He seems to feel that we are at a transformative point in the international political apparatus we set up after WWII, and that an all-out effort to help Ukraine is called for and is in fact imperative.
.......................................................................................................................................
Gerry Baker: Hello, and welcome to another episode of Free Expression with me, Gerry Baker, from the Wall Street Journal editorial page. We are delighted that you're listening to this podcast. If you enjoy it, please be sure to subscribe at Apple Podcast or wherever you listen to your podcast, and please also be kind enough to leave us a favorable review. Now at the journal's editorial page, we believe strongly in free expression. And so each week on this podcast, we explore in depth and candor with the help of a leading commentator, a major issue of topical importance, events of historical significance, which is something that we find fascinating. This week as the war in Ukraine rages on, I'm very pleased to be joined by Garry Kasparov. Gary was born and raised in the Soviet Union and of course is a former world chess champion, and one of the most recognized chess grand masters in the world. But in recent years, he's been an outspoken commentator and a strong proponent of liberal democracy. He's been a particular fierce opponent of Vladimir Putin, and he left Russia a decade ago and lives in New York now. In 2015, he published a book called Winter Is Coming, in what now looks a remarkably prescient warning that Putin would take advantage of the appeasement he was facing from the West to expand Russia's global power by force if he wasn't stopped, and seven years later here we are with Vladimir Putin invading Ukraine. Garry Kasparov, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
Garry Kasparov: Thank you very much for inviting me.
Gerry Baker: So you were indeed right. A lot of people were skeptical and indeed the whole history of the West's perhaps engagement with Vladimir Putin over the last decade or so has been repeatedly refusing to see what was in front of its face in terms of what his real intentions were and his determination to go about achieving them. Do you think that this invasion of Ukraine has now changed everything? Do you think we really do now fully understand and grasp the threat and the need to do something about it?
Garry Kasparov: I can only hope so, because to understand Putin, all we had to do was to listen. My first article of warning was published in the Wall Street Journal in January 4th, 2001. And all I did, I just was listening to Putin's own words. And when Putin said that there were no such a thing as a former KGB agent, I knew that Russia's fragile democracy was in danger. And when Putin said, actually repeatedly said that collapse with the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of 20th century, I knew Russians knew the independent neighbors were at risk. And eventually when Putin talked at the Munich Security Conference, 15 years ago in 2007, about return to (inaudible) of influence I knew he was ready to launch his attack because that was the language of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pack, language used by Hitler and Stalin to divide Europe. And of course, next year he attacked Republic of Georgia. And I remember that after this attack, which for me was just the most convincing proof of his intentions, the West didn't respond. They tried to spread the blame between the Republic of Georgia and then President Mikheil Saakashvili and Putin's Russia though, technically Putin was not the president at the time. He was puppet master behind the stage, having his shadow man Medvedev sitting in Kremlin. And America, instead of doing something, offered a reset policy. And I wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal, and I predicted attack on Ukraine. And later people asked me, "How did you know?" I said, "I looked at the map." And then of course Crimea. I mean, what else did you need to understand that Putin would not respect any international treat signed by Russia. And for him, Crimea was a very important step in this direction because American and Great Britain had some kind of legal responsibilities to defend Ukraine because in 1994, there was a so-called Budapest Memorandum, when after heavy pressure from Clinton administration, Ukrainians gave up their nuclear arsenal, which few people remember was a third largest in the world. Ukraine have more nuclear warheads than China, France, and Great Britain combined. And then, what we heard is, "Oh, memorandum is then not a binding document." And Putin heard what he wanted, so where he could continue his expansion, recovering Soviet Russian influence without any consequences, because the sanctions that were announced, though they were (inaudible) as something very powerful, they had almost no impact on Russian economy.
Gerry Baker: Well, why do you think, as you spell out the history very clearly. And if you look at the successive American administrations, George W. Bush famously, of course, said he looks into Putin's eyes and saw his soul. And then as you say, invasion of Georgia happened in 2008. Nothing was really done about it then. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when they came in 2009, talked about the reset with Russia. Then we had the war in Eastern Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea nothing was done about it. I mean, what were they doing? Why were we willfully suspending our skepticism or indeed our concern about Putin? Was it because we thought there were bigger geopolitical concerns and that Russia in the end was no longer the big threat that we thought it was during the Cold War.
Garry Kasparov: I think we have to start earlier. We have to start was Bush 41, was not, was Bush 43. I often suffered criticism from those parties while criticizing president from another party. And my response is I have a record actually on the pages of the Wall Street Journal, criticizing six consecutive presidents, three for Republicans and three Democrats, four of their policies. I'm nonpartisan, but I believe that for current failures of American foreign policy, we have to go back as far as 1991. I think that this administration now, Biden administration, is having the same kind of fear as Bush 41 had in 1991. It was infamous speech in Kiev a few months before the collapse on the Soviet Union.
Gerry Baker: So called Chicken Kiev speech (crosstalk)-
Garry Kasparov: Chicken Kiev allegedly penned by Condoleezza Rice. And the message was-
Gerry Baker: By the way, she denied that on this very podcast, she denied that she'd written it, but-
Garry Kasparov: Maybe (inaudible). Whoever wrote it, so that it's somebody there from general school of stuff. Maybe it was Jim Baker. It doesn't matter who actually wrote it, he delivered it. And the message was absolutely clear. So Ukraine must stay in the Soviet Union because it could have drastic consequences for Ukraine and for the Soviet Union if they follow nationalists or for choose a succession. And I understand the fear that because they didn't know what to expect after the collapse of the Soviet Union, same problems, because of nuclear weapons and chaos. And I think now we are seeing the repetition of the same unfortunate US policy failure. It's a fear that a Putin's military defeat Ukraine could lead to the collapse of is a dictatorship and eventually, a collapse of Russia. So I think that going back to the '90s is the problem with, now we're going to Clinton administration, was that the end of the Cold War was a big surprise for Americans as well as anyone else. And instead of coming up with a new game plan, because America was a winner, the free world won the Cold War, but it was time to think about new strategy, time to think about game plan for the world. Same way as Truman administration worked out a plan in 1946. At that time, they had to face George of Stalin and his unsatiable due political ambitions. And this administration, Harry Truman's administration, built all the institutions that helped America to stop communism and eventually defeat it four decades later. And there was a plan. You had presidents from both Democrats and Republicans having maybe some differences, but still following the plan. And in 1991, we needed something else than simply being stuck with the old international institutions, one of the problems with United Nations. It was created 1945 to prevent a war, another war, most likely between Soviet Union and the United States. But in 1991, we needed organization that could help us solving problems, not freezing them. And I think that the fact is that Bill Clinton became president when America was all-powerful and could basically dictate its terms to the rest of the world. And when he left, Al-Qaeda was ready to strike. Already now, it was an indication that something was wrong.
Gerry Baker: I mean, and also to be fair, a part again, Al-Qaeda was ready to strike, Al-Qaeda did strike, and of course, Russia, Putin, was very quick to offer support and help to the United States then. So I suppose there was some... Again, we were strategically distracted first by terrorism and then subsequently by China and maybe that explains why we were kind of willing to turn a blind eye to a lot of what Putin was doing and saying, and eventually doing.
Garry Kasparov: Yes. But there were indications about the rise of Russian nationalism, even on the Yeltsin, the Iranian problem, which it's still a big headache today and it's known no one knows how to solve it. The Iranian problem goes all the way back to 1994, when Bill Clinton visited Moscow, having bipartisan resolution that enabled him to threaten Yeltsin to cut any funding of Russia that was like a lifeline, for Russia (inaudible) at the time, if Russia continued its nuclear corporation with Iran, and he did nothing. Oh, it says, "Yeah, fine. Let's move on." So that was not a big issue.
.......................................................................................................................................
Gerry Baker: Hello, and welcome to another episode of Free Expression with me, Gerry Baker, from the Wall Street Journal editorial page. We are delighted that you're listening to this podcast. If you enjoy it, please be sure to subscribe at Apple Podcast or wherever you listen to your podcast, and please also be kind enough to leave us a favorable review. Now at the journal's editorial page, we believe strongly in free expression. And so each week on this podcast, we explore in depth and candor with the help of a leading commentator, a major issue of topical importance, events of historical significance, which is something that we find fascinating. This week as the war in Ukraine rages on, I'm very pleased to be joined by Garry Kasparov. Gary was born and raised in the Soviet Union and of course is a former world chess champion, and one of the most recognized chess grand masters in the world. But in recent years, he's been an outspoken commentator and a strong proponent of liberal democracy. He's been a particular fierce opponent of Vladimir Putin, and he left Russia a decade ago and lives in New York now. In 2015, he published a book called Winter Is Coming, in what now looks a remarkably prescient warning that Putin would take advantage of the appeasement he was facing from the West to expand Russia's global power by force if he wasn't stopped, and seven years later here we are with Vladimir Putin invading Ukraine. Garry Kasparov, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
Garry Kasparov: Thank you very much for inviting me.
Gerry Baker: So you were indeed right. A lot of people were skeptical and indeed the whole history of the West's perhaps engagement with Vladimir Putin over the last decade or so has been repeatedly refusing to see what was in front of its face in terms of what his real intentions were and his determination to go about achieving them. Do you think that this invasion of Ukraine has now changed everything? Do you think we really do now fully understand and grasp the threat and the need to do something about it?
Garry Kasparov: I can only hope so, because to understand Putin, all we had to do was to listen. My first article of warning was published in the Wall Street Journal in January 4th, 2001. And all I did, I just was listening to Putin's own words. And when Putin said that there were no such a thing as a former KGB agent, I knew that Russia's fragile democracy was in danger. And when Putin said, actually repeatedly said that collapse with the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of 20th century, I knew Russians knew the independent neighbors were at risk. And eventually when Putin talked at the Munich Security Conference, 15 years ago in 2007, about return to (inaudible) of influence I knew he was ready to launch his attack because that was the language of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pack, language used by Hitler and Stalin to divide Europe. And of course, next year he attacked Republic of Georgia. And I remember that after this attack, which for me was just the most convincing proof of his intentions, the West didn't respond. They tried to spread the blame between the Republic of Georgia and then President Mikheil Saakashvili and Putin's Russia though, technically Putin was not the president at the time. He was puppet master behind the stage, having his shadow man Medvedev sitting in Kremlin. And America, instead of doing something, offered a reset policy. And I wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal, and I predicted attack on Ukraine. And later people asked me, "How did you know?" I said, "I looked at the map." And then of course Crimea. I mean, what else did you need to understand that Putin would not respect any international treat signed by Russia. And for him, Crimea was a very important step in this direction because American and Great Britain had some kind of legal responsibilities to defend Ukraine because in 1994, there was a so-called Budapest Memorandum, when after heavy pressure from Clinton administration, Ukrainians gave up their nuclear arsenal, which few people remember was a third largest in the world. Ukraine have more nuclear warheads than China, France, and Great Britain combined. And then, what we heard is, "Oh, memorandum is then not a binding document." And Putin heard what he wanted, so where he could continue his expansion, recovering Soviet Russian influence without any consequences, because the sanctions that were announced, though they were (inaudible) as something very powerful, they had almost no impact on Russian economy.
Gerry Baker: Well, why do you think, as you spell out the history very clearly. And if you look at the successive American administrations, George W. Bush famously, of course, said he looks into Putin's eyes and saw his soul. And then as you say, invasion of Georgia happened in 2008. Nothing was really done about it then. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when they came in 2009, talked about the reset with Russia. Then we had the war in Eastern Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea nothing was done about it. I mean, what were they doing? Why were we willfully suspending our skepticism or indeed our concern about Putin? Was it because we thought there were bigger geopolitical concerns and that Russia in the end was no longer the big threat that we thought it was during the Cold War.
Garry Kasparov: I think we have to start earlier. We have to start was Bush 41, was not, was Bush 43. I often suffered criticism from those parties while criticizing president from another party. And my response is I have a record actually on the pages of the Wall Street Journal, criticizing six consecutive presidents, three for Republicans and three Democrats, four of their policies. I'm nonpartisan, but I believe that for current failures of American foreign policy, we have to go back as far as 1991. I think that this administration now, Biden administration, is having the same kind of fear as Bush 41 had in 1991. It was infamous speech in Kiev a few months before the collapse on the Soviet Union.
Gerry Baker: So called Chicken Kiev speech (crosstalk)-
Garry Kasparov: Chicken Kiev allegedly penned by Condoleezza Rice. And the message was-
Gerry Baker: By the way, she denied that on this very podcast, she denied that she'd written it, but-
Garry Kasparov: Maybe (inaudible). Whoever wrote it, so that it's somebody there from general school of stuff. Maybe it was Jim Baker. It doesn't matter who actually wrote it, he delivered it. And the message was absolutely clear. So Ukraine must stay in the Soviet Union because it could have drastic consequences for Ukraine and for the Soviet Union if they follow nationalists or for choose a succession. And I understand the fear that because they didn't know what to expect after the collapse of the Soviet Union, same problems, because of nuclear weapons and chaos. And I think now we are seeing the repetition of the same unfortunate US policy failure. It's a fear that a Putin's military defeat Ukraine could lead to the collapse of is a dictatorship and eventually, a collapse of Russia. So I think that going back to the '90s is the problem with, now we're going to Clinton administration, was that the end of the Cold War was a big surprise for Americans as well as anyone else. And instead of coming up with a new game plan, because America was a winner, the free world won the Cold War, but it was time to think about new strategy, time to think about game plan for the world. Same way as Truman administration worked out a plan in 1946. At that time, they had to face George of Stalin and his unsatiable due political ambitions. And this administration, Harry Truman's administration, built all the institutions that helped America to stop communism and eventually defeat it four decades later. And there was a plan. You had presidents from both Democrats and Republicans having maybe some differences, but still following the plan. And in 1991, we needed something else than simply being stuck with the old international institutions, one of the problems with United Nations. It was created 1945 to prevent a war, another war, most likely between Soviet Union and the United States. But in 1991, we needed organization that could help us solving problems, not freezing them. And I think that the fact is that Bill Clinton became president when America was all-powerful and could basically dictate its terms to the rest of the world. And when he left, Al-Qaeda was ready to strike. Already now, it was an indication that something was wrong.
Gerry Baker: I mean, and also to be fair, a part again, Al-Qaeda was ready to strike, Al-Qaeda did strike, and of course, Russia, Putin, was very quick to offer support and help to the United States then. So I suppose there was some... Again, we were strategically distracted first by terrorism and then subsequently by China and maybe that explains why we were kind of willing to turn a blind eye to a lot of what Putin was doing and saying, and eventually doing.
Garry Kasparov: Yes. But there were indications about the rise of Russian nationalism, even on the Yeltsin, the Iranian problem, which it's still a big headache today and it's known no one knows how to solve it. The Iranian problem goes all the way back to 1994, when Bill Clinton visited Moscow, having bipartisan resolution that enabled him to threaten Yeltsin to cut any funding of Russia that was like a lifeline, for Russia (inaudible) at the time, if Russia continued its nuclear corporation with Iran, and he did nothing. Oh, it says, "Yeah, fine. Let's move on." So that was not a big issue.
Last edited: