-- this small outpost was at this stage, challenging. so i did have plenty of problems of my own. there were several moments where i divide -- in 1985, i gave an interview for a magazine that was also talked about america and the fre world. as much as i knew at that time. but most important, '99 deal was the first soviet athlete who refused to play under the soviet flag. demanded russian flag next to me at the table. >> host: you ran for president. >> guest: well, again, you are misleading your audience, you know? running for president means you can just start a campaign, register your party or superpac and get money, go around your

country, campaign. all we did in russia, you know, it's me and my friends and colleagues is what you demonstrate that the political system built by vladimir putin did not allow anybody outside of the system to participate in the democratic process. >> host: garry kasparov, i want to get your reaction to this piece of video that we're going to show from 2001. you'll recognize what it is. >> i'll answer the question. i looked the man in the eye, i found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. we had a very good dialogue. i was able to get a sense of his soul, a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country. and i appreciated so very much the frank be dialogue. there was no kind of diplomatic chitchat trying to throw each other off balance. there was a straightforward dialogue. and that's the beginning of a

very constructive relationship. i wouldn't have invited him to my ranch if i didn't trust him. [laughter] >> host: garry kasparov. >> guest: huge -- [inaudible] for kgb. you know, my immediate reaction was for george w. motto look -- not to look in his eyes, but to look at his files. putin said several times once kgb, always kg be b. kgb. and this remarks from the u.s. president demonstrated that he, putin has completely outplayed bush 43 and so created the foundation for this political not friendship, but very close relations. and putin's propaganda has been using methodical and, you know, i have to give them credit, they

did it extremely well, presenting this confession. but also other events with the democratic leaders and the peak was in 2006 in st. petersburg where putin was a chair of g8 meeting having blair, bear lu sconeny, all the free leaders of the world. guys, uni, who were shouting in desert or to all these leaders who just accepted putin as a member of this most prestigious democratic club. they say they picture, you know, is worth thousand words, but putin had both picture and thousand words to prove his credential. and that's what allowed him to basically deflect our criticisms

and our attempts to bring russia back to the democratic rails. >> host: has it become a cult of personality? i ask that question, we're going to show some pictures, you'll be able to see them right there. has it become a cult of personality in russia. >> guest: absolutely, because that's what a dictator needs at one point. it's not about elections, it's not about campaigns, it's about image. it's all about strength that he, you know, radiates to the public. and, again, putin knows this. and the propaganda machine also knows this. they have been building this image of a strong man. and since, you know, putin is not, you know, engaged in debates and his every appearance is well prepared and every word is measured, so russian public has great difficulty, actually, understanding who putin is and how strong he is or how weak he is. and every time that, you know, he appears in foreign leaders, it's presented as vladimir

putin, you know, the great defined in power. i can remind viewers about his recent trip to new york to general assembly of united nations, a meeting with barack obama and this reluctant handshake. i bet you he has been practicing hours in front of the mirror, because it was a very blunt image on russian television. he's there, vladimir putin, in new york, in the belly of the beast, u.s. president, reluctantly shake his hand. the next day russian plane bombed american planes in syria. that projected sheer power. and how can you challenge a dictator who's not just lucky, but also so influential and powerful that even u.s. president, you know, has been trying to shake his hand and to look for his cooperation, but basically putin turned it down. >> host: well, this article is from this morning's financial times, "public support for putin drowns out critics," and this is

with regard to the metrojet that crashed in egypt. and it says that others began to mock mr. putin's handling of past crises and insinuate that his government could never be be trusted to tell the truth. another internet user predicted that if the bomb theory was proved, the government would have to turn to state charming to explain this had nothing to do with the syria campaign, and yet the critics appear to be far outnumbered by those who back the government's version of events. >> guest: again, we all know, you know, what russian people -- we don't know what russian people really think because we're dealing with the situation where putin's propaganda controls airways, controls media, and very few russians are listening to alternative sources of information. also i believe if we are talking about this tragic accident in the skies, in egyptian skies,

it's also a syndrome, they call it stockholm syndrome. so it's hostage syndrome. for many russians, and i can share this emotion, to connect this tragedy -- if it was a bomb, because it's still, you know, it's a long investigation ahead of us, and i'm not sure because i know the conditions of russian planes, and i could believe that it was a technical problem, though it looks more likely it was a bomb. to connect this tragedy with putin's invasion of syria, it's basically to recognize that everybody is now who's traveling abroad or even in russia is defenseless against this threat which is not, you know, not an invasion, it's not an army, but it's just, you know, a bunch of terrorists that could go anywhere. i think public is quite scared,

but also over many years they believed and they were told by propaganda machine that putin could solve all the problems. yes, maybe now we're facing, you know, some problems. maybe we're in trouble, but eventually putin was so lucky and so skillful that he'll find a solution. >> host: steven, wyndham, connecticut, you are on with gary garry kasparov. "winter is coming," is the name of the book. >> caller: hey, thank you for taking my call. and i want to express my condolences to the people of st. petersburg who, apparently, they were all flying back from the sinai to st. petersburg in this terrible, terrible accident. garry, i was surprised that vladimir putin doesn't react sooner -- didn't react sooner. and just his lack of real human sympathy for the people of st. petersburg was just shocking, you know?

what is your take on the metrojet once again? what do you really think how this will play politically for him? >> guest: now be, vladimir putin proved many times before that he had no -- [inaudible] to begin with, second chechnyan war and the various apartment bombings, the crisis with 130 hostages killed in the store in 2002, then the terrible tragedy in school hostage situation with 334 people killed after russian troops stormed the building. and what we know that after every crisis, every tragedy putin always, you know, took his time to prepare the sort of measured response. right now i think he was -- i wouldn't say shocked, but i

think it was unexpected. so, and i think putin wants to address nation and the world with a statement that could reflect his policies. right now i don't think that russian government is convinced that it's a bomb. but reading russian press few days after this disaster, you could see that they tried to avoid any connections to the terrorist attack, because definitely it could create problems for putin. so it seems that russian and egyptian authorities there have the same interest of deflecting this possibility which, again, i think it's not clear to me, it's not clear to anyone. but the terrorist attack could be a dramatic blow to vladimir putin and his ability, sort of, to defend russian interests everywhere. and also to egyptian authorities because egypt place, you know, for tourism. and it could be a real big blow to the tourist industry. >> host: what about the plane crash over ukraine, the

malaysian jetliner -- >> guest: that was in the crush. >> host: that was shot down over the -- >> guest: it was a russian missile. it's the only question is whether it was in the hands of russian-backed separatests, or i would call them terrorists. most likely it was actually done by a russian crew, because it's very complicated system. it's not just, you know, stinger that you can use, you know, from your shoulder. that's a system that required, you know, professional treatment to handle it, you know, with experience. and it seems again from the information that has been gathered piece by piece that it was a russian crew. and why they made these mistakes remains to be seen. but undoubtedly, you know, this crime was committed by russian forces. >> host: bill is calling in from pennsylvania on the republican line. go ahead, bill. >> caller: good morning, gentlemen. >> guest: good morning. >> caller: i, you know, look, i

watch rt a lot, it's a cable station that you can get here. i encourage the c-span viewers to watch it. you'll learn a lot about russia, a lot more than you're learning from listening to this guy, garry. garry, i think vladimir putin is a strong leader. much of the world thinks that he's a strong leader. he appears to have solved our problem in syria by coming in and negotiating a peace truce through diplomacy at the last hour when our cia was reporting that they had chemical weapons and that they were going to -- had used them on their own people x that actually turned out to be false. another false flag. so i really don't see why you, you know, why you keep calling him a dictator. it's very, very troubling to me.

>> host: all right. let's get a response, bill. garry kasparov. >> guest: no, we can start, you know, discussing the definition of dictatorship. i think somebody who will stay in power for life and show no intention of sharing the power, ruling absolutely with cruelty is a dictator. but i guess, you know, we are here dealing with a case of rt poisoning. rt is putin's propaganda -- >> host: russia today, is what that stands for. >> guest: yes. it's the best financed television in the world, and it's quite interesting when you look today at putin's budget, and naturally russia has been experiencing problems with cash, first time introducing -- [inaudible] he keeps spending more money on military, on security apparatus and on propaganda. and russia today alongside with domestic propaganda machine, they are just the great

beneficiaries. following these lines, you know, and i will definitely not give you a good picture of the world because you are simply now just become a hostage of putin's views of what's happening in russia or outside of russia, and i'm a bit troubled by your claims that assad has not used chemicals against his people. i'm sure he did. and even more troubled by your claim that putin solved syrian problem. two years ago syria was many trouble, today it's a disaster. and it's because of putin's attempts to prop up assad, and now russian planes have been steadily womaning not islam -- bombing not islamic state, but american-backed rebels and killing hundreds and hundreds of innocent civilians, and we have at least 100,000 more refugees now leaving syria creating more problems in turkey and also in europe, thus helping putin to destabilize situation and to

create new opportunities for him to insert his power. >> host: well, we want to play another piece of video and get your reaction. this is president obama talking about vladimir putin and geopolitics. >> you'd think that running your economy into the ground and having to send troops in in order to prop up your only ally is leadership, then we've got a different definition of leadership. my definition of leadership would be leading on climate change and an international accord in paris. my definition of leadership is mobilizing the entire world community to make sure iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. and with respect to the middle east, we've got a 60-country coalition that isn't suddenly lining up around russia's strategy. to the contrary, they are arguing that, in fact, that strategy will not work. >> my point was not that he was leading, my point is that he was changing your leadership, and -- challenging your leadership, and he has very much involved

himself in the situation. can you imagine anything happening in syria of any significance at all of russia not having a part in it? >> but that was true before. keep many mind that for the last five years the russians have provided arms, provided financing, as have the iranians, as has hezbollah -- >> but they haven't been bombing and they hadn't had troops on the ground. >> and the fact that they had to do this is not an indication of strength, it's an indication that their strategy did not work. >> host: garry kasparov. >> guest: look, what i can see putin is sending his military jets and now military personnel to syria. iran has been sending troops and ammunition, and obama keeps sending john kerry. the question who is calling the shots. and the middle east is, whole region now is ablaze. and that's exactly what putin needs because he, at one point, he has to try to do everything he can to push up oil prices.

even at 50, you know? oil staying at 50 will not save russian budget from a collapse. maximum two years' time. so with the current, you know, rate of spending. so that's why putin will look for every opportunity to involve other countries in the region. and i think it's very clear that he is not attacking islamic state now, because he hopes that islamic state will eventually start confrontation with saudis, sunnis versus sunnis and that could help blow up saudi arabia and to push oil prices up. and let's not forget, though, there's another state nearby, it's the state of israel. and i don't know for how long, you know, israel could be neutral in this battle, because you have hamas and his what and all -- hezbollah and all these terrorist groups. they're there, and they need the confrontation, again, to justify their existence.

and even if putin doesn't do things directly against israel -- and i'm sure he doesn't want to be seen as a propituater of attacks, but he has his most, his talk about. est ally in the region, iran, that will do the job. >> host: next call for garry kasparov comes there george in ashburn, virginia. democrat. >> caller: yes, good morning, and thank you for c-span. great tool for democracy. a question for mr. kasparov. what do you see as soviets' intentions in the caribbean? we see that, for example, there's been more ship calls in cuba, we see that they're reactivating the listening post in lords, we see them extending their influence and cooperation, countries like venezuela and bolivia and others. what do you think? what is putin up to in this part of the world? >> guest: i think it's too early to say that he has specific

plans because he doesn't have the resources of the soviet union to attack in many directions. but naturally, putin will be looking for every opportunity to extend his power, and, you know, he now be enjoys, you know, working relations, nice working relations with cuba because he has written the soviet, old soviet debt. and i think that he still is viewing cuba as a strong russian ally. you correctly mentioned venezuela and other, you know, countries in the continent with leftist governments that putin could believe, you know, eventually would be his allies in the new coalition to defy the united states, to challenge american interests. but it's very important to remember that unlike for the soviet leaders, for putin this kind of expansion is very important for domestic problems. because he has to demonstrate that at every, you know, every

part of the globe he was in the position, he was powerful enough to challenge the united states, to challenge the free world and to keep up his image of a strong man in russia who cannot be challenged. >> host: wild and wonderful tweets many to you, gary accuracy prove be, have the russian people learned that a free society is not easy to sustain? are they willing to abandon it for a return to old ways? >> guest: look, i guess it takes time, you know, just to learn about values of free society, and unfortunately in the '90s when there was very powerful move from communism, from dictatorship into democracy, russians couldn't see, you know, the benefits of free and fair elections. because the economy was in terrible shape, and for millions and millions of citizens of the soviet union who thought that democracy could automatically mean the dramatic rise in living standards, that was kind of, you know, a shock.

so that's why when putin took over and oil prices went up and suddenly things looked much better, it was some kind of, you know, of restoring the balance. yes, we still can vote. though elections were not very free and very fair, but we could go just to the polling station. but we had, we had much better life, you know, we could see a steady improvement of our living conditions. so it seems, you know, that the, you know, it will take major geopolitical defeat for vladimir putin, for russian public to understand that he's no longer invincible. and the result of putin's running the country over 50 years was disastrous because we missed so many opportunities to rebuild our infrastructure with trillions of dollars, trillions of dollars being wasted or to be more precise, invested elsewhere, not in our country. >> host: from "winter is

coming," garry kasparov writes: in my first years as an activist, i often said putin was a russian problem for russians to solve but that he would soon be a regional problem and then a global problem if his ambitions were ignored. this regrettable transformation has come to pass, and lives are being lost because of it. it is cold comfort to be told you were right, it is even less comforting when so little is being done to halt putin's aggression even now. what is the point of saying you should have listened and acted when you still ant listening -- still aren't listening or acting? >> guest: i think we're still dealing with this, with nearly 25 years of belief in this town, in washington, from different administrations that russia after the end of the cold war and collapse of the soviet union was no longer an existential threat and somehow you could build relations and turn russia

into an ally without, you know, pushing real transformation inside the country. and, you know, it started in the '90s where america was in a very powerful position, and it could help russia to avoid many problems and also to solve some of the future problems on the international stage. very few remember that the first time when american president raise the issue of iranian nuclear program with russians was in 1995. bill clinton spoke to boris yeltsin, because the united states congress wanted to impose sanctions or, to be more precise, cut financial aid to asia. but unfortunately, clinton hadn't pressed. so it slipped away. and we already saw, you know, the bush 43 reaction to putin. so what bothers me and what i'm actually asking, you know, just to read my book is a debate, bipartisan debate about foreign policy. it's not only about russia, but

it's about the world. the world after the collapse of the soviet union, the end of the cold war. because if, you know, from world war ii to the beginning of the '90s, all american administrations -- democrats or republicans -- they could have difference, but it was within a range. there was a clear understanding and there was a foreign policy that should be preserved, you know, within this range. then after '91, you know, we could see pendulum, you know, swinging from one side to another. we had bill clinton who did very little, bush 43 who did too much, and obama who has been doing nothing. and i think that's a problem, and i hope that this presidential election, the debates already for the general elections will help america to go back to the mode of unity on foreign policy agenda. >> host: in a review in "the new

york times," serge similar monday, one thing he said about "winter is coming" is that the real problem is with its presumption that the u.s. is somehow responsible for what russia has become or for what it should become. >> guest: look, you know, without saying the fact that serge for many years was an apologist and anybody can google him and see what he has been writing about putin and putin's regime for years, yeah, this is not only -- this isn't from him, but you could hear this criticism and this view both from political left and political right in this country. i mean, why should we bother? the most globalized economy in the world cannot, you know, ignore global security. and the united states, whether people like it or not, is still viewed as the leader of the free world and the most powerful

country that could, you know, be in a leading position or can, you know, stay away or walk away. but walking away in today's globalized world is not going to work because, you know, we have everything that is global; trade, business, finances, you know, social, cultural. unfortunately, terrorism. because all these new tools, all these beautiful tools we have been using, they're quite agnostic. they're neither good, nor bad. and pretending that in this world, you know, we can -- in this case the united states could, you know, stay away relying on the two giant oceans protecting america against enemies, it just simply, you know, is ignoring the realities of the world. and unfortunately, in case of russia and the former soviet union, there are many moment where is the united states could insert even a small portion of

its power to slightly tweaked events and to prevent further deterioration. for instance, after putin's invasion of the republic of georgia, and say putin though technically medvedev was in power although we do understand it was putin's plan, the united states granted russia a new -- [inaudible] policy. for putin it was a clear signal that he could do whatever he wanted in the post-soviet political space. and i believe, you know, it more or less doomed ukraine, because putin's next step in ukraine was based on his calculation that nobody would argue that he was, you know, kind of a master of the post-soviet universe. >> host: next call for garry kasparov comes from jay in asheville, north carolina. independent line. >> caller: yes, good morning. thank you for taking my call. russian investigators have

estimated putin's personal wealth at $40 billion. one investigator, when asked if he thought putin was a criminal, answered -- [speaking russian] i would like to ask mr. kasparov how he thinks putin acquired this huge wealth. thank you. i'll take my answer off the air. >> guest: no, i think you're operating with very old news. i believe it's way, way, way above $40 billion. but the trick is that putin's control of this immense wealth -- and i think that today he controls directly and indirectly more money than think individual in history of the human race -- but it's all connected to him staying in power. he probably could move around today something at the range of $1 trillion. if you look at the russian hard currency reserves, russian budget and the oligarchs' fortunes, most of them, of course, are connected to him and owe him everything that they

made through these state orders and ability to evade taxes in russia. so that's why for him, you know, walking away keeping even part of in this money is absolutely impossible. this is a classical case of a dictator in the golden cage where he's all powerful, megarich as long as he's staying in power and walking away, it means losing everything. and in case of putin, it's probably -- [inaudible] >> host: garry kasparov, you write in "winter is coming" about some of the corporate entities that go to russia and, essentially, are apologists for vladimir putin. >> guest: look, the fact is that corporations, whether americans or europeans, always look for profit above human rights and domestic repressions enacted by

dictatorships. i mean, it's not new. so these days i'm reading a book of collaborations about hollywood studios dealing with nazi germany. just for years they have been selling movies, titles and accepted even censorship from, you know, not just in los angeles, cutting lines, you know, and throwing some movies if nazi propaganda didn't support it. so unfortunately, it's a reality. and what is required is a very clear red line drawn by the government with what can be done and what should not be done. and unfortunately, all these, you know, economic, various economic tools, you may call them weapons, have yet to be used. sanctions against putin's russia, in my view, are very mild. they are not hurting oligarch the way they could, and the united states, you know, could

impose real sanctions on russia even without the european allies. and by doing so, it could send a message -- and not for putin. i think putin already has burnt all the bridges, and we should stop trying, you know, just to engage him. but message to other people in russia, russian elite, russian oligarchs, moscow middle class to recognize that following putin's suicidal policies could jeopardize their own interests. so far there is no strategy. and, again, i would like to see the strategy. i would like people to understand that confronting putin today is very dangerous can, is very costly. the problem is tomorrow the rice goes up. because he always takes delays, concessions, weaknesses, you know, as invitation on future aggression. so i remember in his inaugural in 1961, john kennedy said we do not -- we dare not tempt our

foes with weakness. and unfortunately, you know, this warning stays, you know, very -- [inaudible] >> host: john is call anything from south hampton, pennsylvania, on our republican line. hi, john. >> caller: good morning. it's a pleasure speaking to you, mr. kasparov. i've been aware of your existence, you've been on the world stage for a long time. and, obviously, initially it was chess, and and then it was politics. and i think you have a misperception, though, about the united states. there's a enormous amount of hostility that our elites have for putin and russia, treating him contemptuously and minimizing his strength and now doing the opposite; fearful he's going to invade nato, you know,

the baltic states or whatever. but if i could, i have a couple comments and a question, but if i could, you have to go back and -- i go back during the yeltsin era, i mean, yeltsin was an alcoholic, he was a disaster. that's when the oligarchs grabbed the assets of the country, and, you know, the russian, ethnic russian grandmothers were begging in the streets. and the oligarchs had their billions. they appointed putin. he came in and immediately i think he changed the situation. obviously, it took time, but in the united states our foreign policy, we went into the middle east, and because of the neoconservatives -- which, quite frankly, mr. kasparov, that's the only association i've seen of you -- is being affiliated with the neoconservatives in the united states.

but the neoconservatives promoted, encouraged, got us involved in the wars in the middle east. we have lost trillions of dollars. every one of these -- >> host: all right. hey, john, a lot there on the table. anything you want to respond to, mr. kasparov? >> guest: yeah. let's start with russia. you can list at the "forbes" list today and to see how many billionaires, many dozens of billionaires, from russia are on this list, and almost all of them are directly or indirectly connected to putin. so russia is now in the second place of the united states on this list. and for your information, you can go back and check that in year 2000 when yeltsin left office, there was no single russian billionaire on the list. i'm not here to discuss the details of economy in yeltsin's russia. i can recommend you can read my book because i'm not, you know, telling you about the strong, you know, flourishing democracy or economy under yeltsin. i'm highly critical of yet sip's

rule. but -- yeltsin's rule. but under yeltsin we built a feeble foundation for future change. vladimir putin changed the situation, but for much worse. corruption under yeltsin was a big problem, corruption under putin is total. you can hear the debates, nixon/kennedy, the first televised debates where jfk was far more hawkish and, of course, the doctorate of defending democracy and opposing communism is connected, rightly so, to the name of the great president, harry truman, who -- if i remember correctly -- was democrat and saved hundreds of millions of people from soviet expansionism. and today, again, it's not an agenda of one group or another. we can, unfortunately, hear voices from far left to far right, you know? to bring america back home, and

your claim about america losing trillions of dollars, it's a long story, it will require, you know, lengthy debate. but at the end of the day, remember that american corporations are the most successful multi-national corporations that have been doing business elsewhere. and to pretend that, you know, america could just walk away, ignore, you know, the most important conflict zones in the planet and at the same time u.s. corporations will be making this tremendous profit abroad, i mean, it's simply not to understand the laws of physics that apply to geopolicy as well. power is a force that you create vacuum, somebody else fills it. and in case of middle east, you know, this vacuum has been filled rapidly by putin, by islamic states and by iranians. >> host: garry kasparov spent 20 years as the world's number one-ranked chess player, he retired in 2005 to lead the pro-democracy opposition to

vladimir putin. in 2012 he was named chairman of the human rights foundation, succeeding havel of the czech republic. and he has written a couple of books. his 2007 book, "how life imitates chess," has been published in 26 languages, and his newest book is "winter is coming: why vladmy putin and the enemies of the free world must be stop toed." greg is calling in from chattanooga, tennessee. hi, greg. >> caller: how y'all doing this morning? i was just wondering, if putin hasn't turned russia back into some type of christian nation be, hasn't he? >> guest: i doubt very much. you should not mix presence with substance. unfortunately, for years -- [inaudible] has been symbol of kgb. and if you, i don't know whether you can read russian or not, but if you had pleasure,

questionable pleasure of reading what russian -- [inaudible] has been saying over years, i think you could recognize that it's not, it's simple on to security, and it's basically sowing putin's interests rather than promoting crucial values. >> host: last call comes from joanna in damascus, maryland. hi, joanna. >> caller: good morning, mr. kasparov. a couple of years ago on "front line" on pbs they put on a documentary on putin which basically portrayed him as somebody who bribed black males and brutalized his way to power. also they talked about his accumulation of great wealth, and i'm wondering if you could talk a little be bit about that and also what you see as the future for russia at this point? >> guest: oh, just a few minutes ago i talked about putin's wealth, and i could repeat that. he controls enormous amount of money, more than any other individual in history of human

race. but it's all connected to him staying in power. he can move hundreds of billions of dollars, next to trillion dollars, you know, because he controls russian budget and directly or indirectly the fortunes of many oligarchs who owe him everything that they made over the years. so we don't expect putin just to go, to walk away from kremlin peacefully. that's why i have, unfortunately, i don't have a good weather forecast for you, that's why my book is called "winter is coming," and i always ask people to be highly critical of the weatherman. russia will experience great turbulence. i will not even exclude the possibility that eventually the country could, you know, could be capsized because there are many regions that are under heavy pressure like russian far east and eastern siberia from

china. we have a growing threat of radical islam in the south, and the demographic situation in russia is not looking good. and the whole country, now, is basically full-blown dictatorship. he's the spine of the system. the moment he goes -- and it will happen eventually because it did happen before, and it's some kind of a law of history. sooner it happens, better the chances that russia will not collapse. and i always say the dictator who's stayed in power for so long succeeded because he has created political desert. and the longer he stays in power, drier the desert is. and what kind of creatures can survive in this very dry desert? snakes, rats, scorpions and vladimir putin, unfortunately, you know, just has been destroying my country for so many years, and my only hope that is his collapse will happen soon enough for to recover.

>> host: and victor tweets in to you, what if russia implodes if putin overextends outward? >> guest: unfortunately, it's ininevitable. let's remember it's not soviet union. russia, you know, russia -- if you look at demographics, finances, military and everything else maybe except nukes, russia cannot afford the same expansionist policies as soviet union, by the way, also failed of spreading around. but for russia spreading thin is a big threat. but the problem is putin doesn't care, because he stays in power, and that's all that matters for him. so he has been, he has been throwing the future of russia just to buy more time for staying in power. he believes he's russia, and that's, by the way, not the definition of -- [inaudible] >> host: one chess question, and this comes from virginia via tweet. mr. kasparov, have you

challenged ibm watson to a match? if not, do you plan to? [laughter] >> guest: ibm watson doesn't play chess, and it's actually, it's a great accomplishment, and unlike deep blue, it's a software project, 256 power processers, each of them was a chess computer, tiny chess computer making about 1.5 million possessions per second, and ibm succeeded in maximizing the output of this power processer project. watson, as far as i know, doesn't play chess. and i also don't play chess. i retired ten years ago, and i am offering my advice to young players. i've been working to promote chess for education through kasparov chess foundation in this country and in other continents. but hi active role as a chess --

my active role as a chess player has ended ten years ago. >> host: when's the last time you were in russia? >> guest: i left russia in february 2013. and it's a very painful personal experience because that was not my first choice. i did it after receiving an invitation, they call an invitation from russian investigative committee, to show up and to tell them about some of our political activities, about our rallies. and i knew already that they were about to launch this massive investigation and that ended with political trial. and my friend and colleague advised me not to come back because he said you could enter the building as a witness, and if you leaf the leave the building -- leave the building, most likely as a suspect. it's very painful not just because i had to leave the

country and my mother, but boris a great man, former deputy prime minister under yeltsin and at one point yeltsin's successor, i mean, he was too brave and too proud to leave, to follow his own advice. and he was gunned down as probably your viewers know in front of the kremlin last february, february 27th of this year. and it was quite tragic. but it just tells you that in putin's russia, you know, even if you are former deputy prime minister and a man of the world fame, you can no longer criticize him openly because you will pay the ultimate price which boris did. >> host: garry kasparov, here's the front of the book. it's blurbed by senator john mccain, "winter is coming: why vladimir putin and the enemies of the free world must be stopped." >> guest: there are four other blurbs, you know? one is francis fukuyama.

you accept my suggestion, and it was great because, you know, "winter is coming" is this delayed debate about his great book, end of history in 1992 where he said that, you know, his story ended with triumphant democracy, as we all believed at that time. >> host: thanks for being on the program. >> guest: thank you. >> do you want to watch this program again? visit booktv.org to watch any of the programs you see here online. type the author name or book title in the search bar at the top of the page and click the looking glass. be you can also share any of the videos on our web site by clicking the facebook, twitter or share icons on the bottom right at the video box. booktv, since 1998. all the top nonfiction be authors and books -- nonfiction authors and books all available at booktv.org.