6 ms·

I admire his chess skills and standing up against Russia but it should be understood he is extremely pro-intervention. He wanted nuclear weapons employed by the

I admire his chess skills and standing up against Russia but it should be understood he is extremely pro-intervention. He wanted nuclear weapons employed by the west during the War On Terror. So on the topic of war I don’t consider him a careful or critical thinker

noasaservice 5y ago
Indeed. Its the same trope as artists, songwriters, and other popular people engage in. Just because you're good at X, does not mean you are good at Y. Kaspaarov's good at chess. Cool. That doesn't mean anything about war, military, and the like. He's no more informed than the average layperson.
- efdee 5y ago
  Kasparov has been involved in politics since the 1990s. Even more so since he retired as chess player in 2005. That doesn't automatically make him right, but I don't think it's fair to say he's no more informed than the average layperson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov#Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov#Politics
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > Kaspaarov's good at chess. Cool. he's better know for Russian political commentary these days, for the last decade or two. If you didn't know that, why say anything? https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/384172818063056896 https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/384172818063056896 (2013) https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/garry-kasparov/winter-is-coming/9781610396219/ https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/garry-kasparov/win... (2015) He is described here as "Russian human rights activist Garry Kasparov" https://twitter.com/ANCALERTS/status/1499587940250308610 https://twitter.com/ANCALERTS/status/1499587940250308610
  - yucky 5y ago
    Not OP, but I believe their point was there is a difference between being known for something and being good at it. He was known for being good at chess. Now that he is already known, he spends his time focusing on politics. That doesn't mean he is as good at that as he was at chess. At least that is how I read the comment. For instance, Curt Schilling was a great baseball player. That doesn't mean his understanding of politics is great, regardless of how vocal he is about it now that he is retired. Same concept.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      > That doesn't mean he is as good at that (politics) as he was at chess. No, that you have to judge on his track record. What do you think of it?
      - yucky 5y ago
        I think that was the point of the comment right? Kasparov is a bit of a hawk and very much against the current government in Russia on literally everything. Doesn't mean he's wrong, but it definitely speaks to a bias, which I believe was the point of the comment. Back to the Curt Schilling example, if he were to tweet 10 things he hates about Biden, whether or not they are legit criticism would be lost on the audience due to his known biases.
        SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        > Doesn't mean he's wrong, but it definitely speaks to a bias, So to be clear, of Mr Kasparov's track record, his 2015 book "Winter Is Coming", was basically proven correct about Mr Putin by recent events, but ... never mind the track record, bias or something?
        yucky 5y ago
        The book published after the CIA-financed Ukrainian coup of 2014? Easy to predict a response from Russia after a pro-western coup has taken place right? Doesn't make him a prophet. It's like predicting a US response in Afghanistan after 9/11..
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  Although I don't disagree with the general meaning of your comment - that experts on one area might often are not experts in another one - but in this case it's false; also, last time I checked, he was the chairman of the Human Rights Foundation. Also, it turns out he was right when he wrote Winter is Coming. Moreover, let's be honest: you wrote your comment just because you believed the parent that Kasparov wanted to use nuclear weapons. What he proposes is completely different, and several of these points have already been implemented, at least to some degree.
firstSpeaker 5y ago
Source for this?
pelario 5y ago
Do you have a link regarding these previous opinions you mentioned?
howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
Ukraine negotiated a bad deal in the 90's, giving up its own nuclear deterrent for vague, ineffectual security guarantees from the West. That said, Kasparov's perspective on what is referred to as "extended deterrence" is at risk. Also, spillover is on the menu: The SCMP reports: State Department counselor Derek Chollet warned Beijing - If China tries to help Russia evade sanctions in the wake of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, it will face countermeasures, a senior US State Department official said on Thursday, without providing details. State Department counsellor Derek Chollet said the allied nations that have joined in sanctioning Russia represent a combined 50 per cent of the global economy; China accounts for around 15 per cent. "China, if it were to seek to evade the sanctions, or somehow dividing the sanctions, they would be vulnerable," he said. "Any country that tries to evade these sanctions will also face the consequences of its actions. I don’t want to speculate with that would be."
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
yt-sdb 5y ago
I don't know if Kasparov is right, but I disagree that he is not a careful thinker. He has been thinking about and writing about the dangerous of Putinism for years. He published "Winter Is Coming" nearly 7 years ago now. He wrote then (p. 9): "Giving a dictator what he wants never stops him from wanting more; it convinces him you aren't strong enough to stop him from taking what he wants." You may disagree with his thinking, but it is certainly thought-through and consistent.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
waffleiron 5y ago
I couldn't find any explicit call for the use of nuclear weapons but I found the following he wrote on the War On Terror in 2002 [1]: > If the war on terror is to be won swiftly, Mr. Bush must not lose sight of the war's twin imperatives: a decisive counterattack and a total unwillingness to appease our enemies. > Baghdad remains the next stop but not the last. We must also have plans for Tehran and Damascus, not to mention Riyadh. The tactics will vary, but the goal -- total defeat of terrorism -- is clear. Once American ground troops are in Iraq, the message must go out to all terrorist sponsors that this game is up. > Those who instigated the current war must remember that Coventry and Pearl Harbor backfired on Dresden and Hiroshima. There will be no peace in Gaza, no freedom from fear in Jerusalem, until we have prosecuted the war on terror in Baghdad, Tehran, Damascus and elsewhere. U.S. leadership saved Europe from fascism and communism. It is again the last hope. With a funny quote: > In another striking resemblance to World War II, Russia could once again be America's valuable ally. Despite Vladimir Putin's record in Chechnya and on human rights, he is way ahead of "Uncle Joe" -- the hero of the Western liberal press from 1941-45. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1028501135694580560 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1028501135694580560
- fellellor 5y ago
  The greatest injustice in the world is the total lack of consequences for intellectuals who get it this wrong.
deepsun 5y ago
Source? His point is that price will always go up. If today nuclear is out of the question, in a year it may be.

noasaservice 5y ago

Indeed. Its the same trope as artists, songwriters, and other popular people engage in. Just because you're good at X, does not mean you are good at Y. Kaspaarov's good at chess. Cool. That doesn't mean anything about war, military, and the like. He's no more informed than the average layperson.

efdee 5y ago
Kasparov has been involved in politics since the 1990s. Even more so since he retired as chess player in 2005. That doesn't automatically make him right, but I don't think it's fair to say he's no more informed than the average layperson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov#Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov#Politics
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> Kaspaarov's good at chess. Cool. he's better know for Russian political commentary these days, for the last decade or two. If you didn't know that, why say anything? https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/384172818063056896 https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/384172818063056896 (2013) https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/garry-kasparov/winter-is-coming/9781610396219/ https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/garry-kasparov/win... (2015) He is described here as "Russian human rights activist Garry Kasparov" https://twitter.com/ANCALERTS/status/1499587940250308610 https://twitter.com/ANCALERTS/status/1499587940250308610
- yucky 5y ago
  Not OP, but I believe their point was there is a difference between being known for something and being good at it. He was known for being good at chess. Now that he is already known, he spends his time focusing on politics. That doesn't mean he is as good at that as he was at chess. At least that is how I read the comment. For instance, Curt Schilling was a great baseball player. That doesn't mean his understanding of politics is great, regardless of how vocal he is about it now that he is retired. Same concept.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > That doesn't mean he is as good at that (politics) as he was at chess. No, that you have to judge on his track record. What do you think of it?
    - yucky 5y ago
      I think that was the point of the comment right? Kasparov is a bit of a hawk and very much against the current government in Russia on literally everything. Doesn't mean he's wrong, but it definitely speaks to a bias, which I believe was the point of the comment. Back to the Curt Schilling example, if he were to tweet 10 things he hates about Biden, whether or not they are legit criticism would be lost on the audience due to his known biases.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        > Doesn't mean he's wrong, but it definitely speaks to a bias, So to be clear, of Mr Kasparov's track record, his 2015 book "Winter Is Coming", was basically proven correct about Mr Putin by recent events, but ... never mind the track record, bias or something?
        yucky 5y ago
        The book published after the CIA-financed Ukrainian coup of 2014? Easy to predict a response from Russia after a pro-western coup has taken place right? Doesn't make him a prophet. It's like predicting a US response in Afghanistan after 9/11..
hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
Although I don't disagree with the general meaning of your comment - that experts on one area might often are not experts in another one - but in this case it's false; also, last time I checked, he was the chairman of the Human Rights Foundation. Also, it turns out he was right when he wrote Winter is Coming. Moreover, let's be honest: you wrote your comment just because you believed the parent that Kasparov wanted to use nuclear weapons. What he proposes is completely different, and several of these points have already been implemented, at least to some degree.

firstSpeaker 5y ago

Source for this?

pelario 5y ago

Do you have a link regarding these previous opinions you mentioned?

howmayiannoyyou 5y ago

Ukraine negotiated a bad deal in the 90's, giving up its own nuclear deterrent for vague, ineffectual security guarantees from the West. That said, Kasparov's perspective on what is referred to as "extended deterrence" is at risk. Also, spillover is on the menu: The SCMP reports: State Department counselor Derek Chollet warned Beijing - If China tries to help Russia evade sanctions in the wake of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, it will face countermeasures, a senior US State Department official said on Thursday, without providing details. State Department counsellor Derek Chollet said the allied nations that have joined in sanctioning Russia represent a combined 50 per cent of the global economy; China accounts for around 15 per cent. "China, if it were to seek to evade the sanctions, or somehow dividing the sanctions, they would be vulnerable," he said. "Any country that tries to evade these sanctions will also face the consequences of its actions. I don’t want to speculate with that would be."

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

yt-sdb 5y ago

I don't know if Kasparov is right, but I disagree that he is not a careful thinker. He has been thinking about and writing about the dangerous of Putinism for years. He published "Winter Is Coming" nearly 7 years ago now. He wrote then (p. 9): "Giving a dictator what he wants never stops him from wanting more; it convinces him you aren't strong enough to stop him from taking what he wants." You may disagree with his thinking, but it is certainly thought-through and consistent.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

waffleiron 5y ago

I couldn't find any explicit call for the use of nuclear weapons but I found the following he wrote on the War On Terror in 2002 [1]: > If the war on terror is to be won swiftly, Mr. Bush must not lose sight of the war's twin imperatives: a decisive counterattack and a total unwillingness to appease our enemies. > Baghdad remains the next stop but not the last. We must also have plans for Tehran and Damascus, not to mention Riyadh. The tactics will vary, but the goal -- total defeat of terrorism -- is clear. Once American ground troops are in Iraq, the message must go out to all terrorist sponsors that this game is up. > Those who instigated the current war must remember that Coventry and Pearl Harbor backfired on Dresden and Hiroshima. There will be no peace in Gaza, no freedom from fear in Jerusalem, until we have prosecuted the war on terror in Baghdad, Tehran, Damascus and elsewhere. U.S. leadership saved Europe from fascism and communism. It is again the last hope. With a funny quote: > In another striking resemblance to World War II, Russia could once again be America's valuable ally. Despite Vladimir Putin's record in Chechnya and on human rights, he is way ahead of "Uncle Joe" -- the hero of the Western liberal press from 1941-45. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1028501135694580560 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1028501135694580560

fellellor 5y ago
The greatest injustice in the world is the total lack of consequences for intellectuals who get it this wrong.

deepsun 5y ago

Source? His point is that price will always go up. If today nuclear is out of the question, in a year it may be.