Trust Dictators: Garry Kasparov’s New Year’s Resolution
Putin and his fellow tyrants are open about their future plans.
DEC 31, 2025
I have a New Year’s resolution for you.
In 2026, I want you to trust dictators.
On the surface, it may seem like a strange thing coming from an advocate of freedom. Yet it’s my experience as a political dissident in Russia that informs this very recommendation.
Last week the National Security Archive released the transcripts of meetings between then-President George W. Bush and still-President Vladimir Putin, made public as the result of a Freedom of Information lawsuit.
The files go back nearly twenty-five years, and their contents are revealing.
Had President Bush and other American leaders paid closer attention to the imperial master plan Putin was articulating a quarter century ago, they might have been able to thwart the invasions of Ukraine and Georgia.
Consider this comment from Putin during a June 2001 summit in Slovenia.
…Russians gave up thousands of square kilometers of territory, voluntarily. Unheard of. Ukraine, part of Russia for centuries, given away. Kazakhstan, given away. The Caucasus too.
In other words, Ukraine is Russian property that Moscow was cheated out of. Bush never disputes Putin’s revisionist account of the collapse of the Soviet-Russian Empire.
In another newly-unveiled transcript from April 2008, we see Putin take an even more assertive tone with Bush. During a meeting at Putin’s Black Sea palace in Sochi, the Russian dictator affirms that:
[Ukraine] is not a nation built in a natural manner. It’s an artificial country created back in Soviet times.
And what if that upstart ex-colony, the “artificial” nation of Ukraine, were to join NATO?
Putin is about as blunt as he can be, telling Bush:
Russia would be creating problems there [in Ukraine] all the time.
(Russia, for what it’s worth, was already creating problems in Ukraine in 2008 with blatant political interference).
Four months later, Russia invaded Georgia—a trial run for the war in Ukraine.
Six years later, Russia invaded eastern Ukraine and annexed Crimea (in that 2008 Sochi meeting, Putin had reminded Bush that Ukraine’s east was land “obtained…from Russia”).
Fourteen years later, Russia launched a brutal attack against the remainder of unoccupied Ukraine.
Days before the all-out assault, with Russian troops massed along the Ukrainian border, Putin delivered a meandering, ahistorical lecture on national television, repeating the same line he relayed to George W. Bush about Ukraine’s supposed status as an “artificial country.”
See what I mean about listening to dictators?
…………….
The answer to the mainstream media often putting its liberal-biased thumb on the scales is not to do the same by protecting Trump and his gang as they run roughshod over American laws, rights, and norms. My open letter to Bari Weiss on 60 Minutes, CBS, and CECOT.
First, allow me to offer you a belated congratulations on your new role at CBS News. It is an incredible opportunity, and an awesome responsibility.
We share many of the same stated values: a free society, free enterprise, and, if you’ll permit me to be a little cute, a free press. It was a pleasure to see one of my pieces published in your Free Press this past summer.
As a rabid consumer of the news, I have always appreciated your trenchant critiques of legacy media.
And as someone who grew up under Soviet communism, I have long respected your willingness to call out far-left illiberalism even when doing so has made you unpopular.
I have lost more than a few followers on The Next Move for critiquing the extremist worldview of the DSA. Willingness to piss people off is a quality I admire.
You know that the authoritarian impulse does not belong to one side of the political spectrum. It is a human failing, not a partisan one.
Yet we must also recognize political reality.
Today, the most severe threat to our classical liberal principles in America comes from the far-right, which holds all of the levers of power in Washington. The Trump administration is running roughshod over foundational elements of US democracy like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and due process.
Non-citizens are being detained and threatened with deportation, seemingly without a fair hearing.
Some are carted off for the crime of exercising their First Amendment liberties. (As a legal non-citizen resident myself, I filed a declaration in federal courtin support of a lawsuit challenging the government’s authority to carry out such deportations.)
Some are given no reason at all.
And some are being taken to a shadowy site in a third country: the CECOT prison in El Salvador.
Given the seriousness of the situation, I was eagerly anticipating watching the CBS 60 Minutes feature on CECOT—and I was dismayed to learn that the special had been pulled just before it was set to air.
According to the latest reporting on the situation at CBS, you argued that the CECOT story should not run without an interview from a representative of the federal government.
I agree with your instinct here. It is good for people to hear directly from their leaders in order to form their own conclusions.
Your CBS colleagues say that they attempted to reach the Trump administration for comment and were ignored. Perhaps you feel you will have a better shot at reaching the White House. If that is the case, then it would certainly be worth a try.
Yet Americans are understandably on edge over unprecedented state intervention in independent media.
After Jimmy Kimmel was taken off the air in September, The Free Press correctly identified that the cancellation was done “under the duress of threats from the federal government.” The shelving of this feature on CECOT has inspired a chorus of critics who assert that your decision was political and not editorial.
Accordingly, I have two specific questions that would grant the viewing public and your CBS team some much-needed clarity.
You have said of the CECOT story that you “look forward to airing this important piece when it’s ready.” If the 60 Minutes feature on CECOT has not been canceled, and is merely postponed, what is the timeframe for publication?
As many have pointed out, making a story about the government contingent upon comment from the government affords the state a veto over American news media. What will happen to the program if, despite your best efforts, the Trump administration will not grant CBS an interview?
I came to the United States from Russia. Back home, the government suppressed independent journalism, first through informal threats and procedural harassment. Later, the Kremlin adopted more… active measures. Along the way, the Russian regime found willing enablers inside the media ecosystem.
This country is different. American journalists are guardians of a civic tradition that prioritizes openness and holding leadership to account. In that spirit, I look forward to your response.
Best wishes,
Garry Kasparov