The Politician

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: "The Politician"

Podcast: Autocracy in America (The Atlantic)
Date: August 22, 2025
Host: Garry Kasparov
Guest: Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen, former Speaker of the Lithuanian Parliament and chess grandmaster

---

Episode Overview

This episode explores the lived realities and evolving strategies of Lithuania, a frontline democracy, facing renewed threats from Russia. Garry Kasparov speaks with Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen about authoritarian pressures in the region, EU-NATO dynamics, and why Lithuania has become both a bulwark for Ukraine and a refuge for Russian dissidents. Chess as a metaphor for politics weaves through their analysis of how democracies can resist hybrid warfare and recalibrate their alliances in a world where American leadership is no longer certain.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Chess and Politics: From Strategy to Survival

• Both Kasparov and Čmilytė-Nielsen share backgrounds as chess grandmasters turned politicians.
• Chess develops skills like focus, memory, and resilience—useful but not always directly transferrable to politics.
  • “Chess is a very honorable game... Politics is nothing but. The rules are constantly changing, the challenges are unknown, the situation is vague, and there are so many gray zones.”
    —Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen [04:24]
• Čmilytė-Nielsen credits her chess reputation for boosting credibility in political life.
  • “Having the reputation of a chess grandmaster helps... It makes your statements more credible, more solid.”
    —Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen [05:36]

Lithuania’s Post-Soviet Journey and Geopolitical Realities

• Lithuania’s independence and European identity run deep; its history of occupation and struggle shapes its foreign policy.
  • “Almost 2 million people held hands together in the Baltic way... showing that we strive to be independent nations.”
    —Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen [08:33]
• The threat from Russia remains pronounced, especially given Lithuania’s proximity to Belarus, now under Putin’s influence.
• NATO membership continues to be vital for the Baltic states’ security; non-members face heightened risk—e.g., Moldova, Georgia.
  • “No country where there is an unresolved so-called military conflict can join NATO. That’s the recipe Russia has been using.”
    —Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen [10:48]
• Russia’s overarching goal is to “dismantle NATO” and challenge the democratic West.

Hybrid Warfare and Defensive Responses

• Russia employs hybrid tactics: propaganda, disinformation, and weaponized migration.
  • “Hybrid is different. It’s operating in the gray zone, creating distrust in societies, creating a feeling of insecurity and planting narratives.”
    —Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen [13:31]
• In 2021, Belarus (under Lukashenko) orchestrated a migrant crisis at Lithuanian and Polish borders, interpreted as a Russian-backed destabilization effort.
• Lithuanian society is “quite good at recognizing” propaganda, in part due to its living historical memory of occupation and resilience.

European and Transatlantic Responses to Russia’s War in Ukraine

• Europe, in Čmilytė-Nielsen’s view, has not acted forcefully or swiftly enough in supporting Ukraine relative to its resources.
  • “Europe could without much difficulty outproduce Russia militarily... but because of different reasons, that does not happen.”
    —Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen [17:02]
• Recent positive shifts include Germany’s deployment of troops to Lithuania and strengthening NATO’s eastern flank.
• The U.S. is increasingly seen as unreliable; European nations must be prepared to “stand up very clearly” and lead on defense.
  • “If Europe does not act more forcefully, it will reinforce the view—first of all by Putin—that Europe is weak... and that invites aggression.”
    —Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen [18:06]

America’s Changing Role and European Self-Reliance

• Eastern Europe has historically viewed the U.S. as “a beacon of hope.”
• U.S. administrations tend to begin by seeking dialogue with Putin, only to become frustrated and realize “nothing has changed.”
  • “[American leaders] start off with trying to make friends with Putin... but towards the end, they decide that was not a good idea—a lot of precious time has been lost.”
    —Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen [22:16]
• There is growing frustration at American equivocation and the need to constantly justify obvious facts about Russian aggression.
  • “It’s frustrating... imagine how much more frustrating it is for Ukrainians.”
    —Garry Kasparov [24:19]
• The risk is real that the U.S. might eventually leave NATO; thus, Europe is preparing for greater defense independence.
• Lithuania and other Baltic nations have withdrawn from the global landmine ban, signaling seriousness about border defense.
  • “We will both produce and mine our borders... a very defensive step.”
    —Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen [27:44]
• Nuclear deterrence, once taboo, is now openly discussed as an option—e.g., the possibility of a “French nuclear umbrella” or Poland’s interest.

The Stakes of American Withdrawal

• A more inward-focused America increases global risk and instability.
  • “When America walks away, the world becomes a more dangerous place.”
    —Garry Kasparov [32:49]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Chess is a very honorable game... Politics is something that overall matters more, but it's much more tricky.”
  —Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen [04:19]
• “Baltic countries have been targets of propaganda war for years now. But with our historic memory, it's not easy to make us believe some of the narratives they try to plant.”
  —Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen [14:27]
• “Europe can and should do more. It is time for Europe to stand up very clearly as America takes a much more transactional role.”
  —Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen [18:41]
• “There's a war going on in Europe... Europe has to do its utmost to help Ukraine and prevent this war from expanding further in Europe.”
  —Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen [24:55]
• “For us in Lithuania, it is crucial to show we are good allies... We do our part, and maybe even do more than we are expected.”
  —Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen [30:12]
• “When America walks away, the world becomes more dangerous place.”
  —Garry Kasparov [32:49]
• “Propaganda is so clearly dumb sometimes—it is so clearly a very defensive step; you mine your border in order not to be attacked from that side.”
  —Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen [28:19]

---

Key Timestamps

• [03:03] Viktorija Čmilytė-Nielsen on transitioning from chess to politics
• [04:19] Comparing the clarity of chess with the unpredictability of politics
• [10:13] NATO’s security guarantee and potential consequences if not for EU/NATO membership
• [13:24] Explanation and examples of hybrid warfare, including the 2021 migrant crisis
• [17:00] Critique of Europe's slow and insufficient military response to Russian aggression
• [21:50] Evolution of U.S. attitudes towards Russia across recent presidencies
• [22:16] Pattern of American administrations losing time “making friends” with Putin
• [27:32] Decision by Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland to exit the Ottawa landmine convention and fortify borders
• [28:44] Discussion of nuclear deterrence in Eastern Europe
• [32:49] The present and future risks of U.S. retreat from world leadership

---

Tone & Language

• The episode is candid and pragmatic—with a tone that balances clear-eyed realism about threats with optimism about democratic resilience.
• Both host and guest are direct, often analytical, and occasionally wry.

---

Conclusion

This episode provides an intimate view of how Eastern European democracies, led by experienced figures like Čmilytė-Nielsen, interpret and adapt to growing authoritarian pressure. It highlights the urgent need for European agency, cautioning against complacency as American security guarantees become less reliable. Lithuania’s example is presented not just as regional history, but as a lesson for the wider democratic world on resilience, proactive self-defense, and the irreplaceable value of robust alliances.

---

Transcript

[A]

Mama. Papa.

[B]

Mi cuerpo crece a un ridmo alarmante.

[A]

Il arropa que me comprenora.

[B]

Me quedara muy pe quena muy pronto. Conos precious. Bajos de la vuelta Amazon Gasta menos son riemas.

[C]

Trip planner by Expedia. You were made to outdo your holiday, your hammocking and your pooling. We were made to help organize the competition. Expedia made to travel.

[B]

I have several things in common with my guests in this episode. Viktoria Chmiliti, Nielsen and I were both born into Soviet republics. We both became chess grandmasters, and we both left chess to enter politics. I think it is fair to say that while I reached greater heights in the chess world as a former speaker one of the Lithuania legislature, she definitely rose higher in the political world. Her home of Vilnius, Lithuania, has a special place in my heart. My first chess baptism by fire outside my home city, Baku, Azerbaijan, came at the All Union Youth Games in Vilnius in 1973. I was just 10. While most of my opponents were four or five years older, I did not perform well. But I did meet Alexander Sergeyev Shnikitsin, state trainer of the USSR Sports Committee, my future friend, mentor and reliable supporter in the most difficult periods of my chess career. From the Atlantic, this is Autocracy in America. I'm Garry Kasparov. Putting nostalgia aside, Lithuania has become a hot spot as one of the most ardent defenders of Ukraine against Russia's invasion. Lithiany also recognizes that should Ukraine fall, it is at the top of the list of targets for Putin's attempt to rebuild the Soviet Union in his image. But despite obvious threats, this Baltic country has offered refuge to many Russian political dissidents. All of this is why I wanted to speak with Victoria. She is part of a conversation now unfolding all across Europe about how to face newly aggressive authoritarian states as the United States reevaluates its role as the global leader of the free world. Hello, Victoria.

[A]

Hello, Gary.

[B]

It's a great pleasure to have you in our program. And I think it will be more than natural if we start with something that unites us, actually united us prior to the political issues that brings us now together. It's chess, the game of chess. So could you say a few words about your past from the game of chess into politics?

[A]

Yes, well, pleasure to be here. And, well, I'm a chess grandmaster, and that's actually something that I always say. Prior to all of my political titles, I started playing chess quite early. I became quite a successful female chess player. And was a European champion at some point. And well around the age of 30, I decided to turn into national politics in Lithuania. And from that point, about 10 years, I've been the parliament member in Samos and also holding different positions, but still for the bigger part of my life. I used to be a professional chess player. So that, of course, leaves a mark as well you, Gary, will very well know for their whole life.

[B]

I can't help but ask a question that I've been terrorized by for years, since I left professional chess. Does chess help you in your political life?

[A]

Oh, yes. My God, I know this question. Yes, yes. Well, I've been thinking about different ways to answer it. I think chess generally trains quite some of fantastic qualities. Your ability to focus, memory. I think it helps being a good winner and being a good loser, although not always. But, you know, when I try to compare politics and chess, I see nothing but differences. Chess is a very honorable game. It's a game where two people play at the chessboard according to the rules. They both know politics is nothing but. I mean, the rules are constantly changing, the challenges are unknown, the situation is vague, and there are so many gray zones. So if I have to choose one of the two areas, I will always say that chess is straightforward, nice, beautiful game. Politics is something that overall matters more, but it's much more tricky.

[B]

Yes, but you are very successful in politics as well. So you're not just a member of Lucian and Samos, the Lucianan Parliament. You were the speaker of the parliament for quite a while. And I'm sure, you know, you have still many more political heights to conquer in the future.

[A]

Yeah, that's true. I mean, my political career, it took off very quickly and I became the youngest ever speaker of Lithuanian Parliament. Well, a few years back in 2020, and my term finished not so long ago. But yeah, in politics, I think, you know, many things are about appearances in politics, as we all very well know. And having the reputation of a chess grandmaster helps, there is no doubt about that. Having the title, having the titles from the Chess Times is helpful. Think in making your words, your statements more credible, more. More solid, I would say. And that has certainly helped me in my career so far and hopefully will continue to help in the years to come.

[B]

Well, it's great to hear. That tells me that your voters have very high IQ if they can just recognize the value of chess judgment in your statements. So now, speaking about the voters, so just give a little bit of just a background of Lithuanian politics, because Lithuania was part of the Soviet Union occupied after Soviet Nazi pact back in 1939, 1940. And you were born still in the Soviet Union, but it became an independent country. And I remember it was the first one to declare independence from the Soviet Union. But just, you know, brief us about Lithuanian politics and how independent Lithuania managed in this 35 years of its modern history.

[A]

Yes, well, some major things you have mentioned. 35 years might seem like not a long time, but our country was also independent in the beginning of the 20th century. So we have, you know, we are successors to that independence. So we have a tradition of being independent. And before that we had a commonwealth with Poland for sort of centuries. So this European tradition, being part of European family of countries, this is something that comes very strongly in our tradition, in our culture. And you know, it's basically. Well, there is no debate about that. As I said, we were the first country to break away from the Soviet Union back in 1990, March 11. That was the time when, you know, it was in the air already. But still countries, Western countries were somewhat hesitant about encouraging the so called Soviet republics to break away because if. Well, of course you remember that time very well. Gorbachev was something of a darling of the west with his perestroika and other things. But our history is completely different. In 1989 we had an amazing event when almost 2 million people held hands together in the Baltic way, connecting Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia in a completely peaceful way, showing that, well, we are independent, well, we strive to be independent nations. But it was a difficult road. And in 1991, January 13th, we had tragic events around parliament, around the TV tower in Vilnius. When Russian troops, they were here, they were trying to capture the TV tower, trying to capture the parliament, and people were killed, many people were injured. So while on our side it was a huge unification of all the country. Of course, the empire did not want to let us go easily. And only in 1991, February, the first country, country to recognize our independence was Iceland. Then a bit later, Denmark followed suit. And then already we gained recognition from other countries all over the world. But now for 35 years we've been independent and we've been also a member of NATO and a member of the European Union for 21 years.

[B]

So if Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia would not be members of NATO today, do you think that Russian tanks will be already rolling on the streets of Vilnius?

[A]

Well, the risk of that would definitely be much bigger also. Well, I will remind or maybe inform the listeners that Vilnius is a capital that is only 30 km away from the border with Belarus. And for any kind of military purposes. Well, Belarus, Lukashenko's Belarus is unfortunately under the heel of Putin's Russia today and well, has been for a while now. So of course our geopolitical situation is, well, it is as it is, but it's not very auspicious for, you know, for feeling safe or relaxed, that's one thing. Secondly, of course there is no doubt if Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia would have stayed in this gray zone, like for instance, unfortunately, Moldova, Georgia state. Well, there is a recipe that Russia has been using and that recipe is that no country where there is an unresolved so called military conflict can join NATO. And that we've seen in Moldova, that we've seen with Transnistria, that we see also in Georgia, which has now unfortunately been also politically, well, you could say captured way or has at least turned from its European and Euro Atlantic aspirations. And I think what we are suffering from as Europe is that Putin in all likelihood wakes up every morning thinking about not just how do I defeat Ukraine, but how do I dismantle NATO, how do I defeat Europe? And our leaders, leaders on the democratic side are thinking, well, how do we avoid war? And that instead of leading to becoming more resilient, quite often leads to indecision, to concessions and to a lot of self imposed red lines. And we see that it's not leading us to be more safe. That is actually that has the opposite effect.

[B]

So let's also shift to just another element of this war. You said Putin wakes up every morning and he thinks about this global war because Putin's Russia is at war with the free world. This is for Putin, is not a potential World War iii, as for many Western politicians. But he's already fighting World War four because in his mind World War III was a cold war that Soviet Union has lost. And now he's trying to take revenge for this loss. And that, that's what he has been saying and his propaganda keeps saying. And one of the elements of this war, because he may not be feeling strong enough to challenge NATO directly. It's a hybrid war.

[A]

Yes, hybrid war. And that again, you're absolutely right. I mean, Putin does not feel, I don't know, reckless or whatever you may call it, enough to challenge NATO militarily. And that's, well, one more reinforcing point, how important it was that Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia became members of NATO on time. But hybrid is different. It's operating in the gray zone. It is creating distrust in societies, creating, well, a feeling of insecurity and planting narratives that later can be well, somehow useful in potential future aggressions. So in case of Lithuania, we have been on the receiving end of propaganda war for many years now. And we're also quite good at, well, at recognizing it. The thing is that with our historic memory, with the road to independence that is after all, still alive in the memory of most people, it's not easy to make us believe some of the narratives that they are trying to plant. But I think when it comes to hybrid warfare, well, one example, one fresh and quite effective example was the instrumentalization of migrants in 2021, summer, in the summer of 2021 by Lukashenko regime. What has happened is that people from different countries from, you know, Syria, from some countries from Africa were shipped to Belarus and in hundreds pushed through the border to Lithuania, to Poland, to Latvia, some at gunpoint. And the idea was to disrupt the situation enough because, well, you know, it could be hundreds, it could be thousands, it could be tens of thousands. And this was a very difficult challenge to deal with because we, well, in Lithuania, we have never experienced anything like that before. And when we look back at Hindsight, this was 2021. This feels like part or a stage of preparation for Russia's second invasion into Ukraine, for the full scale invasion destabilizing the region.

[B]

Victoria, you just already talked about the full scale invasion. So this is the faithful date, February 24, 2022, when Putin began this thesis, the massive invasion of Ukraine, having only one goal, to destroy Ukrainian statehood, which again, he was not even hiding, just behind some kind of diplomatic formulas. So today does Europe as an institution recognizes responsibilities towards Ukraine. And it's a growing sense that Europe keeps talking while not acting enough, still having some resources. So is European Union is acting adequately now since the beginning of the full scale invasion and 11 years after the beginning of the war with annexation of.

[A]

Crimea, it's not acting forcefully enough. And well, several things. Europe could without much difficulty out produce Russia militarily when we look at economic power, but because of different reasons, that does not happen yet. There is a lot of bureaucracy, it takes a long time and so on and so forth. But that in itself is unacceptable. That's one thing. Second, of course, Europe has changed massively from 2020 to February and it has done especially maybe well, you know, in the first year, somewhat more than was expected by some. But I really disagree with those who say that now with the American new administration, well, making the decisions that it is making, that the ball is in the court of Russia. I think the ball is firmly in the court of Europe. And if Europe does not act more forcefully when it comes to sanctions. When it comes to supporting Ukraine, it will again, it will reinforce this view, first of all by Putin, that Europe is weak, which it's not necessarily. But also this weakness isn't inviting for aggression. So yes, I think Europe can do more. I think Europe should do more. And it is a time for Europe to stand up very clearly as America takes a more, you know, you can call it transactionalist or extreme transactionalism. I think this is the term. Another term is isolationism. But anyway, a different role than we would traditionally expect from America. But I also have to add that being a Lithuanian, well, we can see very concrete things happening in Europe that would have been unthinkable just a few years back. For instance, recently the German brigade started, well, was basically inaugurated, started stationing its military here in Lithuania. It will be a 5000 soldier brigade with their FAQs families here. So things are happening and also reinforcing the NATO eastern flank. But when we speak about Ukraine, yes, Europe can and should do more.

[B]

World right back.

[C]

Mint is still $15 a month for premium wireless. And if you haven't made the switch yet, here are 15 reasons why you should. One, it's $15 a month.

[A]

Two.

[C]

Seriously, it's $15 a month. Three, no big contracts.

[A]

Four.

[C]

I use it. Five, my mom uses it. Are you playing me off? That's what's happening, right? Okay, give it a try. @mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for.

[A]

A three month plan. $15 per month equivalent. New customer offer first three months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra.

[C]

See mint mobile.com this episode is brought to you by LifeLock. Between two factor authentication, strong passwords and a VPN, you try to be in control of how your info is protected. But many other places also have it and they might not be as careful. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats. If your identity is stolen, then they'll fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast for 40% off. Terms apply.

[B]

You already talked about very high esteem for America and I think it's probably across the region, Eastern Europe, where people always looked at America as a beacon of hope, as the country that one day could help them to to throw away the yoke of Soviet occupation.

[A]

True.

[B]

So how do you evaluate American administrations when you became a member of Parliament. So Obama was there, then you had first Trump, then you Had Biden. Now you have Trump back. Let's just go quickly over this period and to see this as what America did, what America could have done, what America deliberately delayed or have not done, and what America is doing now.

[A]

Well, I think one major thing that has to be mentioned and stressed, America, for Lithuania is so much more than any given administration. It is, as you have said, it's a beacon of freedom, it's a beacon of democracy, and it is something that, well, we have so heavily relied, well, you know, idealistically, ideologically, during the most difficult times and for a good reason. So it cannot be reduced, I would say, to any one administration. But I think what is fair to say that many administrations, if not most, in the most recent history, start off with trying to make friends, usually with Putin because he's been around for so long. Right. But normally towards the end, they decide that, well, yeah, that was not a good idea, but a lot of. A lot of precious time has been lost. So there is this. Yeah, there is this somehow this pattern that's being repeated over and over again. And it is unfortunate because nothing has changed on the Russian side with Putin. It has just been consequently getting worse. What I find, well, today most frustrating is that suddenly we have to return back to saying absolutely obvious things like Russia is an aggressor. What it is committing in Ukraine are war crimes. They are attacking children's cancer hospitals on the eve of a NATO summit in Washington. Well, as an example, just one example, but there are so many. So this idea that you have to repeat very banal, very obvious things that are very obvious for anyone who's been even mildly interested in what has been happening in Ukraine, it is frustrating. Imagine if it's frustrating for us, how much more frustrating it should feel to Ukrainians. And when I talk to my Ukrainian colleagues, which I also do quite a lot, well, sometimes I am in awe of their. I don't know what it can be called.

[B]

Resilience. Yes, I think resilience.

[A]

Yeah. I don't know.

[B]

They understand that they have no other choice but to resist Russian aggression. But of course they are. I believe deep down they're depressed. But you have Europe and America, and it seems now that the transatlantic unity now is in great danger. So do you still have any hopes in NATO in its current form, or you believe that due to the very untraditional behavior of the current administration, so Europe will have to look for some other arrangements?

[A]

I think that NATO countries must, should and, well, are doing more to allocate more money, more resources, to their defense. But the situation as I see it is simple. There is a war going on in Europe and Europe has to do its utmost to help Ukraine and also prevent this war from expanding further in Europe, which there is risk of if Russia continues being unchecked. And well, what also is of course another very worrying track is that lack of, of punishment for Putin's regime. There cannot be peace if peace is unjust. If the war criminals are not called for being war criminals, but can immediately go back to the table with the world leaders, shake hands and do business, that's not a fundament for peaceful tomorrow. And I think it's not very, it's not wise to think that the world is so simple.

[B]

But as a politician, you know, you have to look at the reality, even if it's not a very happy picture and to deal with facts. And the facts are just telling us that American administration expressed more interest in taking care of the free speech rights of the far right groups rather than about the well being of Europe. And do you believe that at one point, under some circumstances in the future the United States can leave NATO?

[A]

It cannot be totally ruled out. But the main scenario right now, in my opinion is that US will leave more to Europe to deal with European problems, so to speak. And European countries have to step up in terms of their defense expenditure and rely on European NATO more than anything else.

[B]

Lithuania and other Eastern European countries, they're willing to walk an extra mile to boost their defenses. So recently your country and I think two other Baltic nations left the global agreement that banned landmines.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

So you are planning to mine your entire border.

[A]

That's right.

[B]

So that's quite a step. I think it's the right direction. But that shows that you recognize how real the threat is.

[A]

Absolutely. And it was not an easy decision from the, well, from the human rights perspective, but it was a quick decision. And it is connected to the fact that what we consider the danger real. So Latvia, Estonia, not just Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland are leaving the Ottava Convention we have left already. And that means that we will both we can produce landmines and also mine our borders. Interestingly enough, the Russian propaganda channels reacted to it quite strongly, saying that, well, this is a further sign of a planned aggression against Russia from the NATO side. So that gives you an idea of how sometimes dumb that propaganda is because it is so clearly a very defensive step. You mine your border in order not to be attacked from that side.

[B]

Okay, leaving Ottawa Convention is once there. But would your country and other Eastern European Countries and Germany, of course, consider at one point, you know, leaving non proliferation treaties and developing nukes and just making sure that these nuclear missiles will be aimed at Moscow from a short distance?

[A]

Well, it's a theoretical of course, discussion, but yes, in our region, while Poland is talking about nukes and well, there is the serious discussion about France's nuclear umbrella for the Baltic countries among the others as well. So we are thinking in the terms also of how to boost our security, our 360 degree security here in Europe, not necessarily relying on transatlant security.

[B]

Everything that we discussed just indicates that Europe now is looking, especially Eastern Europe and Central Europe looking for its own resources to boost its own defenses. Even as you just agreed, building its nukes or having nuclear weapons in the region. Is it the result of just America basically walking away and departing from its role of, of a great defender or the guardian of the free world?

[A]

Well, first of all, for us in Lithuania, it is crucial, it is very important to show that we are good allies in NATO, in the European Union, that when we say that we care about security and defense, we do not just want to free ride and rely on someone who is bigger and stronger than us, but we do our part and maybe even do more than we are expected. That has been the principle of how we operate from the, you know, for 35 years. And I think it's important. Second, when it comes to America, you know, it is a challenge to see that the values that have been, you know, figuratively speaking, shining so brightly for so many decades, perhaps changing colors to an extent, if I have to put it bluntly. It will also take longer for us to start seeing the United States in a different light. And we have a lot of good cooperation. But Europe has to step up. Europe has been for very long relying on that the peace dividend is forever. And that is not the case. We have learned some painful lessons. We in the eastern NATO flank are happy to drive the process further, be it on defense, you know, more money for defense, be it on supporting Ukraine as much as possible or developing defense industries as quickly as possible. All of these things are the very important. And all of this is done defensively in order to avoid a war. So we are peaceful people. We are an example that a country can live, can have a great standard, can have free speech, can have human rights in quite a short time. And I think that is the painful thing for Kremlin. They do not want to see successful countries from the former empire because it might lead their people to think that there is another way. There is another track for their country as well. And that is definitely very scary for the regime.

[B]

But we can summarize it saying that when America walks away, the world becomes more dangerous place.

[A]

Absolutely.

[B]

Victoria, thank you very much. And again, good luck.

[A]

Thank you, Gary, and looking forward to seeing you in Vilnius.

[B]

This episode of Photography in America was produced by Arlene Orevolo. Our editor is Dave Shaw. Original music and mix by Rob Smirciak. Fact checking by Ina Alvarado. Special thanks to Paulina Kasparo. And Claudia Nabe is executive producer of Atlantic Audio. Andre Valdes is our managing editor. Next time on Autocracy in America.

[A]

I know that some politicians abroad, they have this wishful thinking that the war is so horrible that okay, occupation is not good, but at least it will stop the war and decrease human suffering. But believe me, I document work crimes in occupied territories for 11 years. Occupation doesn't stop human suffering. Occupation just make human suffering invisible.

[B]

I'm Garry Kasparov. See you back here next week.