image missing
Date: 2025-07-05 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00028510
GEOPOLITICS
THE HISTORIC UNIMPORTANCE OF THE USA
Garry Kasparov: Splitting Russia and China Is Geopolitical Fan Fiction
Americans eager to make a friend out of Russia in order to combat
China need to take a hard look at both history and present reality.

Original article: https://thenextmove.substack.com/p/splitting-russia-and-china-is-geopolitical
Original article: https://thenextmove.substack.com/p/ahmed-fouad-alkhatib-is-the-next
Peter Burgess COMMENTARY



Peter Burgess
Splitting Russia and China Is Geopolitical Fan Fiction

Americans eager to make a friend out of Russia in order to combat China need to take a hard look at both history and present reality.

Garry Kasparov ... The Next Move with Garry Kasparov

May 13th 2025 11:04 AM

On a frigid December day nearly 340 years ago, two dozen Russian soldiers shuffled out of a fort on the north bank of the Amur River. Stranded thousands of miles from Moscow, the hungry and humiliated men were the only survivors of a Russian expedition many orders of magnitude larger, which was all but annihilated over a year of intermittent Chinese sieges.

In 1689, the defeated Russians signed a treaty with the Qing Empire relinquishing many of their Far Eastern claims. When emissaries of Russian regent Sophia Alekseyevna—half-sister of the future Peter the Great—and the Kangxi Emperor initialed that document, New York and Boston were muddy colonial trading posts. Washington, DC didn’t exist at all; the founders of the republic whose capital it would become were not born for another two generations.

I say all this to appeal to Americans commenting on Russia-China relations: some humility, please.

During his first months back in office, President Donald Trump has run a Russia-friendly foreign policy under the pretext of peeling Moscow away from China. Both critics and defenders of this approach have described it as a “reverse Nixon,” a reference to Richard Nixon’s 1972 opening to communist leader Mao Zedong, which split Red China from the USSR. It is bound to fail.

The American nation is a young one. The citizens of this country possess many admirable qualities, but a deep awareness of history is not one of them. Those of us who grew up in the Soviet Union or China had history drilled into our brains—a highly skewed version of events, to be sure, but we had a sense of where we came from.

Nixon’s China moment was an impressive coup for US foreign relations in its day. But it was more a tactical ploy in the context of the Cold War than a strategic realignment. Nixon’s successors failed to build upon his engagement with Beijing. Perhaps they never really could have. Without significant democratic change in China, a political relationship between an authoritarian PRC and a free USA would always rest on flimsy foundations, with both sides awkwardly skirting a clash over Taiwan, North Korea, or human rights violations. The same can also be said for a hypothetical US-Russia alliance.

The Nixon-Mao honeymoon was also a vanishingly brief blip in a long history. Russia and China have been bound together in a parasitic relationship for hundreds of years. In the seventeenth century, China eclipsed Russia. Another set of treaties in 1858 and 1860 saw the tables turn. Russia recovered the territories it ceded in 1689 and then some, joining a host of other imperial powers in the partition of a sickly China. Russia would eclipse China for the next century. Since 1991, China has resumed its senior role in the relationship, drawing Russia closer from a position of strength. So tight was the embrace by the beginning of the last decade that my late friend Boris Nemtsov quipped that Vladimir Putin was a Chinese spy.

A Cold War-era map showing the evolution of the border between China and the USSR/Russia. The red line is the border set by the 1689 Treaty of Nerchinsk. The tan area is the territory ceded to Russia by China under the 1858 Treaty of Aigun. The red area is the territory ceded to Russia by China under the 1860 Convention of Peking. Nevertheless, this arrangement works for both sides. The Kremlin has a powerful enabler for its aggression in Ukraine. China gets both a lackey to do its dirty work wreaking havoc in the West and a pliant neighbor on one of its longest borders. Accordingly, Russia will not flip to the American camp absent a sharp U-turn on US foreign policy that likely goes beyond even what Trump’s Republican Party might entertain.

And if Trump’s “reverse Nixon” had legs, the Chinese would not let Russia go so easily. When Xi visited Moscow last week, he was there to squeeze Putin for loyalty. Both dictators are keenly aware that the thinly-defended Amur River basin has not always been Russian territory and that Vladivostok is not an ancient Russian city. In fact, to tourists and businesspeople coming from China, it isn’t Vladivostok at all, but Haishenwai. When I visited Irkutsk in 2005, a local wryly lamented that those Chinese visitors were crossing the border in small groups of 100,000 each. In the intervening twenty years, the Chinese presence in Moscow’s Far East possessions has grown apace. Meanwhile, socio-economic decay, and, more recently, aggressive military conscription for the Ukrainian meatgrinder, have sapped the Russian population there.

America is still the world’s foremost power. But Trump’s attempt to break up Russia and China isn’t shrewd diplomacy. It simply places the United States at the bottom of a Chinese-dominated food chain. The contradictions of going hard on China while going soft on Russia are becoming clear as Xi keeps Moscow firmly in Beijing’s orbit.

US resources would be better organized in service of assembling a grand coalition to confront the China-Russia axis rather than trying vainly to co-opt it. © 2025 Next Move
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104
Transcript

Hello. Welcome to The Next Move, Substack Live with Gary Kosporo. And today I'm hosting the event from Spain. It's 11 p.m. here, but as promised, we are live at 5 p.m. Eastern Time. And today I have an extra guest. Of course, with me is Jero Lepstein, CEO of Renew Democracy Initiative.

And since we are planning to discuss some of the topics related to Middle East, from Gaza, Israel, Hamas, war, and of course Donald Trump's latest adventures, Thousand and One Night, so how to get rich, you know, just using the magic words, open sesame. So we have a Palestinian activist, dissident actually, from Gaza, from

but who is an asylum in America because somehow, you know, he's not a friend of Hamas and I guess Hamas doesn't like him either. Ahmed Fual Al-Khatib. Welcome, Uriel. So tell us the menu. So how do we start?

Yeah. So first, Ahmed, really great to have you with us. You know, Ahmed and I did an interview a little bit ago that will actually be launching for folks who are paid subscribers. So if you're not already, I'd encourage you to join us as a paid subscriber.

You can take a look at the interview Gary did with General McChrysley. You can get a look at the conversation that Ahmed and I had. And, you know, these are just these incredibly beautifully produced interviews and conversations that And again, we get a chance to go into real depth in a way that, you know,

we don't actually always have a chance to do even in these types of lives. But, you know, I wanted the thought entered my mind to invite Ahmed for this call precisely because of the news that was coming out of the Middle East. And, you know, looking at this, as President Trump likes to call it,

contribution from the Qataris, you know, the thought entered my mind, like, all right, here's a country that is the official sponsor for Hamas, right? A country in which Hamas, the Hamas leadership finds its home. So, you know, first, Ahmed, I, you know, instead of sort of doing the more traditional thing and introducing you,

I figured maybe I'll give you a chance to introduce yourself, however you think would be best. And then I'd love to get a little bit of a sense of like, what's your take on this whole, you know, American president taking a nearly half a billion dollar plane from the Qataris?

Well, thanks again, Gary and Uriel. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to you. My name is Ahmed. I grew up in Gaza City and I got political asylum. The interview for my asylum was on June 14th, 2007, the very day that Hamas violently took over the Gaza Strip and began the

Dark chapter in the Palestinian people's history leading to where we're at today without I almost feel as if my story is somewhat secondary in this saga. But what I will s

hare with you is that going back to that time. Even when I was in the Gaza Strip, looking back at Al Jazeera, Al Jazeera Arabic in particular,

English wasn't a thing at the time. And I distinctly and vividly remember the way in which the narrative was curated and shifted around Hamas, around suicide bombings, around the attacks, even suicide bombing being called Martyrdom operations, not suicide operations, the manipulation of the language, the way that Al Jazeera,

the way that Palestinians in Gaza felt at the time and now Hamas would not be what it is. without Al Jazeera's investment in highlighting the capabilities of Hamas. Of course, Hamas is an asymmetric guerrilla movement that was not that capable to fight off the Israeli military, but the way that Al Jazeera,

with explicit instructions from the Qatari leadership, there was resentment within Gaza. And of course, if you were Muslim Brotherhood, if you're a supporter of Hamas, or if you were, you know, more invested in an anti-Israel narrative, then Al Jazeera was a wonderful blessing on so many levels.

So then that intensified as time went on and Hamas's ascent to power increased, leading up to the takeover in 2007, when Hamas had, for the first time, territorial control over the entirety of the Gaza Strip. And so once again, now this was a qualitative leap in needing to promote Hamas for Al Jazeera because Hamas had no resources,

no capabilities of its own. And then all the wars that Hamas engaged in with the Israeli military that led to thousands of lives lost were tens of billions in damages to the Gaza Strip. All of those were painted by Hamas as victories, as divine victories, simply because Hamas didn't disappear. Hamas won simply because they weren't outright defeated.

Now, some in military science might argue that that is, in fact, a thing for a lot of guerrilla movements is their their victory can be derived from their conventional opponents inability to defeat them outright al jazeera nevertheless took that to new heights leading up in the

lead up to october 7th hamas was very much so loathed by a large number of the people of gaza and al jazeera and the qatari leadership with involvement from uh um the nefarious leadership of Mr. Netanyahu, the current Israeli prime minister, Qatar was allowed and promoted and encouraged and instructed to provide billions of

dollars worth of cash in suitcases that every month would come in through Israeli crossings with Qatari officials that would go into Gaza to allow Hamas to pay its civil servants and to supposedly stabilize the Gaza Strip, but that ultimately also fed the monster, as Ehud Barak, former Israeli prime minister said, it fed the monster that attacked on October 7th.

Ahmed, Ahmed, I think this is something that many of our listeners could get confused easily. So you are saying that Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, was instrumental or let's say complacent, you pick up the word, in turning blind eye or encouraging Hamas funds received from Qatar. And it did happen through Israeli checkpoints. Very much so. And this is not hyperbole. This is not speculation. This is mainline headlines. This is wildly accepted information. It was part of a supposed 3D strategy, 3D chess, as he called it, to keep the Palestinians divided between the West Bank and Gaza,

but also to keep Gaza quiet while he faced issues internally over time as he entrenched his rule.

Yes, it's not quite. So it's the way I saw it as it was classically known as the combination of a would-be authoritarian leader to create an enemy, or in this case, to make sure the enemy doesn't go away. So basically, as you are confirming what we all knew before, that Netanyahu,

in order to stay in power and to boost the sentiments in the society, nationalistic sentiments in Israeli society that helped him to win election after election, was very keen to see Hamas getting stronger because of Qatari funding and at the expense of weakening Palestinian Authority on the West Bank.

It is my belief and that of many senior Israeli former security officials that that was indeed the case with the idea that Mr. Netanyahu believed Hamas is easy to control. Hamas is never going to meaningfully attack and that every few years Hamas will engage in some action. action that would require some mowing down the lawn,

and that this would keep Israeli society remembering that we still have this threat that prevented the establishment of the Palestinian state.

But now, if this combination... worked, actually, had been working for quite a while for the benefits, political benefits to Netanyahu and other benefits to Hamas. So tell us, why did Hamas attack on October 7th, because that was the bridge too far. So they ruined all the arrangements,

and they basically just declared war with Israel that could lead to just one outcome or another, but most likely to the destruction of Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank and hurting badly the Palestinian cause. Precisely.

Well, I mean, it's a variety. It's the convergence of different threads. Hamas itself, there are multiple groups within. There's Hamas, the government. There's Hamas, the Politburo. There's Hamas in Gaza versus Hamas abroad. There's Hamas, the militant group, which is the part. It's kind of like in Egypt, kind of like in Pakistan.

The military, the guys with guns always hold the most power. Stenoir and Daif, who are the hardliners within Hamas, in a sense carried out a military coup against the rest of Hamas on October 7th, completely destroying the arrangements they had with Qatar, indirect arrangements with Netanyahu, and thought that this would turn things upside down in a way that was very messianic.

In their mind. Now, again, since we're talking about Qatar now, that's the next topic. So do you believe that Qatar responses of Hamas were not aware about October 7 massacre being prepared?

I believe strongly that Qatar was under the impression that it had Hamas under control after billions of dollars that it knew. helped build the tunnels, helped pay for smuggling and bribe Egyptian officials, helped build rockets, helped create the conditions because Hamas also bribed other smaller militant groups.

I believe the Qataris thought they were effectively the employers of Hamas. So in my assessment, they were just as surprised as the Politburo in Hamas Doha, of Hamas, who were surprised by saying, hey guys, I thought we had an arrangement. And nevertheless, however,

Qatar soon recovered from the shock and quickly went into the mode of acting as the group's chief political, international, diplomatic handler, negotiator, interlocutor. So now, okay, to summarize it, so as of today, Qatar is still a main sponsor of Hamas war against Israel. So without Qatar's funds, Hamas would probably cease to exist, correct? Correct.

It's a little bit more nuanced than that, but it's very close to how you laid it out. I would say without Qatar, Hamas would have no political home. They would have no access to Israel or the United States in the way that they do, thanks to Qatar. And I would say... Without Qatar,

Hamas probably is much more likely to have had incentives to end the war sooner, to have released the hostages, to have negotiated for a deal that sees their departure out of Gaza. And finally, without Qatar and their direct and indirect propaganda, Al Jazeera, the Al Arabi, Al Arabi TV, Middle East Eye and dozens and, you know,

AJ Plus and dozens of propaganda, billions of dollars worth of free propaganda for a year and a half. Not to mention all the contributions to the discourse, unhealthy discourse on college campuses. I believe that Hamas would not Hamas's narrative. The pro-Hamas sentiments across the world would not be anywhere near where they are without Hamas.

So it's very close to what you're saying, but there's a detailed kind of nuanced picture to it.

Okay. So now just I'll push the ball to Uriel because I think it's now you said something that connects. Connected. Qatar and the United States. You talked about violence and all these pro-Hamas demonstrations in the U.S. campuses. And Qatar, as you say, and we believe, has been financially responsible for that.

Yeah, so to that end, I mean, we initially began this by talking about the Qatari gift of a new Air Force One for the Trump administration, right? And this is to the tune of $400 billion. And plus, I imagine there are plenty of other costs. Basically, sorry, $400 million, million, million. I said billion. I meant to say $400 million. Not yet. We may get there, but no. $400 million, although I imagine there were additional and other costs as well, so bringing the total likely closer to half a billion, to $500 million. But so you mentioned that Qatar has paid billions of dollars to Hamas.

Now it's providing this airplane as a gift, as Trump calls it, a contribution to his administration. So let's look at it from the point of view of Qatar. What is their logic? Why are they doing this?

Certainly. So, I mean, if you look at just in the last 24 hours, you've had the plane, you've had To Mr. Trump, you've had the Israeli-American hostage Eden Alexander released. And that's a key one because he's one who holds dual citizenship. Today, you had the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas unbanning Al Jazeera in the Palestinian territory.

Al Jazeera was banned in the Palestinian territories due to its pro-Hamas sentiments. and support and incitement today, they were unbanned, not to mention of the golf course, you know, two to five billion dollar golf course in the range that was announced last year for the Trump organization. I think, you know,

there is a race against time by three Gulf nations to wow, Mr. Trump and to curry favors. And the Qataris, I believe, are the ones that have influence over Hamas, which is party to the longest running war in the, in recent times in the, in, in, in, in, in, in, in a,

in a kind of a central war, not, I mean, Syria was a long war as well, but like, like, like this isn't just a standalone, you know, Israel Hamas conflagration. This drew in Hezbollah and all the impact that that had on that nation. This is, contributed indirectly to the toppling of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

This drew in the United States with the Houthis and the maritime corridors that were impacted by that and the Suez Canal and Bab al-Mandeb. This saw the first time in which the Iranians were lobbing missiles and drones at Israel and the Israelis were attacking Iran. This could see immense potential for further escalation.

So stopping this war is a top priority and Qatar controls Hamas or controls part of Hamas's narrative, finances, pathways to the rest of the world. And therefore, they're able to influence the group and, you know, got the group to essentially give up an American-Israeli hostage for no price, nothing in exchange effectively.

all of this was a package that is really difficult for the saudis and the emiratis to top you got a plane that by the way just real briefly is coming in the context of president trump since his first term has been frustrated by the slow progress of

him getting air force one up upgraded and so that deal has been in the i mean it is severely behind schedule by boeing and so him getting a second-hand aircraft That he can use for a little bit of time. Is better than the alternative. Which is him on his way out. Right now the timetable.

Is literally as soon as he gets out. The incoming president is going to get the new jet. So the Qataris I think brilliantly. Timed that to be like. Oh you don't have to wait Mr. President. We have something for you right here. Coupled with the release of an Israeli hostage. So. That's what I think it is. There's also regional competition.

Ahmed, so just I want to sharpen this a little bit. So clearly they're trying to curry favor, right? They're giving him this plane, and it's a way to, again, address sort of his ego directly. And they're hoping to get what in return?

They're going to get... basically maintain the special status as the major non-NATO ally that they have obtained in recent years. They want to maintain their status amidst the fierce competition by the Saudis and the Emiratis, who, remember, had their own tiffs with the Qataris. And they want to ensure that coming out of the war following October 7th,

because there's been speculation that The Israelis might try to undermine Qatar's economy. They might try to basically retaliate against what the Qataris did for supporting Hamas or the fact that the Qataris actually had influenced the Qatar gate inside Netanyahu's cabinet. It has come out that some of Netanyahu's aid and some of the security officials in

Netanyahu's orbit may have been directly bribed by Qatari money. And again, that's not me. That's not hyperbole. That is mainline investigations within Israel. So they want to make sure that they emerge out of these, you know, once in a century crises unscathed. And they want to hide behind the United States.

Okay, you said something important. Again, maybe our audience is not aware, but there is a very tough rivalry. So it's almost just not an open war, but you may call it a cold war between Saudis and Emirates on one side and Qataris on the other side. So they blocked each other or so, banned television. So there's a

It's a competition. And you have two camps. Qatar is one camp. Obviously, Emiratis and Saudis are also playing their game. Emiratis just sent $2 billion through this Trump coin. So they are trying to buy famous. Now, Trump goes there. And there's a big talk about some sort of, I mean, not resolution of Palestine issue,

but how far do you think, again, with Trump, nobody knows, but how far do you think Trump can go in recognizing Palestinian sovereignty? So what kind of concessions you can expect there? So do you think that he can play both sides, you know, just giving Saudis the kind of

some form of recognition of Palestinian autonomy on one side, the rights for the states, and to Qataris, you know, improve his relations with Iran, maybe, you know, looking for another deal. So what do we expect? So because soon we'll find out, but what do we expect? He goes there, he's being paid handsomely by both sides, and obviously they're looking for favors. What Donald Trump can offer them in return?

Well, what I've gathered from just speaking to some sources is that, believe it or not, for most of these countries, mainly especially for the Saudis and the Emiratis, Gaza, as important as it is, and the Palestinian issue, it really is not their priority. It really is not their main focus.

Their main focus is dealing with a threat from Iran. Their main focus is transforming their economies. Their main focus is the diversification of their economies using U.S. technology for which they need bilateral trade agreements. And so, sure, Gaza is the relevant subject that comes up right now. And for the Saudis,

Gaza is kind of the key to the potential for Saudi-Israeli normalization, which certainly would have an economic benefit to it and would have a security outcome in the form of a defense treaty. However, for the Saudis, they're much more interested in the nuclear energy deal because a lot of their oil, civilian nuclear energy,

a lot of their oil is being diverted for energy generation, and they'd like some of that oil to be used for exports. They would like to access U.S. manufacturing and high-tech and semiconductors and diversify more toward high-tech manufacturing. For the Emirates, they want to become the AI capital of the world and are you know, investing billions.

They want to invest at least $100 billion in joint partnerships for AI alone. And they're willing to basically deal with some of the ethical dilemmas that a lot of Western countries are uncomfortable with. And they think that that can afford them a cutting edge, if you will, in trial and error.

And so Gaza is more of a tangential issue, unless, of course... we're talking about, and this is something that I have been promoting, there are immense opportunities for Gaza's rejuvenation, not just reconstruction, but rejuvenation. There is IMEC. Excuse me, and that is the India-Middle East corridor, which would connect India with the Middle East and Israel.

So, as long as the economic issues are front and center, Gaza can be a tangential issue for a lot. That's what they're really looking for. Same for the Qataris. And they're really using Hamas and Gaza as leverage, nothing more.

So what I, you know, you mentioned, you know, currying favor of the administration and so forth. I mean, look, currying favor of the American president is generally nothing new. And so when I hear about the release of an Israeli-American hostage, you know, that's the type of currying favor that we usually see, right?

Things that have actual real kind of geopolitical significance. Right. You know, so really, you know, doing something that is a core interest of America or one of her allies. And so the gift to President Trump of the plane, and this will be, I think, the last question on this before we move on.

But the gift of the to Donald Trump of this plane is something that at least I personally cannot remember any similar situation. uh any similar method to curry favor and so gary this is actually to you um you know sort of as you look as you look at the world you look at different countries

trying to you know get in with with an american administration have you ever seen anything remotely similar to a country gifting a sitting president of the united states a nearly you know nearly half a billion dollars uh worth of essentially a personal gift um

Not every country can afford it, but even countries that could afford it, I don't think they ever were so brazen as to make such an offer. Because, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's unconstitutional. There are many quotes of the very specific text of American Constitution.

that bans any office holder by receiving titles or any form of compensation from foreign governments, prince or king. And here, you have a most blatant violation of the entire article on every sentence of that. of American Constitution.

So yes, so per the Constitution, that's the emoluments clause that you're referring to. And so the way it's interpreted, and according to American law, foreign gifts that are valued over $480 are considered a gift to the people of the United States. And so it is interesting that this plane, which again is valued at $400 million, slightly above $480, you know, would be perceived as being excluded from that as the, you know, the White House counsel, as far as I can tell, is going to argue that it is not covered under the emoluments clause. Ahmed, what would you want to say?

What I would say, though, is that, I mean, there very much so isn't a showmanship element to this that I just I wouldn't dismiss in the sense that these three nations in their strategic competition and rivalry, they are trying to outdo each other. They are trying to outshine one another. So.

The Saudis, you know, they wanted to invest 600 billion. And then Mr. Trump was like, oh, actually, let's say he'll round it off to like a billion, a trillion, you know, is how he said it. And then the Emirates is going to put in like two trillion over a 10 year window. So this.

is very much so their vision for these nations. And this was like, wow, a trillion, $2 trillion. And then a 400 million plane right now that is much more tangible and visible and got the whole world talking about it. very much so outdid the others. It stole their shine. And it's going to, in the Qatari eyes,

be much more, a much bigger favor profile because they're a smaller nation. They don't have the kind of geopolitical and geostrategic weight as the other ones. They do have the Al-Odade Air Base, the biggest base in the Middle East. U.S. Air Force Base in the Middle East.

They do have access to Hamas, which is critical for the safety and security of our ally Israel. And they also do have unlimited cash, essentially. For a population of three to four hundred thousand dollars. I mean, meeting a Qatari, an actual Qatari in Qatar is like meeting a unicorn. It's it's very rare to meet Qatari.

So the aforementioned combined makes for a very compelling, I think, explanation as to why they would want to engage in this extravagant showmanship.

But we are not talking about, you know, what they want to do. I mean, clearly they would be more than happy to find a way to literally bribe U.S. president. The question is on the other side. That is the first time the United States president is willing, is actually very happy to accept such a gift.

And the people who are supposedly, you know, guarding U.S. Constitution and making sure that transparency is being protected and the understanding and integrity of U.S. government, especially its highest office, is also just being, you know, just above any doubts. These people, these officials, are now basically saying, so what?

I share your frustration. I share your concern. And I also I mean, I just I don't I love the United States. I am proud to belong to this country. And I don't like the perception of us being open for business in this way. This is not the country that I...

This is not how I perceive our soft power, our hard power, our legitimacy at an international stage being derived by simply having an undemocratic oil sheikdom, being able to basically drown us with money. And even for a secondhand... Boeing 747, that's still not shiny enough for me to give up on the promise of transparency and

the rule of law. Shiny enough for Trump. I'm sure there's so much gold inside that, you know, you will need probably dark glasses, you know, not to get blind.

But I appreciate the opportunity. I do unfortunately have to run to an interview, but I very much so appreciate the opportunity to speak to you.

And I hope to join you again. Very enlightening for our listeners. So thank you very much for joining us. And now we'll move to talk about other parts of the world and America's strengths and weaknesses. Thank you.

Wonderful to have you. And for those who joined us at some point in that conversation, Ahmed is a dear, dear friend, Palestinian from Gaza, a leading intellectual, leading commentator on issues related to the Middle East and a resident scholar at the Atlantic Council. So, Ahmed, thank you again. Bye bye. Um, and, uh, and again,

something to look forward to for everyone is that, uh, I think either at the end of this week or early next week, we will have, uh, a piece published from Ahmed talking about, or rather taking a strategic approach, uh, to what, uh, you know, the, the, the free Palestine protests, uh,

were in the U S and doing a strategic analysis, like a genuine strategic analysis of, you know, what the approach of, of what an approach that actually seriously, um, uh thought about how to improve uh the lives of Palestinians what that strategy might actually look like so um and I encourage you if uh again if you're just

joining us I uh please consider uh you can put in any comments or questions uh in the chat and actually I think that uh generally this is limited only to paying subscribers I think actually in this particular conversation That limitation is not in place. So even if you're not a paying subscriber, I'd encourage you to do so. But generally speaking, you would have to join us as a paid subscriber.


Okay, now let's move from Gaza and Middle East to Ukraine and Russia. So that's another battleground. It's probably actually front line, literally front line of the war between freedom and tyranny. And we had some latest development. So we have Europe United presenting ultimatum to Putin. And its ultimatum expires within the next 30 minutes, I think.

That's the stop, you know, I mean, stop firing at Ukraine. So it's accept 30 days ceasefire or face new sanctions, very tough sanctions, they promise, and more weapons supply to Ukraine. So what is interesting is that United States position vis-a-vis Ukraine and this, you know, the latest European alliance, unity was fairly inconsistent, which is probably,

it's not surprising talking about Trump administration. So in the beginning, America now tried to do it on her own. So telling Europe that, you know, stay away, this is none of your business, we'll sort it out. Now, all of a sudden, you know, Trump found out that the war was not over in 24 hours, in 24 days,

and it's probably not going to be ended in 24 weeks. And he just left all this diplomatic conundrum to be resolved by Europeans. Now, Europeans got in and somehow they just got Trump to agree with this ultimatum. There are four leaders, four European leaders, the heads of Germany, France, Poland, and Great Britain, traveled to Kiev,

sat with Zelensky, called Trump. Trump said, OK, fine. That was the right conversation. And then, you know, we heard something from Putin, which, again, was typical Putin's nonsense. So when he talked about negotiations, but never mentioned ceasefire. So Europeans made very clear that they're not accepting anything short of 30-day ceasefire.

By the way, today even China supported 30-day ceasefire. But as for Trump, we got again this wishy-washy. Oh, no, no, no. Let's go. Let's talk about it. Great week. Let's negotiate. So to put Trump in a very awkward position, receiving this tweet, Zelensky said, fine, perfect. I go to Istanbul.

As Mr. Trump asked, I would go to Istanbul, meet Putin. Of course, Putin didn't show up. Putin had no intention of going anywhere. So now Trump is in a very awkward situation.

So quick correction there. We will find out because the meeting in Istanbul ostensibly is supposed to take place on Thursday.

Yeah, we are not going to see Putin there. By the way, there's a Russian government, Putin's mouse piece, Dmitry Peskov already said, I mean, it's no negotiations. Now, I think we should not bet on Putin going there or not. It's very clear.

I think the real bet is, it's quite a tragic one, what Putin would do by just, you know, by rejecting it and what he always did to double down. So will he start, you know, sending ballistic missiles to Ukrainian cities? Probably as we speak now. Hopefully not, but you never know.

So Zelensky, I think, just made a brilliant move. That's the, whether it's chess or poker, I don't know, but this was a good move. So he said, I will be in Istanbul. And now I don't know what will be Trump's reaction because how he's going to play, it's just, you know,

just it's this game in favor of Putin. So how to find another excuse? Because Putin basically keeps, you know, turning down everything Trump and Trump's team had offered him. And now with Europe being united, I think we are entering the new phase of this war. And the United States is not playing the first violin in this orchestra.

So that's, I mean, that's what I find so interesting. When you look at the meeting that Zelensky had with the European leaders, there are the photos and the video of them in Kiev, all meeting together. And one, you, of course, the first thing you notice that there's no American president there.

All the most important European leaders, Zelensky, they're all hugging, they're all together. And the United States, the ostensible leader of the free world, absent. So that's kind of what you notice, number one. Number two is that that's the meeting at which the Europeans, with Zelensky being included, gave Putin that ultimatum. either ceasefire or, you know, Ukraine gets,

you know, additional sanctions on Russia and Ukraine gets all these extra weapons and so forth. But, uh, you know, so, so that happened. And by the way, Trump ostensibly prior to this was in favor of a ceasefire, right? Then as soon as this meeting happens, Putin of course immediately ignores the, the ultimatum and says, no, no,

you know, meeting in Istanbul. Of course, assuming that Zelensky would not would not say yes. Trump, what does Trump do? And this is the thing that's just surprising from an objective, from a strategic point of view. Trump ignores the ultimatum put forth by the Europeans, pretends that it doesn't exist. And instead, in all caps,

calls on President Zelensky to go to Istanbul, you know, meet with Putin immediately, meet with him immediately, something along those lines. And so, you know, Zelensky takes him up on it and, you know, says he's going to go. And, you know, as Gary and I can have a friendly wager,

except I would be unwilling to take the other side of the bet as to whether or not Putin actually allows this meeting to go forth. I think both of us find it fairly unlikely that Zelensky and Putin would actually meet.

Let's be quite blunt, you know, just in our assessment of this situation. very remote possibility. One of the key arguments of Russian propaganda that was unfortunately bought by some members of the Trump administration I mean, Trump, even Trump repeated this a couple of times, but he was not as consistent as J.J.

Vance, for instance, who kept saying it many times. Zelensky forfeited his legitimacy by not running elections because his five-year term came to an end. Zelensky is illegitimate. That's what Russian propaganda is selling. And that's what American Trump administration, you know, Or probably bought or at least, you know, was sympathetic to this cause because, as we remember,

the original demands to Ukraine must have an election. So you just have to restore your legitimate government. So for Putin to meet Zelensky means to forfeit these arguments. I mean, with many other things. I don't see for a minute, you know, Putin sitting in front of Zelensky. Zelensky will eat him for breakfast. I mean, come on.

Putin is a dictator, you know, he wants to be protected, you know, sitting behind his entourage and sending Lavrovs and other cronies and henchmen to do his bidding. So it's an odd situation because, again, Trump's original argument was we must stop killing people. So this is we must end, you know, the loss of human life.

So all of a sudden, you know, this is this. Actually, it's not once because the original offer, American offer for ceasefire Putin turned out. Now it's another offer, actually ultimatum. Putin again turned it down. Again, we'll find out in 20 minutes. So if it's, you know, accepted or not.

And Trump, somehow Trump, you know, is willing to forfeit his main argument.

So that's, I mean, that's the key inconsistency that we're seeing. So again, as we look at this from a strategic point of view, even if you take for granted some of the things that, you know, that the president says that he wants to pursue, right? He wants a ceasefire. He wants the killing to stop. He wants X,

Y, or Z. The actions that he's taking do not amount to a strong support of those ostensible ends, right? Like if you want to match up ends to means, either you have to assume that he is a terrible strategist and that basically the

means that he's taking aren't. He's a terrible strategist.

Or you have to assume that his ends are something different.

And we also assume that. So one doesn't exclude another.

So it's, you know, and so that's, I think that's sort of a key thing for us to keep in mind. Now, you know, one thing I want to quickly go back. It's funny, as I was thinking about the leveraging of these assets that Qatar is able to do with respect to sort of buying individuals, right?

It's able to spend half a billion dollars to kowtow to the American leader. I mean, that's something democratic leaders can't do because democratic countries may be richer, but you don't have any one individual in a democratic country being able to say, I will give somebody else a billion dollars in order to buy them.

And it reminds me a little bit of how Putin essentially bought and paid for Gerard Schroeder, the former chancellor of Germany.

He didn't need that much. Two million euros a year. Yeah, maybe plus some other benefits on the side. That was enough.

Unfortunately, sometimes it's very cheap to buy some of these folks. But I think that's an important thing for us to keep in mind as we're thinking about how do we combat the international alliance of dictators. One big advantage that dictators have is that even though they have fewer assets in total,

because they are dictators and they are able to act unilaterally, they are able to use their money, whatever money they have, they are able to use it in very targeted ways to purchase individual people. that nobody in the free world can do. That's simply something we choose not to do.

It's not so much their strengths, but their ability to benefit from weakness. You know, you can hardly imagine, you know, Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin, you know, just buying, you know, the Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman, or Adley. Though we know that Soviets, you know, had a very successful implementation of their spies, but actually those spies were ideological.

There was some, you know, just some of the Soviet spies that worked for money, but the core of Soviet networks, believed in these communist fantasies. So now it's all very primitive, but I think it also tells us a reflection of our weakness, of the consumer mentality that unfortunately also infected the top echelons of the

government on both sides of the Atlantic. And also, I think the frustration of ordinary people with the same faces. So I recently was in Romania, and Romania is now about to face the second round of presidential elections. And in the first round, a nationalist, a leader of a nationalist party, a former football culligan.

You know, this is the leader of some fan groups, the soccer groups. So... Opel is standing with Russia on some key issues, on Ukraine or on Moldova. He gained more than 40% on the first ballot, more than 40%. And the united candidate from two ruling parties, two leading parties, social democrats and liberals, got 20%.

So even couldn't make it to the second ballot, it's now the mayor of Bucharest who is independent. He's 21%. So it just tells you that people are really pissed off with the same people going around. And the fact is that Romania follows the path of the United States or Britain or

Germany or France and many other countries where people just show their frustration by voting for radicals just to make a change. It just tells us that the system is vulnerable. The system is weak. There's something rotten inside. And, of course, you know, when you have a rot inside, you have viruses.

And it's for Putin and Putin's cronies and for other dictators and terrorists, it's a goldmine. So this is their cash, again, thanks to the globalization. And the... The defense mechanisms of the Western society against this illicit cash, they're almost nonexistent.

And by the way, that's something that I just find to be one of the most important insights that we can offer, which is that demagogues, they actually often point out problems that are real, right? So this idea of people being bought on either side, right? Because in this particular case,

President Trump is not unique in the fact that he is willing to accept this kind of bribe. I mean, it's perhaps unique in the scale and scope of it. right? I mean, nearly half a billion dollars. That's unique, right?

That's an unusual... But Trump is normalizing something people believe did exist. Okay, look, the Biden administration was not, you know, was not a symbol of transparency and also honesty. So, and... Trump pointed out, Republicans pointed out that Hunter Biden and many dealings, shady dealings of the family. But of course, the size was irrelevant.

Trump is doing everything in mega size. And somehow I think it's it's it's it's quite amazing for people. So they are there. It's it's it's. It's kind of striking that somebody is just doing it openly. So it's not trying to make a deal, you know, just behind closed doors, a couple of million dollars here, billions, you know,

planes. So this is, yeah, I mean, we live at a time where Watergate, you know, would not even, you know, mentioned. It would not make even just, you know, it's the middle of a newspaper, you know, just with a fine print. It's just because it happens every minute and nobody cares.

So we just have to see the change of the standards. That's right.

If you're going to do it, go big, right? It's not Hunter Biden who never had a government position taking 50 years.

Yeah, Nixon got impeached or just knew he would be impeached for basically just having this taping something and lying about it. I mean, are you kidding me? It's not just Donald Trump lying. It's just you have people around him lying all the time.

That's probably one of the qualifications you have to show to be awarded a place in the administration. But you have the U.S. House, right? in the Senate. So the equal branch of the government that's supposed to watch the executive office that pretends, okay, the Republican part of that, pretends that It's all fine.

Or just they're too busy to look at it.

So, Gary, you know, we're going to have to conclude in just a few minutes here. But I did notice that we had a question come in from P.J. Schuster. And I actually I've been kind of curious, you know, thinking about this myself a fair bit. He asked, Gary,

how much do you think Joe Biden was really involved in the Hunter stuff in Ukraine? And just add a little bit of context, by the way, the Hunter stuff is with respect to the fact that Hunter Biden, President, former President Biden's son was on the board of directors of a Ukrainian company by the name of Burisma,

where he was paid $50,000 per month for doing not entirely sure what. So, Gary, what do you think?

Look, again, I always speculate, but my gut feelings is that it was a family business. And if Joe Biden himself was not directly implicated, his name and his image and probably some of his executive powers have been utilized by Hunter and by the family, by Joe's brother, for instance. So, but again, it's quite tragic that, you know,

this kind of corruption, you know, just when you look at Donald Trump, looks meager. But the fact is that It's not just today. I mean, it has been already, you know, just it's adopted as not as a norm, but as something that, of course, you know, if you are there, you know, you have, you know,

extra opportunities that ordinary people do not have. I mean, okay, Obama administration looked, you know, very different from Trump or Biden, but how about Barack Obama receiving probably the highest advanced payment for his book was $65 million. How do you qualify this? So, again, there are many questions.

The way the public is treating people on top of the government is different. Donald Trump, of course, is a different league, but somehow he says, okay, fine, you know, that's a big deal. So, did Nancy Pelosi use this inside trading information just to make her husband, you know, just a successful investor? I guess yes. Small scale, hiding.

Donald Trump does it in billions. So he's just doing everything on steroids. But unfortunately, this kind of understanding did exist in Washington, in this swamp. And does Donald Trump just think, fine, why not to normalize? Why not to do it openly? And it's time for Americans to say enough is enough.

But we have to look at both sides. We have to make it very, very clear that it's not a partisans campaign. That's why I think it's very important for us to actually point out at wrongdoings if we know that it existed with Biden or even with Obama or with Clintons. Of course, there were also problems there.

So we just have to make sure that we are not doing a partisan beating. Because we are here to defend the United States Constitution and to make sure that Donald Trump would not succeed in basically abandoning the fundamental principles that made this republic so great and successful.

And I think that's a very good point to end on because it's also a strategic point. It's not just a moral point. It's not just that we have to be morally and intellectually honest with ourselves and admit that there are problems before Trump and on the other side and so forth,

but it's also an important way to talk to people who are going to be otherwise skeptical. I think it's fair to say that what Hunter Biden was doing with Burisma was completely wrong. It was unethical and so forth. And even if President Biden was not involved directly in any way, shape or form, it was very clear.

that his son was trading on his name. The fact that Nancy Pelosi is trading individual stocks and her husband is getting massively rich, again, we can't prove causation, but it's a fairly reasonable thing to make that assumption. And so what I think is important to do is to say, look, yes, there are these problems,

but it's not a whataboutism to say that, yes, there are these problems, But what we're seeing today is on a totally different scale and scope. I think that's something that if we say honestly and openly, people will react to that. They will respect that rather than simply ignoring the problems that we've seen

with those with whom we might otherwise politically agree. There's nothing wrong with saying, yes, I might agree with this person and vote for them or otherwise work with them. But the fact that they did X, Y, or Z thing was wrong. I think that's a good thing to do, number one.

And then when you call out President Trump for accepting a nearly half a billion dollar plane from the Qataris, you know, nobody can really play that whataboutism game with you because, you know, you'll say, yes, I agree. Nancy Pelosi stock trading is wrong. You know, Hunter Biden is wrong.

But there's a difference also between fifty thousand dollars per month and five hundred million. Sorry. Yeah. Five hundred million dollars or just.

Yeah. Okay. So on this encouraging note, so we can end our program today. And so we'll see you again a week from now at 5 p.m. Eastern time next Monday, May the 19th. That's right. All right. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Gary. Thank you. Bye.
The Next Move

In-depth analysis of the shifting frontlines in the battle against authoritarianism and strategic insights on what to do next.

RSS Feed ... Appears in episode:
  • Garry Kasparov
  • Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib
  • Uriel Epshtein


Recent Episodes

Tom Tugendhat is The Next Move's Special Guest May 5 • Garry Kasparov, Uriel Epshtein, and Tom Tugendhat

Two Dictators Who Shaped my Childhood May 5 • Garry Kasparov and Uriel Epshtein

Tim Mak welcomes Garry Kasparov to discuss geopolitics and the war in Ukraine May 2 • Garry Kasparov and Tim Mak

Why Nothing Works Apr 29 • Ritchie Torres

Garry Kasparov and Yascha Mounk Apr 23 • Garry Kasparov and Yascha Mounk

Live with Garry Kasparov Apr 21 • Garry Kasparov and Uriel Epshtein

Common Good; Common Sense with Rep Ritchie Torres Apr 11 • Uriel Epshtein and Ritchie Torres

SITE COUNT Amazing and shiny stats
Copyright © 2005-2021 Peter Burgess. All rights reserved. This material may only be used for limited low profit purposes: e.g. socio-enviro-economic performance analysis, education and training.