Europe, the ‘Sleeping Magnificence’ – The Atlantic

Subscribe right here: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Overcast | Pocket Casts

[Music]

Garry Kasparov: I used to be born on the mistaken facet of the Berlin Wall. After I visited Ronald Reagan’s Ranch Heart in Santa Barbara, California, in 2016, they’d a giant piece of the wall Reagan helped tear down on show. I joked that I didn’t acknowledge it as a result of I had solely seen the opposite facet.

Again in 1987, I used to be talking at an occasion in West Germany, and I instructed those who I used to be positive that the collapse of the Berlin Wall was inevitable and would occur very quickly. They checked out me like, Okay, that’s loopy. However he’s younger, 24, and he’s only a chess participant. What does he know? They usually stopped listening. This was earlier than Ronald Reagan’s well-known “tear down this wall” speech in Berlin, which was round a month later.

One other well-known 4 phrases from a U.S. president additionally involved Berlin. President Harry Truman mentioned We keep in Berlin, to vow that U.S. forces would shield and provide West Berlin throughout Stalin’s siege of town in 1948: the well-known Berlin airlift. To not put myself within the firm of U.S. presidents, however I used to be impressed by Reagan and Truman in my very own Berlin speech at Aspen Institute on October 14th, 2015.

I titled it “4 Phrases to Change Historical past.” I mentioned, “We should do not forget that societies shouldn’t have values. Individuals have values. If we wish our values to succeed, we should shield the individuals who maintain them wherever they’re, whoever they’re. And if I could end with my very own 4 phrases right here as we speak: Combat for our values.”

From The Atlantic, that is Autocracy in America. I’m Garry Kasparov.

[Music]

My visitor is Mathias Döpfner, becoming a member of me from Berlin. He’s a journalist who’s now the CEO of the multinational media and know-how firm Axel Springer. He leads dozens of publications in lots of nations, together with Politico and Enterprise Insider in america and Bild and Die Welt in Germany, amongst many others. He’s German, and it’s a German perspective I used to be after from him. Many round Europe and the world are ready for Germany to steer. So will it?

[Music]

Kasparov: Howdy, Mathias. Thanks very a lot for becoming a member of our program.

Mathias Döpfner: Howdy, Garry.

Kasparov: Fast query. Are you at your workplace now?

Döpfner: Completely, at my workplace in Berlin.

Kasparov: So I wish to let the listeners know that this workplace, that was constructed by the founding father of your organization Axel Springer, if I’m appropriate, in 1966, it’s actually subsequent to the previous Berlin Wall that divided—bodily divided—the free and unfree world again throughout the Chilly Conflict. So it was standing on the sting of democracy and autocracy. Not anymore, now. However to not put too high-quality some extent on it: It’s exactly what this present is about. So from this perch, inform me—what do you see as a principal risk to democracy in Europe? And what’s Europe’s place on this ever-changing world as we speak?

Döpfner: Yeah; thanks, Garry. So sitting right here in our form of historic headquarters constructing, it’s a golden skyscraper proper on the fringe of the previous wall and dying strip. Simply as an instance that: After we actually cross the road in an effort to get to the brand new a part of our headquarters, we cross a row of cobblestones, and these cobblestones are marking precisely the spot the place the wall was once. So this constructing actually was constructed as a lighthouse of freedom, because the founder known as it. It turned out to be the brand new middle of a reunified Berlin and a reunified Germany, with a number of euphoria round the concept freedom prevails, the open-society mannequin prevails.

And in the meanwhile it appears to be like fairly completely different, and it appears to be like completely different from a factual base. If you happen to examine the outcomes of Freedom Home evaluation and different comparable analyses of the state of freedom, then you definitely see a freedom recession globally for a few years. There’s by no means been such a big downgrading of previously free nations to partially free and previously partly free nations to unfree. But additionally a lot of the centrist democracies are in comparatively weak form, whereas autocratic authoritarian programs fairly systematically obtain their objectives and acquire floor.

So it’s fairly a difficult time for the open-society mannequin. And on high of that, we’ve inner points. I feel we must always not solely take a look at the exterior threats and the autocrats and dictators, we also needs to take a look at ourselves and what we have to do in another way in an effort to succeed.

Kasparov: Agreed. So let’s look deep inside. Let’s begin with Germany. So 35 years in the past there was a reunification. Many believed, , it could be past our wildest desires and it could by no means occur. It did occur. Has unification occurred in minds in addition to geographically and politically?

Döpfner: Nicely, Garry, I’m not a diplomat, so I communicate very brazenly. Additionally if it’s about my very own nation. I keep in mind very nicely when the wall got here down. A outstanding writer right here in Berlin, Wolf Jobst Siedler, mentioned it’s going to take at the least a era till we are going to see actual integration of mindset, and till we see actual unification psychologically and mentally. I believed this was completely exaggerated, that it was going to be a query of two, three, 5 years. It’s now greater than 1 / 4 of a century, and nonetheless there’s fairly a big divide. There’s nonetheless an East and West Germany, and also you see that on many ranges additionally politically. On the similar time, we additionally must realistically see that each one collectively—with regard to administration and the economic system—the reunification was a hit and went nicely, and there’s a lot of prosperity. And if you happen to go to the East German cities and examine them, how they appear to be 30 years in the past—uncomparable. And there’s a lot progress and wealth and optimistic growth that we also needs to not be too damaging about it. We ought to be additionally a bit grateful.

On the third stage, and that I feel is crucial one, Germany has developed, for a lot of varied causes, a level of complacency that I discover an increasing number of harmful. And I feel we’ve to essentially take that as a warning name to do issues in another way. And right here, in fact, there’s a number of hope with regard to the brand new authorities that’s in place and that might, with sturdy management, resolve the issues—most significantly, the issue of an financial turnaround. And with regard to migration, we additionally want a really vital shift conceptually and with regard to execution. I feel these are the 2 most necessary matters, however that requires actually daring choices in management.

Kasparov: After unification, Germany has grow to be the biggest nation in Europe, and it’s a driving engine of the European Union. However contemplating the, historic, name it liabilities or historic baggage, so, is Germany prepared now—after so a few years, 80 years because the finish of World Conflict II—is Germany prepared to beat this sense of historic guilt and to grow to be a optimistic power to take a lead?

Döpfner: That’s a really attention-grabbing query, Garry. As a result of really I feel this part of German historical past throughout the Third Reich, the Holocaust, and all the pieces that led to this unparalleled horrors have deeply traumatized the nation and in a method discredited the time period management and the concept of management and even the concept of excellence, to a sure diploma. The unlucky misunderstanding of this chapter of German historical past is that not solely it’s best to by no means be concerned in any type of navy battle; pacifism is a naive concept. The second horrible misunderstanding is that management and excellence is sort of one thing damaging. It associates with Germany wants to steer the world and must dominate the world. And the irony is that nearly everyone in Europe and in your complete world is ready for German management and thinks Germany wants to steer it—wants to steer Europe along with different nations. And that leads me to the second factor of your query. Can we overcome the traumas? Hopefully not within the sense that we overlook about it. I feel what occurs ought to by no means be forgotten and we must always be taught from that. However we must always be taught the fitting classes.

And the fitting classes are at all times: Do all the pieces to defend the free-and-open-society mannequin. And if we lead with good intentions and within the spirit of partnership along with others, then I feel that’s the most credible and essentially the most profitable mindset. I feel other than a proper worth set and system of coordinates, crucial factor that the brand new German chancellor must show and must have is braveness. To maneuver quick, to behave and never solely communicate, and to essentially deal with the 2 largest priorities: economic system and migration.

Kasparov: Yeah, I consider considered one of Winston Churchill’s well-known phrases: that no success is last, no failure is deadly, what counts is the braveness to proceed. As a result of he has challenges each domestically and internationally. So that you talked about economic system and migration. Now, do you think about power independence as part of the economic system?

Döpfner: Very large subject. Right here, the elephant within the room is nuclear power. Will this authorities return to nuclear energy vegetation? That’s the large query that everyone is asking in the meanwhile in Germany, as a result of an power coverage that’s primarily based on windmills or solely photo voltaic is just not going to resolve the issues and isn’t going to supply the power that you just want, additionally with regard to excellence in synthetic intelligence, so—

Kasparov: However allow us to once more remind our viewers that Germany made the choice to stroll away from nuclear power. What, again in 2011, sure?

Döpfner: Yeah, I keep in mind. I can share an anecdote with you. I keep in mind very nicely. I used to be invited to the Russian Embassy by the Russian ambassador with a bunch of editors of Axel Springer for lunch. And it was a coincidence that the lunch passed off on that very day, and every individual had a glass of vodka on the desk. And earlier than we began, the ambassador was elevating the vodka glasses and mentioned, Let me cheer to the German chancellor. The choice to drop out of nuclear power shall be excellent for Russian power and for the Russian economic system. And folks regarded a bit of bit irritated and principally thought it’s a joke, however then they realized it was the—

Kasparov: It was best reward to [Vladimir] Putin.

Döpfner: Proper, precisely.

Kasparov: As a result of that made Russia the only provider or this main provider of power to Germany—and through Germany to many different European nations.

Döpfner: I personally suppose it was one of the crucial irresponsible choices of German governments in postwar historical past, as a result of not solely did it create the most important injury to the German economic system and the German power sector, however extra importantly, it has principally strengthened and financed the Putin that we’ve to cope with since then—and the Putin who then invaded Crimea and who then invaded Ukraine. And the cash is the primary useful resource that has funded that battle. It’s fairly a tragic case, and it reveals once more why commerce coverage, financial coverage, is so straight intertwined with geopolitics and safety politics. And that’s why this complete determination to drop out of nuclear power is method, method greater than only a matter within the context of coalition eventualities or power insurance policies. It goes method past it.

Kasparov: Now, the German political map as we speak—once more, I’m sufficiently old to recollect when Germany was in a basic two-party system, , social Democrats on the central left, and Christian Democrats on the fitting. Now it’s a large number. However the hazard is that we might see in Germany as in every single place, each in America and Europe, the rising strengths of the radicals on the far left and much proper. So the German political map as we speak has a large number of MPs and rising power of each AfD—Various für Deutschland, far proper—and likewise two far-left teams. So how do you describe this new—the political realignment? And the way harmful is the specter of these mixed assaults on democracy from the far proper and much left? Clearly the far-right group is way greater. They gained greater than 20 % within the final elections, and I feel now, their recognition stage stands at practically 25 %. So simply give us just a bit little bit of a way of this very dispersed political discipline. So the political map is kind of messy for the standard two-party system.

Döpfner: This phenomenon, I feel it’s merely the results of failed and unsuccessful centrist insurance policies and the dearth of credibility of centrist political leaders. So if we deal with that drawback, we must always first take a look at what did the centrist events, what did the older events, the political institution do mistaken? And why really feel individuals, the necessity to search for options and shift extra to the extremes? Why are they seduced by the straightforward options? And I feel that can also be a fairly world phenomenon the place the extremes are getting stronger. The middle has made errors and will begin with self-criticism. Now, concretely to Germany, each extremes are very harmful and have some concepts which can be very anti-constitutional and notably harmful with regard to geopolitics and the way forward for open societies.

Kasparov: Yeah. I wish to simply speak a bit extra about AfD, Various für Deutschland. As a result of the opposite far-right teams and events like in France—Marine Le Pen’s—or Nigel Farage [and the] Reform Occasion in Nice Britain—they refuse to cope with AfD. They consider it’s too far proper and it has an open nostalgia for Nazi Germany. So are you able to inform us extra in regards to the nature of this celebration and the risk it may well signify to German democracy and to European integration? As a result of it’s, in fact, it’s in opposition to a united Europe.

Döpfner: I feel certainly the foreign-policy ideas, the geopolitical penalties, of which can be by far the most important risk that this celebration offers. The admiration for strongmen and autocratic nations—like nearly Russia, but additionally China and others—replicate a very completely different concept of society, a distinct concept of management. And in addition the implications geopolitically can be horrific, I feel, for the open-society mannequin and the world order that we’re discussing as we speak. That’s why I discover it notably laborious to know why this motion is a lot extra fashionable within the japanese states of Germany than within the western a part of Germany. And that’s really counterintuitive, since you ought to suppose like different Jap European nations—who principally skilled Soviet communism and the ruthlessness of that system—that ought to result in a number of reasonable and skeptical expectations with regard to future relationships with Russia, and the long run affect of Russia or coping with China. However the reverse appears to be true. And that’s, for me, very laborious to elucidate. Actually, Garry, I’ve no very convincing clarification for that.

Kasparov: Let’s speak about sympathy to AfD not from the east, however from the west. Truly the far, far west—in D.C. So it appears there are fairly a couple of followers of AfD in Trump’s administration. Undoubtedly it’s J. D. Vance, who brazenly supported not simply AfD however nearly each far-right political group in Europe that was preventing within the elections to get into energy. So how do you clarify that?

Döpfner: I feel it could be notably damaging for america, as a result of in giant elements of the celebration there’s a deeply rooted anti-Americanist method, a deeply rooted anti-capitalist method. And I might be curious how that may play out with regard to the transatlantic relationship. I imply, simply take the very concrete request or proposal: no American weapons on German floor. That’s humorous. Putin will like that, however that’s not good for Germany. Now, perhaps some individuals in America might say, Nicely, that’s good for America, as a result of we’ve decrease bills in that context. However I feel the value that america would pay in the long run for that may be monumental, would go up, undoubtedly. As a result of a Putin that’s inspired by such a transfer wouldn’t cease in Ukraine. He would go additional.

Kasparov: So am I listening to you saying that with out America, with out American management, the worldwide democracy shall be in peril and should collapse?

Döpfner: Sure. I feel it’s a really good however barely naive concept that now the large historic alternative is, since America is sending a number of disturbing and stunning indicators, Europe might do it alone or might do it higher. It’s not going to work.

[Music]

Döpfner: The challenges of China, the challenges of Russia, and the challenges of Islamist dictatorships are a lot too large in an effort to be solved by Europe alone, and I might even go that far— they’re additionally method too large than being solvable by america alone.

Kasparov: We’ll be proper again.

[Break]

Kasparov: However let’s take a look at this geopolitical chess board: America, China, and naturally Russia continues to be there. So it’s a comparatively small economic system, however you’ve nukes, [an] military, you’ve a loopy dictator who made battle as an engine of his energy. And what’s Europe right here? As a result of I feel one of many issues between Europe and America and now the best way, I feel, the Trump administration is viewing Europe is—Europe is split, is simply too weak. And Germany is just not able to play the main position to unite Europe—and to make it communicate with one voice that might put Europe at this negotiating desk and make, , European opinion, European energy, to be counted. Do you consider that Europe nonetheless has its potential, once more led by Germany, to make herself related?

Döpfner: The quick reply is sure. Europe is a sleeping magnificence. It’s only a nice continent with great nations and a stupendous, most likely essentially the most enticing, life-style on this planet. Nevertheless it’s additionally sleeping. It’s sleeping as a result of it developed a really harmful diploma of complacency. Now the query is: Can that be modified? And right here, my take is extra optimistic. I feel what is occurring in the meanwhile on this planet could be very disturbing. And it may be the start of the tip—it may be the start of the tip of the open-society mannequin, of the concept of a free guidelines–primarily based society, of democracy, of the rule of regulation, of human rights. And we may have a really completely different world order. Now, being on the verge of that, seeing the hazards and dealing with a number of volatility in america and a number of rigor and aggression in nondemocratic superpowers like China, I feel it has the potential to essentially be the wholesome wake-up name—the wholesome wake-up name for democracy within the open-society mannequin, and the wholesome wake-up name for Europe. After which I feel that may be a reawakening of Europe. aAnd out of the blue in 10 years, the world can look fully completely different. Individuals might say, Wow, what a shift of labor, excellence, know-how, worth creation to European nations. What a distinct world the place these open societies stick collectively and construct strategic alliances within the economic system, but additionally within the discipline of protection and safety. So I really suppose we’re at a pivotal second the place each is feasible: the start of the tip, or the wholesome wake-up name that begins a brand new decade, a brand new century, the place Europe performs a extra necessary and a greater position.

Kasparov: You mentioned, I feel, sleeping magnificence. For me, that doesn’t represent any power. So it’s principally ready for a brave prince to wake her up with a magic kiss. Is it a sleeping magnificence or a sleeping large?

Döpfner: That’s an excellent level. It’s a stupendous large, let’s name it. However in any case—

Kasparov: That’s an attention-grabbing combination.

Döpfner It’s—in any case, we undoubtedly agree that it’s sleeping in the meanwhile, however I additionally agree along with your criticism of magnificence is just not sufficient. And I feel with the fitting injection of power and ambition and aspiration, it may be a brand new participant, a brand new large.

Kasparov: Three and a half years of battle in Ukraine. You’ll be able to hear them from Berlin. Was it not sufficient to wake Europe up? So how come that in three and a half years, Europe—Europe!—has supplied much less assist for Ukraine than North Korea for Russia? You’re nonetheless considering your subsequent strikes. You don’t wish to see that Putin is at battle with Europe. It’s a form of hybrid battle. He has been brazenly interfering in elections in Germany, in Romania, in France, in Britain. So in every single place. What else do you’ll want to get up? And let’s once more return to Germany—can Germany simply take a lead? Three and a half years have been misplaced, so what does come subsequent?

Döpfner: To start with, Garry, I completely agree along with your evaluation. Secondly, I don’t have an excellent reply why it’s nonetheless sleeping. I wrote a textual content a couple of days after the invasion in Ukraine and mentioned, That is now a second the place the West has to behave, the place NATO members must act. Whether or not it’s below Article V or not. However that is the second the place we’ve to point out power, as a result of solely power and navy deterrence is avoiding an escalation and is avoiding an even bigger and long-lasting battle. And if we don’t try this, the value goes to be greater. I used to be criticized as a warmonger; I used to be criticized to threat a nuclear escalation. And so forth.

So from as we speak’s perspective, it feels fairly unhappy, as a result of I nonetheless suppose—and I’m nonetheless deeply satisfied—had we acted sooner and extra determinedly, we might have averted a big diploma of what has occurred since then. And now we’re in a a lot worse place. Nonetheless, I feel it isn’t too late, and if you happen to simply take a share of budgets that NATO members and the West is principally investing in an effort to cease Putin, it’s so minor. It’s so minimal in comparison with what Putin is investing. And that leads me to the quite simple consequence: If we might wish to cease that, we might cease it. And there’s, I don’t know—it’s a mixture of opportunism and naivety. And in addition a mistaken narrative, that provided that we’re good to Putin and if we aren’t focusing an excessive amount of on navy power, solely then we are able to calm him down, which is so mistaken. It’s misreading a lot the thoughts of just about all totalitarian leaders, and notably of Putin, who’s principally testing the West and at all times seeing how far can he go. And the additional we let him go, the extra he’ll do, and the upper the value goes to be. So it’s already late. It’s not too late, however we wasted a number of time.

Kasparov: Once more, realistically, so no matter we are saying about NATO and its historic position, the position has performed over 75 years. I imply, it’s useless now. It’s not functioning. And undoubtedly, the following three-plus years, whereas Trump is in workplace, no one expects NATO to be what it was once—the group that we relied upon for many years. I share your optimism that, , ultimately there shall be some form of new alignment or realignment in European-American relations. The worldwide democracies will get collectively. However that’s sooner or later. However at the moment, we’ve the battle. So can Germany, in your opinion, lead this new protection alliance because the prototype for the long run model of NATO—to ensure that this battle could be gained, or at the least Ukraine can survive the Russian onslaught? And, what are the bounds for Germany in constructing such an alliance? How reasonable is it to ascertain the German position as an engine for this protection coalition?

Döpfner: Can Germany try this? Sure; Germany can try this. Will Germany try this is extra complicated. And right here I feel there’s one psychological cause why there’s a threat that’s not taking place. And I discussed that already. It’s historical past. It’s a bit this worry of taking navy management. I imply, the world was fearing for many years, for good causes, for German navy initiatives, for navy ambitions, in a method for navy management. And I feel that can also be a really, very form of poisoned floor.

And that will result in extra reluctance than we want, and that might be a cause why it’s not taking place or why it’s not taking place quick sufficient. But when I could, allow us to additionally not overlook the chance that one thing occurs which may be stunning from as we speak’s perspective, however psychologically not unlikely. And that’s the extra Putin performs with Trump, the extra he publicly embarrasses Trump—gaining time, not making actual concessions, not sticking to agreements, the extra Donald Trump might really feel provoked. And if Putin continues to try this, then I feel Trump might shock everyone by actually altering his thoughts fully. After which we might have a very completely different scenario, not solely psychologically, but additionally militarily.

Kasparov: Oh, I’m afraid you’re a dreamer, Mathias.

Döpfner: Possibly I’m a dreamer, yeah. However do you actually suppose that it’s reasonable that Trump leaves the sector because the loser, having been form of outsmarted by Putin and principally saying, Okay, I resign. You gained, Vladimir. I simply go away the battlefield as a loser. For me, it’s additionally laborious to think about, merely psychologically.

Kasparov: Yeah. However Trump’s psychology, it’s simply, it’s at all times to show any failure right into a victory. Okay then; now simply going to the tip of our dialog. So let’s think about what Germany might, ought to, and hopefully will do. So will Germany transfer on with the rearmament plans? So investing closely in its military-industrial complicated, constructing new weapons, and turning into a navy powerhouse as soon as once more?

Döpfner: I feel the probability could be very excessive, if you happen to simply look to the form of modifications in social conduct. Only a few years in the past, individuals from the weapon—from the protection trade weren’t even invited to dinner events. In the present day, they’re stars of dinner events. All people talks to them. They’re perceived as heroes. They’re perceived as guards of freedom and democracy. So the mindset has actually basically modified. And in addition the variety of start-ups which can be coping with drones, and coping with new applied sciences of protection, is skyrocketing. Individuals are getting ready for that, and everyone sees the necessity for that. So the probability that that mindset modifications is fairly excessive.

Kasparov: So do you suppose that it’s reasonable that Germany may even construct its sturdy military that can grow to be the core of this navy barrier in opposition to potential Russian aggression?

Döpfner: Mmm, that’s an extended shot. I don’t know the way developed the willingness of German individuals is to defend their nation. I feel it’s already robust to defend our nation, and even harder to defend Europe. However perhaps I’ve a barely—perhaps my take is simply too damaging right here.

Kasparov: Yeah. No, but it surely’s essential to listen to—as a result of I’m afraid, , I share your pessimism right here. All these weapons, all these shells, all these drones: They aren’t too efficient with out the willpower behind it. With out manpower behind it. And it appears to me that Germany is but to cross this highway. So it’s like from West Berlin to East Berlin. So simply from this historic guilt, , from this peace-mongering to battle actuality. Are you able to think about simply, , that as part of this coalition, Germany might develop nuclear weapons to discourage Russia?

Döpfner: Unlikely.

Kasparov: Unlikely. In order that signifies that Germany will at all times rely on different nations, as a result of the profitable deterrence is just not—in opposition to Russia—is not going to work and not using a nuclear umbrella. So who will present the nuclear umbrella throughout Trump’s years? France, Britain? How do you suppose Germany will handle it?

Döpfner: Possibly France and Britain will play an even bigger position. That’s a risk. However once more, I feel with out America, it’s going to be very robust. That’s why it’s in our very important curiosity to maintain a wholesome relationship with America, regardless whether or not we like the federal government or not. It’s an overarching paradigm, I feel, for Europe and for Germany.

Kasparov: So only a very last query. So that you simply give us the following three years, only for the following three years of the Trump administration: What would be the ideally suited consequence? So for us to dream about 2028— from the German perspective?

Döpfner: Sturdy German management results in conceptual priorities. One is to steer Europe in navy power and help in Ukraine, in protection, in an effort to restrict Putin’s aggression. That can impress america, as a result of a stronger Europe shall be taken extra severely. And a Europe that does extra for its personal protection shall be extra credible as a accomplice to barter offers on different ranges.

And the second factor shall be modified in Germany and in Europe. And that’s: that we attain out to America, agreeing on a mutual technique, commerce technique, towards China, defend that technique collectively on the negotiation desk. Obtain a a lot, significantly better cope with China that strengthens Europe and America. That weakens Putin, that limits China, that strengthens the democratic world. That would be the starting of a brand new, affluent period for America. America First from an American perspective, and a stronger Europe, Europe First, from a European perspective. However primarily based on mutual values excelling collectively. That might be essentially the most optimistic consequence that may strengthen the open-society mannequin and freedom and democracy. However Garry, truthfully, that’s the final diploma of optimism that I can develop at this stage. Let’s work on that. Let’s hope for it. However let’s not rely on it. Put together for the worst in an effort to get positively stunned.

[Music]

Kasparov: Sure, we are able to put together for the worst, but it surely’s essential to have a imaginative and prescient. And thanks very a lot for laying down this optimistic imaginative and prescient, Mathias. And I hope that at the least a part of this imaginative and prescient shall be realized quickly.

Döpfner: That might be one thing.

Kasparov: And initially is, in fact, , for Ukraine A) to outlive, B) to win. And ultimately the Putin regime to break down and Europe to grow to be an actual geopolitical participant: to get up from its sleep and to grow to be, as you mentioned, a stupendous large on the world stage.

Döpfner: Fantastic. I completely agree.

Kasparov: Sure. Thanks very a lot, Mathias; thanks.

Döpfner: Thanks, Garry.

Kasparov: This episode of Autocracy in America was produced by Arlene Arevalo. Our editor is Dave Shaw. Authentic music and blend by Rob Smierciak. Truth-checking by Ena Alvarado. Particular due to Polina Kasparova and Mig Greengard. Claudine Ebeid is the manager producer of Atlantic audio. Andrea Valdez is our managing editor.

Subsequent time on Autocracy in America:

Kasparov: I’m Garry Kasparov. See you again right here subsequent week.