 Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. Major changes are now taking place in the Soviet Union. The Baltic peoples of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania will be free to determine their own future. Mingling with the rush hour traffic, Red Army armoured personnel carriers on the streets of Moscow this morning. Momentous events today. The course of history is changed. Mikhail Gorbachev resigned. The Soviet Union collapsed 30 years ago, in part because its government-run economy was incapable of producing blue jeans, cigarettes and automobiles that its citizens wanted. What it was great at was producing champion chess players. From the end of World War II until the evil empire dissolved in 1991, all but one world champion, the American Bobby Fisher, represented the USSR. None was better than Gary Kasparov, who became the world champion in 1985 at the record young age of 22. Widely considered the greatest chess player in modern history, he held that title for 15 years. As a chess prodigy, he traveled abroad for competitions and he describes youthful trips to France and Germany as nothing short of revelatory. The casual abundance of what used to be called the free world just felt different, he says. Beyond the iron curtain, he encountered the anti-communist works of George Orwell and was able to read exiled dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn's suppressed indictments of totalitarianism. As the 80s progressed, he publicly questioned the Soviet system. In 1990, he joined the Democratic Party of Russia and became increasingly outspoken in favor of human rights, representative democracy and limited government. In post-Soviet Russia, he used a celebrity and influence to spearhead attempts to build civil society and conduct fair elections, emerging as a leading critic of Russian leader Vladimir Putin. By the early 2010s, he had been arrested for participating in unauthorized anti-government demonstrations and was widely believed to be the author of a popular petition demanding Putin's resignation. As chairman of the Human Rights Foundation, Kasparov continues to lobby for freedom in the former Soviet Union and beyond. In September, reason spoke with the chess grandmaster in New York about what it was like to be the beneficiary of a catastrophically failed Soviet system and what lessons the world, especially American Democratic socialists, should remember three decades after its collapse. Gary Kasparov, thanks for talking to me. Can you describe where you were when you first realized that the Soviet Union was finished for good? Believe it or not, but I would not recall my whereabouts on December 25th and the probably reason that I was not surprised. I knew that the Soviet Union was dead long before they lowered the flag, Soviet flag and just raise the Russian flag. Somehow I felt even in the late 80s that the end was near. I remember speaking in Germany, I think in 1987 for a group of German businessmen, it's just chess presentation. I was working on a computer project and they asked me about Gorbachev, Perestroika and about the future, whether it was. And I stunned them saying absolutely because I believe the Soviet Union was moving just in one direction. The system just couldn't sustain the pressure of time, new technologies. So it's the fax machine. So I knew that the whole concept of Iron Curtain would no longer hold the pressure and I knew also from inside that there was a growing demand to open up. And I told them, look, I think things will change soon and in a few years we'll see the collapse of Berlin Wall. That was the end of the conversation because they looked at me and I had few moments like that in the next couple of years because I always believed that things would go faster than they did. And after the collapse of Berlin Wall, I was the one who said that reunification of Germany would be in the agenda very soon. While people say, no, it's impossible because of the historical memories and other European nations might be against it. But again, it all happened because the time was right for the Soviet Union to be gone. And also I knew from inside of the Soviet Union because I had a lot of connections. I was a world champion and being the chess world champion in the Soviet Union, it just would give you not just privileges, but it's a lot of authority. And I could speak out and just, well, my voice was heard. And though I was young, I became world champion at age 22 in 1985 and just in 1989 the collapse of Berlin Wall, I was just 26 and I was 28 when the Soviet Union collapsed. But I always played chess relying on my intuition. And my intuition kept telling me it's over. And the August coup, for me, it just was the last grasp of the old system. And I was on Olaari King because I had my vacation training session in Los Angeles with my mother and a couple of my assistants. And when it's happened, the American political pundits, and of course the American government and European governments, they were all terrified. Oh, that's the end of Gorbachev-Perestroika. And I don't want to go into details because I believe Gorbachev was part of this plan. But when I was called by Olaari King's wife and invited, and I was there with a local professor from, I think, from Stanford University and Jean-Claire Patrick. And the question was about the future. And they first turned to me asking me, so what's next? I said, it's act of desperation, 48 hours. And of course they lost any interest. Right. And I remember Jean-Claire Patrick saying, yes, maybe not 48 months, but definitely 48 weeks. So they talked about these things that I knew, again, instinctively. That just came from the past. They couldn't evaluate correctly the position on the board. This is obviously a very big question. But did the Soviet Union, did it collapse from within or without? Or how you mentioned technology is coming that we're going to tear it apart. How does that work? It's a combination of factors. So you cannot simply say it's the pressure from within or pressure from outside. It's a combination, but the pressure from outside was a very important factor. And hard to believe now that the Reagan's fantasy about Star Wars played a significant role in Soviet political role deciding to open up. If we remember, you know, just as what Gorbachev said when he was elected in March 1985, it was a little bit perestroika. It was not about glassness. All these terms like, you know, opening up some glassness, they would appear late 86 or 87. When he talked about perestroika, it was about military industrial complex. It was all about matching American technological prowess. And the idea of the Star Wars was like a thorn in the minds of members of Poland. And that's why Gorbachev desperately tried to convince Reagan to drop it. And the real beginning of this, of the democratization could be marked clearly by the end of 1986 after Gorbachev failed in Reykjavik to convince Reagan to drop the Star Wars. And then Gorbachev, after coming back, recognized that they would need to do something, you know, just to open up the energy of Soviet society and do something to make USSR more competitive. And he called Sakharov, who was in the seat of Gorky in exile, and brought him back to Moscow. That's the end of the 1986. And the beginning of 1987, we already saw the changes in Politburo, the rise of Alexander Yakovlev, the man who was a real ideologue behind this democratization. And again, I have no doubt that was the combination of these factors. Pressure from the outside, but also the inability of the Soviet system to compete against new technologies. They required more engagement of talent and then simply working the old way didn't help. So they're bringing in Sakharov, the most famous of their scientists, calling him in from exile. Yeah, but exactly. But not Sakharov was one of the most prominent scientists, the father of H-bomb in the Soviet Union. Three times, by the way, the hero of the, of, it's not Soviet Union, but it's like a socialist labor. So that's, it's one of the most decorated men in the country who raised his voice in the late 60s against, against Soviet tyrannical regime and wanted to democratize. Why did they, you know, it's kind of interesting though, because why did Gorbachev decide to open up or the Politburo, they, instead of closing down even more? But again, they needed to be competitive. So the system didn't function well. So this is they, and they didn't have the other alternatives. When people say, oh, there was a Chinese alternative, I don't think, you know, it's, it's this, the, the, the suggestion would stand, you know, the rigorous analysis. China had massive rural population. It's like, you know, reservoir, they could bring people in, they could also rely on these people to form the army police. They could use it against students in Tiananmen Square. Russia, Soviet Union, had, especially the European part, it was, it, it was urbanized. So this is the, and they need to find a way to satisfy this population. And again, it's, it's, it was more and more difficult to keep people misinformed about what's happening in other parts of the world. Did you, you know, one of the Tiananmen Square and the Berlin Wall in 1989 in the spring and the fall, were those events that were widely understood or, and seen in the Soviet Union? Oh, absolutely. Yeah. At that time, the Soviet Union was, you know, quite, I wouldn't say free, but it had a lot of press that could, you know, could go after sacred cows of the communist regime. And of course, we followed the news and the collapse of the Berlin Wall was, was really a big event because it's, it's symbolic, but symbolism is a very important part of any dictatorship. It's a, and, and, and it's, you know, it's, it sends a signal all over the place that it's, that's it. So it's the, and I, I can just have two couple of anecdotes, you know, that's just about my views and my engagement with the situation. So one is the story I first met Milesh Forman in 1988. So it was organized by Czech Grandmaster, you know, who wanted us to be introduced to each other. And we had dinner in Paris and Milesh was very skeptical about Perestroika and about everything that is happening in the Soviet Union. And I was very optimistic and he kept asking Mr. Gary, tell me how, how you think it could happen, you know? So I saw it. We said 20 years ago it was Prague and before 68, well before it was Hungary, it didn't work. I said Milesh, I didn't know, but I can tell you one day you open your window and you find out they've gone. And it's an after, after the collapse of the, of the Czechoslovakian communist regime. So one day just in the morning, I don't recall where I was, you know, in the world, but I got a telephone call. It says, it says Milesh, you know, Gary, you were right. I opened the window and they've gone. And then at the very end of the night in 1989, just we had the Congress of Soviet chess players. Actually it was another sign of democratization just, you know, going away from the Soviet Sports Ministry. And in the middle of this meeting, so we got the news from Romania about the revolution. And I stopped the meeting saying, now I congratulate our fellow, no, Romanians, you know, that's they now, they toppled the last communist dictatorship. And it was big ovation. So it's about, you know, about the mood. People didn't want to go with all the regime. It just, it's the gap between expectations and public expectations and the ability of the regime to serve them. That was too great to close. You mentioned Romania, which was essentially the only violent revolution of a former kind of Warsaw Pact or Soviet satellite or communist country in Europe. Why do you think the transition was as peaceful? You know, it's not like there was a lot of damage done. But why was Romania the only kind of really violent overthrow? Yeah, it was a violence, but it was not like a civil war. It was very quickly ended by the decisive intervention of the army. And it's desperate attempt of Ceausescu and his some of his secret police generals who, again, who couldn't read signs on the wall. So maybe he could have escaped, but he just, you know, he thought that he could continue doing the same things. By the way, he was, I think it was the only, you know, lifetime dictator because others, you know, they still had, you know, there were some sort of collaboration between different factions. But let's not forget, Eastern Europe was occupied. It was not just, you know, homegrown communism that won. It was the communism that was protected all the time by the Soviet bayonets. So it's the, and the moment Gorbachev recognized that he couldn't afford supporting this regime, sustaining them by using military power for a simple reason. Because, you know, if your house is at fire, so you cannot, you know, send, you know, firemen just to the neighborhood. And Gorbachev knew that he would have problems in Ukraine. He had problems in the south of the country. So he already saw the rise of Russian nationalism. So the moment, you know, he made his choice, I think, again, it was a rational political choice to abandon the communist regimes in Eastern Europe that were doomed. So let's talk about the system that produced you. The Soviet system, you know, famously was bad at producing cars, couldn't produce blue jeans or cigarettes that people wanted to smoke. It did produce chess champions. And producing you in particular, you were the world's youngest chess champ at 22. Before we get to this everything, tell me what that felt like to be 22 years old and to be the best goddamn chess player on the planet. That was a hilarious moment. Because, as you said, chess chess was a big thing in the Soviet Union. And winning world title, becoming the world champion, that was like, you know, just entering the legend. Because I grew up as a kid, reading these books. And for me, it was all about just, you know, gods, or at least high priests, you know, serving the goddess of chess. And the fact is that I could, you know, enter this pantheon. It was just hard to explain. I also recognized, you know, after becoming the world champion, that I could actually do something to help my country, because I had my voice just to raise. Because somehow it's a paradox. The Soviet system always nurtured world champions. So the system was proud of it. Because chess had a huge state support in the Soviet Union. Because it was viewed as the very important ideological tool to prove intellectual superiority of communist regime over decadent west. So it's very important for Soviet regime to demonstrate that intellectually, you know, it's way ahead of the rest of the world. Because they knew that they couldn't compete in doing cars or jeans or producing, you know, quality food. That's why when Bobby Fischer crushed all Soviet players and became world champion, that was moment of panic. And that's how Anatoliy Karpov, my opponent, my nemesis, the man I played five world championship matches with, he was raised here. He was a great talent, but he received phenomenal support from the highest echelons of power, because the Soviet Union needed this title back. And then he beat Korchnoy, right, who was a defector as well. He beat Korchnoy in 1978, because he played two matches with Viktor Korchnoy, who defected, which boosted Karpov's standing as the hero of the system. So the soldier of the Communist Party. And he was congratulated by Brezhnev himself. And that turned my match against Karpov as a challenge against the system. And that's also interesting, because a lot of people, famous people who rooted for me, they saw the change on the Chess Olympus in 1985. The Gary Kasparov, a half-Armenian, half-Jewish boy from Baku, beating Russian champion as a sign that change was possible. Again, it's very difficult to even just to grasp this moment, but I remember some of them were crying. So this is famous artists, this is people who just were well-known in the country. And I had a lot of friends. I was very young, but they treated me as one of their own. And they said, wow, it's possible. And I think millions of my fellow citizens shared the same feelings. If Karpov could be toppled by this young kid from Baku, maybe the whole system is no longer invincible. So you're kind of like the Bobby Fisher of the Soviet system, a person coming out of nowhere. But I was a product of the system itself. And it had much bigger shock. And also, again, 1985. So we always need luck. Even if you're the best in your field, you have great talent, but things could be changed. If Gorbachev of Perestroika, Gorbachev rise to power, could be somehow delayed. There was a good chance that I would be disqualified in August 1985 because after our first match was closed and I spoke against this decision, I had an interview with Der Spiegel magazine that was translated in many languages in May 1985. And some of the Karpov supporters, they pushed my disqualification as a rebel who was threatening the very foundation of Soviet regime speaking against decisions made by authorities. And if not for Gorbachev's control of Politburo in July 1985 and Alexander Yakovlev intervention, who became the head of the ideological department in the Communist Party, I might be disqualified in August 1985. So I was lucky. But again, it's like all elements got together. And then this is, as I mentioned, meetings with Gorbachev and Reagan. So things were working in my favor. And I thought, wow, maybe I have to raise my voice. I never made any calculations. All I did is the thought I had, so many people spoke against regime because I knew about the great dissidents like Sakharov and others. And many of them failed. They couldn't actually achieve any results because they were just, you know, facing the wall. So I had a chance to speak for all of them. And it's like a moral duty. Did you have a strong sense when Reagan famously called the Soviet Union an evil empire? Do you remember that? And were you kind of like, yeah, he's onto something or was that a calamity against your country? I remember that when Reagan was elected in 1980, it sent Soviet propaganda in disarray because they have been panicking. The Reagan was looked like, you know, just the president who would even start a war. And the Soviet propaganda was filled with anti-Americanism and of course all these campaigns to stop American middle-range missiles to appear in Europe and as other peace movement. And also you have Maggie Thatcher there and the Falkland war. So it's in 1982-1983 when Brezhnev died and Ropov took over. And the Soviets shut down the South Korean boy killing 269. Including a congressman who was a member of the John Birch Society. It was something that, you know, we all sensed that it was a great danger. And the Soviet propaganda did not push the message. So it was briefly mentioned, but they did not want Soviet people to actually start chewing on it. So that's why, yes, Brezhnev was bad, he said something, but it was not, you know, like front-page news. So they tried to downplay it. I think it was 1983 when he said it. And Reagan's landslide victory in 1984, I think it was just another reminder that they had to deal with Reagan and with the Republican administration. And the Star Wars were already there. So it's the, you know, we don't know all the details about the fight, you know, behind closed doors like Churchill described, you know, the bulldox under the Kremlin's carpet. But it seems to me that, you know, Gorbachev was on the rise because he was an Andropov's man. And Andropov wanted him, you know, and the KGB actually supported Gorbachev because they knew they had to make some changes. They knew they had to compete with the free world in a very new environment. It's, I mean, let's not forget, the Soviet Union was always, you know, technological inferior. So the big push after World War II was very much the result of the land lease. So much technology was delivered to the Soviet Union. And I think it's in this country, few people recognize that it's while Werner von Braun and some of the top scientists landed up in American occupation zone. And of course, he played a key role in building American space program. The Soviets got actually their hands on the production line. So this is the factories that were on the Soviet side. And that's why immediately when they recognized it, Korolev, who was the like a top engineer, so as the designer of the space program, who was in prison, he was released and was, you know, was assigned to analyze it. So Soviet got a lot from Germany. So even by the way, the Kalashnikov, that's a product of Huggishmeister Bureau that worked in the Soviet Union for many years. And Kalashnikov was, you know, like an apprentice there. And it's the resources and ideas that have been accumulated after World War II. They just, they were running out. So when you became a chess champion and you're, you know, you're 22, you are at the apex of Soviet society. I mean, you are a national hero. The messages that you wanted to send. And how did you do that? Because obviously, you know, we see even today when somebody like LeBron James or Michael Jordan or something, if they say something political, you know, in America, people get in trouble or, you know, they get in trouble. What were the messages you were trying to send and how did you have to do that within the context of a Soviet Union? Yeah, okay. Like LeBron James, I'm not in the peril of any dictatorship. Unlike, yes. You know, I, again, just, you know, I was 22, then 23 and 86. So I was very busy playing matches with Karpov. But I didn't have any political agenda. It was too early to become a dissident. I knew that the system was doomed. It had to change. How, I'm not a slightest idea how. I just knew it's, it's, it's, everything was going. It was like one way street. I became more acute with my political statements in 1889 when I just joined the nascent Democrat, pro-democracy movement in the Soviet Union. And in late 1888, I met Andrew Sacher of actually Paris. His first trip abroad. First trip because he, you know, he was, you know, he always lived in secrecy and then was in exile. So it's the, and, and we met there. And I was truly impressed by, by his, you know, clear-cut ideas about the future. And I, I thought that it was time for me just to play, you know, just a more aggressive role as the role model. Because I knew I was somehow protected by my title. And I could speak, you know, freely. Just I could afford more than ordinary citizens, even prominent citizens. I could travel around the world. I was financially independent already. So it's, it's, I, I thought that if I remain silent, that would be a bad message to millions of my fellow citizens. If I could speak out and if I could just, you know, not even with a very clear and articulate message, but something, you know, just about the future, about us, you know, getting involved, that would send the sort of right message to, to, to, to these people. And who could encourage them, not maybe all of them, but many, to join the pro-democracy movement. To actually, to recognize it. Wow, our world champion, chess world champion, is speaking against power abuse of the system. He's talking about changes. He's talking about democracy. It's elections. Maybe we should also join. So I, I knew that, you know, that's, that's, that was important contribution. Again, it sounds very chaotic because I had no plans. So, but I always felt that my title and my uniqueness of my position as a chess world champion in the Soviet Union almost forced me into, into this kind of confrontation with the regime. You've talked in the past about how when you, you got to travel as a young person, and I read or saw somewhere where you were talking about starting to have doubts when you were traveling abroad at age 13. Can you talk about like, you know, what was it like, was your day-to-day existence in the Soviet Union was, was it kind of pleasant? And then you go abroad and you, I mean, you sound like the Buddha, you know, who leaves the family compound and starts to see poverty and old age and disease and things like that. How did, how did you start to realize the world you were living in was not in the Soviet Union or in Azerbaijan was not the only thing that was possible? Yeah, if you want paradoxes, Buddha is exactly reversed because I saw, I saw the rich. I saw, I saw, I saw the other side of the world. So the world is the, the world, you know, world of copious and abundance. So it's the concrete of the Soviet Union, the world of deficit. I, you know, I grew up in a family, a family where I had access to, to books and information that were not, you know, available in public libraries. So my, my father died when I was seven, but his younger brother, my uncle, you know, just brought me into this, in the circles of Jewish intelligence in Baku and, and I, I had my doubts. And I remember having debates with my grandfather, my mother's father, who was the member of Communist Party since 1931, who also was concerned about the way things were working in 70s because it's, he spent his life, you know, just working for the Communist Party and for, for, for the state. And he wasn't sure that, you know, his, his life was spent well because it was not what he expected. It's not, it's not what he, what he believed when he just started his life journey. But we still had a lot of debates and we had, in our small apartment, you know, in the dining room, we had a big political map of the world and we talked about it. So this is just looking at the map. And he was also very political, just, you know, having a few magazines where we could read about, of course, Soviet magazines about foreign politics. And, and so between these two worlds, so this is my uncle and the Jewish professors and my grandfather. So I, you know, it's, it was, you know, like boiling this, this ideas were just boiling in my head. And also I, you know, I had good analytical skills. I could look around. So also Soviet Union had many movies already. It's few Americans, but mostly Italian, French. So we knew about the other side of the world. Also the Voice of America, Radio Liberté, BBC, Deutsche Welle. I knew about the existence of the other world. But when I could travel at age 13 and return, I was like, wow, it's, it sounds, you know, so trivial. Okay, big deal. You traveled to France. My six-year-old son now already traveled to so many countries. He was in France. He was in Estonia. He was in Croatia. So he can tell you about these places. My fifth-year-old daughter now, just, you know, she already visited, you know, half of Europe. So not mentioning that she was both born in America, of course. But I think in my neighborhood, in Baku, Baku was the fourth largest city in the Soviet Union, so after Moscow, Leningrad and Kiev, over a million, million inhabitants. When I said neighborhood, it's just, you know, it's a very large part of the city. I think that was the only one who visited the capitalist country. And I became just a hero, but someone so unique. Forget chess. He went to France and he came back because to be sent to France, to be sent to the capitalist country, I mean, you have to go through so many layers of due diligence. You know, they had to vet you so that you were allowed to go there and you would come back. Of course, my mother couldn't trouble me because that was a rule. It's like a hostage rule. So the family must stay there just to make sure that the talent is by accident, by spontaneous emotional decision is not asking for political asylum. And I came back, and then I had another trip in 1977 to France because I was the Soviet... Do you remember what was it about France, you know, that... It was not about France. I could immediately see the quality of life. It's so difficult, different. I could see that's the way people... You know, it was different and it was more natural. You know, this world is built on a very different foundation. But it felt right. All with a minor detail. So that's from the airport to other places. It's so different. Even in 1980, I was 17, I was already one of the top players, so just it's the... We flew to Germany. I had to play under-20 world championship with one of the coaches, not my coach, one of the solid chess officials. And I just recently discovered in my mother's archive my diary. Just, you know, just... I was 17, I already had, you know, quite an experience traveling, and still I was quite shocked. So this is... It's the effect of this, you know, of the world of, you know, of this abundance. So it's this on... Solid people, even with critical minds, it's very hard to describe. And of course, making these projections, I inevitably came to the conclusion that the regime that was so much behind the free world would face challenges that it couldn't cope with. You have talked a lot about how in the Soviet Union that you grew up in, there was a kind of ongoing myth of good Lenin, bad Stalin. How did that kind of filter into your thought, particularly as you were getting older and towards the end, what became the end of the Soviet Empire? Yeah, it's very important, you know, to analyze these certain stages of Soviet mythology, because every dictator should use mythology. It's like a religion. Ideology has to be built on cults. It's not just, you know, invention of the Soviet communists. So you go back, you know, to early days in every country, you know, you had propaganda machine, even though primitive during Revolutionary time, that tried to build these new cults and to convince people, you know, of certain things that were contrary to their previous beliefs. Soviet Union started with Lenin and Lenin's cult, Stalin used it. And then, you know, after Stalin's death, the communist party bosses tried to separate. So again, they were very cautious. They revealed Stalin's role in big terror, but they always tried to separate to make sure that, you know, they were excesses, just to keep the system, you know, from criticism. There were also attempts to rehabilitate Stalin. So this is in late British years. So there was just more about Stalin's role in the World War II. But then, you know, during Gorbachev's years, Stalin became the number one target. So that's his deeds. And they desperately tried to keep Lenin out of that, but it was impossible, because more and more people looked, wait a second, the things connected. And the earliest today in Putin's Russia, role reversed. Putin's regime, they keep Lenin in the mouth of the lamb. They don't care. But it's not Lenin, it's Stalin. Stalin is a big hero. Lenin is just its ideology. Stalin is a pure cult of power. So that's why in today's Russia, in Putin's Russia, Putin's dictatorship looks at Stalin, Ivan the Terrible, so this is those, you know, figures of Russian and Soviet history as the role models. Because Stalin at the end of the day, you know, just didn't care very much about ideology. So yes, he was a communist leader, but it's power. It's power, it's terror, it's spreading influence, building empire, expanding it. And that resonates very much with modern Russian dictatorship. When you were in the Soviet Union, did you think of yourself, you're part Jewish, you're part Armenian, but you were growing up in Azerbaijan. But you were part of the Soviet system, but you often talk about yourself as Russian, because the culture you grew up in, how did you come to a kind of, what was your sense of personal identity in the Soviet Union? And I guess, was anybody a Soviet, or were they always some subgroup within the Soviet Union? Lines were very military. As for me, I grew up in a family that spoke Russian. That's the only language that was spoken in the family. My mother already spoke little Armenian. My grandparents did, but they came from Nagorno-Karabakh. But my mother and her sisters, they had very limited knowledge, because they visited the Anchester lands, you know, during their summer vacations when they were in school. So I grew up in a city that was, you know, a melting pot. It's like an imperial city. Unlike capitals of neighboring Transpocasian republics, Yerevan, capital of Armenia, or Belisi, capital of Georgia, Republic of Georgia, Baku was multinational, and Russian was the main language spoken there. So that's why, you know, my, from early days, my affiliation was clearly, you know, with Russian culture, like being a citizen of an empire. When people asked me, you know, you left Azerbaijan and I had to leave, you know, after Armenian pogroms in 1990. So, you know, but you were born there, so now you live in other countries. I said, no, I was born in a country where Moscow was a capital. And after the collapse of the Soviet Union, I stayed in the country where Moscow was a capital. Somehow, you know, you can just view people like me as the French born in Algeria or the Brits born in Ceylon. So it's just, yeah, when things changed, we just had to move to the metropolis because we belong there. I had strong, you know, spiritual affiliation with Armenia and Israel. But this is, yeah, it still doesn't affect my identity. So as this is, I offered some help, not very much I could do, to Armenian refugees. So just selling one of my trophies and just after these tragic events in Baku. And I was always very supportive of Armenian fight for independence of Artsakh, Nagorno-Karabakh. Of course, I was very supportive of Israel, the state of Israel. But it's probably more because it faced, you know, also the autocratic tyrannical regimes. So that's this, democracy was a very important element for me in these equations. So that's why I'm far more supportive of Israel than Armenia. Armenian regime deteriorated into also some form of orthocracy. But all connections were in war with Russia. And that's why we moved, myself, my mother, our sister. So we all moved to Moscow. So we belong there. And calling ourselves Russians, I don't know how we describe it. In 2006, I even wrote an article called Russian Political Nation, arguing that somehow we should view ourselves as Americans. You could be American Jew, American Italian. You could be Latino, but you're still an American. It's not about roots, it's about affiliation. So unfortunately in Russia, we haven't reached this point. And I think that's one of the missed opportunities of the 1991 revolution. Russia had to accept the collapse of the empire. But it hasn't stopped being empire. So this is mentally, so this is the Russia hasn't changed itself into national state. What I say national state is state of people who are Russians. So this is no matter what could be different roots, Armenians, Tatars, Ukrainians, whoever. And that's what Yeltsin failed. Or intentionally, you know, delayed this process. And of course Putin, you know, stopped it completely and just, you know, pushed it in the opposite direction, backward. So Russia is just, you know, it's kind of a limbo, because it's no longer an empire with some kind of phantom pains of, you know, just of this lost imperial grandeur. And it's never transferred into the national state. That's why, you know, the Putin's regime, it always tries to revive these old spirits. Not with my success, because it doesn't last. But still, the last grasps of the Russian Empire, they could be felt in the Republic of Georgia, Ukraine, and God knows where else. What was it like to encounter the writings of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, which I understand that you read those abroad in Russian? What was that like when you're traveling under the ages of the Soviet system that produced you and, you know, that is paying your bills and then you're reading this incredible critique of the system? Yeah, I read Solzhenitsyn at age 18. So I really knew about the existence of this work. They had been, of course, banned in the Soviet Union. But we could hear parts of that on radio, just on BBC, on Voice of America, Radio Liberty. So you could read some of this and some of that. But in full, I read it in 1981. And Solzhenitsyn's importance, you know, was to demonstrate that it was not about excess of the system. It was about the system itself. It's a system built on terror, on denial of fundamental human rights, on ideology that doesn't stop at anything to promote its most aggressive agenda. It was a very important contribution to my education, so it was like a milestone. And you keep adding things. It's not just Solzhenitsyn. It's a long list of authors not as known. But, you know, they helped to understand that the system was beyond repair. So it's an any attempt to actually find, you know, this is the right moment in history. So yes, if we did that, you know, it helped to crystallize my views about the system. And that's why by the end of 80s, I knew that I was anti-communist because it's the system, and these feelings are getting only harder at this time because I'm seeing now the revival of it. And I'm terrified to see that many Americans have thimpuses toward communism without even understanding what they're talking about. Can you explore that a little bit more? What sympathies do Americans have with communism? It's communism and socialism. It's just things that Americans never experienced. But they became popular because it's like people don't recall what happened 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and of course, you know, that was ancient history. So I spoke to many American audiences, you know, when I just, you know, had my book Winter or Winter is Coming published. And, you know, speaking to younger audiences, I think that's many of them, you know, they couldn't tell apart, you know, the Cold War and the Trojan War. So it's just something that belonged to ancient history. And unfortunately, this is the at the end of the Cold War, America lost its way. So it was, since 1991, I think, geopolitically, if you look at just, you know, this big picture, it has been drifting. Just with no captain on the wheel sort of saying, we go there. Since 1945 to 1991, it was a course. It, you know, I think it's just it's also quite symbolic that it was charted by a democratic administration under Harris Truman. And it was finished by Reagan and Bush, by Republicans. And since 1991, America failed to come up with new vision. So what's next? So what was the vision, I mean, what was the vision that America was following or enacting from the end of World War II to the end of the Cold War? To stop communism. And I'm a big fan of Harris Truman. I think it's it's been revaluated recently as one of the best presidents. I think that's the world owns him, you know, saving half of the planet from communism and his instincts, you know, just that helped him to stand against Stalin. When people say, oh, Putin is strong, Harris Truman stood against Stalin. In the height of Stalin's powers. And it's not about, you know, it's not about strength of the dictator. It's about lack of political will on the side of the free world. And it was a course, you know, that's convinced everybody from false to friends, from dictators to the oppressed. America was there. And that's what we're missing today. America is no longer there. Okay, so let's talk about this a little bit. So what were the defining attributes, and particularly from somebody who grew up in the Soviet Union, what were the defining attributes other than anti-communism that Americans stood for? Like, why was America good beyond simply being anti-communist? No, it's anti-communism. American anti-communism was viewed as the anti-dot against against communist destruction. Because, you know, those of us who could read books, listen to the radio and especially travel abroad, we knew that there was a better world outside of the or on other side of Iron Curtain. But this world had to be protected against communism. And America was the guardian. America was the leader. For us, it was a proverbial shining city on the hill. Is that tied to the abundance that you talked about? It's this flavor thing. It's a land of opportunity. First time I traveled to America was in 1988. I was already world champion. I was 25, so I traveled just across Europe. It was still quite an impression. It was the first time I was in New York. Though, again, I was financially independent. I was so different from many of the Soviet competitors. I still was impressed. But the key is that America was a factor. And that's what we knew. The Soviet Union, whatever they wanted to do around the world, they had to face American opposition. In the 90s and probably until the end of Bush 43 presidency, people knew that America was there. And unfortunately, over the last 30 years we're seeing this as the American factor. America as a geopolitical factor simply is vanishing. So, beyond military projection, and America obviously has been in the world in the past 20 years. We were in Afghanistan, we were in Iraq. We have military bases all over the place. Where did we go missing? And in the 90s, Bill Clinton, he dispatched troops and bombs all over the place, but you're saying that there was not a direction. Look, this is not about troops only. This is not about military power. This is not just about economic power. It's about political will. People could sense it. And American prestige was wounded in 1975. The pictures of Saigon, of the stampede from Saigon, they stuck in the minds of a lot of people. But it was quickly recovered. Reagan came back, came to power, and everybody knew that it was just, you know, it was not an accident, but it was a bumpy road. So, yes, it's the America to Abandon South Vietnam, but it was a local tribe. And of course, you know, this is the in 1991, American stock was the highest in the world. So, democracy was dominant, and a lot of people believed that it's, that would be the end of history. That's one of the most popular books of the time, you know, the end of history. And it's the end of, this history doesn't end. Evil doesn't disappear. It could be buried in the robles of Berlin Wall, but the moment we lose our vigilance and turn to be complacent, it sprouts out. So it's that the United States stopped promoting Defender of Democracy? It's more about all the guidance, because the end of the Cold War meant we had to look for new institutions, new plans. In 1945, 1946 there were new institutions, the United Nations, and then America helped to build these institutions like NATO, and by the way, domestically, it had National Security Council, CIA, Voice of America turned into propaganda machine, Marshall Plan for Europe. There was a broad consensus. It has been carried out by Democrats and Republicans. You could see the differences. But there was a broad consensus. Exactly, there was a broad consensus. When you go back to, let's say, the first televised debates between Nixon and Kennedy, they debated about means, not about goals. Since 1991, America was, as a war leader, was fading because it had no plan. How do we build a new world? Because the United Nations was, the main idea behind UN was to prevent World War III. And it's just to stop open confrontation between the USSR and the United States, to avoid any chance of nuclear armageddon. So, in 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was not for UN, but just for direct communication. But still, UN was there to talk about it, to talk about it, to freeze conflicts. Since 1991, we had to look for new entity to solve problems, not to freeze them. Is the problem with that, because I'm thinking we're 20 years into, we just ended 20 years of occupation of Afghanistan. There's been, in the United States since the early 21st century, there's been a global war on terror that we've been prosecuting. Can you explain how that did not, that is not getting the job done that you're talking about here. Again, we should go back to the end of the Cold War, collapse of the Soviet Union, and the lack of vision for the future. So, what was the, what would be the future like with only one superpower? I thought it was a time to actually to push, you know, the democratic agenda. So, like, you know, League of Democracies. You know, not to rely on institutions where dictators pay lip service to democracies. UN is just, you know, a joke. It's the UN week in New York is just, you know, it offers a catwalk for dictators. And while, you know, we can just argue about certain actions of Clinton and Bush, I still think they viewed themselves as leaders of the free world as U.S. presidents. But again, there was no centralized plan. Bush tried, but I think it's psychologically for Americans for no longer, you know, supportive of these ideas. I think that's this, what, and it goes back to the reason why there's sympathies for communism and socialism, because people forgot about lessons of history. It's the American students had to take sacrifices. America saved, you know, Europe in 1917 joining the World War I and saved the world in World War II by just, you know, taking on Hitler and of course, you know, just destroying the Empire of Japan. But it's, you know, we reached a point where the idea of sacrifice is no longer popular. So people look for, you know, for benefits. So let's reduce the risk. And it's the it's, you know, it's there's stock market rallies, you know, new technologies, you know, we live in a world, you know, where we could forget about enemies, because it's who cares. America is too strong Yes, that when Bill Clinton became president, America was all powerful. When he left his office, Al Qaeda was ready to strike. Can I ask, let me play devil's advocate. There's no question that socialism both as a concept and as a set of policies is more popular now than it was 40 years ago, 30 years ago. Can you how would you talk to somebody like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or a democratic socialist in America who would say, you know, what I want is free healthcare for everybody. What I want is a minimum wage that is 15 or $20. What I want is equal opportunity for everybody. How is that a threat to, you know, how is that like socialism under the Soviet Union or what lessons from history are contemporary socialists in America forgetting when they push a progressive agenda. First of all, I'd like to quote Winston Churchill. There are many quotes, great quotes from this greatest politician of the 20th century, not all time. Socialism is a religion of failure. The creed of ignorance and the gospel of energy. And let's start with semantics. And I don't know whether AOC understands it. Probably she's too young, maybe she does. But many of the followers do not. Bernie Sanders definitely does. This is not a man who just embraced socialism by accident. Someone who decided to have his honeymoon in the Soviet Union, just had a strong affection to Soviet socialism. Now, they call themselves democratic socialists and pretend that they are like social democrats in Europe. But the reverse of these words actually makes a great deal of difference. It's very important which one is now and which one is adjective. So the social democrats in Europe in Scandinavian countries or in Germany they are trying to do exactly what you said. They are trying to find some kind of social harmony. We can agree or disagree with their programs. Some of them are just more on the right, some of them are more on the left. But we, again they all act within the limits. It's about improving conditions for individuals within the system. Fighting for better deals for working people and looking for certain social and health benefits. The moment you reverse the words, as a democratic socialist the emphasis on socialism and the suggestions that came from this far left in America they are just they go way beyond simple improvements of working conditions or health care benefits. They are all connected. They attack on the very foundation of this country just calling this country to build an evil. So bringing together all issues from environmental to racial issues and using them legitimate concerns for their agenda in Britain, these for instance many of these green activists they called watermelon politicians. They green on top red inside. So I could smell it and I grew up in this country that their agenda goes way beyond way beyond simple improvements of the conditions for working men and women and just offering equal opportunities. There are equal opportunities in this country. And while American political system or American economic system it's not perfect but nothing is perfect. It still offers more opportunities for people of all races and gender and then coming from all different quarters that any other country in the world and the radical suggestions that are being received from this quarter from the far left they in my view just dismantling America as the global factor and also they speaking about rights and protecting minorities here, they turn the blind eye to the worst dictators in the world. The same people who are arguing about police brutality in America they are willing to close their eyes or just turn a blind eye to Vigour Genocide or to Narco State in Venezuela or to slavery still in South Africa and that's a big problem because it also diminishes America's leadership role in the eyes of people like me and millions of others who are just confused that America is now just going against itself. Talk a bit about your plan in your book from 2015 Winter is Coming why Putin and other enemies of the free world must be stopped. There's not the need for a League of Democratic Nations who will actually foreground democracy as an organizing principle for kind of international accord as opposed to what we have in the UN where each country is kind of treated as legitimate we don't worry too much about what's going inside. Why is democracy so important to your world view in terms of the way that America should ally with other countries. Democracy is important even for pragmatical reasons because democracy offers us the best chance to advance the cause of humanity so for those who still arguing about different systems say oh look at China, look at America I can tell them yes let's look at China, look at America. China gave us virus, America gave us an antidote, a vaccine that's it you don't have to go that far only three people can come up with advanced technologies that help humanity that's happened all the time so this is when we look at the performance of the scientists inventors in the free world versus unfree world it's always one sided and trying to look at China and to impose some of these Chinese accomplishments in American soil would be counterproductive and again America was and is still unique by its ability to generate innovations and when you look at American job market, when you look at American science you can see this as the immigration is still playing a key role because it's so many people who come in they bring their vigor they are just their passion for success and America can embrace them America offers the best opportunity for this talent to be found and explored so on the one hand if you have a Democratic party that is kind of in the United States it's not quite embracing but it's housing people like AOC and Democratic Socialists of America on the other side you have a right wing, a conservative party you've been outspoken against Donald Trump for all of your time in the public eye but you have a Republican party that is incredibly hostile to immigration and increasingly to free trade so how do you address the Republican side of that on the left people seem to be stupid about history they haven't learned the lessons of history they don't understand the continuity of controlling the economy to controlling people on the right you have this rise of really stark nativism and of America alone how do you convince those people that immigrants like you are not a threat to the country but are rather its future it's again, it's historical ignorance it's just ignoring the fact that America was built by immigrants and always benefited from immigration but it's not the only sin of the Republican party the party is still very much beholding to Donald Trump and it's just trying to turn blind eye on power abuse during Trump's years if we just try to look at both excesses I won't say fringes but it boasts let's call them diplomatic wings of American politics so one could get desperate because you don't know where to go this country now is forced to choose at every elections for lesser evil and this country now that was built on striving for excellence and all of a sudden you know oh this is bad but this is worse so the last two elections Clinton Trump, Biden Trump was just about whose worse and that's really bad sign and that's how democracy dies when it's been attacked simultaneously on both sides people say Hitler won elections in Germany he never won elections his best result was around 38% in 1932 but the communists made nearly 16 which means you know that the majority of Germans vote against democracy right now I see that here in America it becomes it's not even partnership it's tribalism I belong to this tribe every time that we have a crisis here you hear people pointing fingers you know this is it's the and it's so I wouldn't call it double standards it's pure form of hypocrisy when Democrats and a Biden administration owns this crisis in Afghanistan points at Trump that Trump signed it it's a hypocrisy because he won in charge but when the Republicans say oh Biden blew it up ignoring the fact that Trump signed it and we can look at you know at every complain now Trump is in the office and you see out crisis on the left executive orders terrible how can you do that Biden comes in the office and the same people demand now you have to sign everything undo Trump's executive orders that's not the way to move forward how do you how do you get back to a world of good faith argumentation because that's one of the things that I'm thinking of Sartre used to talk a lot about bad faith and bad faith arguments and we seem to be in a world now where almost everybody's making bad faith arguments what are you know how how do you shift that so that we stop having these kinds of awful arguments I think that's that's that's bring us back to what America is and what America want to be it's about America's role in the world and that's why you know both both extremes are wrong because they try to pretend that America should shoot for different reasons should be removed from the world stage Obama was very apologetic and Trump who just you know just America first America cannot separate itself from the rest of the world because it's a world that doesn't tolerate back you walk away somebody else gets in the whole idea oh we just you know we can walk away we can just you know be friends we can shake hands you know kissing hugging wrong it failed and and now it's it's the time the time to come up with a vision for the future is long overdue I think for a lot of libertarians who are reasons primary audience the idea of an American presence in the world is a good one as long as it's not completely yoked or largely yoked to military presence including intervention and whatnot can you talk a little bit are you it's talking about you know and George W. Bush certainly did a lot to drive down American attitude you know attitudes positive attitudes towards America by his foreign policy Bill Clinton did himself how do you separate this out or is it inherently the world that you're talking about America as a hegemon it's got to be militarily in place all over the place or is it what what are the connections there look it's not just about military force or economic power or your technological advancement it's about political will and about plan it's about the vision it's what I call American factor Ronald Reagan used the force once only just it's this small operation is that every new he was there nobody want to mess with him it's not about using force it's about telling people that I could use force and when Stalin wanted to take over was Berlin and Harold Truman said you know we shall stay period Stalin didn't want to test Truman's ability to act he knew he could so this is two nuclear bombs dropping on Japan you know and many other things that Truman did prove to Stalin that you know you'd better play it safe and I think that we need just you know we need to recover this reputation that's the US president is the leader of the free world and it's not that America is trying to make deals against again you rush from one extremes to another you have Trump who abandons all allies and then Biden wants to please Germany and accepts Nord Stream 2 which is a horrible decision that involves Putin to continue democracy policies so where is the where is the vision where is this stability that could you know offer friends of democracy worldwide you know some confidence and to make enemies our followers like Chinese communists or Putin you know thinking about the consequences military force is the last resort it's still like I think in Afghanistan it was inevitable we could question it so but Afghanistan was inevitable because America was attacked and for those who say the mission failed I strongly disagree because all I know that 20 years ago terrorists who were trained there just you know just the terrorist attack that have been initiated from Afghan soil killed more Americans in one day than Japanese fleet at Pearl Harbor and for 20 years America was not attacked so when you say oh we spent so much money there yes but again America was not attacked and whatever we say about President George W. Bush, Bush 43 he became president when America was attacked and whether we measure his presidency by economic failure in 2007-2008 financial crisis or other things let's remember America under him was not attacked anymore so it's about the world where we can no longer be saved because we are separated from the rest by two oceans and technology it's a double-edged weapon it helped us to advance the cause of freedom it also helped terrorists to build their new networks and ironically the world is getting smaller thanks to technology invented in the free world but also it forces terrorists and dictators to confront America because they have no other choice but to show their opposition their jihad against the free world because otherwise they have to explain why the living standards are so different in your work with the Human Rights Foundation do you find that I mean the problem with democracy now it's not so much that individual countries are proxies for superpowers like the Soviet Union or the United States it's homegrown kind of tyranny so is more of the work being done not to block out Chinese influence as much as it is to actually kind of open up countries that now have autocracies authoritarians, tyrants who are homegrown it's not as simple yes they're homegrown but what is the foundation of their power money and where does it come from from the free trade from them selling national resources or cheap labor as China and where this money is kept in the free world so this exchange allows them to generate enough cash to keep their population at bay but also to fund their geopolitical adventures and also this tons of money that have been generated around the world and we don't want to waste our time on the financial devaluation of currencies and the policies that might backfire in the future but the fact is that so much money is available and for instance I always say that Vladimir Putin controls more money than any other individual in human history when you look at the combined funds that he can move around so you probably reach an amount of 1 trillion dollars you look at Russian budget different funds under the control of the Russian government and oligarch fortunes that definitely could channel money under his instructions so it's an insane amount of money and he's not shy to use them to bribe politicians and public figures in the free world so what Putin did he exposed the weakness of the free world because corruption is endemic not only in Russia, in Russia corruption is another problem here is still the problem less in America than in Europe but you find the influence of Russian money everywhere from the Baltic states to San Francisco say it was China China rose because of the open trade with the free world using Chinese free labor to generate enormous amount of money so when people say China could be the leader of the world no, if America goes bust so China where China is going to sell it's goods so if China goes bust I think America proved to be self-sustainable because again the differences between America and the rest of China for instance America became superpower mostly using domestic resources on domestic markets so before American expansions after World War II was just looking inward so dictatorships they don't have the same domestic consumption that could sustain the economic growth so that's why it's not one way street but it's two way street but unfortunately it also involves dramatic corruption what are the best ways then to use the global market system as an engine or as a motivator for change for increasing democracy for increasing rights of people to make sure that the money laundering that when I say money laundering is not just mafia money we're talking about the dictators it will not help them to stay in power if meaningful sanctions being imposed on Putin's oligarchs his regime may not survive but there are some governments that who's going to impose the sanctions if so many people are engaged in operations that somehow have this Russian money we're talking about tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars spread around just one simple example last year the biggest charity donor in the UK was Alisha Usmanov who donated to various charity causes 4.2 billion pounds one oligarch 4.2 billion pounds imagine how much of this money landed in the charitable organizations that have political influence and this is one oligarch imagine this is how much how much money has been invested quote-unquote in the organizations in other countries and you will not be surprised why Macron and Merkel are just showing more concerns about Putin's favors than about democracy in Ukraine or in relations with the United States are you your life has been spent in an era of incredible change right I mean in the past 60 years essentially are you optimistic about the future or pessimistic and can you separate that out from your Russian identity I'm encouraged by optimism by nature so that's why for me to be pessimistic about the future would be quite quite a contradiction to my instincts but I try to be a realist so I thought that Putin regime for instance would not survive for too long because I thought it's you know the free world would take decisive steps to cut it short from financial support and definitely would you know find ways to split Putin from great chunk of Russian ruling elite by using financial political instruments I was wrong the opposition Russia if we speak about my country has been decimated people who marched with me on our peaceful rallies just to remind Americans we never had a single broken window the only violence on the streets of Russia during this period of demonstrations from 2005 to 2012 only violence came from the right police and intelligent officers all these people are either in exile like me in jail like Alexei Navalny or killed like Boris Nemtsov so it offers very little reason optimism I would not expect that I could come back to Russia anytime soon many reasons to dream about it one of them is I would like to visit the grave of my mother who died on Christmas day last year but while I remain optimistic because I believe that humanity is always moving forward and upward though it's not simple as a bumper road and I think we had reasons to celebrate the human genius for finding the vaccine so quickly and also for exploring the space it's probably very symbolic that big successes in space exploration both from NASA and from Elon Musk happened at the time because of this giant global crisis caused again by the virus coming from communist China it still would take time for us to find our path that's a problem I think we will find it but looking at America as a global leader and I say it was out of confidence but simply because it's a default title so there's no one else to lead the world I'm not yet seeing political will of in American political system I don't see of course any politicians any public figure that could lead the nation and also the country is so we can recall Abraham Lincoln the house divided will not stand so it's the I I think we we cannot lose hope I think that's something that we learn from history because while we are pessimistic today look at America, look at Europe I always think okay what about 1940 what people thought in 1941 so that's how the world looked in 1940-1941 so we had many more moments in history where it could be really desperate so I think now we still have many components for the free world to succeed and now when we are talking about the collapse of the Soviet Union we know the old dictator regimes they failed because they carry the same continuous policies that could satisfy their people and that's the difference between democracy and unfree world because democracy can offer sustainable growth we can have many debates but I think what is important is to make sure that the self-criticism in America is not turned into self-flagulation so America still remembers and for those on the right or the left or libertarians I have this simple message America has to recover herself so just to recognize its unique role in human history debates can continue about certain moments in history or about certain tactical things but we have to start with the strategy strategy is something that has been missing and strategy means that you know you have your goals and you know what you have to reach them. Can I also just ask very quickly when you say China is responsible for the virus are you saying it started there and then spread out or you know just as a matter of infection or I mean do you think that it was engineered by the Chinese government or how when you talk about China as the source of COVID-19. I don't pretend to have any previous information to spread the virus but I did my own research collected data from open sources and what I know and again it's not a secret that the program run in Wuhan Institute was international the lab was built by French it had American money American taxpayers money also supporting it because during Obama years there was a ban on this very dangerous research most of the work that was conducted there also was originated in America by Professor Barrick from North Carolina and this fat woman this infamous fat woman she was one of his students so I don't know why this research had been conducted over years probably nearly almost two decades having the spike and just creating this viruses but clearly you know it was in the lab and it was quite amazing that so many scientists now sign this is the these early papers denouncing it and talking about wet market and some other crazy ideas that never materialized. I understand WHO didn't want to blame China because here is the same corruption it's amazing that on January 23 WHO on 2020 WHO had a press conference at the World Economic Forum in Dallas they talked about anything but called it the day China closed Wuhan now I don't know whether there was a malign intention behind Chinese Chinese plans to develop the virus it remains to be found so I would not be surprised by the way because it's the there were some rumors among Chinese and dissidents that it could be developed there just to subdue Hong Kong and Taiwan I don't know, I don't buy it, I don't know but it came out of the lab and China was sitting on this news and it's most likely as we saw now more and more evidence it happened much earlier than December September, October it came out of China they tried to suppress the news they definitely used their leverage with WHO and that's why it came from China so we don't even have to go deep down to find out whether there was any malign intention basically that's the guilty for withholding data and not closing Wuhan not separating the infected areas from the rest of the world so and again what was the vaccine from China? yes, they did vaccine but let's say that was not the most effective one Gary Kasparov, thank you for talking to Reza thank you for inviting me