Garry Kasparov's Blog

[This article originally appeared in Die Welt on March 26 2025 here.]

Europe is facing a crisis of political will. Its leaders do not seem ready to meet the challenge posed by the war in Ukraine, and while they have taken some steps in the right direction, their actions remain deeply insufficient. Moreover, they have failed to articulate the reality of the current situation—that Europe is at war. It is engaged in an existential conflict with Putin’s Russia and with the global authoritarian network it supports. While this war was launched in a KGB-style hybrid format, it is now being waged in Ukraine as an all-out military confrontation. Its outcome will determine nothing less than the world order for years to come. What is at stake is whether freedom and democracy will prevail or be forced aside by the rise of authoritarianism.

European Union is an institution that naturally elevates politicians who seek consensus and excel in diplomacy. But the present moment calls for an entirely different algorithm. Some leaders are recognizing this and changing their language. Last week, President of Finland Alexander Stubb powerfully said that “Ukraine must be armed to its teeth.”

I wholeheartedly agree, but we must match strong rhetoric with strong action. For the most part, Europe’s leaders continue to speak and act as though they are governing in a time of peace. Europe still continues to indirectly do business with Russia through Central Asian intermediaries. It continues to spend inordinate amounts of time trying to convince Hungary to make decisions in support of democracy. It continues to allow Putin’s lobby to reap business and political successes across the continent. That is not how countries fighting in a war operate. You don’t negotiate with cancer—you cut it out.

In many ways, this European crisis could have been predicted. The European Union is an institution that naturally elevates politicians who seek consensus and excel in diplomacy. But the present moment calls for an entirely different algorithm. Some leaders are recognizing this and changing their language. Last week, President of Finland Alexander Stubb powerfully said that “Ukraine must be armed to its teeth.” I wholeheartedly agree, but we must match strong rhetoric with strong action.

For the most part, Europe’s leaders continue to speak and act as though they are governing in a time of peace. Europe still continues to indirectly do business with Russia through Central Asian intermediaries. It continues to spend inordinate amounts of time trying to convince Hungary to make decisions in support of democracy. It continues to allow Putin’s lobby to reap business and political successes across the continent. That is not how countries fighting in a war operate. You don’t negotiate with cancer—you cut it out.

America is notably absent from the fight, or, worse yet, is acting in ways that support the enemy.  The Signal leak scandal from this past Monday––which further exposed the attitude of condescension toward Europe from top Trump officials––has only bolstered this grim reality. Europe cannot wait for another administration to come to power and step in to restore the democratic order. It must adopt a position of all-out war and start taking steps to fight it. I don’t want to speak only in abstract terms—the situation is too dire—but rather propose specific actions that can be undertaken now.

It is important to first note that there are different levels of political will required for various measures. Europe must ultimately cultivate enough courage to take on even the most challenging ones, but, at the very least, it can start with the low-hanging fruit. The first category of action requires simply enforcing existing rules, ensuring that they are not being circumvented in ways that support Putin’s regime. The second class requires taking some initiative, but ensuring that it is fully in European hands.

The third, and most difficult, requires changes to internationally recognized rules. This includes measures such as confiscating Russian money held abroad—but we will set that category aside, because Europe is not even near being ready to push for such changes. We will instead focus on the first two categories, where a great deal can, and must, be quickly done.

I call on European leaders:

End the export of Russian oil through shadow fleets that violate international environmental regulations.End indirect trade with Russian companies through third-party countries.Recall their country’s ambassadors from Moscow (not fully severing diplomatic ties, but rebuking the current regime).Immediately suspend Hungary from voting and receiving financial aid from the European Union. (And, while they are at it, warn Slovakia that it is next.)Switch to conscription for military enrollment.Take measures to curb Putin’s network of agents and lobbyists in Europe.Form a fully independent European defense block—a parallel NATO that can operate in the absence of American global leadership.

In doing the above, Europe must not impose any red lines. Such boundaries are inappropriate for times of war; there can be no predetermined limits on action. Instead, there must be a willingness to do whatever it takes to win, up to and including deploying troops to Ukraine—if that is what is necessary.

The new German government will have a great deal of money to spend, and potential budgets depend on what priorities it articulates. This is the moment to clearly establish that the country–– and the continent––is fighting an existential enemy and must make itself ready for battle.

Only if Europe buckles up and embarks on this agenda, as a start, will it come even close to meeting the heroic effort Ukraine has demonstrated. Ukrainian blood has been stopping Putin from trampling over democracy, both within its borders and beyond. But Ukraine needs help, and it needs it now. The country is running out of time.

It’s past time that complacent, stagnant Europe step up and act in proportion to the extreme sacrifices its neighbor Ukraine has made. This a historic opportunity for its leaders to demonstrate that Europe can evolve and adapt to meet present challenges—and carry the torch of democracy while Trump’s America reneges on its global responsibilities.

In the Footsteps of Charles de Gaulle

Europe Can No Longer Outsource its Security to Uncle Sam

[Original in French, March 14 2025]

We have the latest news from Jeddah: the United States is resuming aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine. The American and Ukrainian delegations have come up with the framework of a ceasefire to present to the Russians. There is a glimmer of hope that we are on a road toward peace.

But, I would caution against celebrating. While these developments may amount to a tactical victory, they do not change the strategic fundamentals of the situation. American foreign policy under Trump remains alternately isolationist or downright belligerent to its allies. In either case, America is abdicating its role in upholding global democracy, upending the liberal world order we have come to take for granted. And this policy has its roots in previous administrations, both Democratic and Republican, that have for many years now been backing away from America’s commitments around the world.

In light of these changes, Europe must step in and assume greater leadership, whatever happens with this latest ceasefire deal. After the embarrassing Oval Office meeting with Zelensky, we sawe Macron, Starmer, von der Leyen, and their colleagues take some cautious steps toward demonstrating such European resolve. I want to make a case for continuing these efforts—and doing much more.

The crisis is bigger than just Ukraine, about more than tactical decisions of how much money and how many weapons to send. It is a question of the future security infrastructure of the entire continent and, in fact, the globe. The European Union, while a valuable experiment in collective governance, cannot meet these needs in its current form; European leaders need to think beyond its constraints, to unite all those European countries who are willing to participate in safeguarding freedom and democracy.

And while the question of collective defense may be narrower, the broader coalition of democratic countries Europe assembles must stretch far beyond its shores. Europe must seek cooperation with Japan, Australia, and Canada; it must come to serve as a global stronghold of democracy.

Moreover, this crisis is not just a function of Trump as an individual, or even of the current administration that is in power. It is the consequence of a shift that has long been unfolding in American politics, one that started at the other end of the ideological spectrum, under President Barack Obama. During his tenure, America started to reject its global responsibilities, not completely, but in a manner that set a precedent for future leaders. Under Biden, this shift grew more pronounced; we saw, for instance, further appeasement of the Putin regime and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Trump is just taking this foreign policy approach, of criticizing and pulling back American involvement abroad, to its logical extreme. And he is doing it in his characteristically ugly and blatant way. Europe has had time to watch these currents and to react accordingly, but unfortunately it has not yet mounted an adequate response.

I suppose it is a good thing that the moment of reckoning has come, even if it took the gruesome war in Ukraine and Trump’s temporary abdication of America’s responsibilities there.  There must be an understanding that Europe itself is in a state of war. And it must act accordingly. War is not won by consensus or diplomacy; the enemy can only be defeated by marshalling all available resources against it, and with urgency.

The fact that Europe still has not resolved the problem of sabotage from within, by EU and NATO member Hungary, shows that it is not operating in a mindset of war. Meanwhile, Putin understands the existential nature of the conflict, and is taking advantage of his opponents’ strategic blindness. He has been waging war long before even the all-out invasion of Ukraine in 2022; he has been engaged in a hybrid war fought on all fronts—through propaganda, cyberattacks, and covert operations—long before the West started to wake up.

Sixty years ago General Charles de Gaulle spoke about the danger of Europe becoming completely dependent on the United States for its security. At the time, of course, a robust American military presence on the continent was essential for preserving peace. But de Gaulle’s warning turned out to be quite prescient. Now, the day has come that America no longer wants to be responsible for guaranteeing European freedom, and the leaders of Europe have realized that they can no longer be held hostage by the whims of American politics.

Thanks to de Gaulle, too, France has a unique role to play in any new vision for European security given its nuclear arsenal. It must now demonstrate the political will to create a unclear umbrella for all its European allies who are willing to participate in this new security movement. The safeguarding of European freedom will be, in many ways, a movement of resistance—against the tides of authoritarianism, whether they be in Putin’s Russia or Trump’s MAGA-fied United States. The geopolitical consequences of building, or of failing to build, such movement will have ramifications far beyond the war in Ukraine, for the continuation of freedom and democracy worldwide.

So, I call on European leaders to act now, with boldness and speed. Europe no longer has the luxury of waiting for a new American president to come into power, to step in and restore its security. It must become an independent counterweight to the new and dangerous political forces that threaten the democratic world order. Soft power is not enough—the continent’s politics and values must be defended by military and industrial might.

Perhaps this generation of European leaders did not expect to shoulder such a heavy historical responsibility, but we don’t always get the opportunity to choose our battles. I hope they will live up to the moment. The newly pledged aid to Ukraine amounts only to a drop in the bucket of what is needed to turn the tide of the war.

I remain optimistic about Germany’s new government, with its resolve to fiercely counter Russian aggression; incoming chancellor Mertz has indicated an understanding that Ukraine needs billions to defend herself, not the millions it is receiving now. And Macron acknowledged in Brussels that Europe cannot stop at the measures already taken, that it must proceed to build a robust security infrastructure of its own.

Understanding the gravity of the situation is important, but not enough. I will wait to see Macron and his European allies execute on these words. Not only for the sake of the Ukrainian people hangs, but for the future of the European experiment, and for the preservation of global freedom and democracy for generations to come.

Slava Ukraini! Glory to Ukraine!

On this Thanksgiving weekend, we are all expressing gratitude, for the various people and things in our lives that we hold dear. Meanwhile, the world is ablaze with conflict—in the Middle East, Ukraine, Syria, Georgia, the list goes on. I would like to zoom out a bit, from our personal thanks, to this broader picture. These events did not occur spontaneously; rather, we have specific people and policies to thank for the conflict-ridden world we are confronting. It is their action, or rather, inaction, that has brought about this current state of affairs. On this Thanksgiving, I would like, perhaps somewhat cynically, to take a step back and look at where we should our direct our geopolitical “thank-you’s.”

Thank you, first, to President Biden and his national security team, primarily Jake Sullivan and Bill Burns. Their cowardly, inept foreign policy has caused one disaster after another. The advance of totalitarian forces around the globe is largely a result of these policies of appeasement. Cowardly, inept, not to mention dishonest—the purported reason for not arming Ukraine was that Congress wouldn’t go along and provide funding. Now, Congress has long since approved $61 billion in aid, but only a fraction of that money has been utilized. Sullivan has said publicly that Ukraine needs to deploy more manpower; Zelensky’s response was that his army has only received weapons for two and a half brigades. And Biden only just last week announced that Ukraine can use long-range missiles to strike deeper inside Russia. It is of course easy to blame the legislative branch, when the real roadblock is a policy of caution at every time, an unwillingness to take any risks to protect democracy.

Likewise, we ought to be grateful to German chancellor Olaf Scholz for continually “negotiating” and thus empowering Putin. We can take a further step back and be grateful to President Obama and Chancellor Merkel, who sowed the seeds of the policies we are witnessing today. Their deference to Putin’s fledgling dictatorship paved the way for today’s leaders doing more of the same; worse yet, they still refuse to take any responsibility for the full blossoming of his dictatorial regime.

One of the few bright spots in today’s world picture—perhaps aside from the fact that Germany’s upcoming elections will likely force Scholz out of office—is the rebel advance in Syria; this past week, fighters took Aleppo, tearing down the giant posters of Assad lining buildings and putting up the rebel flag. Of course, Assad quickly ran to Moscow for the support he has come to rely on. Unfortunately for him, Putin doesn’t have the time or resources to extend his way days; he is too spread thin on other fronts.

But enough of the cynicism. Now, I’d like to extend a genuine and heartfelt thank-you—to President Zelensky and the millions of Ukrainians who are wearing down the Putin regime, its war machine and economy, with their personal blood and sweat. They are the ones—not our impotent “leaders”—who are making it impossible for him to help his fellow dictators. Thank you also to the Israeli Defense Forces, for scrambling Hezbollah and demonstrating the Iranian regime’s weakness. They, too, have contributed to the shift on the ground in Syria, by weakening crucial links in the global network of tyranny. And in yet another downstream result of this weakening, the people of the Republic of Georgia are taking to the streets to defend their choice of pro-European government against the Russian puppet regime. Chipping away at authoritarianism in one place has an international domino effect.

Let’s hope that the incoming Trump administration will interpret this current state of affairs correctly, see it for what it is—a global rise of authoritarianism, in the wake of the retreat of the free world. We are now getting a repeat of a historical lesson we have learned many times before, that appeasement and negotiation is never a way to deal with dictators. Every day of inaction the price of confrontation goes up. Perhaps there is room for a very tentative optimism that this administration may do something differently, and give us a reason to be truly thankful for our democratic leaders come next Thanksgiving.

Today’s election is all about one person. Even before we know the winner, we can already say that the millions and millions of Americans voting today—turning out in historically high numbers—are not so much voting on policy as they are choosing where they stand on Donald Trump. When it comes to policy, public opinion is quite clear. Two-thirds of Americans believe the country is moving in the wrong direction, under the leadership of the Biden administration. If any other candidate were at the top of the Republican ticket, he or she would be poised to win in a landslide. But, as it stands, both parties are totally bankrupt—the Democrats ideologically, the Republicans organizationally. Ironically, Donald Trump offers Democrats their only chance to stay in power.

Americans enjoyed taking democracy for granted until Trump’s all-out attack on the credibility of US elections and attempt to derail the peaceful transfer of power. He has done the same with the justice system and any other institution he fears will hinder his grasp on power. Democracy is based on trust. As I said when Trump won in 2016, Americans were about to find out how much of their government was based on the honor system, on conventions that no one openly attacked–until Trump. Tragically, he has been given a third chance. It must be his last.

I endorsed Kamala Harris because I believe that Donald Trump is an existential threat to American democracy. It is no overstatement to say that the future of democracy, here and worldwide, hangs in the balance.

No matter the result, however, I believe that it will force a realignment of the American political landscape. This kind of reckoning is long overdue. I regret that it took the political disaster we find ourselves in to prompt it, but I believe it will set this country, finally, on a better course.

I recently attended the 2024 Warsaw Security Forum and had the opportunity to meet in person with many of the brave activists working to secure victory for Ukraine. I was taken aback, however, to see just how much the mood had changed from the previous year. The prevailing spirit in Warsaw in regard to the war has always been one of positivity; now, it is one of disarray. Far from my position being the consensus view among the leaders gathered there, to discuss the collective security of Europe, I was in a small but vocal minority advocating a more “radical” position. I have not, and will not, backed down from my view that the only way forward is to pursue a complete and total Russian defeat in Ukraine. Unfortunately, the mainstream consensus (led by American officials) seems to have become a troubling kind of doublespeak—supporting Ukraine on the one hand, while paving the way for negotiations with Putin on the other.

This has been the case for quite some time, if you read between the lines. (I wrote about this history of betrayal back in 2023 for the WSJ.) The West promises tranche after tranche of aid for Ukraine, but, after the initial headlines, it takes months to actually deliver the arms. And then, Ukraine must operate under tight restrictions as to how it can use the weapons, how far it can fire into Russian territory, against which targets. It has long been clear that the international community values maintaining a semblance of normalcy—even though Putin’s aggression has long since completely shattered this normalcy—upholding the pretense of the possibility of negotiation. We will keep supporting Ukraine, we will continue barely upholding the mantle of democracy, but, we’re not going to do all it takes—because that risks starting an all-out war. I will repeat: we are already in an all-out war.

In Warsaw, I heard these sentiments expressed bluntly for the first time. The language was direct around capitulating to Putin, ceding territories taken over by Russian troops, entering into negotiations based on the current frontlines of the conflict. Even still, there was an overlay of democracy-friendly rhetoric: “Ukraine must win.” The sneaky maneuver was redefining what is meant by victory, now the dangerously murky: “lasting peace.” What, are we now going to trust Putin? Give him over the territories he has forcibly taken in the Donbas and stand by politely for his next act of illegal annexation?

Putin can read the room and the weak (read, nonexistent) resistance he faces from the international community. The new textbooks issued for grade schoolers in Russia already include the captured Ukrainian territories on the Russian map. He is already inculcating the next generation of Russians into his lies—that Russia is a special empire, positioned at odds with the West as a result of its unique cultural and ideological identity, that it is engaged in an unceasing existential battle with the U.S. for its survival. The only way these Russians will wake up is through a crushing defeat for Putin’s forces in Ukraine. As I said in Warsaw, this means nothing short of the Ukrainian flag flying above Sevastopol. These Russians need to be shocked into realizing Putin’s lies and distortions. It is the only way for us to save the future of Ukraine, global democracy, and the millions of Russia who have been coopted by Putin’s regime.

And so, I was emboldened in my stance in Warsaw not by political leaders, who have grown weary of the war and its political costs, but by the brave Ukrainian activists who refuse to give up on their country. I continue to stand with them and their brave mission. I refuse to “compromise” with a dictatorship.

Watch my interview with TVP World at the Forum for more.

 

Earlier this month, the Renew Democracy Initiative organized a private tour of the battlefield of Gettysburg, thanks to the generosity of retired four-star general and member of our advisory board, Stan McChrystal. I was accompanied by various supporters of RDI and members of the extended RDI family, as well as a member of my own family, my daughter Aida, an avid history buff. We couldn’t have asked for a more knowledgeable and eminently qualified guide than General McChrystal.

             

(If you are interested in his thoughts on leadership, I recently recorded the first episode of RDI’s Whiskey Tango video series,  a series of in-depth conversations with experts on issues of freedom and democracy. Stanley and I dive into what it means to be a real leader, steering from a place of values rather than the transactional pursuit of power. Watch a teaser here.)

What I want to capture here, however, are not any specific facts from the exemplary history we received, but a few more general observations on the progress of history overall. It’s one thing to read about events like this, or listen to a classroom lecture; it’s entirely another to stand in the physical place, your feet on the ground where the most important battle in American history was fought. It is reminder of how contemporary history is; how where we find ourselves today is a function of moments like Gettysburg, and myriad less obvious ones; how easily events could have taken another turn. Even a partial victory for Lee at Gettysburg would have made Lincoln’s position untenable; it could have made the political pressure to reach a deal with the Confederacy insurmountable. Somehow, Providence helped us; the future of the American republic was preserved. Had the outcome been different, we might not be living in the country we are living in today. I might not have had the example of America to look to growing up in the former USSR, might not be writing today as the chairman of an organization protecting democracy worldwide.

Gettysburg is a word that conjures a rich series of events, not one discrete moment. Zeroing in on just one of the encounters that made up this pivotal battle: Chamberlain’s charge. It is well-known but perhaps not quite as famous as some other moments (although it is immortalized in the wonderful film Gettysburg, if you are curious). Thanks to his leadership, the 20th Maine held its position against the 15th of Alabama, fending off waves of Confederate soldiers, even as their ammunition ran out. Without this valiant effort, the entire left flank of the Union army would have been in jeopardy, and the South’s attack on day three might have succeeded. Standing with Aida on the very spot where the 20th Maine stood fast gave us both chills.

Speaking now about the present—the war we are fighting now, in the international arena, in which the future of democracy hangs in the balance. Unfortunately, there are no positive updates. Everything has long been clear with Trump; he has again indicated that he would sign a deal with Putin, with whom he boasts of having a great relationship. But Biden also seems unwilling (or, excuse my joke, unable) to cross the finish line of the support effort he started; President Zelensky left the UN General Assembly without American permission to use long-range missiles against Russian targets. This failure is especially poignant to me having just returned from the tour I described. I hope we can think of ourselves as playing a role in a history that will be recounted, and relived, in the future, and of our actions as playing a pivotal role in the type of world our children will inhabit.

(As a bonus, the relevant scene of Chamberlain’s Charge from the great 1993 movie, Gettysburg.)

Important article! I must go further and ask not only why anyone still listens to such “experts” but why so many of them are still in positions of power, making decisions that cost more lives. –Garry

How Defense Experts Got Ukraine Wrong
On questions of war and peace, governments must hear from many types of experts.

One might think that an intelligence failure can be benign: The good guys do far better than expected, the bad guys far worse. In fact, erring on the side of pessimism can be as big a problem as being too bullish. The period just before and after Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, in February 2022, is a good example of this. At the West’s most influential research organizations, prominent analysts—many of them political scientists who follow Russian military affairs—confidently predicted that Russia would defeat its smaller neighbor within weeks. American military leaders believed this consensus, to the point that the Joint Chiefs of Staff chair reportedly told members of Congress that Kyiv could fall within 72 hours of a Russian attack. Although those analysts’ gloomy assessments turned out to be wrong, they’ve nevertheless made the United States and its allies overly cautious in assisting Ukraine in its self-defense.

Full article at The Atlantic

Kasparov says autocrats, not content oppressing their own citizens, are destabilizing the world’s democracies and his RDI project is taking them on.

READ ORIGINAL ARTICLE AT KYIV POST

Garry Kasparov, exiled Russian dissident and pro-active anti-authoritarian, plans to take on dictators he says are only advancing due to Western democracies’ inarticulation and inaction over the last few decades. Kasparov says the fight for democracy’s survival is going on in the crucible of Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Entering the Front Lines of Freedom Conference, hosted by the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), an organization that Garry Kasparov chairs, he is perturbed by what he sees transpiring in Ukraine and the Middle East, events that he thinks are the logical consequence of Western inaction to authoritarian regimes which have routinely blown through the West’s supposed “red lines.”

Following the release of Kasparov’s 2015 book, Winter is Coming, Kasparov was a lone voice, warning that the West’s muddled and insufficient response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine, would be interpreted by the Kremlin as a sign of weakness and indifference, thus guaranteeing a future attempt by the autocrat to sack his neighbor.

The world did not heed Kasparov’s message and as a result, “Iran now threatens America, not in the Middle East, but in New York. There is a war against the world order,” the consequence of the West “fearing these dictatorships rather than standing-up to them.”

“Today, we see there is a plan,” says Kasparov.

“Always listen to dictators: They lie about what they have done, but often tell you what they are planning to do. Hitler wrote a blueprint: Mein Kampf. It was clear what he planned to do.

“Putin, in 2005, was already a dictator. He made clear what he intended to do. But no one paid attention to it.”

However, he argues, the world has not learned its lesson – today the world is repeating its errors, something that adds urgency to Kasparov’s work with RDI.

The organization’s goal is to “expose and confront the international alliance of dictators, and in so doing, aim to inspire people in the US and other free countries to value and defend their own democracies,” explained Uriel Epshtein, CEO of RDI.

CONTINUE READING AT KYIV POST

Ukraine. https://t.co/dqFeyq6YlT pic.twitter.com/KBJkQbP4RD

— Olimpiu Di Luppi (@olimpiuurcan) September 9, 2023

Former World Champion Garry Kasparov grabbed the lead on the first day of the 2023 Champions Showdown: Chess9LX! He scored two wins against So and Robson along with a draw against Nakamura to end the day in clear first place with 2.5/3. Tied for second going into Day 2 were Levon… pic.twitter.com/CAccbvBH5M

— Grand Chess Tour (@GrandChessTour) September 9, 2023

https://t.co/M1VzkuY9Em

— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) September 9, 2023

 

Will try not to let the kids have all the fun! https://t.co/hXbajkhgzw

— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) September 9, 2023

You can see the full results and final standings at U.S. Chess Champs.

 

Garry Kasparov in a long interview with Rbc-Ukraine: The fall of the “mafia-type dictator” Vladimir Putin “will be inevitable after the liberation of Ukraine. The war cannot end while Putin is in power.
Putin’s downfall will be the result of Russia’shttps://t.co/BbRmR7grpi

— Maria Esteves (@marlesteves) August 17, 2023

.@Kasparov63: “#Putin’s downfall will be the result of #Russia’s defeat in the war. Putin’s downfall will be inevitable after #Ukraine’s liberation, precisely because the regime will not last if the leader loses legitimacy.” https://t.co/eT7fblFEO0

— Francisco Taveira (@jftaveira1993) August 18, 2023

This article is a reprint. You can read the original at RBC-Ukraine.

By Uliana Bezpalko, Kateryna Danishevska

“Russian opposition figure Garry Kasparov discussed in an interview with RBC-Ukraine what prompted Putin to attack Ukraine, what the outcome of the war could be, and what future awaits Russia.

Garry Kasparov, the former world chess champion, has been in opposition to the Russian government for decades. After the start of the big war, he, along with like-minded individuals, created the Anti-War Committee and the Russian Action Committee, which brought together Putin’s opponents living abroad.

Our conversation took place via video call, with two flags in the background – blue and yellow, representing Ukraine, and white-blue-white, representing Russians protesting against the war, along with the inscription “Glory to Ukraine” in two languages – Ukrainian and Russian.

Kasparov went into forced exile back in 2013 when the Kremlin began tightening its grip, getting rid of dissenters, even physically. Since then, in his view, any opposition activity within Russia became a mere imitation, playing into the hands of the regime. Putin gained a convenient screen for the West while he solidified fascism in the country and prepared for full-scale aggression.

Even now, seeing the actions of the Kremlin regime, not all Russian opposition members unanimously agree that Putin must go and that Crimea is Ukraine’s territory, notes Kasparov. He is convinced that there is no other way to cleanse the Russian society’s mindset apart from raising the Ukrainian flag in Sevastopol.

Why Putin opted for aggression and war against Ukraine

In a calculated move, Putin has taken a path of aggression against Ukraine, according to Garry Kasparov. He believes that Putin had been planning this course of action for years. The initial alarm bells for Putin rang during Ukraine’s Orange Revolution, the first Maidan, where citizens rallied for change in government. The very idea of a neighboring state where people could peacefully challenge authority through protests posed a potential threat to Putin’s regime, Kasparov contends. He feared that Russians might follow the same path of dissent.

This concern drove Putin to strategize the annexation of Crimea and to outline plans for the capture of Ukraine’s eastern and southern regions, cutting off its access to the Black Sea – a project called “Novorossiya” (“New Russia”). Kasparov suggests that Putin intended to execute this territorial expansion following Ukraine’s presidential elections, slated for 2015.

“In 2015, elections were due, where Yanukovych would have likely lost to a pro-Western candidate, but he would have gained victory in the eastern and southern regions, as well as in Crimea. This is where the scheme for secession of these areas might have worked. However, the second Maidan disrupted these calculations. This compelled Putin to accelerate his plans. With Crimea, he succeeded due to the presence of a Russian military base. And at that time, the Ukrainian government wasn’t ready to counteract him,” elaborates the Russian oppositionist.

However, realizing this strategy in the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine didn’t go according to plan. The majority of the local population in these areas didn’t rally behind Igor Girkin (also known as Strelkov) and his associates. The failure of Putin’s initial blueprint prompted him to rethink his approach. The obliteration of Ukraine was, in many ways, regarded by Putin as an existential question tied to his regime’s survival, Kasparov asserts.

[image error]

“Putin didn’t conceal his intent to dismantle the Ukrainian state. For eight years, he openly prepared for this move, hoping perhaps that he could achieve it through the Minsk agreements, avoiding a full-blown war. However, when it became evident that the Zelenskyy government was not inclined to surrender and cede control of Ukrainian politics to Putin, he determined that the time had come for a decisive course of action,” he notes.

Comparing Russia and Nazi Germany

In a thought-provoking analysis, Garry Kasparov draws parallels between Russia’s current situation and Germany’s history during the rise of Nazi power. Drawing from historical events, he suggests that 1990 was to Russia the year that 1918 was to Germany. Just as Germany faced defeat due to economic exhaustion and the looming threat of allied forces entering Berlin, Russia, too, found itself at a critical juncture in 1991 after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Kasparov highlights the harsh parallels between the two moments.

Germany’s post-World War I sentiment is similar to Russia’s present outlook. Kasparov emphasizes that while Germany technically lost the war, its citizens did not perceive it as a true defeat but rather as a result of a conspiracy. This sentiment fueled a desire to restore the nation’s former glory. Similarly, Russia, following the collapse of the USSR, found itself in a similar predicament – the empire’s control mechanism survived despite the geopolitical shifts.

“In my article, I analyzed Umberto Eco’s essay on the 14 features of fascism, if I’m not mistaken, it was in the year 2008. At that time, I had already identified 13 out of the 14 features. In reality, all these components were already present, but what was missing was the most crucial one – Putin’s belief that aggression would enable him to maintain a global status,” notes Kasparov.

In 2008, for instance, Putin was not ready to commit to a full-scale occupation of Georgia. He still harbored concerns about how the West would react to such actions. However, the almost complete absence of a resolute response provided Putin with a sense of impunity.

“In general, by February 2022, Putin was moving methodically. The annexation of Crimea, after all, also yielded no results. The response from the American administration was close to non-existent. It’s important to grasp that all the Western talk about imposing sanctions was rather laughable. From Putin’s vantage point, the West appeared feeble. And any dictator, especially one of a mafia-like disposition, responds to weakness. When he perceives strength, he starts to maneuver. However, when he senses vulnerability, he continues to exert pressure unabated,” the interviewee says.

[image error]

Kasparov believes that had Putin swiftly captured Kyiv as he intended, the West would likely have remained passive. However, Ukraine’s resilience during the initial weeks cultivated alliances that provided support against the aggression.

Another striking parallel between Nazi Germany and Putin’s Russia, according to Kasparov, is the absence of a genuine moral compass within society. He notes that criticism of the war in Russia does not necessarily equate to opposition to the war itself. The prevailing sentiment within Russian society largely refrains from condemning Putin’s expansionist war from a moral standpoint.

Why the majority of Russians remain silent against the war

Amidst the escalating conflict, a critical question arises: why do most Russians remain notably quiet when it comes to opposing the war? According to Garry Kasparov, a mere 10-15% of Russians, roughly 15-20 million people, are vocally against the war on moral grounds. Kasparov attributes this phenomenon to years of mental conditioning and a general indifference toward moral values.

In the initial weeks, Russia did witness demonstrations, with around 200,000 to 250,000 people taking to the streets. Unfortunately, nearly 20,000 of them were detained, and some even faced imprisonment as a consequence of their dissent.

“It’s evident that those who were more courageous participated. This, essentially, accounts for less than one percent. This aligns with the figure of 20 million who expressed sympathy. We comprehend the portion of the Russian population ready to stand against the war, rejecting war as a solution,” explains Kasparov.

Surprisingly, the expected mass mobilization against the war failed to materialize, indicating a growing societal acquiescence to conflict. The Putin regime seems to face no immediate internal challenges to its current support base.

“There exists no alternative route to cleanse the minds of Russian society other than the hoisting of the Ukrainian flag in Sevastopol. If Russia is to have any chance at a meaningful future, it hinges on dismantling the imperialistic notions entrenched within its people’s minds. Only through potent measures can these ideas be eradicated. Nothing short of Ukraine’s complete liberation, symbolized by the Ukrainian flag flying prominently in Sevastopol, can put an end to this imperialistic fervor. This, he believes, would prompt people to contemplate ways to construct a future that doesn’t involve encroaching upon the territories of neighboring nations,” states Kasparov.

Challenges of the Russian opposition

The tepid response from Russian society toward the war underscores the illusory nature of the so-called opposition movements within the country post-2013. Kasparov argues that these groups were effectively co-opted by the regime to prepare for an aggressive war.

Recalling the widespread protests in Russia from 2011 to 2013, Kasparov points out that the majority of participants weren’t aiming to overthrow the regime. They sought concessions from the government, a goal he and a small cadre of fellow activists did not share.

“While we, the radical part of the opposition, believed in toppling the authority, in having no agreements with it, the vast majority within the protests wanted to influence it,” he elaborates.

[image error]

At the end of the day, the government made some concessions but eventually tightened its control. After the Russian Opposition Coordination Council was defeated, Kasparov asserts that it became evident that no political activity in Russia could thrive without the regime’s approval.

“In 2013, my departure, which was harshly criticized by these very audacious “oppositionists” in Russia, was connected not only to the fact that I received a summons from the Investigative Committee, and, in general, it was clear how this would end for me. But also, there were no options for functioning in Russia without the Kremlin’s permission left,” notes Kasparov.

The Free Russia Forum, an opposition organization Kasparov co-founded with like-minded emigrants in 2016, found itself in the minority. Critics accused them of detachment from Russian society, arguing they couldn’t grasp the country’s true conditions from abroad. Even today, this perspective continues to face strong resistance.

“Accusations were made that we’ve grown apart from society, that people perceive things differently now. Indeed, a majority now thinks differently. However, this doesn’t imply that someone claiming moral leadership should unquestionably follow the majority, especially when the majority is wrong,” emphasizes Kasparov.

According to Kasparov, the last Russian politician to oppose the war and Russian imperialism was Boris Nemtsov, who was assassinated in 2015. This, in Kasparov’s view, underscores the regime’s keen awareness of those who threaten it.

“All other opposition figures largely accepted Putin’s imperialistic policies as a given. And at the same time, they spun a narrative in the West that Russia was progressing toward evolution and democracy. The preferred term was “hybrid democracy” in Russia,” the oppositionist says.

The Navalny protests, Kasparov argues, operated within approved boundaries. He underscores that while playing chess if you lack good moves, it doesn’t justify making bad ones.

“Those participating in this imitation of political action, in essence, supported the Kremlin’s line and thus gained the opportunity to function. However, at some point, the regime ceased to require them. The poisoning of Navalny wasn’t a result of him crossing a red line. It’s just that the red line shifted. The regime, at some juncture, ceased to need them,” Kasparov explains.

Many of today’s Russian emigrant opposition members, while benefiting from foreign grants, continue to paint a distorted picture of the situation in Russia. These individuals often resist endorsing a regime change in Putin’s Russia or admitting Crimea’s rightful status as part of Ukraine.

“Reading prominent Russian liberals and opposition figures, one notices statements that Russian patriots should oppose the war. Yet, they cite reasons like ‘because things are going badly,’ ‘because a Ukrainian drone attacked Moscow,’ and ‘because NATO approached the border.’ It’s intriguing and telling that there’s no moral component whatsoever. This, I believe, is a shared trait between Hitler’s Germany and Putin’s Russia – a lack of genuine moral core within society,” concludes Kasparov.

What awaits Russia and Putin after the end of the war

According to Kasparov, Putin will not end the war until he remains in power. His downfall will be the result of Russia’s defeat in the war, he believes.

“Putin’s collapse is inevitable after Ukraine’s liberation precisely because the regime doesn’t hold when the leader loses his legitimacy. And as history shows us, the collapse of a dictatorship in a crumbling empire inevitably leads to the emergence of centrifugal forces. There’s a sequence of moves. The victory of Ukraine isn’t up for discussion. Thus, attempting to tie it (which is what Western politicians are doing) to what will come next is incorrect,” notes Kasparov.

He adds that Russia’s defeat in the war doesn’t necessarily mean its complete collapse. But, in Kasparov’s view, the likelihood of certain territories breaking away from the federation is significant. The West fears this, which could restrain its support for Ukraine.

“Much of this fear of Russia’s uncontrollable disintegration underlies the calculations of American ‘pseudo-politicians’ and Europeans, who are afraid of the subsequent strengthening of China and overall chaos in a country possessing nuclear weapons,” says Kasparov.

He points out that there’s no other way for the war to end besides Ukraine’s victory. Everything else only entails a temporary freeze of the conflict. However, the West has yet to realize this.

“There’s no other way besides Ukraine’s complete victory. Because as long as Putin is in power, he will fight until the last dollar, until the last soldier. And, incidentally, this idea has also infiltrated the minds of most rational Western politicians and even Western society. Therefore, the level of support for Ukraine, if it decreases at all, does so minimally, which contradicts the Kremlin’s calculations. They hope that the West will tire, that someone like Trump will win there, in general, that something will happen,” Kasparov adds.

For Putin, he believes, this is an existential war. Even if he obtains what he wanted and secures a victory, he won’t stop anyway.[image error]“Beyond that, he will continue the same policy anyway. Eastern Europeans understand that any of Putin’s success in Ukraine means that the Baltic countries will be next. Poles also understand that Putin simply can’t stop because there’s a logic to the development of a dictatorship that will dictate to him the continuation of an aggressive policy,” notes Kasparov.

He also doubts the possibility of Putin’s overthrow in the foreseeable future. Such a rebellion is possible only when there’s an understanding within the “mafia” ruling Russia that Putin is an unsolvable problem.

“This scenario is theoretically possible, but at present, I think Putin isn’t at the extreme stage for one simple reason. From Putin’s perspective and that of his circle, the outcome of the war is far from obvious,” Kasparov says.

And Prigozhin’s march to Moscow was more likely internal disputes within the mafia than specifically against Putin. The leader of the Wagner PMC felt a threat to his business interests and therefore chose to rebel. However, he likely didn’t act alone, which is why he wasn’t punished for it.

According to Kasparov, the ideal scenario for Russia’s future after the war is the restructuring of the country with an understanding that Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Chechnya, or any other regions might want to be independent.

“In the best case, it would take a minimum of 2-3 years for the country’s reformatting and convincing a significant part of Russian society that the choice is limited. There are two paths. The first is for some parts of Russia to disintegrate, and others to become Chinese provinces. The second is to try at any cost to redeem guilt and return to the Euro-Atlantic community. It’s not guaranteed to work. But after the disease has spread so deeply, all means should be utilized,” Kasparov reasons.

The concept of Russia’s future restructuring should involve the maximum weakening of the center and the creation of a federal, possibly even confederal, basis for the future state. Additionally, the collapse of the Putin regime should include the liberation of all Ukrainian territories, as well as renouncing any territories that Russia either occupies or influences with unlawful power. Moreover, Moscow should pay reparations and hand over war criminals.

“There can’t be talk of any elective process. It takes several years for society to recover, if possible. This implies creating some coalition structures into which everyone can contribute,” he says.

Kasparov states that he’s ready to work together with other representatives of the Russian Action Committee – Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Sergei Guriev, Sergei Aleksashenko, and others – to help the new Russia integrate into the Euro-Atlantic community in the future. Furthermore, there are certainly talented and educated individuals ready to transform the country among those Russians who were forced into emigration.

“These are the things we’re working on now. Whether it will succeed or not – I don’t know. But it seems to me that everyone should be interested in making Russia’s future somewhat comprehensible. To finally solidify these ‘dragon’s teeth,’ which have repeated throughout Russian history, and try to build something different on this foundation,” Kasparov concludes.”