[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning again, everyone. Now we'll talk about President Trump's shifting relationship with Russia's President Vladimir Putin and a longtime adversary of-- We're going to talk with a longtime adversary of Putin's autocracy who now hosts a podcast with called Autocracy in America. It's none other than Garry Kasparov, the former world chess champion, arguably one of the best champions of chess ever. He's also a democracy activist who studied the rise and opposed the rise of Putinism in Russia from within and fought against it. Now he's the co-host of the second season of The Atlantic magazine podcast Autocracy in America, where he offers his take on how the United States can avoid back backsliding into autocracy. We will also get his take on how Trump's sentiment toward Putin is wavering. On Monday, Trump even authorized a "significant shipment" of US defensive weapons to Ukraine and threatened Russia with new tariffs. Garry Kasparov, welcome back to WNYC. We're very pleased that you would come on with us again. Hi.

Garry Kasparov: Thank you for inviting me. Happy to share my thoughts.

Brian Lehrer: Could you give some of our listeners who may not be familiar as much with your history, the origin of you as Russian becoming disillusioned with and then a very strong critic of Vladimir Putin? How did this start for you?

Garry Kasparov: It started way before we even heard the name Vladimir Putin. I'm 62, born in 1963 in the very south of the Soviet Union in the now country called Azerbaijan, city of Baku. By the way, half Armenian, half Jewish, but my native language is Russian. As a prodigy, I had an opportunity to travel abroad, and very quickly, I recognized that there was a huge gap between Soviet propaganda and real life in the free world.

As a young world champion, the youngest in history at the time, at age 22 in 1985, I thought it would be my civic duty, it's a moral responsibility, to share my disillusionment and my belief that the free world could offer better opportunities for individuals. I joined the nascent pro-democracy movement back in the late '80s. As many I believed in 1991, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, that the worst was behind us. It's not surprising that the best selling book in 1992, The End of History of Francis Fukuyama, resonated with me as many, many millions of others.

I got really worried at the end of the last century seeing the rise of the KGB colonel, because I learned about KGB not from the books, but from personal experience. The moment Vladimir Putin took over from Boris Yeltsin, I knew that we were on the path back to the darkest hour.

Since I left my professional chess career back in 2005, still being number one in the world, I concentrated on opposing Vladimir Putin, both domestically and also trying to warn the world about the dangers that might be brought by the man who clearly had ideas about the restoration of the Soviet Russian Empire. It's not surprising that his first act as a Russian president was to restore Soviet anthem, sending a signal that he had some grandiose ideas in his mind.

In 2005, the year when I just stopped my professional chess, he declared at the joint session of Russian Parliament, Russian Senate, that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. For me, it was a clear indication that if given the chance, he would move as far as he's allowed to. Tragically, nobody wanted to hear the bad news.

I did my [unintelligible 00:04:29] back in Russia, but in 2013, facing imminent arrest after the crackdown on Russian pro-democracy movement, I left Russia, and now I live in the United States. In 2017, I had few organizations that I helped to form. One of them is in America called Renew Democracy Initiative. This is my attempt to share my experience as a dissident and many of my colleagues to teach Americans about the threats of authoritarianism.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you for that background. For a little bit more on how the rise of Putin related to the West or how the United States related over the period of the last 20 years to the rise of autocracy under Putin. Back in 2007, I have this quote of you from the Wall Street Journal, an article that you wrote, "Russia is in a moment of crisis and every decent person must stand up and resist the rise of the Putin dictatorship."

As your co-host on the new podcast, Anne Applebaum, notes, this was a lonely view back then. There was a view that the West shouldn't alienate Russia. Take us back to then and to what you saw with respect to US policy toward Putin's Russia that a lot of people may not have seen yet.

Garry Kasparov: It's not so much what I saw, but actually what I heard. I was just listening to Vladimir Putin because we know from history that dictators, they always lie about what they've done, but very often, they tell us about what they're going to do. After all, Mein Kampf, Hitler's famous biography published in 1925, was a blueprint about Hitler's plans, but nobody really paid attention. In 1925, Adolf Hitler was basically nobody, the head of the small nationalistic party in Germany.

Vladimir Putin, when he made his famous statements about restoration of Soviet Union, he was president of Russia, having control of Russian nukes and also enormous Russian treasure. I guess at one point, he was the man who controlled more financial resources than any other individual in history, when you start looking at Russian budget and the oligarch's fortunes and special funds that were created under Putin's rule.

I was shocked that nobody wanted to recognize that Putin's plans could well go beyond Russian borders. In 2008, he did attack the Republic of Georgia. That was his first try. In my article in the Wall Street Journal responding to this attack, I predicted that next would be Ukraine, simply because Ukraine was another country that tried to depart from the Soviet colonial past and joined Europe.

Neither Bush administration nor Obama administration, they had any desire to confront Putin. Especially Obama's administration, when in 2014, Putin did attack Ukraine, annexing Crimea and igniting war in Ukraine and Eastern provinces, United States and European allies still try to do business as usual, imposing some sanctions that were basically irrelevant and made no effect on Putin's economy.

Brian Lehrer: How did Donald Trump become so enamored of Vladimir Putin in the first place in your view?

Garry Kasparov: Look, I'm not very happy to speculate, and I can't push these conspiracy theories, but if you look at Trump's record, I think we're all eligible to ask a simple question. If Trump were Russian asset, what he would do differently? Just looking at his record at his first term, especially now, one should reach an inevitable conclusion that Trump has been doing everything within his power- and I emphasize within his power, because he's not all powerful as Putin, so he can't change everything just with a magic wand, but everything within his power that has all the resources that have been used to help Putin to survive under such dire circumstances now.

His latest announcement early this week was another indication that Trump will block any meaningful sanctions against Russia and will try to do as little as possible to help Ukraine.

Brian Lehrer: We'll get back into that in a minute because that's a very different take, if I heard you correctly, than what a lot of the media is reporting regarding Trump and Russia this week. I do want to get, just before we do that, your quick take on what did happen in 2016 and what Trump now calls the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax.

There was the Russia investigation, which found some evidence of Russia certainly trying to influence the election on behalf of Trump, less evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign with that, although they did found evidence of Trump trying to obstruct justice and investigating that question. I guess I'm asking you the other side of the coin from the question I just asked you, why did Trump become so enamored with Putin? Why did Putin, so much, want to support Donald Trump?

Garry Kasparov: I guess the answer is obvious because for some reason he believed that Trump would offer him the best deal. With Donald Trump at the top of American power, Vladimir Putin could expect America not to be so rigid toward Russia, so to play softball and allow Putin to continue his policies, even if some statements could suggest otherwise.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, we could take a few questions in text messages or on the phone for Garry Kasparov, the former world chess champion, longtime Russian dissident opponent of Vladimir Putin's policies, and now co-host of The Atlantic magazine podcast, Autocracy in America. We'll get to the America portion. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. I guess it's worth reminding listeners that Trump came into office this term saying that he would broker a truce between Ukraine and Russia within 24 hours. That has obviously not come to pass. Instead, Trump is now quite- maybe insulted is the word by the fact that Putin won't end the war with Ukraine. What's going on there in your view?

Garry Kasparov: I could only laugh listening Trump making this statement about ending-- Actually he said not truce. He said to end the war. He was even more precise. Then of course he offered nothing. That would be reasonable. No US president could end the war in 24 hours because war for Putin has become an instrument of staying in power. Russian economy, Russian political, Russian social life is all about war. War has become the overwhelming emotion of Russian society from very top to the very bottom.

It starts from the kindergartens with war propaganda where Russia is being presented as the savior of the traditional values against the-- they don't use word "infidels" but decadent West, and all enemies are trying to do Russia harm. Of course, Ukrainians are just being presented as the sworn enemies of Russia and to be eliminated. Vladimir Putin's plans, war, are and will be always to destroy the state of Ukraine, to destroy Ukraine's statehood.

It's not I'm saying that, Vladimir Putin kept repeating that. Russian propaganda spends 24/7 by speeding this hatred against Ukraine and against the free world, because for Vladimir Putin, the war in Ukraine is one of the episodes of the World War 4, not 3, 4. The World War 3 for Putin, according to his own confessions, is the Cold War that Russia lost and now he wants to take revenge, and he believes that Ukraine is the first step of him recovering the global dominance of Russia.

Brian Lehrer: If George W. Bush got snookered by Putin and Barack Obama got snookered by Putin, did even Donald Trump get snookered by Putin?

Garry Kasparov: Look, with all criticism to Bush 43 and Barack Obama, nobody suspected them of playing in Putin's favor. They tried to be cautious, they tried to offer him the benefit of the doubt, but Donald Trump has history. Well, again, we are moving from facts to the very slippery ground of speculations, but let's just go back to 1987, Donald Trump's first visit to the Soviet Union, and as someone who's inexperienced of KGB, so I could hardly imagine that they paid no attention to a flamboyant billionaire with Czech's wife visiting Moscow and looking for some business deals.

Again, we are speculating, but with Donald Trump so many bankruptcies and miraculous rescues, one can suspect that a powerful ally behind his back helped him to be resurrected every time. That's enough to ask many questions.

Brian Lehrer: Right. That's the long view. On Trump's expectation that Putin was going to agree to end the war in 24 hours or maybe something close to it, and now he's not, your Atlantic colleague Jonathan Lemire recently wrote, "By ignoring Trump's pleas to end the war and instead ratcheting up the fighting, Putin has made Trump look like the junior partner in the relationship." Is this new aid to Ukraine and tough talk about Putin, mostly about Trump's ego?

Garry Kasparov: Look, again, tough talk about Putin is still not Trump's tough talk. Donald Trump attacked, insulted, diminished. probably everybody on this planet, from his Republican colleagues to other leaders of the free world, even to many dictators. There's only one person Donald Trump never insulted or attacked. His name is Vladimir Putin, one. This is a very, very short list.

Everything he said about Putin still was, "Oh, not good, not happy." For Donald Trump to say, "I'm not happy," it doesn't mean that he's really furious. He probably feels that he is being degraded to the junior partnership in these relations, but still he's offering Putin not just benefits of the doubt, he's offering Putin everything Putin ask him. For instance, now this talk of 50 days, exactly what Putin told him on July 3rd, "I would need 50 days," and Donald Trump provided him the 50 days till basically the bill was sitting in the Senate with 85 senators behind it, and in next 50 days, he said, "Oh, he threatened some--" Totally [unintelligible 00:17:13]

Brian Lehrer: That would be, he gave Putin now a 50-day window to do something before Trump would impose sanctions. This new military aid to Ukraine, which Trump campaigned against, is that not being tough on Putin in your opinion?

Garry Kasparov: Look, let's re-emphasize, Trump talked not about sanctions that are dangerous to Putin. He talked about sanctions of Russian trade, which is minuscule. Again, he avoided doing something that would harm Putin. The bill that has been prepared by Senators Graham and Blumenthal included the secondary sanctions. That was a serious blow to Putin. Putin needs money. Money comes from oil trade, and America could feed Russian shadow fleet and Trump blocked it. That's a fact. Putin still has cash because he's more-

Brian Lehrer: The new announcement about weapons, the Patriot missiles?

Garry Kasparov: He's not giving, he's selling them. If you just follow the latest reports from Europe, Europeans are quite shocked because now they have to pay the bill. We already see France and Italy refusing to do that, Italy because they had no money, France because it has own weapons to sell. Some of those will be paid, but this is not supporting Ukraine. It's basically doing business and also supporting Europeans by basically changing what Trump promised at first place.

Also, America has at least $7 billion of Russian frozen funds that Trump could confiscate. Donald Trump, who was so reckless in pushing through the drastic measures against foreign leaders, he didn't even mention that.

Brian Lehrer: My guest, if you're just joining us, is Garry Kasparov, the former world chess champion, longtime Russian dissident, now c-host of the second season of The Atlantic podcast, Autocracy in America. Let's talk about the podcast. In the first episode, you tell your co-host, Anne Applebaum, that the United States always relied on the framework created by the founding fathers that allowed us to debate these issues. One day we win, one day we lose, but again, it was a healthy process. Where are we now during Trump 2.0? What's your basic take on autocracy in America as you host a podcast by that name?

Garry Kasparov: It's the second season. Anne was the host of the first season and she passed the torch to me in our first episode. My idea was to explain the Trump phenomenon because it's not just domestic. Donald Trump, somehow you can say, was inevitable. Many of my guests, they support this idea by explaining factors that created this inevitability of Trump's second coming.

I think it's a big mistake to look at many elements of this big picture separately, so that's why I try to bring them together. My guests, they come from military field like Admiral McRaven, from political field like Frank Luntz, so the foreign leaders, dissidents. I try to present the big picture, because Trump's rise was coincided with the rise of the populism in other democratic countries in Europe.

I think that second mistake that is being made now, very few people understand that Donald Trump's policies represent an existential threat to the very foundation of this great republic. It's not just separate actions here and there. I think it's a fundamental challenge to the idea of success of American republic, the separation of powers.

As of now, we could see that Donald Trump keeps concentrating more and more power in his hands. We have the United States Congress being totally paralyzed and impotent. Without the United States Congress, we have only the judicial branch, which is also not ready to take on Trump because Supreme Court is always giving him a break at the crucial cases. Even if we forget Supreme Court for a moment, judicial branch alone could not do the job.

There are many things that, for me, they're clear signs of the rise of authoritarian rule. While a lot of people talked about what was not in the bill, in this so called big, beautiful bill, talking about cuts on Medicaid and many other things that could hurt ordinary Americans, I looked at what was in the bill. One thing that worried me most is the dramatic boost of ICE. It's the first time the United States president would have access to a military force inside the country, probably most [unintelligible 00:22:27] military force that will operate under his direct command. Of course, technically, it's Department of Justice, but nobody doubts that Pam Bondi would just follow Trump's wishes without asking any questions.

For me, it's really a bad sign because we know that ICE now plays a hard ball on illegal immigrants and also confronts the state powers, especially in the blue states, and that's a part of Trump's policy to extend the federal rule even at the expense of state rights. The list can go on. You have to recognize that it's not accidental, it's not emotional. It's a policy. Unless this policy is being confronted and there is the proper narrative to oppose it, I think that the 2026 midterm elections could end up with a disaster for the Democratic Party.

Brian Lehrer: Doris in Piscataway, you're on WNYC with Garry Kasparov. Hello, Doris.

Doris: Oh, hi. Hello. Good morning, Mr. Kasparov. I'm a great admirer of yours. In fact, I'm in constant awe and admiration. I don't know how you continue, you and Anne Applebaum. I worry because Putin is capable, as you know, of targeting his enemies.

Brian Lehrer: What's your question, Doris?

Doris: My question is just how ultimately do you see this ending? My feeling is Ukraine is not being helped and all this is just slow-walking every thing. Somebody once said a horrible end is better than horrors without end. We're seeing just horrors without end. I don't believe anything that Trump is saying about switching to a more reasonable approach in selling weapons.

Brian Lehrer: Doris, let me leave it there for time, but your question is clear. She's asking how this ends in Ukraine, in your opinion.

Garry Kasparov: Okay. I want to add a little bit of positive take on this very gloomy picture. It's not that bad. Of course, it's terrible because when you look at the nightly bombings-- By the way, Putin dramatically increased attacks on Ukraine since Donald Trump took over. The numbers, they speak for themselves. It's not what Trump says or Putin says, it's just, you look at the amount of missiles and drones dropped at all Ukrainian cities, again cities, not military targets, while Donald Trump is still trying to limit Ukrainians' ability to respond. Ukraine is fighting back. Putin's hopes to break through Ukrainian frontline, I think it's not going to happen. It's a huge price Ukraine has been paying, in blood, so huge losses. One could only admire the resilience of the nation that is standing as the life shield for Europe, for NATO, because if, God forbid, Putin succeeds in Ukraine, he would turn his attention to other countries, and biggest countries are NATO countries. These countries don't have the same results as Ukraine, and then for American president, for American people do the existential choice whether to fulfill Article 5 and to help them or just to walk away. Ukraine is saving America for making this fateful decision.

Brian Lehrer: Listener asks in a text, "Do you think the American population will be successful resisting autocracy? How does this compare to the general Russian population?"

Garry Kasparov: There's no comparison. Russia never had a history of being a democracy. There were no real traditions of relying on the framework that has been designed in America and their centuries of history of working through the mechanisms that ensured they were served as an antidote against any dictatorship. I think it also creates a problem because American people just don't feel that the danger is real, and that's what I feel is my job and many of my dissident colleagues, is to shout as loud as we can, pointing out at these threats.

I think the number one step is to recognize that the threat is real and not thinking about 2028 presidential elections, but concentrating on 2026 and making sure that there will be a viable alternative. When I say alternative, it's a new narrative that could turn people away from Donald Trump, because it's not simple historical fact that midterm election always helped the opposition party.

I think Donald Trump will do everything within his powers to secure the outcome of 2026 elections. For those who doubt my prediction, ask a simple question. Do you believe that if push comes on the shove, Kash Patel and Pam Bondi would follow constitutional Donald Trump's orders? We're talking about people that supported January 6th and are comfortable with pardoning these criminals, and they would be very much in the position to influence, directly or indirectly, the outcome of 2026 elections.

I think the number one goal is to campaign tirelessly on the issues of protecting democracy and revealing the truth about Trump's intentions and making sure that he would lose control of, at least, the House in 2026, because if he preserves the control of the House and the Senate in 2026, I would not have any hopes about the outcome of presidential elections in 2028.

Brian Lehrer: Well, we're just about out of time. I think what you're suggesting is not just that you support the Democratic Party to win the majority in Congress in 2026, but that you fear not just that the Republicans might maintain the majority, but that Trump will use some illegal autocratic moves to ensure that. If I'm hearing you right, what are you anticipating, for example? Then we're out of time.

Garry Kasparov: Oh, one, you can start looking at the donors. We know that even the most powerful people in the country, they have no appetite of confronting Donald Trump. You can go for donors, you can look for media. Media also shows the willingness to, as I said, compromise, to negotiate, and they behave differently. It's a very timid response to many of Trump's power abuses.

Just to make sure, I'm not a fan of the Democratic Party in its current form and especially, when you see the far left crimes like in New York, but it's not about my disagreements with some of these policies. I'm afraid that preserving Republican control of the House and the Senate and knowing that GOP today can't say anything against Donald Trump is basically making one more step towards autocracy and destruction of the fundamental element of American republic, which is the separation of powers.

Brian Lehrer: By sheer coincidence, here's this headline that just dropped in The Washington Post, we see it on the website, that reads, "Department of Justice hit states with broad requests for voter rolls and election data." Subhead, "Election clerks in both parties already facing harassment and lawsuits over Trump's false 2020 election claims, worry about efforts to examine voting machines." We leave that there. Maybe we'll come back to that in a separate segment with a Washington Post reporter, but for today, we thank Garry Kasparov, now co-host of The Atlantic magazine podcast, Autocracy in America. We so appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

Garry Kasparov: Thank you very much. Thank you for having me. Thank you.

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.