On October 26, 2026, on the eve of the Knesset elections, former world chess champion, Russian opposition figure, and human rights activist Garry Kasparov gave a resonant interview to Ksenia Svetlova for the Israeli publication “The Times of Israel”. He warned about Russian influence on Israeli politics, criticized the current Israeli government’s stance on Ukraine, and explained why Kyiv’s victory is in the security interests of the Jewish state.
Author: Lev Varshavsky
Kasparov’s main idea goes far beyond the pre-election discussion: Israel and Ukraine face interconnected threats, and the attempt to maintain political distance between these conflicts benefits the Kremlin above all.
Russia, Iran, Hamas: two wars and the common interests of adversaries
Kasparov views the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East as two fronts of a broader confrontation between authoritarian regimes and the democratic world.
In his worldview, Russia, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah form an interconnected system of threats. He names China as another influential participant in this confrontation, acting behind the scenes.
Kasparov pays special attention to the cooperation between Moscow and Tehran. In his assessment, Russian-Iranian military ties allow the experience of one war to be used in another. Technologies, tactics of using drones, missiles, and air defense become part of a shared military experience.
Here it is necessary to separate confirmed cooperation between Russia and Iran from Kasparov’s broader claims. His characterization of Iran as a state completely dependent on Moscow is a political assessment, not an established fact.
Nevertheless, the interconnection of threats has long ceased to be an abstraction.
NANews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency
Why Ukraine’s victory is necessary for Israel
To Svetlova’s direct question about why Israel should support Ukraine, Kasparov responds through the interests of the Jewish state itself.
He is convinced that the military and geopolitical defeat of Russia can change the Russian political system, weaken its cooperation with Iran, and in the long run, reduce pressure on Israel.
According to this logic, helping Ukraine is not charity and not a service to Kyiv. It is an investment in its own security.
Previously, NANews wrote about a meeting of Ukrainian representatives with Israeli analytical centers, where Russian aggression, the Iranian threat, and opportunities for bilateral security cooperation were discussed.
However, the weakening of Moscow itself does not guarantee the cessation of Iranian support for terrorist organizations. Such a result remains Kasparov’s forecast, not a proven consequence of a possible Ukrainian victory.
Russian propaganda and Israeli politics
One of the most acute parts of the interview is devoted to the Kremlin’s attempts to influence democratic states.
According to Kasparov, Putin does not need to achieve the victory of any ideology. It is enough for him to intensify social polarization, distrust of government institutions, and conflicts within Western societies.
Israel, the opposition figure believes, is no exception.
Kasparov suggests that the Russian propaganda system is interested in maintaining Israel’s current political course, as an uncertain position on the war against Ukraine allows Moscow to avoid additional diplomatic pressure.
He also claims that Kremlin information resources are trying to influence the Russian-speaking audience in Israel.
But here accuracy is crucial: the interview does not present specific evidence of an organized Russian operation in support of the current Israeli government in the 2026 elections. This is Kasparov’s political assessment, requiring separate verification.
Anti-Semitism as a tool of destabilization
Kasparov separately talks about anti-Semitism in Europe.
In his opinion, the Kremlin uses existing social contradictions, including anti-Israeli sentiments, to deepen the crisis between Israel and Western democracies.
He sees such tactics as part of a broader Russian policy of destabilizing Europe.
But it is not possible to automatically attribute every manifestation of anti-Semitism or every anti-Israeli action to Moscow. These phenomena have their own historical, ideological, and social reasons. Possible Russian interference needs to be established separately.
Israel must decide on a strategy
Kasparov openly advocates for political changes in Israel. He believes the country needs a more consistent foreign policy based on cooperation with democratic states and support for Ukraine.
At the same time, Israeli caution has its own reasons, including regional security and the need to consider Russia’s presence in the Middle East. These circumstances cannot simply be erased from the discussion.
But the question remains, which becomes especially relevant after Kasparov’s interview.
Can Israel effectively counter Iran while maintaining political distance from Ukraine, which is at war with one of Tehran’s key partners?
Kasparov answers negatively.
It is here that his interview turns from a commentary on the Israeli elections into a discussion about long-term national interests.
For Israel, it is not important whether it likes Garry Kasparov or shares his political views. What matters is how cooperation with Ukraine can enhance the country’s security and limit the capabilities of those who threaten its citizens.