From the Wall Street Journal: The Kerry-Putin meeting aside, common ground between Russia and America is a myth.

A Shared Enemy Does Not Mean Shared Values
By Garry Kasparov
May 12, 2013

When Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Moscow on Tuesday to meet his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov and President Vladimir Putin, the announced list of topics included finding “common ground” on Syria. It also mentioned antiterror cooperation in light of the Russian origins of Boston Marathon bombing suspects, the Tsarnaev brothers. It is very unlikely Mr. Kerry found common ground on either subject.

The humanitarian catastrophe in Syria is of no concern to Mr. Putin, as is clear from the Kremlin’s support for the murderous Assad regime. Mr. Putin also seeks to stoke the instability that helps keep the price of oil high. The similar pattern of Russian interference in Iran and Venezuela is no coincidence. Energy revenue is what keeps Mr. Putin and his gang in power and therefore oil prices are always his top priority.

Terror would seem to be a more likely area for U.S.-Russian collaboration, especially regarding the virulent brand of Islamist extremism that has been bubbling over in Russia’s southwestern Caucasus region since the fall of the Soviet Union. Yet the Kremlin’s cooperation on the Islamist threat has been remarkably selective.

Soon after the suspects’ names in the Boston bombing became known, the Russian security services announced that they had warned the FBI about the elder Tsarnaev, Tamerlan, in 2011. But what about during and after Tamerlan’s visit to Russia’s North Caucasus in 2012? That’s when he reportedly was indoctrinated and trained by radicals in Dagestan.

Why were there no communications in 2012 from the FSB (the successor of the KGB) about a suspected radical, an American no less, training in the hottest of Caucasus terrorist hotbeds and then returning to the U. S.? It is beyond belief that the extensive police state that monitors every utterance of the Russian opposition could lose track of an American associating with terrorists.

Tamerlan reportedly met with Makhmud Mansur Nidal, a known terror recruiter, and William Plotkin, a Russian-Canadian jihadist. Both men were killed in Dagestan by the Russian military just days before Tamerlan left Russia for the U.S. If no intelligence was sent from Moscow to Washington, all this talk of FSB cooperation cannot be taken seriously.

This would not be the first time Russian security forces seemed strangely impotent in the face of an impending terror attack. In the Nord-Ost theater siege by Islamist Chechens in 2002 and the Beslan school hostage attack by Chechen and other Islamist radicals in 2004, it later came to light that there were FSB informants in both terror groups-yet the attacks went ahead unimpeded. Beslan was quickly used by Mr. Putin to justify shredding the last vestiges of Russian democracy by eliminating the election of regional governors.

With such a track record, it is impossible to overlook that the Boston bombing took place just days after the U.S. Magnitsky List was published, creating the first serious external threat to the Putin power structure by penalizing Russian officials complicit in human-rights crimes. Practically before the smoke in Boston cleared, Mr. Putin was saying “I told you so” and calling for cooperation.

Secretary Kerry’s visit validated every Putin instinct. The Russian president kept the American waiting in a hall for three hours-no doubt impressing Mr. Putin’s cronies. On Wednesday, Mr. Kerry was allowed to meet with a small group of Russian human-rights activists whose activities have been under assault as the Putin government cracks down ever harder on free speech and all forms of opposition.

But the meeting avoided mention of the two most significant developments in Russian human rights: the Magnitsky List and the dozens of protesters arrested at a political protest in Bolotnaya Square in Moscow a year ago. Mr. Putin is creating a new generation of political prisoners, with show trials unseen since Joseph Stalin, and Mr. Kerry goes to Russia to find common ground? As for Syria, the day after Mr. Kerry left, the Journal reported that advanced Russian S-300 antiaircraft missiles were headed to Syria.

Islamist terror is a genuine threat that will continue to take Russian and American lives unless it is met with a strong response. But having a shared enemy does not mean having shared values. Respect for human life and individual rights are the most potent weapons the civilized world possesses and where any discussion of common ground must begin. The Putin regime’s dubious record on counterterrorism and its continued support of terror sponsors Iran and Syria mean only one thing: common ground zero.

Mr. Kasparov, a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal, is the leader of the Russian pro-democracy group United Civil Front and chairman of the U.S.-based Human Rights Foundation.

Reproduced with permission from the Wall Street Journal.

Last week, top Putin aide Vladislav Surkov answered questions at the London School of Economics about innovation in Russia and the state of the country’s political system. In response to one question about the mass protests that Russia has seen over the past year and a half, Surkov claimed that, nevertheless, “the system has triumphed over the opposition.” He also criticized the Investigative Committee for cracking down on Skolkovo, a controversial technology hub that Surkov has partial oversight over. Days later, he was forced to resign. In this latest op-ed, Garry Kasparov examines the rigged game that Surkov helped to construct and that ultimately consumed him.

The Higher-Ups Write Them Out
By Garry Kasparov
May 7, 2013

People often ask me whether or not a good knowledge of chess is useful in Russian political life. Offended, I respond that chess has fixed rules and unpredictable results – in what we refer to as “Russian politics” everything is the other way around: the results are predictable, and the rules change constantly.

When Mr. Surkov recently informed the world that “the system has triumphed over the opposition,” satirist Victor Shenderovich exposed the secrets of this triumph to his readers, bringing up his own wonderful 1989 story, “How Antoshkin and Kolobov Played Chess.” And indeed, today, as he puts it, his “narrator is alive and well!”

Kolobov beat Antoshkin in chess for seventy years in a row: he “always played black without the queen,” and when he “asked to play white and with the queen, Kolobov silently placed a hairy hand on his face and gave him a strong shove,” then “took both of his rooks – one with his right hand, and one with his left…” In addition, “if Kolobov didn’t like Antoshkin’s move, he would punch him in the face and make him change it,” although he personally “never thought about his moves, moving quickly, twice in a row.” In other cases, “two of Kolobov’s people would grab Antoshkin by the arms and legs and beat his head against the wall” or “beat his legs and morally debase him.” And sometimes “a judge would declare that he was mentally ill and send him to the nuthouse.” And so on. “And Antoshkin could never come to terms with the fact that Kolobov was the stronger player.”

It is a painfully familiar picture. Sure, there are differences, such as the know-how of the current regime, as they put it. While the “game” used to be guaranteed only by “Kolobov’s people” and “judges,” the contemporary “chess party” that is taking place with the whole world watching has engendered yet another important category of participants for this “match of the century” – numerous commentators.

An entire cohort of these commentators has grown among Russia’s systemic liberals: they need to somehow stir up interest in the “battle.” And everywhere we hear: “Look how interestingly the party is developing!” or “Yet again, despite Antoshkin’s stubborn resistance, our immortal leader Kolobov has triumphed!”

Right now, it is precisely these commentators who are playing a loathsome key role: without them, Kolobov & Co. would be typical white-collar rats and butchers. But what can you take from a Kolobovian butcher? Throughout eternity, their heads have ever only been filled with a pair of curves that intersect at a right angle. But now, “triumph” is too little for the utterly resentful Kolobov: he wants to be accepted as an intellectual in the best of European and American society. “And, with bated breath in this sweetest of moments, he asks his servants to call on Antoshkin – to measure his intelligence.”

This turbid stream of lying commentators holds up the ruling regime. And when Antoshkin cries out in outrage: “My rook was just there! …Please, comrade, all my moves are already written out!” Kolobov is always ready with his answer: “The higher-ups write them out.”

I recently saw Tarantino’s new movie “Django Unchained,” about slavery in the American south. Within this brilliant panorama of caricatured genuine scoundrels and sadists, the behavior of an elderly black servant evokes particular disgust: he loyally serves the cruel and cynical slave master, trying with all his might to preserve the institution of slavery. For him, it is the only environment that he can live in. The analogy comes naturally.

Translation by Kasparov.com.

In April of last year, Garry Kasparov visited Washington University in St. Louis to talk about his careers in chess and politics, and to play a game with one lucky student. This excerpt from the event comes from the school’s newspaper, Student Life.

Kasparov Speaks on Chess & Innovation
By Sarang Kumar
April 5, 2012
Student Life

Chess may be a serious, cranial game, but a former World Champion had no problem cracking jokes.

“I was born in the Deep South of the Soviet Union, near Georgia,” Garry Kasparov said about his birth in the Caucasus.

Graham Chapel was filled to capacity on Monday with students, parents and even a few children eager to listen to Kasparov speak about chess, politics and innovation.

Kasparov’s fame derives not only from his dominance in chess but also from a career as a political activist and writer.

The lecture began with a brief autobiography. Kasparov earned the title of World Champion in 1985 at age 22 by defeating Anatoly Karpov. Before Kasparov’s victory was decisive, the pair played 72 games over the course of one year. A former champion, Petrosian, offered unforgettable advice to the young player.

“Squeeze his balls,” Petrosian suggested, advising Kasparov after five losses to pressure his opponent and avoid rushing play.

Kasparov’s lessons from chess have shaped his perspective and inform his strategy in other, more dangerous games, like Russian politics.

“I’m not comfortable calling what we have in Russia ‘politics,’” Kasparov said.

He claims democracy in Russia faces fundamental challenges.

“In America, you have an election to have a fight. In Russia, we fight to have an election,” Kasparov said.

The grandmaster’s words for the Russian government, led by Vladimir Putin, were direct. He compared the Russian government to a Mafia, where “corruption isn’t a problem, it’s the system.” Putin’s grip on the country, Kasparov states, originates in a “genetic fear of the KGB.” In 2007, he was incarcerated for his work.

“It was not very pleasant. I have always been a critic of Putin,” Kasparov said.

Even with this level of suppression, Kasparov remains optimistic for the political future in Russia and other countries restricted from basic civil liberties. He believes that democracy is the only political system that people can tolerate and that dictatorships are old-fashioned.

The lecture then shifted to a discussion of technology. Kasparov described Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, as the new Johannes Gutenberg, inventor of the printing press. Both men’s creations, he argued, facilitated the dissemination of information to unprecedented levels.

Kasparov then proceeded to talk about the state of technological innovation. He said that the world has reached a plateau because society has lost vertical innovation to what he calls horizontal innovation.

Vertical innovation occurs when societies are willing to take risks and make sacrifices to create jobs and progress. Horizontal innovation is created with a defensive approach: by taking fewer chances and providing fewer opportunities to people with ideas.

Kasparov argues that the world is stuck in horizontal innovation, which is constrains progress.

“If Magellan approached the Spanish government today and asked for support for his expedition, would he have gotten it? They would ask, do you have a plan? No. Do you have a map? Somewhat. Will you survive? No. He would have been turned away,” Kasparov said.

Read the full article at Student Life.

Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin held his first televised question and answer session since returning to the presidency. A few days prior, television host Vladimir Posner had published a list of ten questions that he would like Putin to answer, including “what are the country’s three main priorities?” and “what is your personal understanding of democracy?” Others addressed controversial issues that have long been discussed in contemporary Russia, such as the legacy of Stalinism and the country’s dependence on oil profits. As Garry Kasparov notes in this latest op-ed, however, none of the questions of this eminent television personality touched on the most pressing political issues of the times – making both Vladimir Ps harder and harder to distinguish from one another.

The Doubling of VVP
By Garry Kasparov
April 24, 2013

The fate of a journalist often contains bizarre twists. Not long ago, renowned television veteran Vladimir V. Posner provided us with a clear example of the type of work that journalists do outside of journalism. And, just recently, his professional mastery shone bright when he posed ten questions to Vladimir V. Putin on the eve of another of his call-in shows.

They were, indeed, eternal Russian questions! Putin once morosely admitted to a group of foreign journalists: “There has been no one to talk to since Mahatma Gandhi died.” Now, it seems, life is looking up: the marathoner galley slave finally has a worthy conversation partner.

For some reason, this conversation partner never thought it necessary to come down from the mountainous heights of his own professionalism to address some crude, mundane questions – about the apartment bombings in 1999 or the deaths in the Kursk submarine sinking, about the relationship between Berezovsky and his billionaire friends on the Forbes list, about the evisceration of NTV and Yukos, about the Nord-Ost and Beslan tragedies, about the murders of Politkovskaya and Litvinenko, about mass electoral fraud, about the Magnitsky case and the anti-orphan “Law of Scoundrels,” about the cases against Pussy Riot, Navalny, Udaltsov, the political prisoners from the Bolotnaya Square protests, and about many, many more things that make up Putin’s Russia.

Andrei Piontkovsky has written about how the stars of Russian journalism are often born with a knack for mimicry: “Television star Vladimir Posner, who ascended the teleconference scene during Gorbachev’s era of perestroika and continued to confidently shine under Yeltsin, reached his apogee during the Putin period of stagnation… There is no doubt that in a free Russia we will see him on television asking Udaltsov or Navalny about the crimes of the bloody Putin regime with that same look of concentration, disaffectedly shaking his head: ‘So much that we didn’t know back then, son!’”

But for now, this top brass of broadcast demonstrates his freethinking in carefully-measured doses, sometimes allowing himself “gosdura”-type slip-ups and never forgetting to appeal to the higher authorities. I cannot help but remember the words of songwriter Igor Talkov: “Show me a country where tyrants are praised… where priests hide KGB epaulets beneath their cassocks…”

This is a state of cons and imitations. One VVP takes the role of president, while the other takes the role of a journalist. But if you look closely, they have the same contours.

It is a doubling of VVP.

Translation by Kasparov.com.

For Garry Kasparov’s fiftieth birthday, noted writer Victor Shenderovich talks about the grandmaster’s perseverance in the face of adversity – and not only from across the chessboard.

Genius as a Problem
By Victor Shenderovich
April 13, 2013
Yezhednevny Zhurnal

Garry Kasparov is 50 years old!

Under different circumstances, the program Vremya would have been effusive in its reporting of our hero of the day – few other people have brought so much glory to the homelands they still live in today… A homeland that was once associated with the celebration of intellect. But the administration has taken care so that our hero has an easier time separating the wheat from the chaff. Kasparov’s birthday today is his own personal holiday, but for those of us who are lucky enough to have rubbed shoulders with this glorious man, this day is an excuse to say a few things to him about love and respect.

It is difficult, incidentally, to love Kasparov. He can crush you from across the chessboard – but how he crushes you! “You insult my intelligence” – Garry Kimovich quotes this line from “The Godfather” happily and often: the intelligence is certainly there.

And this unprecedented intelligence is accompanied by – think about it – a pure civic feeling, a powerful emotional composition, and a completely childlike faith that everything should be fair. And a sense of shock that it is not.

A chess-like worldview, where white has first-move advantage and always wins, where everything is determined by intellect, had work, and willpower, where everybody plays by the same rules, and where it is simply not acceptable to throw the board into the face of your opponent when you are about to lose – all of this, of course, makes a genius vulnerable in the realm of politics, where that is the only way things are done.

Garry Kasparov is not going to become president, oh no.

This is a good thing, when you think about it.

For him, at the very least.

In 1990 (when the hammer and sickle still hung everywhere), Kasparov insisted on playing his championship game under what was, at the time, the opposition’s tricolor flag. It was a striking move – in every sense of the word! He was young, and he was the winner.

A quarter century later, in a country deteriorating before our very eyes, a country that made a solid choice of dull gray, plain gray, and dirty gray for its current tricolor – this country is left only to gloat over his misfortune: he lost, he lost…
Him?

Or us?

Garry Kasparov is the gold reserve of our nation. For those of you who are sick in the head, I will specify: the Russian nation! And he continues to bring it glory. In New York, he somehow (in my presence – and evoking my terrible writer’s envy) managed to sign a half thousand copies of his book in one sitting…

That is no Sieg Heil. Plain and simple, that is glory to Russia!

And when he uses his not-insignificant personal funds (which, incidentally, do not inspire much love, either) to try and change his motherland for the better – that is patriotism!

This is different than the Ozero members carving up Sochi or diving for vases in the midst of a flock of Siberian cranes to amuse a bunch of morons…

Once, during the icy age of Putin, in the middle of the shameful “zero” years, Kasparov, in response to my feeling that the chances of success were small, shrugged his shoulders and responded with a chess axiom: when you have little material left to work with, you have to attack!

The amount of material remains incommensurable, and no amount of intellect is going to help in this situation: they still, as before, at every trifle, fling pieces in the face of their opponents, like on May 6 last year on Bolotnaya…

They are waiting for the board to rot.

So as to not idle away their time, they can tighten the screws on Kasparov to try and break him; they can kick him out of the country, like they kicked him out of politics – it is not rocket science… They can tell the Russian people that Kasparov runs around Moscow at night biting riot police.

They can also insult his intelligence another three hundred times, which is none too clever.

It would be much harder to stand on your toes to get at least a marginal idea of his point of view. And what is no longer remotely possible would be to come to terms with the fact that you are standing next to a free, successful, and genius human being.

May God grant him health.

——————————————————————————————

Addendum

From the book “Raisin from a Cake.”

Not a tsar

In November 2007, Garry was sentenced to five days of arrest. It was a lucky incident – if not for Kasparov, than for Petrovka, 38: it’s not every day that geniuses are carted to these dismal places.

After their despised higher-ups to took off, the inquisitive prison staff sidled up to their arrestee (with, in chess terms, black in a stalemate…)

And one sergeant keeps bugging Kasparov about politics.

“Kimych,” he says, “are you going to be tsar?”

Kasparov tries to bring this soldier back into the paradigm of democracy, but there is no fighting the logic of monarchy: if you stand against the tsar, it means you want to be tsar! But soon the political lesson was cut short: Kasparov’s interlocutor suddenly clammed up and sat dwelling on some grudge. Although, he did not dwell on it for long.

“You lied to me, Kimych!”

“When?”

“You said your wife is from Petersburg?”

“I did,” Kasparov confirmed.

“But now you tell me that your son’s mother is from Odessa.”

“Well, yes,” Kasparov confirmed, “my wife is from Petersburg, but the mother of this son is from Odessa…”

And, further expanding the horizons in the monogamous head of this Interior Ministry official, he accidentally added:

“I also have a daughter in America…”

The news of the American daughter finished off the sergeant.

“But Kimych!” he exclaimed. “I thought you were a tsar, and it turns out you’re a sultan!”

Translation by Kasparov.com.

Noted Russian journalist Igor Yakovenko gives his wishes to Garry Kasparov on his fiftieth birthday.

Kasparov as an Open Project
By Igor Yakovenko
April 12, 2013

Many people dream of having the chance to live more than one life, but very few people actually do. Garry Kasparov is a rare example of a person who has successfully managed to combine multiple lives into one.

Over the course of his first fifty years, there have been five different sides to Garry.

The first, of course, was as a chess player. He was the thirteenth world chess champion, and the most splendid one at that. In my view, chess ceased to be thought of as its own form of social thought after Garry retired from it, and now he has undertaken a tremendous effort to resurrect the game, giving it new meaning and making it one of the staples of education around the world.

His second alter ego was as a public policy analyst. He is better known in this capacity in the West, since in Russia he is banned from all popular media programs – they are too afraid. But this game has yet to be played out – this alter ego is very much in demand in Russia today.

Third, we have a social engineer who designed and created numerous foundations, movements, and parties, from the National Assembly and Solidarity to the United Civil Front. It sometimes seems like Garry will draw something in the sand and watch as the waves roll over it and bring it into reality. In fact, each of his structures played its own role in recent Russian history; each was a different step on the political Lamarck’s ladder of contemporary Russia. The National Assembly was the first venue for the opposition to find a common political language, and Solidarity is basically the only structure that served as an organizer for the mass protests of 2011-2012.

The fourth Kasparov is a unique platform for communication, where people meet and find a common language and work on joint projects, people whose views, social statuses, languages and even external appearances make them seem as if they were almost members of different species. American senators and Russian “leftists,” popular bloggers and the leaders of foreign governments – thousands of people rightfully consider Garry to be their friend. With so many people shaking Kasparov’s hand, the world comes a little closer together.

The fifth, which lies at the heart of all the rest, is the energetic one, allowing Kasparov to break through and win even the most seemingly hopeless games and tournaments, convert his worldwide fame into the creation of inexhaustible humanitarian and political projects, and convince even his most implacable opponents that he is right. The ability to always go against the flow and be in the game for the long run are characteristics of a forged champion and a champion’s energy.

There is one more alter ego: Kasparov as a filter. Anyone who is petty, despicable, or envious feels uncomfortable and awkward standing next to him. His energy burns them up, his logic suppresses them, and his universal fame overshadows them. That is why people write, say, and will continue to write and say such garbage. Therefore, Garry is a reliable indicator of the political environment that surrounds him: judging by what people say about him, you can understand who is who.

It seems to me that the Kasparov project is at the beginning of a new phase. And this makes me glad, because it is a beautiful project, one that is helpful for our society. Happy birthday, Garry!

Translation by Kasparov.com.

In his latest op-ed, Garry Kasparov comments on former finance minister Aleksei Kudrin’s recent pronouncement that Russia is on long road to democracy, one that might take another couple of decades to finish – in which case, Kasparov argues, Russia would sooner fall apart at the seams.

The Oracle and the Marathoner
By Garry Kasparov
April 10, 2013

He was a few days late for April Fool’s, but Parnas co-leader Boris Nemtsov recently wrote up four “completely different” possible responses to the burning question of “when is Putin leaving?” His possibilities are that Putin’s departure will be: of a biblical/mystical, constitutional, historical, or comparative (Brezhnev, Stalin) character. Surprisingly, he concluded that “each of these estimations – without exception!!! – lead to only one outcome: he will not make it to 2024-2025. The main question for civil activists, the opposition, and myself included, is what should we do in this inescapably fatalistic situation??? My answer: we continue to fight!!! …If we continue to fight persistently and stubbornly, he will leave sooner than later. And that will be good for Russia and for all of us…”

Of course, these kinds of “ratings” can bring a smile to one’s face. Boris Efimovich has a good sense of humor. And I myself am no stranger to the concept of magic numbers, as I mentioned on January 1: “The number 13 has always been lucky for me, and the Year of the Snake has been significant in our country’s history since the beginning of the last century. So I hope that the combination of these two factors will bring us luck in the upcoming year!”

But numbers are just numbers, and life is richer than we imagine it to be, richer than any diagrams. As a poet once said: “I pity you, devotees of fatal dates and numbers…” It is no secret to anyone that a deplorable economic situation, compounded by governmental inadequacy, can easily upset any prediction. Therefore, it is strange to hear words like “inescapably fatalistic” from the lips of a hardened oppositionist, someone who fearlessly exposes Putin’s thieves.

It is especially surprising considering that current “scientific” predictions of our future are a dime a dozen, and they are usually based on cold calculations, not amusing kabbalah. The very next day after the oracle from Parnas gave us his four possible answers, former finance minister Aleksei Kudrin gave a speech of his own. In 1996, Kudrin played a key role in bringing Putin into the halls of federal power. And what did he impart to his colleagues on the Committee of Civic Initiatives? “Essentially, we are living through a period of the utmost historical difficulty and importance: the country’s transition to real democracy. It might be quick and easy or it might be long and difficult, but it is already impossible to change this trend… At some point, maybe after 15-20 years, we will inevitably transition to a more balanced social system… The task we have taken upon ourselves cannot be accomplished within a year. And, after a year has passed, we can say: we are not even long-distance runners. You and I are marathoners. And we have only just taken off.”

It turns out that the task begun by Yegor Gaidar and Anatoly Chubais 20 years ago is alive and well: the systemic liberals intend to continue their “unpopular reforms” for another 15-20 years! After the mass protests of the winter of 2011-2012, they waged a bet on Putin, realizing that otherwise they would face imminent ruin. And all of these false liberals habitually play out their roles in the Kremlin’s marionette theater, imitating the opposition and giving rise to false hopes – be it Medvedev, Prokhorov, or Kudrin…

The aforementioned fragment of Kudrin’s address once again exemplifies how the systemic liberals are not the opposition; they are an inseparable part of the ruling Chekist regime, its ideological watchdog, and its administrative, financial, and economic backbone. The wheel of repression is spinning at full speed right before our eyes, the Bolotnaya case is swelling more and more, arrests continue, Alexei Navalny is going to become another political prisoner – and they keep talking about 15-20 years of transition!

How nice: new generations of prisoners for the presidential administration and Gazprom could grow up under the icons of Gaidar and the keen guidance of Yevgeny Yasin and Sergei Guriev. And the first flock of economists could eagerly sign off on multi-billion ruble loans to one-day shell companies (like Baikalfinansgrup), and astronomically large fraudulent tax refunds from the state budget (like what Magnitsky uncovered). “Dreams, dreams…”

But the country is not going to last that long: our Soviet infrastructure wore out long ago, but our “unpopular reformers” never built anything else. Despite global economic crisis, the world is developing dynamically, and it appears that, in the not-so-distant future, the Russian “pipe” economy is going to go down the drain.

Kudrin is right about one thing: “the country’s transition to real democracy” has begun indeed, and “it is already impossible to change this trend.” But the transition is not going to happen, of course, in “2024-2025,” and definitely not after “15-20 years.” It is going to be much, much sooner.

In order to survive as a state, Russia will inevitably be forced to detach itself from the Putin regime and its architects. Therefore, it is in vain that our tireless marathoner from the Petersburg ferment heartens his colleagues with the idea that “we have only just taken off.” For them, the marathon is over. You are already past the finish line, sirs and comrades, and you had better get started on training not for a marathon, but for a sprint.

Translation by Kasparov.com.

This past weekend, the Russian opposition movement Solidarity held a conference to elect its new political leadership. After learning that Garry Kasparov had decided not to run for office in the movement this time around, member Ilya Yashin posted on Twitter that Kasparov actually intended to “emigrate from Russia.” Below, Kasparov explains how this statement is, as he says, “to put it lightly – inaccurate.”

Don’t You Worry, I’m Not Leaving
By Garry Kasparov
April 7, 2013

Rumors emerged today that I am emigrating from Russia and leaving Russian politics. I found these rumors to be deeply saddening and, moreover, surprising. I was unable to respond immediately because I was in such a state of shock that such an incredibly inaccurate statement, the likes of which is constantly distributed by the Kremlin’s propagandists, came this time from Ilya Yashin, a fellow member of the Opposition Coordination Council (KSO) and my former colleague from the Solidarity movement. It is obvious that Yashin’s sensational post of these rumors on Twitter drew a great deal of attention to Solidarity’s conference, which otherwise would have gone on unnoticed by anyone.

Once again, I am forced to explain that emigration means to permanently change one’s place of residence to another country. This never was, and never will be, part of my plans. Although circumstances are such that I am obliged to spend a significant amount of time abroad, Russia is the only country on the planet that I consider to be my home. I am a citizen of Russia and I have no citizenship anywhere else. While this might sound immodest, I would say that I have done much more in the service of my country than many so-called “patriots in the line of duty.”

So what are these circumstances, you might ask, that force me to spend so much less time in Russia than I would like? Over the past year, both the Russian opposition and many civil activists have been excited and gladdened that the US Congress passed the Magnitsky Act. This act struck a painful blow against the Putin regime and had a direct effect on the political situation in our country, attested to by the total hysterics that the ruling elite responded with. Do not forget that Putin said that opposition to the Magnitsky Act was “the top priority of Russia’s foreign policy.” Therefore, in order to be sure that this legislation would pass, I, along with Boris Nemtsov, Vladimir Kara-Murza, Dmitri Gudkov, and other representatives of the Russian opposition had to overcome strong pushback from pro-Putin lobbying groups. Now we face no less difficult a task: to convince the European Union to pass an equal set of measures, as well as to find countries in the Schengen Area that are ready to be the first to implement practical measures against the figures on the Magnitsky List.

In addition, one of the most important tasks today is to defend the political arrestees in the so-called Bolotnaya Case. One of the most effective ways to save these people is to organize international pressure against the Russian government to demand their release. In order for me to address these problems I have to spend a marked amount of time abroad. However, to call this “emigration” would be, to put it lightly, inaccurate. I must remind KSO member Yashin that, as the coordinator of the KSO’s international committee, dealing with these issues is my direct responsibility.

As far as my decision not to run in the election for Solidarity’s new Federal Political Council is concerned, this was motivated by the fact that the movement has effectively become an appendage of the Republican Party of Russia-PARNAS. My disagreement with the party’s leadership is a strategic issue – participating in anything that legitimizes the existing government strikes me as misguided. Therefore, I feel that the RPR-PARNAS leadership’s decision to participate in various electoral events is controversial at best. How long are we going to listen to this argument that participating in consistently fraudulent elections is a key factor in the political battle in our country, where people wind up sleeping in prison bunks for peacefully protesting and expressing disagreement with the ruling regime?! In this situation, it seems obvious to me that Solidarity has exhausted its role in uniting various democratic forces, and fighting just to save a familiar political brand is pointless in the context of a growing dictatorship.

However, my departure from Solidarity does not at all signify a departure from politics. Working to add 280 Putin operatives to the Magnitsky List, as was proposed by US Democratic Congressman James McGovern, is, in my view, much more important than exposing predictable fraud at 280 municipal polling stations.

To anyone spreading rumors that I might emigrate or suffer from a “political death,” I leave you with the words of our great Russian bard, Vladimir Vysotsky:

Don’t you worry, I haven’t left.

And don’t get excited – I’m not leaving!

Translation by Kasparov.com.

Writing for the Daily Beast, Garry Kasparov reminds us that while Boris Berezovsky’s death may make a flashy headline, the real focus should be on the crimes being committed by the man he put in the Kremlin – Vladimir Putin.

Boris Berezovsky’s Dubious Legacy Lives On in the Kremlin
By Garry Kasparov
April 1, 2013
The Daily Beast

When Boris Berezovsky was found dead in his home in England last week, it was an abrupt conclusion to the long final act of a farce. Although after such a complicated life, even his death may turn out to be a question mark instead of a full stop. A kingmaker who was exiled by the man he made king, Berezovsky was the architect of the Russian “managed democracy” scheme now headed by his former acolyte Vladimir Putin, a system dedicated to finding every possible way to subvert real democracy and to centralize power in the hands of “wise men” like himself. Really it should be “wiseguys” in the Mario Puzo sense, as what this system most resembles is a mafia state with a few token democratic decorations.

The task of burying Berezovsky is being taken care of with speed and diligence by his various enemies, especially the Kremlin and its wide circle of media lapdogs and employees inside and outside of Russia. Now that he is dead, and with that the possibility of being sued for libel, they are taking the gloves off and accusing him of everything under the sun, including murder. Here in Russia, Berezovsky has long been held up as a boogeyman along with other oligarchs driven into exile or otherwise persecuted by Putin and his allies.

What goes unmentioned in these tall tales of “Vladimir the Vanquisher of the Oligarchs” is what happened to the rest of them. Putin went after only those he perceived as a threat to his power and the state-security apparatus he quickly reestablished. The rest were given the opportunity to swear loyalty to him and become a partner in the greatest epidemic of larceny in world history. There was plenty of cash to go around. By the time Putin took power in 2000, Russia was seeing some of the benefits of economic reforms and access to the global marketplace. But what really made the difference was the decade-long 500 percent surge in oil prices that filled the state coffers no matter how much was skimmed off the top (and the middle).

The money may be long gone and hard to find—hidden as it is in Swiss accounts, New York real estate, and London football clubs—but there’s a relatively easy way to check the results. Just look at the latest Forbes list of billionaires and compare it to those that came out when Putin first took office. The number of Russians on the list has gone from zero in 2000 to 110 on the latest edition. (And this is without one prominent name that would surely top the Russian list were his assets known. Unless of course you believe that the man who tightly controls the destiny of 110 billionaires is himself not interested in accumulating wealth.) Russia has nearly as many billionaires as China, whose economy is four times larger, and almost double the number of Germany, whose economy is 60 percent larger than Russia’s. This incredible feat is hardly a reflection of a broad-based economic expansion. While the U.S. still has more billionaires per capita than Russia, it also ranks near the top in GDP per capita while Russia languishes in the mid-50s on that list, just ahead of Gabon and Botswana.

Putin’s real achievement was to effectively coordinate the looting of the wealth of the Russian state and countryside. Perhaps Berezovsky’s bitterness in exile was partially due to being deprived of the chance to participate in Putin’s culmination of his schemes. From being the power behind the throne, Berezovsky spent a decade in London as little more than a jester, making wild statements and squandering his remaining assets on lawsuits and press battles. He never had the courage to fight against Putin from afar, as others have.

It is still worth condemning the eagerness of some Western news outlets to assist in the Kremlin’s propaganda campaign against Berezovsky. Surely there are enough objectionable facts about the dead man available to make spreading slanderous theories unnecessary. Yet Forbes still found it worthy to ask, in a headline, if Berezovsky killed Forbes editor Paul Klebnikov in 2004. Klebnikov was shot in cold blood in front of his office in Moscow, a crime that is still unresolved, like so many others acts of brutal violence against the press in Russia. Making unsupported accusations like this—nothing resembling evidence is provided in the Forbes article, and the charge was never made by Forbes while Berezovsky was alive—assists the Kremlin in discrediting a critic and in throwing chaff into the air to hide the fact that Putin and his cronies have continued Berezovsky’s larcenous practices in Russia.

Those journalists who wish to display their investigative talents more usefully should not ask what happened to Berezovsky. Instead, they should look into the dealings of the other Russian oligarchs, the ones whose names are routinely celebrated in the London financial pages, not the obituaries. Putin’s circle has achieved a legitimacy Berezovsky could scarcely have dreamed of and the United Kingdom welcomes looted Russian assets with open arms. Berezovsky may briefly be a story, but he was history long ago. What matters now is to investigate the crimes still in progress, those being committed by Berezovsky’s most successful project, Vladimir Putin.

Read the original at The Daily Beast.