Garry Kasparov's Blog, page 2

DK FM @larsloekke: “Great insights today from @Kasparov63 who was one of the first to warn about the threat Putin posed to democracy. We cannot have any illusions about Putin’s intentions or what is at stake globally right now. #Ukraine must win the war to make the world safer.” pic.twitter.com/25vzGTNFW3

— Denmark MFA (@DanishMFA) August 15, 2023

Overview

18 months into Russia’s all-out invasion of their nation, the Ukrainian people continue to resist. The response of the free world in Ukraine’s defense, led by NATO nations, has been robust, especially relative to the appeasement that followed Putin’s first invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Eastern and Northern Europe, who well understand the Russian threat, lead in percentage of GDP, but the game-changing military and economic aid has come from the United States.

Ukraine is still suffering horrific violence, even as their forces counterattack to regain their occupied territory. Missiles and drones rain down from the skies every day as they face the Russian way of total war—terror and destruction often targeting civilians. But the weapons Ukraine needs to defend its people and to eject the invaders are being withheld by their allies—again, bafflingly, led by the United States.

With no explanation, the Biden administration has developed cold feet in the one thing that matters most: ending the war. Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has made it clear that the war will only end with his defeat and the restoration of all Ukrainian lands by force of arms. I write today to question why the U.S. has deliberately delayed that desirable end.

My fear is that the Biden admin dreams of negotiating immoral “land for peace” deals with war criminal Putin instead of giving Ukraine all the weapons it needs to win the war quickly and save lives. I admit my supposition is based on circumstantial evidence, but it is based on the long track record of Biden officials and their unsavory relationships with Putin and other dictatorships.

The absence of a smoking gun for evidence is not evidence of absence, as I show below. There is no jury of peers, only a jury of dead Ukrainian children, whose number grows every day. In their names, I ask “Why?” In the names of those who may still be saved, I accuse, and I demand answers. In my eyes, failure to provide such answers, means they are guilty until proven innocent. I’m looking for conviction, not a conviction.

This article is a plea for those who will listen to question the actions and motives of President Biden’s secret negotiators: Bill Burns, John Kerry, and Jake Sullivan. To keep in your mind every day the heroic Ukrainians fighting and dying to prevent Putin’s genocide. They, the American people, and the entire free world deserve an honest answer.

I want to be clear early on that despite the Biden administration’s back-dealing on Ukraine, Trump would have been far worse. Blackmailing Zelenskyy while he stood up to Russian imperialism is the type of cartoonishly evil thing that a Hollywood executive would laugh at for being too unrealistic. His pusillanimous behavior towards Putin suggests that Trump would have abandoned Ukraine as a throwaway bargaining chip in any negotiations with his mutual admirer in the Kremlin.

As I have said before, Joe Biden was the best candidate in 2020. The question is whether he is doing what moral decency demands for the Ukrainian people. Does he want to be a force for good or only the lesser evil?

I will also reiterate that all the foreign appeasement and corruption aside, the true responsibility for this war rests on Putin, Russia, and the Russian people, including me. I have spent two decades railing for stronger free world action against Putin’s dictatorship and war-making, but while there is metaphorical blood on many hands, Russia and Russians wield the murder weapon alone. Too few of us wanted to stop Putin and those of us who did failed, and thus are implicated in his crimes.

 

Ukrainians Die, While America Delays

Last week marked the 15th anniversary of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Georgia, another war we should not forget. It was the warning everyone ignored, and Georgian territory is still occupied. At the time, in August 2008, the free world not only responded with indifference, the Obama administration even rewarded the occupiers with the disastrous “Reset” policy. Today, we reap the consequences of that cowardice.

Even at this late hour, the same politicians and generals not only refuse to stop Putin’s war on the free world, they hold back Ukraine from fighting for its own land while they secretly try to negotiate backroom deals with the Kremlin. They restrict the weapons Ukraine may have and how they may use the ones they give.

Just this week, the Washington Post reported that after months of delay, the F-16 training for the first six Ukrainian pilots will not be completed until next summer! I could not believe the number at first either. NATO is training six pilots. Not 600. Not 60 or 16. Six.

If this is some sort of sick joke, it is not funny. Children are being killed. Every single day brings horror stories of new terrorist attacks by Russians just across the border. While the Biden administration enforces the Kremlin’s arbitrary rules of warfare upon Ukraine for fear of “escalation,” it allows the Kremlin to escalate the campaign of genocide and terror with impunity.

 

Negotiating Behind Ukraine’s Back

Last month, when President Biden elevated CIA Director Bill Burns to his Cabinet, he formalized Burns’s role as Biden’s negotiator with hostile regimes. In his announcement, Biden cited Burns’s “clear-eyed, long-term approach” on Ukraine to justify the promotion. But while Burns’s––and the whole Biden administration’s—record on Ukraine may indeed be long-term-oriented, it is far from clear-eyed and has become increasingly opaque.

While they may talk publicly of standing with Ukraine “as long as it takes” or promise they won’t negotiate with Russia––”nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine“––the Biden foreign policy team has played great power politics with Russia while locking Ukraine out of the conversation. Caught up in the daily news cycle, we can miss the big picture, so it is worth taking a step back now to trace the timeline of how Biden’s team has repeatedly failed to live up to its rhetoric on Ukraine.

Biden’s advisors first tried to negotiate with Russia behind Ukraine’s back. Then, when they failed to make a deal with Putin, Biden’s team prepared to surrender Ukraine to the Kremlin. Even today, as Ukrainians fight––not just for their liberty, but for the defense of the entire global security order and the values of the free world––Biden has yet to bury the idea of negotiating with Putin at Ukraine’s expense.

 

The Seeds of This War Were Sown in the Obama Administration

The seeds of the Ukraine war were sown by President Obama. The Obama administration––many of whose alumni serve in the current White House––wanted to ignore Ukraine, so it pretended no problem existed.

For over a decade, Western leaders ignored my warnings against Putin’s false promises of negotiation and “engagement“––as they still do to this day. Just last week, in my debate with Obama policy director Charles Kupchan (who will appear again later in this article), I confronted him over the fact that the “realists” have been wrong on Ukraine and Putin from the very beginning. The great failure of the early 21st century is that, in the name of so-called “realism,” America consistently sold out its friends and values to appease its enemies.

The realists want to appear serious, and thoughtful, but they do so by selling out America’s allies and values. They “negotiate” away other people’s land and other people’s freedom in a world of empires. They fall into traps like repeating Kremlin propaganda, seemingly oblivious to the common sense that if your opponent negotiates in bad faith, repeating that bad faith argument just legitimizes it.

The “engage with Russia” crowd may have been excusable in 2005, but those arguments lost merit when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. Putin’s first invasion of Ukraine in 2014 proved that “engagement” was a corrupt and cowardly excuse to keep making money in Russia despite the moral costs.

With no one willing to stand up to him, Putin waged campaigns of terror across the world, invading Ukraine twice, waltzing across Obama’s red lines in Syria, and assisting military juntas from Mali to Myanmar.

When Putin and Bashar al-Assad waltzed across Obama’s chemical weapons red lines in Syria, Obama did nothing. When Putin invaded Crimea, Obama did nothing. When Putin waged war in the Donbas, Obama did nothing. Even today, Obama shamelessly insists that nothing could have been done to stop Putin. In his interview this June with Christiane Amanpour, he even repeated Kremlin propaganda nearly verbatim on the Crimean invasion! “There’s a reason why there was not an armed invasion of Crimea, because Crimea was full of a lot of Russian speakers and there was some sympathy to the view that Russia was representing its interests.” It was one thing to be blind in 2014, although even that was pathetic. To repeat Kremlin propaganda today is sick.

I wrote Winter is Coming in 2015 because I wanted America’s leaders to wake up to the fact that Putin was no longer a threat to Russian democracy, but to the whole free world. Instead, the Obama administration slammed NATO’s door shut in Ukraine’s face, leaving the protestors of the 2014 Euromaidan (Revolution of Dignity) to fend for themselves against Putin’s tanks. Today, innocent Ukrainians pay the price in blood for the free world’s greedy carelessness.

The next administration’s record on Ukraine was just as bad, if in that unique Trumpian way that makes all predecessors and successors look better in comparison. Instead of just ignoring Ukraine, Trump held $400 million in vital aid hostage and tried to blackmail Zelenskyy into fabricating slander against his potential rival Joe Biden. If President Zelenskyy had not stood up to Trump then, Biden would not be president today.

There’s an alternate universe where a fake “but Ukraine!” scandal sinks Biden, Trump wins in 2020, and a rudderless Europe without American leadership stands aside as Russia pounds Ukraine into submission and sets up shop across NATO borders. It’s safe to say that President Zelenskyy was defending the free world even before Russia invaded again.

 

Biden’s Secret Negotiators

But if the Obama administration abandoned Ukraine and the Trump administration bullied it, the Biden team has yet to learn from their mistakes. Throughout this entire war, Biden has leaned on a key circle of advisors to negotiate secretly with Putin. Biden’s core negotiators––CIA Director Bill Burns, Presidential Envoy John Kerry, and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan––served as the foreign policy team of the Obama administration. Each of the members Biden sends to secretly negotiate with Russia have worked with him for years, share his confidence, and speak for him.

Joe Biden and John Kerry know each other not only from serving as Obama’s Vice President and Secretary of State together, but from 24 years in the old boys’ club of the Senate. After serving on the Foreign Relations Committee together for decades, when Biden became Vice President, he passed the Chairmanship to his close friend Kerry.

Then-Vice President Joe Biden congratulates John Kerry at his swearing in as Secretary of State in 2013. (Alex Wong/Getty Images, FILE)

In the Obama administration, Bill Burns served as John Kerry’s top deputy. Before that, he had been Ambassador to Russia from 2005 to 2009 in the middle of Putin’s crackdown on the country’s nascent democracy. He still draws on those old Russian contacts today in his new role as Biden’s dealmaker with the Kremlin.

Then-U.S. Ambassador to Russia Bill Burns sitting down with Vladimir Putin and Sergei Lavrov in 2008. (ALEXANDER ZEMLIANICHENKO / REUTERS)

Jake Sullivan succeeded Anthony Blinken as National Security Advisor to then-Vice President Biden, serving in the role from February 26, 2013 – August 1, 2014. Later, Sullivan, as a senior member of Hillary Clinton’s staff, was also one of the principal architects of Obama’s catastrophic “Reset“ with Russia.

Jake Sullivan meets with President Zelenskyy in Kyiv in November 2022. (Office of the President of Ukraine).

This core trio shares Biden’s Cold War mindset about great powers carving up the world, negotiating secret deals in dimly-lit rooms. When they ‘accidentally’ meet Kremlin officials in quiet hotels in Ankara or Delhi, or talk on the phone in “routine” contact, they are negotiating behind Ukraine’s back.

I should mention that not all of Biden’s lieutenants are involved in this ignoble deal-making. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Antony Blinken have consistently supported Ukraine both in public and in private, and the timeline below demonstrates just that. Just last month, while others were blocking weapons for the counteroffensive, Blinken declared that Ukraine had reclaimed 50% of the land it initially lost, and pressed for further victories. But among the foreign policy bureaucracy, the trio of Kerry, Burns, and Sullivan seem to command more authority than the two Secretaries. Compared to Sullivan’s office down the hall from the Oval Office, the Pentagon and Foggy Bottom may as well be half a world away.

Austin’s and Blinken’s subordinates often appear to be more loyal to the trio of negotiators than to their immediate bosses. Especially at State, where many top officials were brought to their respective positions by Kerry and Burns. This disconnect is confusing and potentially dangerous. The free world can little afford inconsistency and unpredictability between what the world’s most powerful nation says and what it does.

Bill Burns is Biden’s Kissinger, playing great power politics with the Kremlin and his counterpart, Kremlin intelligence head Sergei Naryshkin. During the Obama administration, Burns and Jake Sullivan were sent secretly to negotiate the JCPOA with Iran. When Biden pulled out of Afghanistan, he secretly sent Burns to negotiate with the Taliban. When Biden wanted to boost Saudi oil production, he secretly sent Burns to arrange a face-to-face with Mohammad bin Salman. Now that Biden wants to meet Xi Jinping, he secretly sent Burns to meet with Chinese officials earlier this summer. And just a couple days ago, Burns secretly negotiated a $6 billion payout to the Iranian regime for hostages––rewarding terrorism by funding Iran’s next kidnapping. Bill Burns, the architect of the first Iran deal, was almost certainly behind this one as well.

Meanwhile, John Kerry plays a similar role as a behind-the-scenes negotiator. His job as climate envoy is a convenient cover to reach out to his old diplomatic contacts. As the timeline proves, Kerry frequently speaks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, whom he knows all too well from his term as Obama’s second Secretary of State.

Along with Jake Sullivan, this trio continues to put forward peace proposals carving up Ukraine without Ukraine’s participation. This is the policy team that keeps delaying weapons transfers to Ukraine, costing innocent lives. With no explanation for the delays from the administration, I can only conclude that Biden’s team wants to keep options open as bargaining chips while they negotiate with Putin.

 

The TimelineDateActionBiden NegotiatorReported byJanuary 26, 2021Joe Biden holds his first phone call with Vladimir Putin, discussing Ukraine.Joe BidenCNNFebruary 13, 2021John Kerry calls Sergei Lavrov.John KerryBarron’sMarch 17, 2021Biden calls Putin a killer in an ABC interview.CNNMarch 24, 2021Russia recalls its Ambassador to the U.S.NYTApril 6, 2021John Kerry meets Sergei Lavrov secretly in Delhi to discuss a potential Biden-Putin summit.John KerryEconomic Times of IndiaApril 16, 2021U.S. sanctions 10 Russian diplomats over cyber hacks.NBCApril 17, 2021Russia sanctions 10 diplomats, tells U.S. to recall its ambassador.NBCMay 25, 2021To secure a summit with Putin, Joe Biden lifts sanctions on Nord Stream 2 Pipeline companies.Joe BidenBloombergMarch to June, 2021Ahead of the summit, Joe Biden phones Vladimir Putin to apologize for the killer comments, back down.Joe BidenReutersJune 16, 2021Biden-Putin Summit in Geneva, discussing Ukraine.Joe BidenJuly 12, 2021John Kerry meets Sergei Lavrov in Moscow, calls Putin by phone.John KerryReutersJuly 12, 2021Putin does not meet with Kerry. He leaves Moscow instead to avoid Kerry and calls by phone instead.John KerryNPRAugust 31, 2021Biden approves $60 million in military aid to Ukraine, but delays delivery until after another round of negotiations with Putin fails in November.NYTSeptember 1, 2021Biden hosts Volodymyr Zelenskyy for a White House visit.White HouseNovember 2-3, 2021Bill Burns flies to Moscow, meets Sergei Naryshkin.Bill BurnsCNNNovember 2, 2021Putin does not meet with Burns. He leaves Moscow for Sochi to avoid Burns, but calls by phone instead. After the call, Burns says, “I came away with a very strong impression that Putin had just about made up his mind to go to war.”Bill BurnsPoliticoNovember 2, 2021In Sochi, Putin assembles Russia’s defense companies and generals to prepare to invade Ukraine.KremlinNovember 1, 2021After failed negotiations with Putin, Biden delivers the weapons promised in August.NYTDecember 5, 2021White House says Putin will invade “as soon as early 2022.”FTDecember 7, 2021Biden and Putin call to discuss Ukraine.Joe BidenWhite HouseDecember 9, 2021Biden and Zelenskyy call after the Biden-Putin call.White HouseDecember 10, 2021NBC reports Biden has delayed a $200 million weapons package to Ukraine for weeks, despite Zelenskyy’s pleas, while negotiating with Putin instead.Joe BidenNBCDecember 30, 2021Biden and Putin call about Ukraine.Joe BidenWhite HouseLate December, 2021After negotiations with Putin break down, Biden approves $200 million in drawdowns from U.S. arms to Ukraine, but no tanks, planes, or heavy weapons.WaPoMid-January, 2022Bill Burns secretly flies to Kyiv, tells Volodymyr Zelenskyy the Russians are planning to invade Ukraine, assassinate him.Bill BurnsBusiness InsiderJanuary 19, 2022Biden predicts Putin will invade Ukraine.NBCFebruary 2-3, 2022Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley predicts in Congressional testimony that Kyiv would fall within 72 hours of an invasion, at least partially based on a RAND corporation report.(Fox) (RAND)February 12, 2022Biden and Putin call about Ukraine.Joe BidenWhite HouseFebruary 18, 2022Biden “convinced” Putin will invade Ukraine.NPRFebruary 24, 2022Putin launches a second, full-fledged invasion of Ukraine.February 24, 2022White House officials expect Ukraine to fall in 96 hours.NewsweekFebruary 26, 2022Biden approves $350 million in military aid to Ukraine, but no tanks, planes, or heavy weapons.NYTMarch to April, 2022The U.S. sends small arms, but blocks heavy weapons to Ukraine. The U.S. holds these bargaining chips on the table while negotiations with Russia continue.CNNMarch 9, 2022The U.S. rejects a Polish plan to send MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine.CNNMarch 16, 2022The U.S. does not respond to a Slovakian plan to send S-300s, MiG-29s to Ukraine.CNNApril 7, 2022A negotiated land for peace deal falls apart. In response, the U.S. increases military support for Ukraine.(NPR) (Foreign Affairs)April 8, 2022The U.S. finally approves Slovakia’s S-300 transfer, but blocks the MiG-29 transfer.ReutersApril 10, 2022Jake Sullivan rejects Ukrainian requests for heavy weapons like jets and tanks, says U.S. will provide Ukraine “the weapons it needs.”Jake SullivanReutersApril 13, 2022Biden calls Zelenskyy, offers $800 million in military aid, but rejects the requests for tanks and planes.White HouseApril 26, 2022Lloyd Austin convenes 40+ nations’ militaries at Ramstein Air Base to support Ukraine’s defense.WaPoMay 13, 2022Lloyd Austin calls Sergei Shoigu.Defense DepartmentJune 22, 2022Russia rejects negotiations. Sergei Lavrov flies to Iran instead to undermine U.S.-Iran negotiations.ReutersJune 23, 2022After negotiations fail, the U.S. sends HIMARS, its first heavy weapons, to Ukraine.ReutersJune 23, 2022But the U.S. altered them to limit their range, effectiveness for fears of “escalation.”WSJJuly 30, 2022Antony Blinken calls Sergei Lavrov.CNNNovember 6, 2022Jake Sullivan calls Kremlin officials.Jake SullivanWSJNovember 14, 2022Bill Burns meets Sergei Naryshkin in Ankara.Bill BurnsGuardianNovember 14, 2022Biden says publicly “We are not going to engage in any negotiation. There’s nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.”CNNNovember 15, 2022Bill Burns meets Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv.Bill BurnsEuroNews November 16, 2022Mark Milley says Ukrainian victory unlikely, advocates “political solution.”VoAJanuary 14, 2023The UK announces it will send tanks to Ukraine. The U.S. and other NATO allies wait for negotiations with Putin.GuardianJanuary 17, 2023Sergei Naryshkin agrees to meet Bill Burns in Moscow.Bill BurnsReutersJanuary 19, 2023Bill Burns secretly meets Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv to discuss this deal. The U.S. and Russia deny such negotiations happened.Bill Burns(AP) (Reuters)Late January, 2023Bill Burns secretly meets Sergei Naryshkin in Moscow, reportedly offers 20% of Ukraine to Russia in exchange for peace. The deal falls apart.Bill BurnsNZZJanuary 25, 2023As soon as the deal fails, Germany and the U.S. both immediately agree to send tanks to Ukraine.NYTApril 4, 2023Antony Blinken calls Sergei Lavrov.State DepartmentLate April, 2023Richard Haass, Charles Kupchan, and other former White House officials meet Sergei Lavrov in New York. This group has consistently talked with Lavrov, and at least one member has flown to Moscow.NBCJune 28, 2023Sergei Lavrov says Kremlin in contact with Jake Sullivan. Per Lavrov, U.S. Ambassador Lynne Tracy calls the Wagner coup “Russia’s internal affair.”Jake SullivanReutersJune 30, 2023Bill Burns calls Sergei Naryshkin to discuss “what to do with Ukraine” after the Wagner insurrection.Bill Burns(Guardian) (NYT)July 9, 2023Biden rules out any deal on future NATO membership for Ukraine, leaving a bargaining chip for negotiations with Russia.CNNJuly 14, 2023Politico reports that European partners are still waiting on the U.S. to formally approve training Ukrainian pilots in F-16’s.PoliticoJuly 22, 2023Biden elevates Bill Burns to the Cabinet.Bill BurnsAPJuly 23, 2023The Washington Post reports that the U.S. continues to block Ukrainian requests for long-range ATACMS missiles, despite Zelenskyy personally asking Biden in Vilnius.WaPoJuly 23, 2023President Zelenskyy confirms that NATO delays pushed back Ukraine’s counteroffensive by months.CNNAugust 11, 2023The Washington Post reports that after months of delay, only six Ukrainian pilots will be trained to fly F-16’s by next summer.WaPoTakeaways

What can we take away from this series of events? First, it is clear that ever since he took office, Biden has been negotiating Ukraine’s future with Putin, while leaving Zelenskyy out in the cold. It’s possible that Bill Burns may not have discovered Putin’s intentions about Ukraine through secret spy work; it may be that Sergei Naryshkin or even Putin himself simply told Burns, straight-up, that the Russians were going to invade.

At that June 2021 Biden-Putin summit in Geneva, the two men discussed many issues, and Ukraine was only one of them. They may have discussed Iran, Biden’s climate agenda, nuclear arms treaties, or a whole host of other issues important to both countries. But it is clear that for Biden, Ukraine ranked the lowest on his agenda, while it was the most important issue for Putin. We can guess that whatever agreement the two came to in Geneva, it was not favorable to Ukraine.

Finally, we can conclude that once Biden understood that Putin would invade Ukraine, he prepared to surrender instead of to fight. When, in November or December, the Biden administration was 100% confident that Putin would invade in weeks, they failed to properly equip Ukraine for deterrence or for war. Right after Putin dodged Kerry’s visit in July 2021, Biden sent his first weapons to Ukraine, but that supply trickled in. When war became a near-certainty in November, Biden sent more small arms. These were not the emergency-mode weapons transfers to stop a war; they were superficial play-acting.

In addition to refusing to send arms to Ukraine, the Biden administration even blocked NATO allies from sending weapons of their own to Ukraine for fear of “escalation.”

The Biden administration did not want the surrender to be too bloody or to look like a loss for a U.S. that had done all it could and failed. General Mark Milley told Congress that he was confident Ukraine would lose. He did not want to send the Ukrainians any real weapons because he believed they would just be left for the Russian army to take later.

Even the weapons that the Biden administration chose to send show just how unprepared Mark Milley, the RAND corporation crowd, and the appeasers were for this conflict. They sent Ukraine Javelins and Stingers, weapons fit for a guerrilla war in the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of Vietnam––not the highly urbanized landscape of Ukraine. By sending only weapons for a guerrilla war, instead of a full complement of arms for a conventional war, Milley showed how little confidence he had in the Ukrainian army: the Biden administration was preparing for Ukraine to lose right away.

Instead of preparing tanks, fighter jets, and long-range missiles for Ukraine, the Biden administration prepared an evacuation helicopter for Zelenskyy and a white flag for Ukraine. It was only the personal moral courage of Zelenskyy, once again, that prevented total surrender. From February until June, it took four months, four months(!) for heavy weapons to arrive in Ukraine.

Even after the Ukrainians fought back and defended Kyiv, the U.S. sent weapons to Ukraine at a drip-drip trickle, with disastrous consequences. In April 2022, Lloyd Austin took a courageous stand in favor of arming Ukraine to not only survive, but to win. But ever since then, the core group of negotiators in Biden’s inner circle have preferred to delay and to slow-roll weapons, rather than arming Ukraine with urgency. By blocking HIMARS, then tanks, then jets, and then releasing each in limited supplies only after great delay, the United States has cost Ukraine its counteroffensive as well as many innocent lives.

Timing is everything in war. Had the United States given Ukraine heavy weapons like tanks, jets, and ATACMS early and in large amounts, Ukraine would have had a far better chance at retaking its territory and striking at the Russian weapons that are still bombarding Ukrainian civilians daily. It appears that every Ukrainian request is another bargaining chip for the U.S. in its negotiations with Russia. Meanwhile, the Biden trio’s questionable geopolitical calculations are being paid in Ukrainian blood, military and civilian alike.

Yes, the United States has allocated $47 billion in military aid to Ukraine as of July 10, 2023.  But in terms of actual delivery and practical utility, that number is far lower. Of the $47 billion allocated, only $17 billion in supplies have arrived. The decision earlier this month to block any invitation for future Ukrainian participation in NATO is just another example of the United States keeping more bargaining chips on the table for its negotiations with the Kremlin.

 

Conclusion

Time and again, the Biden administration’s Cold War thinkers have tried to make the Ukrainian problem go away by compromising with Putin, only to be stopped by Ukrainian courage. It is time for Biden’s negotiators to testify under oath in front of Congress and explain themselves. Why are they negotiating Ukraine’s future without Ukraine? Why do they continue to try to cut secret deals with the Kremlin? And why won’t they support Ukrainian victory publicly and fully, not only in words, but in deeds?

Every day that America is not fully committed to Ukrainian victory furthers Russia’s genocide. Ukrainians are dying today, right now, because the Biden administration refuses to act.

It is time to make a choice: either Ukrainians enjoy the same right to freedom, life, and liberty that all humans do, or they do not. We either fight hard for a world of rules and values, or we do not. Bill Burns, John Kerry, and Jake Sullivan live in a world where the great powers set the rules and small countries must obey. So does Putin.

We do not have to live in that world. We can choose to be governed by morality, not some cold political calculus that always fails to add up. Instead of leering at Hunter Biden’s sex tapes, House Speaker McCarthy should do his job and bring Burns, Kerry, and Sullivan under oath. No more hidden talks with Putin and his war criminal mafia. Drag Biden’s secret negotiators into the light to account for themselves to the American people, who overwhelmingly support Ukraine. Slava Ukraini. Glory to the heroes.

Garry @Kasparov63 supports Ukraine joining @NATO.

“[Ukraine doesn’t] exist, to Putin. We should look at this war as… either we win or we lose. Recognizing this is important for @NATO‘s integrity. The fact that Ukraine is still waiting its turn… makes the situation worse.”

— Open to Debate (@OpentoDebateOrg) August 5, 2023

This article is a reprint. You can watch the full debate below or at Open to Debate.

”

Currently, NATO has 31 member countries and there are four countries that have declared their desire to join the alliance, which includes Ukraine. Over the years, Ukraine has sought to move away from Russia’s sphere of influence and align itself more closely with the West. Since the beginning of the Russian invasion, a record 82% of Ukrainians support joining the alliance. Ukraine formally announced a bid for fast-track membership in September 2022. Those who argue “yes” say admitting Ukraine would protect the country from further aggression, affirm its sovereignty, and solidify its alignment with the West and the rest of Europe. Those who argue “no” worry that doing so would provoke Putin and escalate the conflict, destabilizing the region, and that Ukraine doesn’t yet meet NATO’s standards regarding military capability, political stability, and commitment to democratic values.

Against this backdrop, we debate the question: Should NATO Admit Ukraine?”

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

By Tiberiu Georgescu

“8/4/2023 – The inaugural KCF European Trainers Conference brought together around 150 trainers from more than 25 countries. The distinguished speakers, including Michael Khodarkovsky, Ivan Sokolov, Adrian Mikhalchishin, and Garry Kasparov, shared their expertise, enriching the conference with valuable insights and experiences. | Photos: Lennart Ootes / Anastasiya Karlovich / Kasparov Chess Foundation

Introduction

The inaugural KCF European Trainers Conference, hosted and sponsored by the esteemed Kasparov Chess Foundation, in collaboration with the European Chess Union Trainers Commission, the Kasparov Chess Foundation Adriatic and the European Chess Academy, kicked off with great enthusiasm. The event brought together around 150 trainers from more than 25 countries across four continents, and took place at the prestigious Westin Hotel in Zagreb, the same venue as the Grand Chess Tour’s third stage — the SuperUnited Rapid & Blitz.

The moderator, Grandmaster Cristian Chirilă, a trainer himself and director of the program at the Missouri State University, USA, set the stage for an engaging and insightful conference, introducing a lineup of distinguished speakers who are renowned in the world of chess coaching and organization.

Speakers:

Michael Khodarkovsky – Training the young playersIvan Sokolov – Training the professionalsAdrian Mikhalchishin – Women in Chess

Keynote speaker:

Garry Kasparov – Trainers’ role in modern times

Honoring the Kasparov Chess Foundation’s Legacy

Commencing the conference, the attendees celebrated the 21st anniversary of the remarkable Kasparov Chess Foundation, which has played a pivotal role in discovering and nurturing exceptional chess talent.

The first speaker: Michael Khodarkovsky

As the morning session unfolded, the stage welcomed Mr. Michael Khodarkovsky, a highly accomplished chess coach, writer, and organizer. Khodarkovsky’s impressive achievements include serving as coach of the US Youth World Team from 2005 to 2017, the head coach and captain of the US Olympiad Women’s team from 2003 to 2013, contributing to their historic medal victories in 2004 and 2008 respectively. He has been an integral part of Garry Kasparov’s coaching staff during the 1995 and 2000 World Championship matches, as well as the legendary encounters against IBM’s Deep Blue in 1996 and 1997. Currently, as FIDE Vice President, FIDE Senior Trainer, and President of the Kasparov Chess Foundation, Khodarkovsky commands immense respect and admiration within the world’s chess community.

From left to right: Cristian Chirilă, Ivan Sokolov, Adrian Michalchishin, Michael Khodarkovsky

Michael Khodarkovsky’s conference presentation: Building a strong chess organization and nurturing talent

Michael Khodarkovsky delivered a compelling presentation that offered valuable insights into building a robust multi-level organization and fostering healthy growth. With a focus on the journey of their organization to the top of the chess world, Khodarkovsky shared his experiences, highlighting how they overcame key challenges and achieved success. Notably, he emphasized the personal connections formed with students, particularly those from the Foundation’s Young Stars program, showcasing the deep bond that goes beyond their chess achievements. Additionally, he provided insights into their student selection process and discussed the objectives and approach they employ to assist young players.

Building strong connections: Nostalgia and KCF Family

During his presentation, Khodarkovsky’s gave a personal touch as he shared heartfelt anecdotes about the students of the Young Stars program. He displayed a nostalgic affection for the memories and experiences they had together, emphasizing that they were not merely champions but an integral part of the Kasparov Chess Foundation family. This connection extends beyond their time as students, illustrating the lasting impact and meaningful relationships formed through their chess journey.

From left to right: Michael Khodarkovsky and Garry Kasparov with the program’s Grandmasters: Jonas Buhl Bjerre (Denmark), Christopher Yoo, and Abhi Mishra (USA)

After Garry Kasparov retired as a professional player in 2005, Khodarkovsky was “released” from his duties and was able to dedicate his career to other causes. In the same year, he became the coach of the US World Youth Team and for the next 13 years, many of his students achieved impressive results. Along with his colleagues from the US coaching staff, he managed to bring home numerous champions titles at both continental and world chess championships.

KCF has partnered with The Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis, in its Young Stars – Team USA program. The program has helped develop a number of world champions from across the country, including GMs Jeffery Xiong, Kayden Troff and Sam Sevian. In the photo above, the three of them, together with WIM Ashritha Eswaran, accompanied the great Garry Kasparov during a visit to the US Congress in Washington DC in 2014, where some congressmen could actually see the young Grandmasters’ talent.

Photo taken during the training session at the Saint Louis Chess Club: Cristopher Yoo, Carissa Yip, Rochelle Wu and Brandon Jacobson with their mentors

Global Youth program: 2019-present

Since 2019, the Young Stars training program became global, organizing the first session in Zagreb. Last year the program was dedicated to Ukrainian talented kids.

From left to right, the young champions: Mariya Manko, Kirill Nezhentsev, Teimur Toktomushev, Ihor Samunenkov

This year, two training sessions took place, one in Vienna and one in Zagreb.

Selecting promising students: Key attributes

Khodarkovsky provided insights into their students’ selection process, focusing on key attributes they consider when identifying promising young talents. These attributes include:

age – typically between 9 and 13;results and rating in comparison with other players of similar age;a meticulous scouting process that involves studying the potential students’ games.

Khodarkovsky explained training methods and presented some examples which were used to evaluate students during training sessions. In the picture below, you can see Abhimanyu Mishra at work, the youngest grandmaster in chess history. Meantime, the youngest generation of the program is posing in KCF’s headquarters in New York, upon conclusion of their first session with Garry Kasparov and Michael Khodarkovsky.

Mastering these tactical motifs is essential to deepen your understanding of the game and become a better player. After all, you neither want to overlook the given chances by your opponent, nor blunder yourself!

White to move

In order to solve studies such as the ones shown above and below, instructors allow students to work on those from 10-15 up to 30 minutes, depending on the difficulty level. The students find not only the right move, but the sequence of moves to compliment the main idea of the study. The main line and the most important sidelines have to be written on paper.

White to move

Objectives and progress assessment

The presentation further shed light on the objectives set for the students. The aim for young players is to achieve the title of Grandmaster by no later than 16 to 18 years old, reflecting their commitment to fostering rapid growth and development. Khodarkovsky addressed an important question regarding progress assessment, explaining that they typically evaluate the student’s progress after 6–12 months of collaboration. During the course of the program, the Foundation provides personal training support to those students who demonstrate strong effort and steady progress.

If there is insufficient progress, then they provide detailed feedback and recommendations to go back on track. Pausing the collaboration does not indicate a permanent end, as trainers of the program continue to monitor performances of the students with the aim of resuming their work.

By outlining their student selection process, objectives, and approach to progress assessment, Khodarkovsky provided a glimpse into the thoughtfulness and dedication invested in developing young players. As the audience absorbed these insights, they gained a more in-depth understanding of the intricacies involved in building a successful chess organization and fostering the growth of future champions.

Adrian Mikhalchishin: Training for women’s chess

Continuing the conference’s insightful discussions, GM Adrian Mikhalchishin took the stage. A trainer of champions and legends, Mikhalchishin built an impressive coaching repertoire, having worked with world champions such as the great Anatoly Karpov, Maia Chiburdanidze, and the Polgar sisters. With a track record of teaching world-class grandmasters, Mikhalchishin’s expertise and prolific authorship made him a highly regarded figure in the chess community. He shared his knowledge on training methods specifically tailored for women’s chess, adding depth to the conference program.

10% of chess players are women

One of the primary goals of the chess community is to discover methods to more effectively engage female chess players and create an improved chess environment. Currently, the number of female chess players stands at around 10%. In order to bridge the performance gap between the genders, the chess community is in need to form a more balanced representation.

An intriguing observation has been made regarding the divergent interests in higher education between male and female top chess players. It appears that female top chess players tend to dedicate time to pursuing higher education, while their male counterparts tend to prioritize a sole focus on chess.

It is essential to foster an inclusive environment in which all players, regardless of gender, have equal opportunities to excel and pursue their interests. By addressing the challenges and disparities faced by female chess players, we can work towards creating a more balanced and diverse chess community, ultimately benefiting the game as a whole. Open and respectful dialogue, as well as ongoing efforts to promote equality and inclusivity, will be instrumental in achieving this goal.

Exploring talent identification with Ivan Sokolov

The stage welcomed Grandmaster Ivan Sokolov, an elite-level player and revered coach. Renowned for his exceptional achievements as a player, Sokolov seamlessly transitioned into coaching, assisting some of the world’s top junior talents, including Alireza Firouzja, Parham Maghsoodloo, Salem Saleh, Bogdan Deac or Jorden van Foreest. As the captain of Uzbekistan, Olympiad champions in 2022, and the current coach of the Romanian Olympiad team, Sokolov shared his invaluable insights on talent identification, enriching the conference with his wealth of experience.

In a captivating keynote speech at a recent conference, Ivan Sokolov delved into the fascinating realm of chess and explored the potential of young players, specifically those with a rating of 2550 and above. Drawing from his extensive experience and knowledge, Sokolov shared insights into the qualities and attributes necessary for these talented individuals to reach the pinnacle of the chess world. By examining the traits of dedication, tenacity, and understanding the position, Sokolov shed light on the path to becoming a top player.

Recognizing talent and the road to success

As a player who himself stepped away from professional chess in 2013, Sokolov possessed a unique perspective on identifying talent and nurturing it into excellence. He emphasized the importance of recognizing a strong player who possesses the potential to become a top performer. Sokolov highlighted three key abilities that lay the foundation for success: dedication, tenacity, and understanding the position.

The power of dedication and hard work

Sokolov underscored the significance of dedication and hard work, both before and after tournaments. Young players must be willing to invest countless hours honing their skills, analysing games, and continuously seeking improvement. Sokolov stressed that it is the unwavering commitment to constant progress that separates the good from the great.

Tenacity: The will to succeed during the game

In discussing the importance of tenacity during rounds, Sokolov recounted memorable experiences where top players demonstrated an unwavering will to win. He highlighted instances where players managed to secure victories against seemingly unbeatable opponents by refusing to accept defeat. By showcasing resilience and an unyielding spirit, these players demonstrated their potential to rise above challenges and achieve remarkable results.

In the game below, a 15-year-old Alireza Firouzja managed to save the game despite being a piece down, which GM Sokolov defines as the talent of “refusing to die”, a key aspect of a player with top GM potential.

Understanding the position and psychological disruption

Sokolov emphasized the significance of understanding the position and recognizing critical moments when a game cannot be saved by conventional means. At such junctures, Sokolov advocates for players to employ disruptive tactics that psychologically may unbalance their opponents. By introducing unexpected moves or strategies, players can create new opportunities and turn the tide in their favour, showcasing their ability to think outside the box and exploit the psychological vulnerabilities of their opponents.

Case study: Kirill’s example and Magnus’ “anti-talent”White to move

Sokolov provided insightful case studies to illustrate his points. He presented Kirill Shevchenko as an example of a young player who embodies dedication, tenacity, and a deep understanding of the game. By following these principles, Kirill demonstrated great potential for reaching the upper echelons of professional chess. The correct move is 32.h4!, which Kirill recently spotted during a training session.

“The difficulty of the exercise is that (after already playing quite a number of strong moves) the player needs to understand that:

White does not have a win;Black does not really have moves;If White improves his king’s position/situation, the position will be winning” (GM Sokolov).

Sokolov finished his presentation in a very humorous way, by explaining that no system is perfect and everyone can be wrong sometimes! The coach of the 2022 Olympiad champions showed a game played by himself in 2008 against the young future world champion, Magnus Carlsen, who was only 14 years old at the time. Sokolov won easily and admittedly thought that there was nothing special about that kid. Sokolov confessed to the conference attendees how wrong his assessment of the young prodigy was. The lesson we take away from this is that even the best trainers in the world can be mistaken in identifying talent.

Garry Kasparov: Trainers’ role in modern times

The much-anticipated moment arrived as the audience eagerly welcomed to the stage the legendary 13th World Champion, Garry Kasparov. Renowned for his unprecedented dominance in the chess world and his subsequent role in identifying and nurturing exceptional chess talents, Kasparov’s presence was a major highlight of the conference. As the mentor and coach of Magnus Carlsen in 2009, Kasparov’s profound insights and extensive knowledge captivated the audience. Kasparov emphasized the importance of understanding the transformation from classical training methods to the present-day approach.

Reflecting on his meeting with Botvinnik in August 1973, when little Garry was only 10 years old, Kasparov reminisced about the profound impact it had on him and the deep nostalgia he feels to this day. This meeting symbolized a turning point and marked the beginning of significant changes in his chess training. After Kasparov became World Champion, he decided to continue the work and the organization became the Botvinnik-Kasparov School, which played a significant role in his chess journey.

Kasparov’s talk shed light on the evolution of chess training and the transformative role technology — particularly computers — has played in the game. With his unique perspective, Kasparov presented solutions while also highlighting key challenges that need to be addressed in the future.

The advent of computers and the training revolution

Kasparov identified computers as the primary catalyst for change in chess and training techniques. He highlighted how the influx of technology altered the game’s dynamics and the way players prepared for matches. Reflecting on his own experiences, Kasparov recalled the challenges he faced in the past when information was very limited. Then, players needed to study very well with the available information and have a deep and clear understanding of it. In contrast, the present era presents an overwhelming abundance of information, which could lead to a partial understanding and, at times, superficiality.

The impact of technology on chess players

“Magnus Carlsen is the player who is best resisting the pressure of the screen” (Garry Kasparov)

Kasparov emphasized the importance of resisting the allure of excessive engine time, noting that the best players are those who can maintain a healthy balance between online resources and over the board play. He raised thought-provoking questions about distinguishing rational decisions from irrational ones and the role of inspiration in the decision-making process. Kasparov advocated for a genuine passion for data collection and urged students to delve deeper into the game’s general rules rather than relying solely on machines. Kasparov emphasized the need to push young players to break barriers and challenge conventional thinking, highlighting that only a select few, such as Magnus Carlsen, truly excel in this regard.

The era of computer-assisted chess

Kasparov chronicled the pivotal moment in 1995 when he started using computers for calculation, heralding a new era of computer-assisted chess preparation, as detailed in Michael Khodarkovsky’s book — “A New Era: How Garry Kasparov Changed the World of Chess” (1997). He cited the 2021 Candidates match between Fabiano Caruana and Vachier Lagrave as an example of the modern use of technology in chess.

They both analysed the same lines with top performance computers, but somehow Vachier-Lagrave overlooked the best continuation.

Striking a balance between data acquisition and utilization

“A good 11 or 12-year-old chess player nowadays has more chess knowledge than Bobby Fischer”

Due to the access to huge amounts of information, a good 12-year-old chess player already may obtain more knowledge than Bobby Fischer or even Garry Kasparov himself used to have. However, playing good chess is not only about the amount of data, but also about the depth of understanding.

In the past, one of the greatest challenges faced by top players was the acquisition of information. Access to information was limited, requiring individuals to navigate through scarce resources. However, this limitation led to a deep understanding of the available information, as players made the most of what they had.

Now, we are confronted with an abundance of information. The digital era has ushered in a vast wealth of chess-related content, resulting in almost infinite resources at our fingertips. However, this abundance has also led to a partial understanding of the information available. With so much content to sift through, it becomes challenging to fully grasp and internalize all the available knowledge.

It is worth noting that the arduous process of obtaining information in the past fostered a greater level of seriousness and commitment among chess enthusiasts. The limited access to resources compelled individuals to engage deeply with the information they had, resulting in a more profound understanding of the game. Conversely, the ease with which information can be obtained in the present era has the potential to make us more superficial in our approach.

Ultimately, these findings highlight the contrasting dynamics between the past and present in terms of information acquisition and its impact on our approach to chess. While the past necessitated a focused and serious mindset due to limited resources, the present offers a wealth of information alongside the challenge of navigating and processing it effectively.

“Force kids to break the glass of the screen”

A recurring theme in Kasparov’s speech was the importance of finding a balance between acquiring vast amounts of data and effectively utilizing it. He stressed the necessity of maintaining hunger and enthusiasm for the game, steering clear of complacency and routine. Kasparov observed that players in the 2500-2600 rating range often lack endgame knowledge, making it essential to incorporate tests and challenges that encourage greater precision in their studies.

Lessons from Man versus Machine

Kasparov humbly acknowledged his own mistakes, highlighting the lessons he learned from his infamous match against Deep Blue in 1997. He acknowledged the superior calculation abilities of machines but pointed out that they lack the creative and sacrificial nature of human players. With the emergence of Alpha Zero, Kasparov recognized the existence of imperfect patterns in machine-generated moves, highlighting specific challenges such as the fight between the bishop and the knight.

The contrast between general rules and machine-based analysis is worth considering. While machines offer valuable insights and analysis, a strong foundation in general principles provides a solid framework for decision-making during the game. It is essential to understand the general rules and to separate the engines’ variations into: irrational chess that cannot be understood by humans and logical chess.

“Machine does not sacrifice”

An interesting affirmation made by the world champion gave me food for thought, as I asked myself the following questions: How do I define a sacrifice in chess? Or how does risk aversion affect our ability to sacrifice material? Garry Kasparov pointed out that computer chess engines don’t sacrifice, they just give some assets to get equal or even more assets in the future. Taking this into consideration, it seems to me that the definition of sacrificing material in a game can also be connected with some level of emotions, which of course are experienced only by human beings.

Garry Kasparov’s keynote speech at the conference left an indelible mark on all those in attendance. Through his captivating storytelling and insightful analysis, he shed light on the transformation of chess training and the influence of technology. Kasparov’s message emphasized the importance of striking a balance between data acquisition and utilization, fostering a deep understanding of the game’s fundamentals, and maintaining passion and hunger in the face of advancing technology. His words served as a call to action, encouraging chess enthusiasts to explore the complexities of the game beyond the superficial and embrace the profound knowledge that lies within.

Rarely does the legendary 13th World Chess Champion, Garry Kasparov, grace us with a presentation. This special occasion was a true feast for trainers — it was an exclusive privilege to listen to him, as he left everyone elated and content.

The KCF European Trainers Conference was a big success, uniting passionate coaches from around the globe. Just to mention a few of the highly accomplished chess trainers and players who attended: Zurab Azmaiparashvili, the current President of the European Chess Union; Arshak Petrosian, coach of the Armenian Olympic Team; and Alexander Motylev, a trainer of the Russian Olympic team trainer for decades who recently joined the Romanian Chess Federation. After the conference, during lunch, the trainers were able to communicate with each other, share their thoughts and plant the seeds for new projects.

The distinguished speakers, including Michael Khodarkovsky, Ivan Sokolov, Adrian Mikhalchishin, and Garry Kasparov, graced the stage and shared their expertise, enriching the conference with valuable insights and experiences. As the conference progressed, participants eagerly absorbed the wisdom imparted by these esteemed figures, fostering a collaborative environment aimed at elevating the world of chess coaching. As a chess trainer and Federation official, I can only hope for more such events to feed the hunger for chess knowledge.”

”@Kasparov63 is more respected than many others partly because he’s willing to speak about the need for Russians to broadly take responsibility,” writes @politico. https://t.co/hNvfoeFx7E

— Renew Democracy Initiative (@Renew_Democracy) August 1, 2023

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

By Nahal Toosi

“As Russia launched its full-scale war on Ukraine last year, the head of a Washington think tank found out the hard way about one of the more surprising fissures between Russians and Ukrainians.

Alina Polyakova, who runs the Center for European Policy Analysis, wanted to start a fellowship for Ukrainian civil society leaders as well as Russian dissidents. But she and the center faced immediate blowback from Ukrainians who questioned why any positions would go to Russians — even Russians who oppose the rule of Vladimir Putin.

“It was very controversial, because some Ukrainians still have the view that there’s no such thing as a good Russian,” said Polyakova, a Ukrainian American. The argument, which Polyakova appreciates, is that available resources “should go to support Ukrainian civil society.”

The dust-up over the fellowship program illustrates a broader phenomenon: Despite their mutual fury toward Putin, Ukrainian activists and Russian dissidents are largely avoiding each other. There’s little cooperation and no serious coalition building. Instead, there’s tremendous suspicion on the Ukrainian side and defensiveness from the Russians.

The tensions suggest that no matter when the war ends, the social ruptures between Ukrainians and Russians will fester far longer.

Russian dissidents simply aren’t doing enough to support Ukrainians, said Daria Kaleniuk, a Ukrainian anti-corruption activist. There’s no broad Russian dissident campaign to help Ukraine get NATO membership or funds from seized Russian assets, she said.

Instead, they “are very self-focused,” Kaleniuk said. “They try to present themselves as if they are victims and not lesser victims than Ukraine.”

The tensions have popped up in many arenas: from debates over who speaks at a college graduation to a free speech group’s decision to cancel a panel with Russian writers after objections from Ukrainian writers on another panel.

An Oscar win by a documentary about jailed Putin opponent Alexei Navalny drew much Ukrainian eyerolling, as did the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize was given last year to civil society activists from Russia and Russia-allied Belarus as well as Ukraine.

Alexei Navalny may be the biggest threat to Vladimir Putin, even from the penal colony where he is being held in Melekhovo, 150 miles east of Moscow. | Pavel Golovkin/AP Photo

And last month, Elizabeth Gilbert, author of bestseller “Eat, Pray, Love,” announced that she was delaying publishing a Russia-based novel after a huge backlash from Ukrainian readers.

The book, titled “The Snow Forest,” is set in 20th century Siberia, and it’s partly about resisting the Soviet empire. But it would have been published around the two-year mark of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and Gilbert said Ukrainian readers objected to any book set in Russia.

“I do not want to add any harm to a group of people who have already experienced and who are continuing to experience grievous and extreme harm,” Gilbert said.

Some leading Ukrainians say that, contrary to what many in the rest of the world may believe, Putin isn’t the root of the problem they face in Russia. And knocking him out of power won’t resolve anything.

The problem is the Russian mindset — the Russian “soul,” some say — and its imperialist bent. Many Russians simply cannot accept that Ukraine is a fully independent country, Ukrainians complain. That’s especially the case for Crimea, a Ukrainian territory Putin annexed in 2014 and which many Russians believe has always belonged to them.

“We even have an expression: ‘When the Ukrainian question comes, all Russian liberal people are gone,’” Lisa Yasko, a Ukrainian member of parliament, told POLITICO during the Oslo Freedom Forum in June.

Still, these are complicated feelings about complicated relationships, and ties between ordinary Ukrainians and Russians are far from severed.

Many Ukrainians and Russians have relatives in the neighboring country. Ukraine has been a refuge for some Russian dissidents during Putin’s two-decade-plus rule.

It’s not unheard of for individual Russian dissidents to help Ukrainian activists on projects, such as organizing protests. Some groups cooperate, though usually quietly. The Free Russia Foundation, a group with headquarters in Washington, works with Ukrainians on certain rights-related issues.

Ukrainian activists also recognize that large numbers of Russians have skewed views of the war and Ukraine because of Kremlin propaganda. Overall support for their military’s actions in Ukraine remains high among Russians, especially those who rely on TV for news, according to recent polling data from the independent Levada Center.

But plenty of Ukrainians also get tired of such excuses for Russians. While Putin may be issuing the orders, Russian citizens are the ones dropping bombs on their cities and committing atrocities against children.

Prominent Ukrainians note that their population has kicked out corrupt leaders over the past 20 years whereas Russians have never mobilized enough to oust Putin.

“Something that is very painful for me personally is that many Russian people don’t have the feeling of responsibility,” said Yasko, the Ukrainian parliamentarian. “They don’t understand what they can do to make a change in their own country.”

The feelings of anger and trauma appear to go far beyond Ukrainian officials, academics and others who fall under the broad label of “activist,” seeping down to ordinary Ukrainians without public megaphones.

Polls taken since Russia’s February 2022 invasion suggest that it has led to a striking unity of cause among Ukrainians, the vast majority of whom now dislike Russia.

Some Ukrainian commentators complain that Russians and their views have drawn notice for decades — whether at the United Nations, in academia or entertainment — while Ukraine and other former Soviet states have struggled to be heard. Some are calling for a “decolonization” of such Russian influence.

Everything from the decision to play the music of long-dead Russian composers to the use of the Russian language itself, which many Ukrainians speak, has fallen under scrutiny.

The debates are reminiscent of how a post-World War II world grappled with reintegrating what was once Nazi Germany. Even today, for instance, the music of Richard Wagner, adored by Adolf Hitler, is rarely heard in Israel.

The Russian dissident community is divided on how to talk, and feel, about the war in Ukraine.

Garry Kasparov addresses the ongoing conflict in Ukraine at an event on the future of global democracy at the 92nd Street Y, in New York. Kasparov has helped raise money for Ukrainian groups through the Renew Democracy Initiative, said the group’s executive director. | Vladimir Kolesnikov/Michael Priest Photography

One big debate among Russian dissidents is whether to cast the conflict in Ukraine, which began on a smaller scale in 2014, as Putin’s war or Russia’s war, said Garry Kasparov, the former chess champion who co-founded the Free Russia Forum, an umbrella group for the Russian opposition.

“In my view, the question is irrelevant — of course it’s Russia’s war, as it was Nazi Germany’s war,” Kasparov said. “But for some of them it’s very painful. They say ’No, no, we are not responsible for the war. We have to make sure the Russian people are not dragged in.’”

Sergei Guriev, a prominent Russian economist, made a distinction between guilt and responsibility. Guilt should be ascribed to Putin, his collaborators and those directly committing crimes against Ukrainians.

That said, “I’ve never voted for Putin, but I didn’t fight him well enough to prevent this war, and for this, of course, I feel responsible,” said Guriev, who is based in Paris — having fled Russia like many members of the Russian dissident community.

Ukrainians engaged in public campaigns of support for their country have different degrees of distrust for Russian opposition leaders.

Kasparov is more respected than many others partly because he’s willing to speak about the need for Russians to broadly take responsibility. Kasparov regularly appears on Ukrainian media. He also has helped raise money for Ukrainian groups through the Renew Democracy Initiative, an American organization, said Uriel Epshtein, the group’s executive director.

Navalny, the longtime Putin opponent, may be the biggest threat to the Russian leader, even from the penal colony where he is being held in Melekhovo, 150 miles east of Moscow. But many Ukrainians are skeptical of him because for years he was ambiguous about whether Crimea should be returned to Ukraine.

Navalny clarified he believes that Russia does need to leave Crimea in a series of tweets this past February, but his Ukrainian critics are not fully convinced.

Demonizing Russians as a whole “is disastrous for the future peace of Europe,” warned Anatol Lieven and George Beebe of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, which advocates for a more militarily restrained U.S. foreign policy.

“While the people who express such feelings about Russia claim to be opposing the Putin regime, their actions and writings in fact provide better domestic propaganda for Putin than he himself could ever have devised,” the pair wrote, nodding to Kremlin claims of rampant global “Russophobia.”

Others dismiss this, saying the Putin regime has long cried “Russophobia” while going ahead with invasions and other nefarious activities no matter how other countries respond.

“The burden is on the Russians here, because they are the ones who caused this war,” said David Kramer, a former State Department official involved with the Free Russia Foundation.

After weeks of discussions with donors, associates and others, Polyakova and her think tank decided to include both Russians and Ukrainians in the new fellowship program. But the decision led one Ukrainian analyst to end his longtime affiliation with the center, Polyakova said.

The Russian and Ukrainian fellows in the program are getting along remarkably well, including while discussing thorny topics. The conversations offer insights into potential future reconciliation efforts, Polyakova said.

Such initiatives may be many years away, but they need to happen, she said, “because these countries are bound together by geography, first and foremost, and there’s no escape.””

Meanwhile, fallacies flourish about keeping Ukraine out even while the brave nation fights and dies in NATO’s defense. Russia has been attacking NATO for years, so stop making excuses. My new article: https://t.co/amrp6RRFdu

— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) July 12, 2023

There must be good business in anti-Ukraine articles by authors who are repeatedly proved wrong. My response to the latest one, from Vilnius in @BulwarkOnline: https://t.co/amrp6RRFdu:

— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) July 12, 2023

“The NATO alliance was built with one goal: to prevent a Russian invasion of democratic Europe. With every meter of territory they liberate, Ukrainian soldiers win the war NATO was created to fight. Ukrainian heroes fight and die to defend NATO’s peace.” https://t.co/CriJV10MqX

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) July 12, 2023

Pathetic to hear people in Vilnius suggesting corruption as an excuse for not providing Ukraine a NATO ascension plan. If Zelenskyy were corrupt, Biden wouldn’t be president!

— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) July 12, 2023

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

By Garry Kasparov

“Last week, an opinion article in Foreign Affairs argued for locking Ukraine out of NATO. The authors, Justin Logan and Joshua Shifrinson of the Cato Institute, offered five claims to support their arguments. But as is typical of the genre, their article is long on opinion and short on facts. Because articles like this are so useful in Kremlin propagandists’ disinformation campaigns, it is worth refuting Logan and Shifrinson’s five claims one by one.

Claim 1: Russia does not threaten NATO. “The idea that Russia could pose a serious threat to Poland, much less to France or Germany, is outlandish.”

This claim is so divorced from reality, so historically illiterate, that it shocks. For more than fifteen years, Vladimir Putin has waged war on NATO, directly and indirectly. When democratic Georgia sought NATO membership of its own free will, Putin invaded. When Ukrainian citizens marched in the pro-European Maidan Revolution (the Revolution of Dignity) in 2014, Putin invaded Ukraine. Putin and his Wagner Group proxies carpet-bombed hospitals in Syria, on the border of another NATO member, Turkey. And they armed coups around the world, with the aim of undermining democracy everywhere.

Russian state agents have murdered British citizens, attempted to conduct a coup in a country that had already signed a NATO accession protocol, kidnapped an Estonian border guard, and are currently holding multiple American hostages. Russian influence operations left fingerprints on the pro-Brexit campaign in the United Kingdom and Yevgeny Prigozhin rose in the Kremlin’s mafia ranks by helping Putin interfere with U.S. elections. And when Putin deemed NATO nations weak—mistakenly, this time—he invaded Ukraine again. Every action Putin has taken, every person Putin’s forces have killed in his bloody-minded fixation on undermining NATO, demonstrates clearly his intentions. If you are still fooled by Putin, I cannot help you.

Claim 2: “If Ukraine were in NATO, the United States could be pushed to come to Ukraine’s defense by deploying troops and even threatening to use nuclear weapons on Ukraine’s behalf.”Claim 3: The United States would not defend Ukraine. “Extending Article 5 protections to Ukraine could also undermine their overall credibility.”

These two claims are linked, so we can refute them together. First, it is important to clarify that Ukraine is not asking for membership today. It is asking, by virtue of all the blood it has shed and the benefits it offers to NATO, for membership in the future, after Ukrainian forces have liberated their lands and people.

It is the same situation that NATO already faces. Russia already borders Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Norway, and Finland. NATO faces no new threat by including Ukraine.

Moreover, the Cato Institute authors’ claims rest on the spurious theory of “escalation,” which holds that the West has more to fear from Russia by deterrence than by appeasement. It is worth debunking this theory so that it does not further hinder the Ukrainian war effort and endanger countless Ukrainian lives.

Needless fretting about escalation has already had real-world consequences. Ever since Putin reinvaded Ukraine in February 2022, Western leaders have hesitated to fully support Ukraine. Every time Ukraine asked for weapons to defend itself, NATO leaders worried publicly about how each piece of aid to Ukraine might cause Putin to escalate the conflict. So, they withheld long-range missiles. Then they withheld tanks. Then they withheld jets.

And all the while, innocent Ukrainians died.

Ukrainian soldiers died waiting for armor.

Ukrainian civilians died waiting for air cover.

The Russian occupation of Ukraine is not a thought experiment; while politicians and think-tankers quailed about what Putin might do, Ukrainians died because of what he did do.

The theory of escalation rests upon the idea that Putin is so vengeful or irrational that he will never accept any form of defeat, and would even begin a nuclear war rather than retreat from Ukrainian territory. To plant this theory in the Western mind, Putin and his mafia capos have toyed with nuclear threats. Putin is playing a weak version of Richard Nixon’s “madman theory.” Falling for it means accepting the paradox that a dictator unhinged enough to start a nuclear war over Ukrainian land he doesn’t need is also rational enough to broker a lasting peace.

But Putin has himself already refuted escalation theory several times by forcibly crossing borders—unprovoked—whenever he feels it necessary to rally domestic support and expand his grasp. And the theory of escalation to nuclear warfare has been disproven by Yevgeny Priogzhin’s failed coup. The Wagner rebellion showed the entire world that the emperor has no clothes. When the decisive moment came, Putin blinked. He was humiliated, and immediately made concessions in order to maintain his total grip on power and to keep the money flowing. Prigozhin lives free, for now anyway, and it turns out that when facing defeat, Putin can be pragmatic.

And Prigozhin also showed that Putin has no loyalists left. Throughout the insurrection, Russian soldiers were not willing to fire a bullet for Putin––much less take one. So why would they obey a suicidal order from the Kremlin to begin nuclear armageddon?

Moreover, Putin may be an idiot, but he is not suicidal. He knows that using any so-called ‘tactical’ nuclear weapon would certainly mean the end of his regime and then his life, especially since Xi Jinping personally ordered Putin not to. In short, Russian nuclear threats are non-credible and Prigozhin has discredited the silly notion that Putin must somehow be appeased for life to continue.

Claim 4: Defending Ukraine would be expensive. “There is also the question of the costs of defending Ukraine.”

Here, the article’s authors have it backwards. Ukrainians are not asking to hide behind the shield of NATO, they are asking for recognition from the alliance whose peace they have bled and died to protect. Ukraine today has the strongest army in all of Europe, and it’s not close. The chief of Germany’s army openly laments that he leads a “bare” force. The United Kingdom’s army is the smallest it has been since the Napoleonic Wars. NATO should be begging Europe’s strongest army to lead its ranks, not the other way around.

Then again, the article’s authors have long underestimated Ukraine. Justin Logan spent the month before Putin’s second invasion arguing for Ukrainian concessions, capitulations, and surrender. He predicted Ukrainian defeat, saying, “If the Russians came into Ukraine . . . they would simply destroy the Ukrainian army,” and “Ukraine prevailing in a conflict . . . is just not in the cards.” A year ago, Kremlin propaganda said Russia’s was the second-strongest army in the world. Today, Russian conscripts compete with Wagner ex-convicts to be the second-strongest army in Ukraine.

These so-called realists have been wrong about Ukraine at every step. They argued that we should abandon Ukraine and that NATO has outlived its usefulness. Their fellow realists’ Kremlin apologism has benefited the Russian war effort. It was the “realist” theory that led America to offer Zelensky a white flag, instead of arms and ammunition, in the opening days of the war.

These are not new problems. I wrote Winter is Coming in 2015 to combat the lies already then emerging from the Kremlin. I’m proud of my record on Putin. Are they? The “realists” have a record, too, and it is an embarrassing one. Instead of foisting their opinions upon the world, they should have the good sense to clam up until Ukraine claws back every inch from the occupier.

Claim 5: “Tragically, offering Ukraine a path into NATO is therefore likely to give Russia reason to continue its war against Ukraine for as long as possible in order to avoid creating conditions in which Ukraine can start on the road to NATO membership.”

Are you kidding? After watching Russian troops commit daily acts of terror against Ukrainian civilians, rape little girls and boys, torture Ukrainian citizens for sport, and deport millions of Ukrainians to Siberia, the article’s authors are worried that Russia might fight harder? They think that we should consider abandoning more Ukrainians to torture and genocide? This war began because Putin hoped he could subjugate Ukraine before it acceded to NATO membership. The only way to stop further Kremlin imperial dreams is for Ukraine to defeat the Russian army in the field and to accept Ukraine into NATO.

The NATO alliance was built in 1949 with one goal: to prevent a Russian land invasion of democratic Europe. With every meter of territory they liberate, Ukrainian soldiers win the war NATO was created to fight. Ukrainian heroes fight and die daily to defend NATO’s peace. Today, Ukraine offers NATO the greatest deal ever presented in military history: It is singlehandedly destroying the alliance’s greatest rival at the cost of no NATO lives. All Ukraine asks in return for winning NATO’s war is the past-expiration equipment sitting in storage facilities that NATO allies were going to throw away anyway.

Fifteen years ago, NATO welcomed Ukrainian aspirations for membership. Ukraine has waited long enough, fought hard enough, died enough. When the Ukrainians win this war, NATO must welcome them into the alliance at long last.

Slava Ukraini. Glory to the heroes.”

Вчера в кулуарах встречи #НАТО в верхах в Вильнюсе мы задали наши 3 вопроса гроссмейстеру, председателю Фонда защиты прав человека @HRF и сооснователю Российского комитета действия Гарри Каспарову @Kasparov63.

Смотрите, как это было! pic.twitter.com/wCEmtEMipa

— НАТО по-русски (@NATOpoRusski) July 12, 2023

 

 

.@Kasparov63 on the collapse of #Russia’s civil society & the need for ALL Russians to accept their responsibility for the war & work for #Ukraine’s victory
[rather than focus on their own victimhood] – mentioned the recent Shark incident … #NATOSummit x #NAFOSummit pic.twitter.com/xHIjxnVHkI

— Benjamin Tallis (@bctallis) July 11, 2023

❝The beginning of liberation of Russia from Putin’s fascism won’t start before flags raised in Sevastopol, period. Anything else is wishful thinking. It’s psychological. You have to kill the idea of the empire in the minds of Russians.❞@Kasparov63 @vmsalama #NATOPublicForum pic.twitter.com/ZEfnXQRtkC

— German Marshall Fund (@gmfus) July 28, 2023

It ends in victory for Ukraine, the destruction of Ukraine, or it doesn’t end at all. Ukraine must win. https://t.co/jiwiNbAit2

— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) July 11, 2023

You can watch my full discussion at the NATO Public Forum.

@Kasparov63 at the NATO Public Forum today demonstrating exactly how to respond when your country is committing imperial genocide:

“The liberation of Russia from Putin’s fascism will not start until the Ukrainian flag is raised over Sevastopol. Period. Anything else is…

— Bad Baltic Takes (@BadBalticTakes) July 11, 2023

https://t.co/1MqEokZf12

— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) July 11, 2023

Russian imperialism can only be stopped with Ukraine’s victory. Great to strategize with my good friend @Kasparov63, Chess Grandmaster. #NATOSummitVilnius pic.twitter.com/exvY9IvhFs

— Paul Grod (@PaulMGrod) July 11, 2023

Thrilled to be one of the two #chess grandmasters participating at #NATOPublicForum in #Vilnius alongside the legendary @Kasparov63. pic.twitter.com/EqFwelXwxc

— Viktorija Cmilyte-Nielsen (@VCmilyte) July 11, 2023

The first KCF European Trainers Conference took place in Zagreb today with Garry Kasparov as the keynote speaker. More than 150 trainers from 25 countries attended the event. #Kasparovchessfoundation@Kasparov_Chess @Kasparov63 @ECUonline#garrykasparov #kasparov #chess #trainers… pic.twitter.com/vaIZB3rkXO

— Grand Chess Tour (@GrandChessTour) July 8, 2023

The session for the Young Stars in Europe lasted for 2 days in Zagreb, Croatia during #grandchesstour tournament. #GarryKasparov #kasparovchessfoundation #kcf #chesskids #chess
Photos by Lennart Ootes pic.twitter.com/RJJFHNmczG

— Kasparov Chess (@Kasparov_Chess) July 8, 2023

Working with talented youngsters keeps me sharp! https://t.co/u4ZwLcb6bL

— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) July 7, 2023

.@Kasparov63: “#Ukraine’s victory is mandatory for #Russia to move away from #Putin’s fascism.” https://t.co/gZIxZgcCEN

— Francisco Taveira (@jftaveira1993) July 7, 2023

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

By Athanasios Katsikidis

“Garry Kasparov needs no special introduction. He is considered the most recognizable chess grandmaster, as he held the title of world champion for 15 consecutive years (1985-2000). His deep understanding of the game and the intelligent complexity of his approach to his moves established him as a dominant player in a game that had become synonymous with the elite of Western countries. The Soviet Union’s dominance of the chess world began in the late 1940s, and that dominance was recognizable to just about everyone, even those who had no idea about the citizens behind the Soviet Iron Curtain. In 1996 Kasparov was destined to go down in history as the first man to confront the machine and an early form of artificial intelligence, taking on IBM’s Deep Blue computer, winning the first match, but losing a year later to its upgraded version.

A critic of Vladimir Putin and a human rights advocate, he was in Athens recently as part of the Stavros Niarchos Foundation’s annual SNF Nostos Conference and spoke to Kathimerini about the developments on the Ukrainian front, as well as inside Russia, while the conversation – like a game of chess – changed the focus of interest to artificial intelligence and the psychology of the machine.

Our interview with Kasparov took place at a time when international public opinion was watching in amazement Yevgeny Prigozhin’s uprising against Putin and his Wagner Group’s advance inside Russia. According to Kasparov, “What happened now [Prigozhin’s mutiny] is the demonstration that the entire political system in Russia is a decoration. All these institutions, the Senate, the parliament, and all other institutions, they are [built] on sand. And even Putin is some kind of a fake leader. It is a mafia state based on fear, based on corruption, and also on a lack of political institutions that could fight back against this power grab. If you destroy political institutions, if you create a political desert. Who survives in the desert? Snakes, scorpions, rats. And now you could see that the political process that Putin did not want to be done by elections is being done by the hammer.”

“Russia is a fascist dictatorship. We can talk about the restoration of this when it is over. As of today, Russia is compared to Nazi Germany, however, it is being transformed into something else now because, you could not imagine Goring and Himmler fighting for power and Hitler saying, ‘Let’s see who wins.’ So even dictatorship is fake in Russia. So that is why I think before the dust settles, before Ukraine wins the war and before Russia basically collapses, we cannot talk about the future arrangements.”

But what could be the future of Russia in the light of a possible collapse? Kasparov, together with businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky, believes that the change of regime in Russia will come with the victory of Ukraine.

“Ukraine’s victory is mandatory for Russia to move away from Putin’s fascism. And, by the way, even before Ukraine has won the war, we could see that the bad war had an effect on Russia. If history is a guide, all bad wars in Russia led to revolts and revolutions. And this war has hundreds of thousands of men thrown into this war without understanding why they are fighting. That is why in Russia the gap between rich and poor is huge. In Russia, the ratio of wealth and poverty is worse than in many African countries. And all of a sudden you have hundreds of thousands of men armed in a war that is going poorly. And it is just a matter of time before you have a leader who will say, ‘Let’s restore justice.’ Justice is a magic word in Russia, it is historical. And social media gives a clear picture that the ‘bosses’ are not fighting the war and that the poor fight and die. People know that the ‘bosses’ have very rich lives, whether it is in Moscow or in Cote d’Azur, or elsewhere. But as long as life was OK, they did not care about the rich people. But now they have to die, while the ‘bosses’ are still making tons of money. And then somebody will say: ‘You know what? We have weapons. Let’s restore justice.’”

‘All these institutions, the Senate, the parliament, and all other institutions, they are [built] on sand. And even Putin is some kind of a fake leader’

“Now, unlike 1917 and the Bolsheviks, there is no political wing there that could take over power. It is a road to chaos. And we hope that the chaos will basically put an end to the Russian empire because it is time to go. We are in the 21st century. And from the ashes of this empire, we hope that we can resurrect a better Russia, which will be part of the Euro-Atlantic geopolitical space.”

The war in Ukraine, apart from the chain reactions around the world, has brought back the war shadows of the past, shaking the notions of “normal coexistence” of peoples and “peace.” Kasparov, despite his stance against Putin’s policies, remains a Russian citizen and, as he says in response to a question about the meaning of human life, “I always feel a bit uncomfortable to answer the question because I am Russian. Of course, I was against Putin, I had predicted the war and I am helping Ukraine by raising millions of dollars for them. But I am still Russian. That puts me in a very awkward position because Russia is killing Ukrainians and even though I had nothing to do with it, I opposed it as much as I could.”

“I think that the Ukrainian war actually exposed so many fake values of this world because after the end of the Cold War and for so many years, the Western policy was that we can open trade, we can have an exchange, and through these open connections, we can expect dictators to liberalize their countries. That policy led to a total failure. Now Putin’s stance will also affect the Western attitude towards China because we can see that China also shifted from a party dictatorship, the Communist Party into a one-man dictatorship, with Xi Jinping being in charge. You have to be aware that a one-man dictatorship is the most unstable form of governance.”

Our conversation shifts to the latest technological developments, with artificial intelligence in the spotlight. Kasparov was the first to challenge an intelligent machine and was defeated. He talks about this experience and the evolution of his inanimate opponent.

“All the games which could be qualified as closed systems will be eventually be dominated by the machines. Not because machines understand the game or because they can solve the game, but because they make fewer mistakes. Machines are just more effective by reducing the number of mistakes, and humans, even the best of us, are all prone to show our weakness at a certain point. And chess was the beginning of the story. Machines, as long as they feel comfortable, within a framework, dominate. And this teaches us that we have to reconsider our relationship with computers.”

“However, even though machines can do so many things, they cannot go into the realm of creativity because creativity means that you come up with something new which may work, or may not. Machines do not operate with this kind of equation. Machines cannot understand the notion of failure, which is strange to the machine. So, creativity for humans means that we take the risk. The machine does not understand the meaning of risk but just looks at the bottom line. So that is why creativity is still our domain.”

On the question of whether AI can understand the personality of its opponent through constant interaction, Kasparov advances a different interpretation of the abilities of intelligent machines.

“The machine does not play against an individual, it does not care about the individual. The way to make machines aware of an opponent’s personality is basically to program them. You have to download the data about the opponent and also change the evaluations because, let’s say, you want the machine to be more aggressive against a specific player. So, you have to reprogram it. And it is very cool that it is the human contribution that will make these slight changes in machine’s approach.” Our discussion with the most famous chess grandmaster concludes with his reference to Greek culture and how mythology was an important part of the development of his personality.

“A Russian book, ‘The Myths of the Ancient Greeks,’ was one of my favorites. And I am very happy that my daughter, 16 years old, is a big fan. So, we actually all read the myths and the history of Troy was my favorite. And I am very happy that my daughter is also a big fan though our sympathies were on the side of the Trojans because they defended their city.”

“We must never forget that Greece is the cradle of democracy and it is very important to remember that. Again, one of the lessons of ancient Greece is that democracy has a price. You have to defend it. Democracy is lost the moment you lose vigilance.””