If a vengeful, expansionist Putin, backed by China, is permitted to smash Ukraine, the United States will face a Eurasian alliance of dictators who believe they are tougher than Western democracies. And Russian war criminal Putin will almost surely challenge NATO forces (including ours) in the coming years.”

How America Enabled Putin’s Atrocities, and Democracy’s Retreat, with Garry Kasparov | Megyn Kelly Show | April 6, 2022

TODAY on The @MegynKellyShow:

An in-depth interview with Garry @Kasparov63…

LIVE on @SiriusXM ch. 111 #Triumph, and all platforms after. Subscribe:https://t.co/F96HgI7HIWhttps://t.co/Ug9rU1yVsKhttps://t.co/YJPxz5Gu8d

— The Megyn Kelly Show (@MegynKellyShow) April 6, 2022

Garri Kaspárov, el genio del ajedrez obsesionado con dar jaque a Putin | NewTral | April 6, 2022

Esta noche a las 22.30 entrevistamos a ⁦@Kasparov63⁩ en ⁦@ObjetivoLaSexta.⁩

Mi compañero ⁦@TomasRudich⁩ pudo hacerlo hace un tiempo y ha hecho este perfil del súper campeón. https://t.co/XGfvGhEBcg

— Ana Pastor (@_anapastor_) April 6, 2022

This article is a reprint. You can read the original at NewTral.

Por Tomás Rudich

““¡Garri, tenías razón!”. Es la frase que Garri Kaspárov escucha una y otra vez desde el 24 de febrero, el día en el que Rusia inició la invasión a gran escala de Ucrania y muchas de las advertencias del Gran Maestro ruso de ajedrez sobre Vladímir Putin comenzaron a ser vistas con otros ojos por Occidente. “Dejad de decirme que tenía razón y escuchad lo que tengo para deciros”, insistió aquel mismo día Kaspárov en uno de sus más comentados hilos de Twitter.

Kaspárov lleva años advirtiendo sobre la deriva autoritaria y expansionista de Putin. En 2014, después de que Rusia anexionara la península de Crimea y estallara la guerra en el Dombás, el múltiple campeón mundial de ajedrez publicó un libro titulado Winter is Coming (El invierno se acerca). El subtítulo de la portada no da lugar a segundas interpretaciones: «Por qué Vladímir Putin y los enemigos del mundo libre deben ser detenidos».

En aquel libro, como en muchas entrevistas y apariciones públicas, Kaspárov compara a Putin con Adolf Hitler. “El fracaso en defender hoy a Ucrania es el fracaso de los Aliados en la defensa de Checoslovaquia en 1938”, escribió en uno de los fragmentos del libro. Según ha bromeado en sus redes, ahora se plantea escribir una segunda parte rebautizada El invierno ha llegado.

Exiliado en Nueva York desde 2013, Kaspárov insiste en que Occidente debe ser más firme con Putin, poner fin a “las medias tintas” y brindar un apoyo más decidido a Ucrania. “Es hora de estar a la altura de las circunstancias, de demostrar que el mundo libre ya no se dejará intimidar por un matón de la KGB”, señaló en uno de sus mensajes en las redes sociales.

“Biden y Europa deben hacer más”, pidió en otro de sus tuits, si bien días después mostró su coincidencia con el presidente estadounidense en una columna que escribió para The Wall Street Journal: “Biden dijo la verdad: Putin debe irse”.

Frente a los riesgos que implicaría una confrontación directa de la OTAN con Rusia, Kaspárov no se intimida y argumenta que “el peligro será aún mayor si se le permite a Putin cometer un genocidio en Ucrania y luego buscar su próximo objetivo”.

La convulsa vida política de Garri Kaspárov antes de abandonar Rusia

Garri Kaspárov, de 58 años, sufrió en carne propia al régimen de Putin y, antes de abandonar Rusia, fue detenido temporalmente en varias ocasiones. En 2007, fue condenado a cinco días de prisión por participar en una manifestación no autorizada en Moscú. Cinco años después, le detuvieron también por participar en una marcha de protesta contra la condena al grupo punk Pussy Riot. Si bien pocas horas después salió en libertad, se le abrió una investigación por supuestamente morder en la mano a un policía, algo que Kaspárov ha negado.

El Gran Maestro Anatoli Kárpov, uno de sus grandes rivales del ajedrez y actual diputado de la Duma rusa y partidario de Putin, quiso visitar a Kaspárov en 2007 cuando estuvo detenido pero las autoridades penitenciarias no lo permitieron.

Meses después, Kaspárov intentaría presentarse a las elecciones presidenciales de 2008. Fue elegido como el candidato de una gran coalición opositora llamada ‘La Otra Rusia’, pero finalmente renunció a su postulación. Desde su partido acusaron al Gobierno de ponerles “todos los obstáculos posibles”.

Aquellas elecciones de 2008 consagraron como presidente a Dmitri Medvédev ante la imposibilidad constitucional de que Putin se presentara a un nuevo mandato. Sin embargo, Putin consiguió mantenerse en el poder al ser nombrado como primer ministro de Medvédev.

El exilio de Garri Kaspárov y su vida familiar

Putin retomó la presidencia rusa en 2012 y Kaspárov no tardaría mucho en abandonar el país. “No sé cuándo volveré a Rusia, seguramente cuando Putin no esté en el poder”, dijo el excampeón mundial de ajedrez en una entrevista con la agencia DPA en 2014.

Por entonces, Kásparov luchaba por presidir la Federación Internacional de Ajedrez (FIDE), pero chocaría con el engranaje del ruso Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, cercano a Putin, quien dominó con puño de hierro el organismo entre 1995 y 2018. “Esto no trata sobre ajedrez. Es una batalla política”, dijo Kaspárov tras denunciar que la elección a la FIDE había sido manipulada.

Kaspárov dejó Rusia en 2013 al considerar que corría peligro su vida y se radicó en Nueva York, aunque también pasa parte de su tiempo en Croacia tras obtener la nacionalidad del país balcánico.

El Gran Maestro, en realidad, está atravesado por un crisol de culturas, ya que nació en Bakú, que actualmente es la capital de Azerbaiyán y por entonces formaba parte de la Unión Soviética. Su madre, Clara Shagenovna Kaspárova, nació en Armenia y ambos tuvieron que huir de Bakú a Moscú en 1990 debido a los pogromos contra los armenios en Azerbaiyán, según explica la BBC.  «El trauma psicológico fue horrible. Cuando lo pienso, todavía duele», dijo Kaspárov, de acuerdo con el medio británico.

Su padre, Kim Moiseyevich Weinstein, falleció cuando Garri Kaspárov -que nació como Garik Kimovich Weinstein- tenía siete años. El niño adoptó entonces el apellido de la madre, también para evitar los problemas que el apellido judío paterno podría provocarle frente al  “abundante antisemitismo en las altas esferas soviéticas”, según relata El País su vida familiar.

De campeón más joven de la historia a la derrota con ‘Deep Blue’

Antes de ser un exiliado político o un tenaz adversario de Putin, Garry Kaspárov, fue también un prodigio del ajedrez. Tal vez el mejor jugador de todos los tiempos. Su talento y rebeldía se extendieron mucho más allá del tablero: supusieron, de hecho, un motor de cambio para un país en el que el ajedrez es deporte nacional.

En 1985, Garry Kaspárov se convirtió a sus 22 años en el campeón del mundo más joven de la historia al derrotar a Karpov, el vigente campeón y 12 años mayor, en 24 partidas en Moscú.

Con su victoria por un marcador de 13-11, Kaspárov inició un largo reinado. Hasta su retiro en 2005, el también conocido como “Ogro de Bakú” lideró el ranking mundial durante un récord de 255 meses. Además, mantuvo el título mundial de la FIDE hasta 1993, cuando una pelea con la federación internacional le llevó a fundar la Asociación Profesional de Ajedrez (PCA, por sus siglas en inglés), una organización que sólo duraría hasta 1996.

En 1997, Kaspárov viviría uno de los momentos más difíciles y recordados de su carrera deportiva: la derrota ante “la máquina” en el duelo frente a la supercomputadora IBM Deep Blue. El ordenador desarrollado por IBM, al que un año antes Kaspárov había vencido, se impuso esta vez por 3,5 a 2,5 partidas.

El resultado no sentó bien a Kaspárov, que denunció irregularidades en el funcionamiento de la máquina. Fue la primera vez que un ordenador vencía al hombre en el ajedrez.

La derrota no le impidió seguir cosechando títulos y distinciones hasta su retirada en 2005, cuando puso fin a su carrera para dedicarse a escribir libros, brindar conferencias y trabajar en su gran obsesión de las últimas décadas: encontrar la forma de poner fin a la maquinaria de poder de Vladímir Putin.”

This is how Putin’s regime could collapse: Kasparov | Fox | April 6, 2022

.@Kasparov63 to Neil: We are there to keep sanctions until Ukrainian territory is cleared from Russian occupation forces pic.twitter.com/C5s7OsqN5j

— Neil Cavuto (@TeamCavuto) April 6, 2022

How Europe is Funding Putin’s War | CNN | April 5, 2022

“We need more. We need full a embargo of oil and gas and we need to demonstrate that NATO is resolute.”

Human Rights Foundation Chairman @Kasparov63 talks energy dependence, how Putin is funding the war, and the price of inaction. pic.twitter.com/5brC5KvYJ1

— Quest Means Business (@questCNN) April 5, 2022

 

Winter is Here, Ep. 5 w/ Bill Browder | RDI | April 5, 2022

If you think that @nytimes Daily podcast (@mikiebarb) could’ve done a better job explaining how Russia sanctions work, listen to my conversation with @Kasparov63 & @Billbrowder as we explain the purpose of sanctions and how to make them bite! #Winterishere https://t.co/i9lUtILSiQ

— Uriel Epshtein (@UrielEpshtein) April 5, 2022

You can see the original episode on Spotify.

Biden Told the Truth: Putin Has to Go | WSJ Op-Ed | April 3, 2022

“Biden’s age may be a negative for some, but he remembers the Cold War. Gaffe or not, his remark reflected accurate instincts: Mr. Putin must go.” My new @WSJ op-ed on an unfashionable topic: real evil, and confronting it. https://t.co/40YiGDw1jI

— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) April 3, 2022

This article is a reprint. You can read the original at the Wall Street Journal.

By Garry Kasparov

“Russia’s all-out war on Ukraine is entering its sixth week, and the past few days have seen a rhetorical shift in Vladimir Putin’s goals. Since the Kremlin lies about everything, real evidence of a Russian retreat or any change in posture is always necessary. Still, it feels like confirmation of battlefield observations that the Russian army has been thwarted in its primary objectives and will now attempt to salvage a disastrous military effort with a successful negotiation. As my former world championship challenger Nigel Short once said about peace offerings, “If your opponent offers you a draw, try to work out why he thinks he’s worse off.”

It would also fit Mr. Putin’s usual tactic of taking territory by force and then pivoting to diplomacy to secure his gains. Whether it’s feint or fiction, the pressure by Ukraine and its allies on Russia must only increase. Kharkiv and Mariupol now resemble the gutted ruins Mr. Putin created in Aleppo and Grozny. Yet the weapons Ukraine needs to stop long-range artillery, missile attacks and aerial bombing are still being held back by the U.S. and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization nations.

That should be the real story, not any controversy about President Biden saying Mr. Putin “cannot remain in power.” No free-world leader should hesitate to state plainly that the world would be a far better place if Mr. Putin were no longer in charge in Russia, and one way to help make that come about is to say it. Making it clear that Russia will be a pariah until Mr. Putin is gone is the best way to shake his support among elites, military commanders and ordinary Russians.

The problem came when the White House attempted to walk back the remark, calling it an ad lib that did not reflect a U.S. policy about “regime change” in Russia. This retreat added fuel to my concerns about an internal split in the White House between those who sense the opportunity to toss Mr. Putin into the dust bin of history and those who are afraid of any change in the status quo and who would rather deal with the devil they know.

The latter would be an echo of 1991, when President George H.W. Bush gave his infamous “Chicken Kyiv” speech, reportedly penned by Condoleezza Rice, cautioning Ukraine against rushing to independence from the Soviet Union. Three weeks later Ukraine ignored that advice and declared independence. The Soviet Union collapsed within months.

The updated 2022 recipe calls for keeping Mr. Putin at the negotiating table for the Iran nuclear deal and not giving Ukraine the jets and other offensive weapons it needs to win the war. Everything I hear from other NATO members is that the U.S. has become the obstacle, and an explanation is required. Allowing Mr. Putin to keep an inch of Ukrainian soil after bombing civilians should be unimaginable. Conceding large areas of eastern Ukraine to the invader in exchange for a cease-fire would only give Mr. Putin time to consolidate and rearm for next time—and there will always be a next time. No peace deal should weaken the strong sanctions that have finally arrived, eight years late.

The only drawback to the end of the Cold War was the loss of the moral clarity provided by a clear and present evil. Aside from a handful of fellow travelers and useful idiots, even Ronald Reagan’s critics couldn’t doubt the accuracy of his calling the Soviet Union “an evil empire” in a 1983 speech, as startling as it was to hear a politician speak so plainly in moral terms. It was also a tonic for those of us inside the Soviet Union to hear what we knew to be true said aloud by the leader of the free world.

Mr. Biden’s age may be a negative for some, but he remembers the Cold War. Gaffe or not, his remark reflected accurate instincts: Mr. Putin must go. But the war in Ukraine is also a distraction from his flailing domestic agenda. It’s hard to talk about economic and social issues in the U.S. when a real war is leading the news every night.

So who in Washington is calling the shots on Ukraine? If the Biden administration wants Ukraine to win, someone in the White House should say it and do what is necessary to make it possible. If the U.S. is offering deals to Mr. Putin or pressuring Ukraine to accept anything less than sovereignty over 100% of its territory, we should know. Tactical ambiguity can be useful, but a lack of strategic and moral unity and consistency leads to catastrophe.

Mr. Putin’s Russia is a bankrupt gas station run by a mafia that prefers to spend its time and money in London and New York. Offering any carrots to these war criminals would set the stage for a return to the appeasement and corruption that brought us to this deadly phase. It would also shake the foundation of collective defense in the region. As Latvian Defense Minister Artis Pabriks told me last week, “We are afraid not of Russian tanks, but of Western weakness.”

The outcome in Ukraine will define a new world order, for good or ill. Taiwan and China are watching closely. Xi Jinping’s natural alliance with his fellow dictator is looking less attractive after the free world’s outpouring of support for Ukraine. The U.S. can restore its leadership of the free world, or it can lead from behind while democracy continues to lose ground.

The West fell asleep when the Cold War ended. Ukrainians are sacrificing everything to shake President Biden, the White House and the world awake.

Mr. Kasparov is chairman of the Renew Democracy Initiative.”