If you are looking for someone with experience in US foreign policy, it would be hard to find anyone more qualified than Leon Panetta, who has served as both US secretary of defense and CIA director, among other positions.

A former US Army intelligence officer, as a young man Mr. Panetta worked under a number of administrations, as well as for several years as a lawyer in private practice. In 1977, he became a US congressman, representing what was then California’s 16th district. He served until 1993 in that capacity.

In 1994, he became chief of staff to then-President Bill Clinton, remaining in that position until 1997.

Panetta and his wife subsequently headed a public policy institute at California State University, Monterey Bay, for ten years. In 2006, Panetta was chosen to be a member of the Iraq Study Group, established by Congress to examine the course of the Iraq War.

In 2009, Panetta was nominated by then-President Barack Obama to serve as the CIA director. In 2011, Obama nominated him as US secretary of defense, a position he served in until 2013.

After leaving public office, Panetta returned to head the public policy institute at CSU, and he has played other public roles in various institutions as well as in the Democratic Party.

Mr. Secretary, I’ve been following your career as a public servant for many years, and it’s a pleasure and an honor to speak with you.

It’s good to talk with you. Are you located in Israel?

No. I’m located in Brooklyn, New York.

So you’re talking to me from the Italian section of Brooklyn (laughs).

Almost. It’s a stone’s throw away. We grew up with a lot of Italian families around us.

Well, we have a few Brooklyn products out here in Monterey.

Did you ever spend time in Brooklyn?

I sure did. I was executive assistant to the mayor of New York, John Lindsay.

If I may say so, you’ve had an exceptionally colorful political career.

It was quite a ride.

You are the best person to address all of the issues on the world stage right now, first and foremost Ukraine. I know you’ve been commenting on the war ever since it began. At this point in time, when there are discussions of a spring offensive and sending more ammunition, what’s your assessment of the current state of affairs?

I think we have reached a very pivotal time with regard to Ukraine. The issue is whether the war stalemates into a prolonged one that will impact the ability to achieve an end, or we are able to see Ukraine commence an effective offensive against the Russians. Obviously, if the Ukrainians can push the Russians out of the Donbas area, I believe that that is the best way to force Putin to decide to either withdraw from Ukraine or negotiate.

There may be a third option for him: going nuclear. Is that something you fear?

He’s been threatening to go nuclear for a long time, but due to the combination of China urging him not to plus the consequences that would result if he did, I don’t believe it’s an option he’ll resort to.

I know you’ve referred to Putin as a “tyrant,” and there’s probably no better description than that, as he has already proven himself to be one. You mentioned the option of negotiation. I don’t want to use the dirty word “appeasement,” but perhaps it’s time to put some pressure on Ukraine to make serious concessions, because losing is really not an option for a tyrant.

There is no question that Ukraine understands that there is no option available to them other than to press a strong offensive against the Russians. The only thing Putin understands is force, and the result is that you have to make clear to him that there is no way he can succeed in this war of aggression. I think that the United States and our allies have to remain strongly unified and provide the weapons that Ukraine needs to be able to conduct an effective offensive. This includes air-defense systems, artillery systems, missile systems—and yes, even fighter planes if necessary—in order to make sure that Ukraine is successful. The main objective right now is to put maximum pressure on Russian forces in Ukraine and push them out of the areas they have been able to occupy. If Ukraine is successful and the Russians collapse, it puts a tremendous amount of pressure on Putin to decide whether or not to withdraw and call it a day.

You don’t seem to be concerned about him feeling desperate.

There’s no question that cornering a tyrant is like cornering a tiger, and you’re not quite sure how he’s going to strike out. I understand that. But I don’t think we have an option at this point to do anything other than continue the effort to make sure that Russia doesn’t succeed. We have to do this not only for the sake of democracy in Ukraine, but for all democracies in the 21st century. Furthermore, the message we send to Putin has to be the same one that we send to Xi in China, to Kim Jong-un in North Korea, and to the Supreme Leader in Iran.

You and others have compared the urgency of this war to World War II, yet back then America was ready to put boots on the ground and be part of the military effort. Right now the US is very reluctant to do that, and I don’t think that you would advise that type of intervention anyway.

At this stage, it’s clear that Ukraine and the courageous fighters under President Zelensky are putting up a great fight. Our primary role should be to provide whatever help they need in order to continue. That should be our fundamental goal: giving them whatever they need to stop Putin.

The US and the West have a great fear of the Russian Bear. What do you think the world will look like if Putin is stopped? Will it mean a new world order, at least to a certain extent?

 

To read more, subscribe to Ami

subscribebuttonsubscribeEMAGbig