The star of the La Toja Forum 2025, where he delivered the closing speech alongside EL MUNDO journalist Xavier Colás, has been a symbol of individual freedom since his victory over Anatoly Karpov in the 1985 World Chess Championship foreshadowed the global change represented by the Perestroika and the fall of the Wall.
Now, from exile, he embodies democratic opposition to the relentless regime of Vladimir Putin, whom he predicted would be destabilizing shortly after coming to power, and he presides over the Renew Democracy Initiative, the organization he founded in 2017 to defend liberal democracy.
You have been warning for three years that "only if the flag of Ukraine flies again in Sebastopol [Crimea] will there be true peace." After the incident in the Oval Office between Trump and Zelenski, and the reception of Putin in Alaska, can you still imagine it?
This is not about imagining, it's about reality. It is crucial to understand what the end of the war means. When you listen to Trump, Macron, or other European politicians, they do not talk about the end of the war. They call it peace, but it is just a ceasefire. Putin sees the world through the prism of Greater Russia and has not hidden it since the beginning of his reign, which has been 25 years. His driving force has always been the idea of avenging the Cold War. I saw a KGB guy take over Russia and proudly say, "Once KGB, always KGB." Twenty years ago, he bluntly stated that the collapse of the USSR was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. That's where the plan was set. For Putin, Ukraine is a puppet of the US and Europe, a step towards restoring Greater Russia. As long as Putin has resources to continue, the war will persist. As long as he remains in power, there will be war. There could be a ceasefire, although the probability is very low. For Putin, the reason for the war is the existence of a sovereign Ukraine. Ukrainians are seen by him as a kind of Russians who speak a corrupted language and practice the wrong religion.
That's why the Ukrainian flag in Sebastopol is the only chance to end the war, which is fueled not only by Putin's madness but also by the widespread Russian idea that the Empire must remain great. As long as many Russians believe in the empire, the conflict will not end. That virus must be eradicated. The only way is through shock therapy. The best shock would be to see the Ukrainian flag in Sebastopol. Only then will they understand that Russia is in a very bad situation, and if it does not make peace with the West and recognize Ukraine, the alternative is to become a satellite of China. China benefits from it: the war weakens the West, divides Europe and the United States, and destroys Russia.
The White House now says it is considering arming Kiev with Tomahawk missiles. Is Trump changing his stance?
Trump does not change his nature, which means he can change his perspective all the time. Trump seems quite natural to me. He sympathizes with strong and authoritarian leaders but also wants to be on the winning side. He believed Zelenski was losing and Putin was winning, and the first meeting in the White House reflected that. Vance and others convinced him that Ukraine was losing, and he followed his instincts. By the end of the summer, Putin was not winning. The Ukrainians were pushing back. In Trump's mind, Putin is now losing. With Zelenski, the tone changed, and he started seeing him as a tough guy. Trump is very primal. His instincts tell him who is winning, and he aligns himself. I would not rule out that shift. Trump wants to end the war. I believe people around him are convincing him that the sooner Ukraine destroys Russian infrastructure, the more options he will have to claim that he ended it. Six months ago, he thought the way was for Zelenski to be defeated. Now he sees that his best option is to harm Putin.
Europe is under a hybrid war with Russia, especially after the serious drone incident in Poland. What should the response be?
Let's talk like chess players: we must objectively evaluate the situation. The biggest challenge in Europe is not designing a strategy but accepting that Europe is at war with Putin. Not because Europe wants it, but because Putin has declared it. Hybrid war is part of his war against Europe as an institution, which he sees as a threat. NATO is part of that Western bloc that threatens his imperial illusions. Europe keeps burying its head in the sand, pretending that a middle ground can be found. The chapter of the drones illustrates this well. Putin is testing Europe, and at some point, he will try something more dramatic. His goal is to destroy NATO as an institution. NATO is no longer functioning. It was conceived under the US umbrella. If it's not there, Europe has proven incapable of fulfilling its military duties. It's ironic. In 1949, NATO was created to defend free Europe from a possible Russian invasion. And in 75 years, NATO has never fought the war it was born for. Ukraine, denied access to NATO, is left to fight it. It's the war to stop a Russian invasion of free Europe. Europe needs to rethink its defense strategy. Right now, the EU is unable to face these challenges. Think about Spain: how do you convince people to spend 5%?
What would you say to convince the Spanish president? I would ask how to convince people to spend money to defend something that is more than 3,000 kilometers away. Spain is not under threat of invasion. No one expects an invasion from Algeria tomorrow. Therefore, defense mechanisms realistically can only be based on countries bordering Russia. This requires reorganizing many things. It's no longer just about how many weapons, missiles, or tanks you have, but if you are willing to die for it. NATO is no longer relevant. It needs to be rethought. What is the strongest army in Europe today? The Ukrainian army. The best way to protect Europe is to gather funds to strengthen Ukraine. It is the first line of defense, with Poland behind. If you don't want to send your sons and brothers to die, you have to build that dam.
Help Ukraine become a porcupine.
Exactly. And investment in that is necessary. It's better to pay Ukraine. The idea seems to be catching on, but when discussed in Copenhagen, you still hear about "other priorities." The same goes for frozen Russian funds. Macron talks about financial stability. How can you talk about financial stability in a war with Russia as the aggressor? Europe is steps behind Putin. And he has no way out. Russian society is entirely imbued with war. The economy is war. Everything is war. Even if one day he woke up wanting to get out, he can't. War is his only legacy. The way to stop it is to destroy the resources that allow him to continue. So far, determination from the West is not seen. Escalation is the nature of war. If it's not stopped, it spreads like cancer.
What concrete steps would demonstrate that Europe is serious?
First, shoot down the drones. Do something. Weakness provokes more aggression. Putin sees that the West is not ready to respond. For me, the best way is to send troops, not just volunteers, to Ukraine. There could be an International Legion. There are already people fighting. Acknowledge that you are at war and act accordingly. If Putin's armies are not destroyed in Ukraine, they will go elsewhere. I am convinced that the next step in escalation will be a small-scale provocation against a Baltic country before the end of the year. He will do it. He just needs to show that Article 5 does not work. His goal is to prove that NATO is dead, and the best way is to display its impotence. He will try it with a limited incursion. I'm not talking about a massive invasion or attacking Poland. He knows that would end very badly for him. But a limited incursion in Estonia or Latvia is another matter.
What is Putin's worst mistake? In your 2015 book Winter is Coming, you described the threat Putin posed to global stability. Many did not believe it, and now he is seen as a ruthless strategist.
Putin has been in power for 25 years. He is a dictator. His logic is to stay in power. As long as he remains in power, from his perspective, he is winning. We must analyze the situation from his perspective and not with the logic of a democrat. Did he make a mistake by attacking Ukraine? He made a bad estimation, typical of dictators: he underestimated the strength and will of free people, the Ukrainians. However, he evaluated well the reaction of the US and Europe: they did nothing. They wanted Zelenski to flee. If Putin had won in four days, what would have been negotiated? What would have been saved from Ukraine? The West was ready to surrender. In that, he was right: in the cowardice of Western leadership. But, like all dictators, he did not understand that free people fight.
In The Kyiv Independent, you said that "Russian imperialism always finds a way to emerge." Is Russia doomed to be a dictatorship?
Russia is the last empire of the 21st century. Some may say China, but Russia is the classic empire, the old terrestrial empire. It is doomed. There is no place for empires in the 21st century, and as long as it remains so, it has no future. The only way for Russia to have a future is to kill the imperial idea. It has to become a nation-state. I believe in a Russia that changes its nature. For the Russian psyche, looking at history, a major military defeat is the only way to convince society that the time for reforms has come. Every time Russia lost on the battlefield, there were revolutions and social change. Every time it won, the regime was strengthened.
In one of your podcasts on The Atlantic, you said that the similarities between what is happening today in the US and what you witnessed in Putin's Russia are terrifying. What signs should raise alarms?
The problem in the US, similar to Europe, is that many citizens believe that the Constitution can protect itself. The Constitution is a piece of paper. If you are not willing to defend it, to fight for it, and even to die for it, it does not work. A growing part of the public is beginning to see Trump as an existential threat to democracy. He openly talks about plans to undermine it, although many say he only speaks to his MAGA base. There is a real risk that the 2026 elections will be free but not fair, conditioned by the use of social networks concentrated in the hands of pro-Trump oligarchs. That concentration is increasing. Twitter is in Musk's hands. Google and Meta have given in on different aspects. TikTok, at the moment, is under control that favors Trump. This is added to hard-right media.
A global control of the media-digital ecosystem is being built. Technofascism is a real threat. I am Russian, I grew up in the USSR, and I saw democracy crumble under Putin. I prefer to be paranoid now than to regret it later. We must take him seriously and take his words seriously. His speeches may seem like a joke, but Trumpism is a phenomenon and the most serious threat that American democracy has faced.
In The Next Move, you wrote that "Democratic credibility dies in chaos."
The problem with the Democratic Party is internal. It has lost credibility by allowing the hegemony of far-left groups with an agenda alien to the majority. It needs to be regained. The way is to show that voters are being listened to. If diversity or the transgender agenda is maintained without measure... that is exactly what Trump needs. History shows that a push to one extreme provokes a reaction in the other. I call it the vicious circle of the Spanish Civil War on my social media: one day you wake up and your choice is between communists or Franco. You are trapped. That is what aspiring dictators want. And when the far right and the far left clash, the former usually wins because it connects better with the center. Not because it is good, but because it appeals to tradition. The far left tends to go too far. It is vital that the forces combating right-wing populism do not bear the burden of left-wing populism, which is the best fuel for hard-right to gain power.
Do you believe that a peace plan like Trump's could bring stability to the Middle East? What is your opinion of Benjamin Netanyahu?
I do not like that the fact that my father was Jewish [his original surname is Weinstein] is related to my opinion on Israel. I support the State of Israel because it is a democracy. Regarding Netanyahu, I think he is an obstacle. With all the criticism of Netanyahu, on the other side is Hamas, which is criminal. Netanyahu has his responsibility and will have to be held accountable. Once the war is over, his days are numbered.
It is paradoxical that many Arab countries want a way out while Europe pushes in another direction. There is currently no strong Palestinian actor willing to sincerely negotiate a two-state solution. The official position of Palestinian organizations has been that of a single Palestinian state, which in practice means expelling the Jews. Few people remember that the PLO was created by the KGB in 1964. From the beginning, the agenda was to eradicate the Jewish state. It is best to involve Arab states willing to form a coalition and seek a solution. For me, the conflict in Gaza is the biggest distraction from global challenges. Europe is not decided in Gaza. It is decided in Ukraine. The outcome of everything, from Taiwan to Venezuela, will be decided in Ukraine.
Your defeat against Deep Blue II was a warning of the superiority of supercomputing over humans. Is AI a risk to democracy?
There are things beyond our control. Progress cannot be stopped. People will continue to invent. Machines have made us stronger and faster, helped us live longer, and should make us smarter. We must accept that they are already part of our world. A realistic approach is needed. They should not be seen as a harbinger of utopia or dystopia. They are there, they are technology, and we must find ways to relate to them. ChatGPT and language models do not threaten our existence. In education, the system needs to be reformed. It is not about accumulating knowledge, that can be found. It is about understanding patterns and being creative.
When you defeated Karpov, many saw it as a triumph of individualism over collectivism. In the game for world order, who will win?
I still believe in the basics, in freedom. There may be periods where collectivism prevails, but they do not last. The power of individual ideas is always needed. It is a challenge because technology creates a world where the masses gain power, but it also allows a single person with creative ability to attack the State. Thinking that computers will completely suppress individuality does not make sense.
Nemtsov was assassinated 10 years ago. Navalny was poisoned and has died in prison. The Kremlin labeled you as a "terrorist" a year ago. Do you fear being next?
Is there any point in being afraid? I avoid countries where I could be in danger, so I limit my travels. It is about minimizing risk; it is a game of probabilities. Eliminating it is not possible. I am in a better position than Nemtsov or Navalny because I am outside of Russia. They died and fulfilled their duty. I am still here, fulfilling mine.