Connect with us

News

Why I should have listened to Garry Kasparov about Putin

Published

on

Why I should have listened to Garry Kasparov about Putin

A number of years in the past, the exalted Russian chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov got here to dinner at my home in New York. It was a memorably intense night. As we dug into our desserts, Kasparov regaled the assembled group of American policymakers and financiers together with his views on Russia, a rustic he had fled in 2013 after difficult President Vladimir Putin. Kasparov warned that Putin was changing into more and more authoritarian, remoted from the west and, because of this, prone to lash out at neighbours similar to Ukraine in a harmful method.

When the remainder of the desk rowdily dismissed his catastrophising, Kasparov turned heated and, because the wine flowed, the dialog grew so animated that I began to fret that visitors would stroll out. So, regardless of sharing lots of Kasparov’s fears, I made a decision to maintain the peace by altering the topic to chess as an alternative.

It was one in every of a number of events once I noticed Kasparov appropriately predict impending catastrophe solely to be rebuffed. After we caught up by telephone final week, he recalled that evening, lamenting, “I used to be shocked by the unwillingness of individuals [in the west] to listen to these warnings, as a result of I grew up within the Soviet Union and knew all in regards to the historic occasions of the twentieth century. I knew that you might have stopped Hitler in 1935 and 1936 and 1937 and didn’t. However I had a lot outright rejection of what I’ve been saying.”

Why have been westerners so dismissive of Kasparov’s evaluation? It is a vital query on condition that many observers have reacted with full shock to occasions in Ukraine. Among the many largest culprits have been the western elites with companies in Russia. “No person I knew anticipated Putin would truly invade!” I used to be informed final weekend by an expatriate former director of a Russian commodities firm, who has now resigned. “We’re all simply in disbelief.”

Kasparov thinks the difficulty is an inclination to presume that everybody else shares your innate world view. The important thing right here is western concepts of motive and rationality. Western tradition is soaked in a capitalist ethos, underpinned by a widespread assumption that the revenue motive guidelines supreme when it comes to shaping political calculations, and that it’s “the economic system, silly” that drives decision-making in Russia and elsewhere. The collapse of the USSR strengthened this view, because it appeared that market rules and world enterprise pursuits had triumphed.

Advertisement

As a consequence, western leaders and enterprise teams typically turned a blind eye when Putin gave speeches that clearly demonstrated his nationalist, expansionist agenda after which annexed Crimea. Worse, they failed to understand how remoted Putin had turn out to be. As an alternative, as Russian oligarchs turned a fixture of world enterprise, Putin was seen as an extrapolation of this group. The concept he could be so hell-bent on the destruction of democracy and the growth of Russia that he can be keen to just accept deep financial ache wasn’t taken significantly.

“It’s not like his actions have been executed within the darkness; all of it occurred in plain sight,” Kasparov tells me. “However after the top of the chilly warfare there was some type of allergy for any warnings about repetition of occasions. There was this assumption that Putin would by no means destroy enterprise as a result of it appeared irrational for him to do this.”

Given Kasparov’s acuity in predicting present occasions, I ask what he thinks may occur subsequent. He believes Putin has “already misplaced” the battle, within the sense that his key goal of swiftly annexing Ukraine has failed. “I don’t assume {that a} Ukrainian chief can settle for something lower than the return of land [in Crimea]. This warfare will finish with the Ukrainian flag on Sevastopol.”

However he factors out that “what worth the Ukrainians can pay for that is unclear”, since it could be silly to count on Putin to again down shortly merely due to financial ache. The one software that may power a fast optimistic conclusion, he thinks, is Nato backing a “no-fly” zone or getting instantly concerned. “Putin solely respects energy.”

Might a coup be one other ending? Kasparov doesn’t count on this proper now, however strain is constructing. “From historical past we all know that one [of the] most essential elements [for a coup] is geopolitical army defeat. That might ship a strong message to all layers of Russian society that the massive boss has failed, and the mafia boss can afford many issues besides displaying he’s weak and misplaced.”

Advertisement

However a worry of trying weak might additionally trigger Putin to lash out. Thus, argues Kasparov, one of many largest questions now’s “whether or not Russian officers would truly perform the orders” if Putin tried to conduct a nuclear strike. He doubts it. “The second one Russian warship fires a tactical nuclear missile, Nato will reply, and there’s unlikely to be the identical fanaticism for Putin as there was in Germany with Hitler. I don’t imagine that we have now kamikaze Russian pilots.”

Is that this reassuring? Not essentially: a stalemate threatens but extra struggling and destruction in Ukraine. Both method, because the tragedy unfolds, it’s a highly effective rebuke to the west on the perils of blinkered pondering and assuming that everybody seems on the world by way of the prism of a steadiness sheet. The following time an unpopular concept sparks a row at my dinner desk, I’ll let it run. Typically, there are extra essential issues at stake than being well mannered.

Observe Gillian on Twitter @gilliantett and e-mail her at gillian.tett@ft.com

Observe @FTMag on Twitter to seek out out about our newest tales first

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Donald Trump says he ‘may or may not’ strike Iran

Published

on

Donald Trump says he ‘may or may not’ strike Iran

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

Donald Trump has made his most explicit comments yet about possible US military action against Iran, saying that the next week would be “very big” in determining the course of the war between Israel and the Islamic republic.

Speaking after Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned Washington of “irreparable damage” if it intervened, Trump suggested Tehran wanted to negotiate but had left it perilously late.

“I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do,” Trump said at the White House on Wednesday morning, a day after receiving a Situation Room briefing on the conflict.

Advertisement

“The next week is going to be very big — maybe less than a week,” he added in remarks that hinted at a possible timeframe for the US decision.

Hours later, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement that he had a “very warm” conversation with Trump on Tuesday night.

Netanyahu said Israel was “advancing step by step” to remove Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile threats, adding: “We are attacking nuclear installations, missiles, command centres and the symbols of the regime.”

But he also acknowledged that Israel was “sustaining many losses, painful losses” from Iran’s missile strikes. 

The Pentagon on Monday ordered the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and three missile-guided destroyers to redeploy from the South China Sea to the Middle East, a journey that is likely to take about a week.

Advertisement

The US president said he had not given Netanyahu any indication of greater US involvement in the strikes against Iran.

But he said he had told Netanyahu to “keep going” with his attacks.

Trump added that Tehran, which was engaged in indirect talks with Washington over its nuclear programme before Israel launched its war, had suggested sending a delegation to the White House for talks. He described the move as “courageous”, even though he said Iran was “totally defenceless” and in an “unsustainable” position.

“Iran’s got a lot of trouble and they want to negotiate,” he said, adding that he had told the Iranians “it’s very late to be talking”, while cautioning “nothing’s too late.”

Oil prices fell after Trump’s remarks, which investors saw as potentially dovish, with the Brent crude benchmark down 2 per cent from Tuesday’s close, before it pared back some of its losses.

Advertisement

However, Iran’s mission to the UN denied Trump’s account, posting on X: “No Iranian official has ever asked to grovel at the gates of the White House . . . Iran does NOT negotiate under duress.”

In a televised message to the Iranian people earlier in the day, Khamenei hit out at Trump’s call for Tehran’s “unconditional surrender”, which the US president suggests would mean the complete destruction of the country’s nuclear programme.

Israel says the programme is aimed at developing a weapon, although Iran says it is purely peaceful.

“Those with wisdom who know Iran, its people and history, will never use the language of threat to address this nation because they will never surrender,” the Iranian supreme leader said.

“The Americans should know that any US military engagement will undoubtedly result in irreparable damage,” he added.

Advertisement

When asked about Khamenei’s comments, Trump said: “I say, ‘good luck’.”

Testifying before Congress on Wednesday, US defence secretary Pete Hegseth said the Pentagon “stands ready to execute” any decision the president makes about going to war, though he declined to say whether the Pentagon would assist Israel in striking Iran.

“President Trump’s word means something. The world understands that. And at the defence department our job is to stand ready and prepared with options,” Hegseth said. “We already have in many ways . . . re-established deterrence. The question is, in the coming days exactly what direction that goes.”

Should Trump decide to involve the US more directly, he could make the most decisive difference by striking Fordow, a key Iranian nuclear facility buried half a kilometre beneath a mountain, with US B-2 bombers and 30,000-pound GBU-57 massive ordnance penetrators, known as “bunker busters”.

Earlier on Wednesday, Israel said it had hit a production site to make centrifuges to enrich uranium — a process that can yield both nuclear fuel and weapons-grade material — as well as sites manufacturing parts for surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles.

Advertisement

Later in the evening, an Iranian missile salvo targeted Tel Aviv and central Israel, with early reports suggesting all the projectiles had been intercepted.

Additional reporting by Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington, Neri Zilber in Tel Aviv and Andrew England in London

Continue Reading

News

What's in the Senate's version of Trump's 'big bill'?

Published

on

What's in the Senate's version of Trump's 'big bill'?

For more politics coverage and analysis, sign up for Here’s the Deal, our weekly politics newsletter, here.


The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (let’s say “OBBBA”) is President Donald Trump’s signature agenda item in Congress.

It will affect the daily lives of tens of millions of Americans. It is a massive project, with potentially the largest tax cuts, spending cuts and additions to the national debt in U.S. history.

WATCH: Can Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” make it through the Senate?

This week, we have a critical, new development to dive into: the Senate Finance Committee’s own draft of how it wants to handle tax cuts and Medicaid cuts.

Advertisement

(For the most adventurous among us, all 549 pages can be found here.)

The big picture

  • Tax cuts. The Senate draft would add and lengthen some tax cuts, both for businesses and individuals.
  • Green energy cuts. It would slightly delay the elimination of tax credits for solar and wind energy. The Senate draft would push back cuts for nuclear, geothermal and hydropower far more significantly.
  • Medicaid cuts. It would cut Medicaid more than the House-passed bill.

OK, let’s go a little deeper.

A close-up of the words “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” printed on an agenda for a House Rules Committee’s hearing in May on President Donald Trump’s plan for extensive tax cuts. Photo by Nathan Howard/Reuters

Some tax specifics

  • Individual tax rates. Senate and House Republicans are in sync on this. They would make current tax rates permanent. Without action, nearly all individuals will see a tax increase.
  • Standard deductions. The Senate draft would give most adults a bigger tax deduction from the start. Without extending Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, the standard deduction that many individuals take to lower their tax burden is slated to decrease nearly in half at the end of the year. The Senate would not just keep but raise the deduction amounts — to $16,000 for individuals and $32,000 for married couples filing jointly.
  • Child tax credit. The current tax credit of $2,000 per child is set to drop to $1,000 at the end of the year. The Senate would raise the credit to $2,200 permanently. The House would raise the credit to $2,500, but only until 2028.

Green energy

  • A slash to green energy funds. The House and Senate are both moving to eliminate major tax credits for wind and solar from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.
  • But the Senate gives a slightly longer phase-out, allowing a partial tax credit for projects that start construction next year or in 2027. The House would end the credit almost as soon as the bill is enacted.

Medicaid

  • Targeting the “provider” tax. This is the most notable cut that the Senate draft is adding. Right now, states use a loophole to help them get more federal dollars for Medicaid. They tax hospitals and doctors (a “provider tax”) and spend that money back with the hospitals and doctors. The more states spend, the more the federal government will match.
  • A cut on this tax. For states that expanded Medicaid, the Senate draft would gradually reduce the maximum amount of provider taxes, which is currently up to 6%, until it reaches a 3.5% threshold by 2031. Many Republicans like this reform, but others say it would significantly cut funds available for Medicaid. The House bill would block new provider taxes.
  • Work requirements. Both the House and Senate would add an 80-hours-a-month work requirement for “able-bodied” adults, or those without disabilities, on Medicaid. The Senate makes one significant change: exempting parents of children under 14 years old from the requirement. (There currently is no federal work requirement for Medicaid.)

What now?

This Senate version is experiencing some initial turbulence.

Four Republican senators have openly questioned the Medicaid cuts in the House bill: Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Susan Collins of Maine and Josh Hawley of Missouri.

And now, West Virginia Sen. Jim Justice has told a Semafor reporter that he wants the Senate’s Medicaid section to revert to the House version, which would ban new or increased provider taxes.

Hawley told me Tuesday that the cut to the provider tax was a total surprise to him and others. Trump, too, was surprised when alerted about the change and its ramifications for rural hospitals, Hawley said.

Advertisement

This is not unusual. Big bills often have big problems when they are released.

But. Republicans are trying to get this historic legislation through Congress — not just the Senate — in the next two weeks.

At this point in the process, similar large bills (think the Affordable Care Act) usually take months to get through the Senate and back through the House again.

Republicans are determined to pass a version of the bill, but increasingly my sources are saying the question is “not if, but when.”

Support PBS News Hour

Advertisement

Your donation makes a difference in these uncertain times.


Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: Inside Trump’s Shifting Stance on Iran

Published

on

Video: Inside Trump’s Shifting Stance on Iran

President Trump spent the first months of his term holding back Israel’s push for an assault on Iran’s nuclear program. With the war underway, he has now expressed support for Israel. Jonathan Swan, a White House reporter for The New York Times, breaks down how the president got to this point.

Continue Reading

Trending