‘Checkmate is inevitable; any defeat in the war will lead to changes in Russia’

T. Belman. Most people think the tide is turning against Russia. Perhaps for now but the new Russian conscripts will be trained and deployed within a month. Plus, Russia will then be tasked with defending the motherland rather than securing the Donbass.

Garry Kasparov, a living chess legend, and one of the leaders of the exiled Russian opposition, is convinced that Vladimir Putin’s fall is only a matter of time. He says that “the Russian mobilization is bringing the end closer.”

By  David Baron, ISRAEL HAYOM

Garry Kasparov speaks with Israel Hayom at the IMPROVATE event | Photo: Tsvetelina Deliyska

Like billions around the world. Garry Kasparov watched this week as Russia entered a tailspin. The announcement that it would call up 300,000 people for military service, the flight of thousands of men from Russia to neighboring countries, and the stormy protests against recruitment in the northern Caucasus. Kasparov however, wasn’t overly excited – not because the events weren’t dramatic, but because from his perspective, they simply prove his thesis.

“The Putin regime is galloping toward collapse,” Kasparov says in a phone call from Berlin. “The mobilization is bringing the end closer because he is destroying the official internal beliefs that were at work for years in Russian society. From the start of the war, Putin tried to avoid dragging in the big cities, primarily Moscow and St Petersburg. For most Russians, the war was taking place on their television screens. Now. It is something tangible. Add to that growing economic difficulties and we see that even governors who are Putin appointees are beginning to express doubts about the recruitment drive. In other words, the system is beginning to fray.”

Q: The protests are not yet big enough to endanger the regime, with the exception perhaps of the northern Caucasus.

“It’s happening, but it’s one step at a time. You know, when you freeze everything for 22 years you can’t expect it all to thaw in 22 hours. But the thawing has begun and it is obvious that it would do so in places like the northern Caucasus where there is still some solidarity, be it familial or tribal, unlike the big cities where society is very atomized Nevertheless, we are seeing incidents: the shooting of a recruitment center commander, recruitment centers that have been set on fire … pictures of masses trying to flee – this is what an empire coming to an end looks like… The process has begun. It will take time to fall, but it is clear that the train is headed in one direction, downhill.”

A few days before our telephone conversation, after the defeat of the Russian army in the Kharkiv area, but before the reservist call-up that followed, we sat with Kasparov in the bar of a hotel in Sofia. Kasparov, who was born 59 years ago in Baku, Azerbaijan under the name Garik Weinstein, the son of a Jewish father and an Armenian mother, became the youngest ever world No. 1 ranked chess player in 1984 due to his overall rating. He held on to that record for 12 years. He was also world champion between 1985-1993 and between 1993-2000 (in the Classical World Chess Championship).

He was in the Bulgarian capital to give the keynote speech at a business and security conference focused on the challenges that have emerged in central and eastern Europe in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Kasparov may not be a security personality but his status as a living legend, as someone with a rare ability to analyze processes, and as a veteran voice speaking out against Vladimir Putin have made him a desired speaker at any event. And when it comes to Ukraine’s battle against the Russian invasion, Kasparov is one of the most in-demand speakers in the world. His public struggle for a Ukrainian victory is equaled perhaps only by his long battle to free Russia from Putin’s grip?

Q: As a dissident voice, you were forced to leave Russia in February 2013. Do you miss being there?

“There are many reasons for me [to visit], my mother is buried there … but do I miss it? To be honest, at the moment there is nothing that attracts me. It isn’t even a question of my personal security because for me to fly to Russia is a one-way ticket. The issue is that what I see there today shocks me. It is a country drowning in ignorance and darkness. And at the same time, I see that the future of humanity is very much dependent on what side of the scales Russia, or what emerges from it, will be, because the battle between liberty and authoritarianism is an endless war. Half the world lives under various forms of undemocratic rule. Russia can fulfill a decisive role to lead the world in the right direction, perhaps to make up somewhat for its history.”

Q: Russia however is a long way from there.

“The changes in Russia will take place only after its army is finally defeated and when it is clear to most of the Russian population that the imperial paradigm is over,” says Kasparov as he grimaces, complaining that his coffee is too sweet. “Look,” he continues, “empires die when they cannot keep expanding. The Soviet Union began to fall apart before the withdrawal from Afghanistan, but the withdrawal served as a catalyst. An empire on the backfoot is an empire whose fate has been sealed. In my opinion, Russia’s revival can only begin after the return of the Crimean Peninsula to Ukraine [Russia annexed the region in 2014. D.B.] and when the Ukrainian flag flies again over Sevastopol [where the Russian Black Sea Fleet is anchored]

Q: What you are describing is in many ways a mirror image of Putin’s worldview. He cannot see the revival of the empire without taking over Ukraine. And you speak about a Russian revival being impossible without returning conquered territories to Ukraine.

“Today, it is more apparent than ever that in the euphoria of 1991 we didn’t pay attention to the fact that the Soviet Union, which had collapsed, was just the surface. The core was the Russian Empire whose self-perception is planted deep in the darkness of historical consciousness. What do empires stand on? They stand on fear and violence. It is apparent that Putin is losing his strength. It is apparent also to those who are far from politics. Look how he was humiliated in Samarkand [where five leaders forced Putin to wait for a meeting with them on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit D.B.]  A bully who has been humiliated is no longer a bully. After all, his control is based on his being able to put Bush or Macron ‘in their place’ and now it transpires that all of a sudden even mid-level Central Asian rulers understand that the power relationship has changed. There is no more fear. It is true that the police and the National Guard work well when they have to take out batons against demonstrators with white ribbons, but is completely different when it has to deal with a beaten army of embittered soldiers against a backdrop of a deepening economic crisis. And how many refugees will stream to Russia when Ukraine liberates Crimea? Now take all these components and tell me: ‘If these aren’t the making of a revolution, then what is?'”

Q: So do you see the revolution as being inevitable?  Has Putin put the empire in check?

“It is more than that. Checkmate is inevitable. Any defeat in the war will lead to changes in Russia. The Crimean War led to the annulment of serfdom,  the war against Japan led to the establishment of a constitutional monarchy, the stalemate in the First World War led to the events of Petrograd, while the defeat in Afghanistan led to defeat in the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. What will replace Russia? We will in my opinion see Russia’s borders change in the coming years – and not through expansion.”

Q: Will the Russian Federation remain in its current constellation?

“No. Because it is an empire. Only parts of it will still be willing to accept the Euro-Atlantic consensus. There are two options: Either Russia becomes a satellite state of China or it integrates into Europe, on Europe’s terms. People ask who will replace Putin, but the question is not put correctly. We should be asking not ‘who’ but ‘what’. What it means is that we need the entire managerial backbone, the entire establishment. It is a question of changing Russia’s historical path. Therefore, there will have to be territories that are prepared to live under western rules. Taking into account the war the tragedy and decades of atonement, it will be a difficult process but there are no other options.”

Q: You speak of atonement and European rules but it is still difficult to see Russia’s citizens awakening from their imperial delusions.

“For these delusions to disappear we would have to have bombed Russia in the way that Germany or Japan were bombed (and fortunately that has not happened) [3]  or to see a resounding defeat that will resonate everywhere. The loss of Crimea will be a decisive moment because Crimea is the foundation of the empire. Geopolitical defeats as well,  for example, Sweden and Finland joining NATO, would also strengthen the collective understanding that for Russia to survive in the 21st century a different model is required because the current model is leading to disaster. For the moment that has not happened, but I would like to remind you that the Nazis fought until the last moment and defended the Reichstag. Hitler was in power for 11 years. Putin has been in power for 22 years already. And his propaganda has far greater resources than that of Dr. Goebbels. Russia’s population today is  also less educated than the Germans in the 1940s.”

Giving up Crimea is off the table

Recently, Kasparov, together with the former US ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, published an op-ed in the Washington Post, in which they analyzed the ‘holes’ in Western sanctions against Moscow, and how to ‘plug’ them.  Reading the column it is hard not to suspect that the authors wish to ensure that existing sanctions are not softened due to pressure from the Kremlin and its collaborators within the European Union such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, or quite simply because of European fears over a cold winter.

Q: Is there any possibility that the Kremlin will nevertheless reach some kind of compromise with the West that will allow it not to lose face?

“There was such a possibility, indeed it was quite concrete until May-June but then we saw attempts by politicians such as Macron and Schultz, and even voices in America, to come up with such a formula. Today it is no longer possible because everyone has understood something simple: There will be no peace without Ukrainian agreement. Zelenskyy was very clear about his goals in the war: the liberation of all Ukrainian territories. He was not willing to say that at the beginning of the war, because at a certain stage Ukraine would have been forced to go for a compromise, even a temporary one, on a return to the lines of February 24. But now that is no longer on the table.

“There has been a major turnaround in the West in the last six months. I see this in the world of conferences that I entered after leaving the chess world. In the past, my anti-Putin stance awakened reservations, but after February 24 things changed. Up until then, he was bad, but he was a business partner. Putin destroyed that on his own with his geopolitical delusions Other than that, it transpired that the entire construct in which Russia is an important element in European energy security can be changed. Everything that Merkel. promoted for 16 years is over. There is now a broad willingness to solve the Putin issue because this will indirectly also lead to the defense of Taiwan for example. The Syrian problem will also be solved and perhaps Venezuela as well. The pragmatism that previously supported Putin is beginning to move in the opposite direction.

“Look, at the end of the day, it takes a long time for democracies to get moving. With all due respect to the moral aspect, there are also issues of property rights and international law. At first, nobody had believed the Ukrainians would manage to hold out for more than four days. We are seeing unbelievable changes in the perception of Western leaders. Take Chancellor Scholz, the radical outlier of the policy of appeasement. He grew up in post-war Europe where there was a feeling of guilt toward the Soviet Union. He is a Social Democrat who grew up on the fundamental paradigm of German post-war politics – Germany must not be involved in any military activity. For more than 50 years, that has been the foundation stone of German politics. And now this man who was never a prominent leader has become chancellor and instead of dealing with calculations of how much gas is needed, he has to decide whether to send German tanks to fight the Russians. In a historical context, this is a nightmare for him. Nevertheless, he has ruled that the Germans must help the Ukrainians because they are fighting fascism, which is coming from the Russian side.”

Q: Still, Kyiv says it is not getting all the weapons it needs. Do you not think there are forces that are trying to delay processes?

“During the first phase of the war, for several months, American and European politicians were not willing to say that the goal of the war was a Ukrainian victory. In the last month and a half, the situation has changed and there are clear statements regarding victory – even by Scholz. There is still a lot that can be done and therefore if we are talking about lifting sanctions, this can only happen after Russia withdraws from all Ukrainian territory, pays compensation, and war criminals are punished. I think the level of military support for Ukraine is in fact, far higher than the declared level of support.”

Understanding Israel’s philosophy

Our conversation with Kasparov takes place on the sidelines of a conference put on by IMPROVATE, an Israeli platform that connects leaders and decision-makers from around the world with Israeli innovation and technology. The aim was to get to know the new challenges faced in the wake of the Russian invasion and present Israeli solutions.

Q: There is a certain irony to the fact that the event was held under the shadow of the war in Ukraine and at the same time present presented Israeli security technologies when Israel is not providing any weapons to Ukraine. How do you see this?

“Obviously, I see this negatively, but I also understand that the philosophy of Israeli leaders is built around the survival of the state. Therefore it is clear to me that when Putin for all intents and purposes controlled territories north of Israel and the ability of the Israeli Air Force to operate was dependent on his goodwill, providing weapons to Ukraine would have been a problem.”

Q: It’s hard not to notice that you are talking in the past tense.

“You have elections coming up in Israel and I believe that the attitudes to the war will change because Ukraine is winning. I would like Israel to be more active. Putin’s influence is growing weaker and perhaps even before the end of the war, Israel’s position will change, unless there is a radical change on your side.”

Q: What are you referring to?

“There is only one politician who is completely oriented to Putin, even though it is possible that he doesn’t like the losers. Politicians like Netanyahu or Trump harm the right side because of their personality traits.”

Politics? Not now, but perhaps in a transitional period.

Since being forced to leave Russia and the political platforms he tried to establish there,  Kasparov has been engaged in global public activity. Among his initiatives, in 2017, he established the Renew Democracy Initiative whose goal is to strengthen “the core principles of liberal democracy that once defined a centrist political majority across the free world” and that “are being pulled apart as once-fringe views from the left and right gain public acceptance.” According to the RDI’s founding statement “There is still a center in Western politics, and it needs to be revitalized – intellectually, culturally, and politically.” But the West needs revitalization for another reason.

“After 1991 and the victory in the Cold War, the West was weakened from a moral standpoint and stopped treating Russia as a problem,” says Kasparov. “The public didn’t want new conflicts because life had become comfortable. It took the shock of Ukraine to understand that evil has not died. From this perspective, Ukraine is changing the world and the war there has become an inflection point in history. It is the revival of the spirit of freedom in the free world. Ukraine in my opinion puts an end to the myth that developed over the past 20 years that democracy and capitalism are not a necessity. After all, what do people say? ‘Look at China.’ I always respond to that. ‘China is where the virus came from, the United States is where the vaccine came from.’ Ukraine reminded us all of a forgotten truth. Free people win even if they have fewer weapons. Because they are fighting for liberty. Look at the people of eastern Ukraine, the Russian speakers, and how they are different from Russian citizens because they were formed in a different environment. In 1994, Kravchuk (then president of Ukraine) lost the elections and went home. But Yeltsin began a war in Chechnya to improve his ratings. This is where the fission begins. In Ukraine, an understanding of ‘We the People’ has developed, while in Russia, the central regime received a green light to duplicate itself. The Ukraine war will have an enormous effect, it will wash a lot away. The blood being spilled now. will have a cleansing effect. It is awful that humanity always pays such a price for a return to fundamental truths.”

Q: How do you see the first day after Vladimir Putin?

Kasparov takes a few seconds to think, then replies:  “The first day will depend on what Putin’s last day looks like. The most realistic option from my perspective is the collapse of the Russian army in Ukraine, a refugee crisis, an economic disaster in Russia, and then riots in the big cities, and then we’ll see. In such a situation, if the West is willing to demand cardinal changes in Russia, I believe there is a potential for change. Khodorkovsky and I and tens of thousands of others will be able to return we will have to extract the country from its predicament. As for me personally, I have always said that I have no desire to participate in ‘normal politics’ when this will exist in Russia, but in the transitional period when there will be a need to establish such politics and the rules for it, I believe I will be able to play an important role.”