 I imagine that our political class, that you're the president of America, Obama, simply would say at least about Russia, look, there's not much that we can do. And why should we? You know, Ukraine, whatever, is simply not a prime economic or political interest. So why should we open the box of Pandora and get whatever and let us be realistic? Because what you call double standards in political terms, it's called political realism. We heard these arguments 75 years ago. Why the British soldiers should die for a country they couldn't find a map. And policy of appeasement always fails when you are dealing with a dictator that is just is getting more and more arrogant with weakness and indecisiveness from our side. The world, as I said, it's already globalized. And you cannot separate problems in Ukraine from problems of North Korea or elsewhere because, you know, information travels instantly. And I remember that after this Obama's infamous red line failure in Syria, I said that was a disaster not just for this region, but also for other facts in the world because they could learn that the American president was willing to back off what they call ironically leading from behind, just fine of, you know, oxymoron, leading from behind. So and there's no vacuum in politics or geopolitics. You walk away, somebody gets in. I was inspired by your speech, but I have just one question. And that is you said that we should stand up and defeat the dictatorial, the dictatorial regimes, if I'm not wrong. But you also said that history goes in seasons and kind of repeats itself. What do you think we will accomplish with defeating these regimes? And don't you think that new ones will stand up? No, but seasons, you know, it's right, but it's a spiral, but spiral goes up. So that's why it's basically what I said, each generation has its own duties. So actually, you know, I believe, you know, I would probably fight today is not as harsh as 60 years ago. And when somebody tells me, oh, Putin is too dangerous to confront, are you sure it's more dangerous than Joseph Stalin in 1948, when Harry Truman ordered airlifting supply to West Berlin, besieged West Berlin, and for 11 months, American and British planes have been supplying West Berliners with everything they needed. And Stalin hasn't shot a single American or British plane because I guess he realized that Harry Truman was not a man to confront with. So we have, again, it's a different challenge because we have suicide bombers, we have most likely, I will be facing, rock states with nuclear weapons. It's a different kind of challenge. But, you know, we have to find a way to fight them and to defeat them, to make sure that the human race will go to a new season. Otherwise, the winter might be, you know, might become a nuclear winter. You've already mentioned the film that has been shown last week on the Russian television about the Crimea and the annexation of it. In the film, Putin actually threatens of using nuclear weapons. What do you think on that? Is that a real threat or is he bluffing? I mean, I wish I knew the answer. Yeah, again, probably there is no answer because this answer should, you know, be timed. Why Putin said it? Because he could see that for 20 years, a rogue regime in North Korea could terrorize the world with a bucket of nuclear waste. And the whole world has been dancing around, you know, just feeding poor people in North Korea in Gulag because this, okay, father now is the son or actually is already grandson. So this is a generation of these Kims there. They learn how to use nuclear blackmail. Now, from Putin's perspective, if you can be so successful using this nuclear waste, so how about, you know, threatening the world with the largest or second largest nuclear arsenal? Again, it worked. And that's the problem with dictators. When it works, they become arrogant. You know, it's when you just look at the history of the World War II, I mean, it's clear that from Hitler's perspective, there was no difference between Poland and Czechoslovakia. If they gave up Czechoslovakia, why they're defending Poland? So it's psychologically, what's the difference? So at a certain point, you know, we reached a line, but if we let dictator to move too far, he could get so crazy that he could, you know, believe that it worked. And I doubt very much it's a serious threat because, you know, in Russia, it's not just Putin to push the button. There are many other people. That's why I've been arguing for a year to ignore Putin and to address others. Because he burned all the bridges, but many others are still, you know, contemplating whether they have to follow his crazy orders or not. So make sure they understand the guy's crazy and there is a future without him. Mr. Kasparov, it's a great honor. You mentioned winter is coming. You also said in the beginning of your speech, Europe must not fall. This morning, my younger brother received a letter from the Ministry of Defense from Netherlands in which it was stated he's eligible for military service. This is already abandoned in the Netherlands, but other European countries have already reintroduced military service. Do you think we are too ignorant in the Netherlands concerning such policies? Should we get ready for military service, for duty? The answer is yes. It doesn't mean that it will end up with a combat in the battlefield, but, you know, if you're too late, you know, it could, as I said, increase the price. Because the threats are obvious and, you know, what can stop the Putin's aggression or the expansion of the evil forces is our strengths. Dictators have great animal instincts. They can smell when they can move forward or they can just, you know, they have withhold their intentions. And, you know, strengths of Europe, United Europe could, in my view, provide enough momentum. If not for Putin, forget him. He burned all the bridges. But there are many people surrounding him that they recognize that Europe is no longer indifferent to the threats. Because you may ignore Ukraine, but at one point, you know, you have to deal with Estonia, Latvia, so other NATO countries. And the moment Europe fails to protect one smallest nation that is under NATO umbrella, the whole concept is dead. And I think it will undo the great work of Europe by bringing together nations, by creating institutions, by respecting the borders. Those are the things that are so vital for the rest of the world. And to let it go, I think will lead to a disaster. I have a question. On your Facebook page, you've recently criticized President Barack Obama for only mentioning Russia and its vulnerable economic state, sort of not really doing much about it. And you ended your caption by saying, Ukraine needs weapons, not words. So my question to you is, aren't you afraid that with Putin being a guy with easy access to nuclear weapons, this will throw Ukraine and Russia down the rabbit hole if America arms Ukraine? I don't think that if Putin believes for a moment that he needs more blood in Ukraine to improve his domestic standings, he will look for a pretext. He doesn't need American weapons to justify his further aggression. Does American weapons, and we're talking again, again, very small amount of lethal military help to be provided. It's mainly radio electronics devices and anti-tank missiles. I'm sure any American military base could provide what Ukraine asked to. Will it stop Putin's attack? No. But it will dramatically raise the price that he will have to pay. It may still not be enough, but it's like, you know, it's not a game of chess or mathematics. You know that it's just you can calculate, but definitely you improve your odds. And knowing Putin's behavior, you know, he will attack if he smells weakness. Not if he knows that the price is going high. Also, I think it's very important psychologically. It's America's leading, not from behind, but leading in supplying weapons to Ukraine can help Ukraine to get support in Europe. NATO will not do it as an organization, but many European nations are still holding even supply of old Soviet equipment to Ukraine because America is not in. So I think psychologically it will help, you know, the morale of Ukrainians. It will help European allies. And it will also send a signal to the Russian generals because at the end of the day, they have to follow Putin's commands and recognizing that they'll be fighting Ukrainian army trained and even on the limited scale supported by Americans will create a very different psychological momentum there. It may not stop for the bloodshed. I'm convinced that Putin will continue his attacks just because he needs, you know, he needs more drugs, you know, like a drug user, you know. Crimean euphoria is over. You can look at this pathetic demonstration in Moscow where people were paid, and still it was far less impressive the anniversary of Crimea's annexation than the funeral of Boris Demsov than when people just came, you know, just on their own. So Putin needs more adrenaline to the nation. And I will not be surprised if further attacks on Ukraine will be considered as the only way to boost his popularity. You talked about trading individual freedom for stability. One of the effects of terror attacks like 9-11 is that national intelligence agencies have gotten a lot more power to do surveillance and stuff like that. This is an effect trading individual privacy and freedom for the promise of stability. So my question to you is, do you think that the power that is given to these intelligence agencies is helping us against the war on terror and dictatorships, or do you think that it's throwing under the bus these crucial modern values that you were talking about? That's a political dialectics. And I have been saying that, you know, it's a fight. Again, it's a seasonal fight. So you can't accept the demands without big debate. So you can't accept demands of security officers saying, we need more power. Everything should be investigated. And it's like a pendulum, you know? Sometimes it pushes one way. Then you can just, you know, you can try to push it another way. That's called democracy. And I said, you know, naturally the response for aggressive speech is more freedom of speech. So while I do understand that it's impossible now with this modern communication to guarantee the total privacy, though I'm in favor of protecting the First Amendment of U.S. Constitution as the number one factor of securing our freedom. But it's, again, this is a subject for, you know, for political debate. So as long as we live in a free society, there will be always, you know, a push of this pendulum, one side or another. Right now I'm writing a paper about Belarus. And I was wondering what your opinion is of what the EU could have done difference during the Jean's Revolution in 2006. I doubt very much that Belarusian, sad situation in Belarusia could have changed as long as Moscow was sort of the constant supply of free energy and sort of political backup when needed. So Lukashenko knew that with Putin on his back so he could do almost anything he wanted as long as he, you know, played a role of the, not the younger brother but, you know, a member of the family. So the biggest mistake towards Belarusia was for Europe and America to call Lukashenko the last dictator of Europe, ignoring the fact that, you know, he was very much byproduct of what's happened in Russia. Do you see any change from outside, not from inside? So if Putin's regime comes to an end, then it's because there is too much pressure from outside, not from within? The Putin regime reached a stage where, you know, legitimate constitutional nonviolent means will not end its power. He's going to stay for the rest of his life. I always said that while I didn't have a crystal ball, I couldn't see the future, you know, I can predict one thing for sure. Putin will die in Kremlin. So when and how nobody knows, including him. So that's a problem for all the dictators. So it's the, I think this is, at that point, the outside pressure is vital because it should create enough cracks in the monolith of power. It should send signals both to the elite and also to Russian middle class that it will not end unless they do something. So Russia will be thinking deeper and deeper into the abyss of this paranoia. So eventually it will happen from inside. But the strong opposition to the regime is vital because, you know, it's, you know, the entire Putin's concept of staying in power is based on his, on the demonstration of strength abroad. So that's like a Putin's new mythology. He doesn't need any more stability. He doesn't care about economic standards in Russia. So it's all being dropped. It's all, all these cards thrown away. Putin's power today in Russia based on his macho image of invincible dictator who can bring the entire world under its knees. So destroying this myth will eventually destroy Putin's roots to power in Russia. I have a simple question. In life, in war, in chess, what is the better answer to an offense? Defense or offense? Basically it's an invitation for a new lecture because it's about, it's about a playing... Please keep it simple. It's about a playing style. And I wrote the whole book, How Life Imitates Chess, when I explained, you know, that it's, the answer is always inside. So I'm arguing for attackers' advantage. That's the name of one of my chapters because the way I was built. But, you know, just remember that whatever you do, you know, you have to make sure that there's decisions. And, you know, being a very aggressive player like in tennis, you know, powerful serve, rushing to the net, doesn't mean that you will beat someone who plays from the back line. No, but in your opinion. No, but I'm, yeah, I was always looking for more aggressive approach because I believe that, you know, you have to be ahead of the curve. Thank you. I never believed in leading from behind. Thank you.