WASHINGTON (Independence Avenue Media) — President Donald Trump’s recently accelerated deadline for Russian efforts to make peace in Ukraine, at the risk of facing the most severe sanctions on oil exports to date, caught many by surprise.
“There’s no reason in waiting,” Trump said while standing alongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Monday. “I want to be generous, but we just don’t see any progress being made.”
Dramatically reducing the timeline from 50 days — announced on July 14 — to roughly a fortnight prompted skepticism among some observers. Former intelligence and defense chief Leon Panetta isn’t so sure. He sees an administration adapting to the inexorable realities of Kremlin engagement.
“I think Trump honestly thought that if he could talk with Putin, if he could work with Putin, that he could ultimately convince him to do the right thing, and he wanted to test that approach,” he recently told Independence Avenue Media. “I think he now knows the bottom line is that you cannot trust Putin.”
Drawing on his experience as head of the CIA and Pentagon, Panetta said the U.S. intelligence community has long understood that “if Putin senses weakness, he will take advantage of it. That’s his history. That’s what he does.”
“That he understands only force, not talk,” he said, describing it as a perspective increasingly shared by many on Capitol Hill.
And it’s not limited to Russia’s war in Ukraine.
“Whatever message we send to Putin is the same message we have to send to [President] Xi [Jinping] in China,” he said, emphasizing the necessity of a united U.S.-NATO front in dealing with autocracies, whether Russia, China, or North Korea.
“I think Trump now understands that the world is not the way we would like it to be, the world is what it is,” he said.
And lessons of history, he suggests, demands U.S. engagement with it.
The following interview was conducted by Kartlos Sharashenidze on July 25, 2025, and has been edited for length and clarity.
Independence Avenue Media’s Kartlos Sharashenidze: Secretary Panetta, let’s start with the 50-day deadline President Trump gave Russia to agree to a ceasefire. What are your expectations for day fifty-one if Russia fails to meet this deadline?
Former CIA director and defense chief Leon Panetta: Having worked as director of the CIA and then as secretary of defense, the primary approach I took to Putin and Russia was to never trust Putin on anything and I believe that’s the case today. I think the president ought to be very careful about trusting Putin on anything he says.
I think that the best course of action right now in Ukraine is to provide the weapons that the Ukrainians need in order to effectively defend themselves, and to make clear to Putin that he cannot succeed in Ukraine. That should be the most important message we can send Putin — you will not succeed, and we will do everything we can to make sure that you will not succeed. That’s the message he needs to hear if we’re ever going to be able to find a way to negotiate some kind of peaceful solution to Ukraine. It has to be done by a position of strength against Putin — not weakness, but strength.
Sharashenidze: Do you believe the current administration is sending that kind of clear, forceful message to Putin — or do you expect to see a stronger stance going forward?
Panetta: Well, I’ve been pleased by the fact that, although it’s taken a while, the president understands that he cannot trust Putin’s word. [President Trump] was pushing for a ceasefire. Zelensky agreed to the ceasefire. Putin refused to accept a ceasefire. He kept stalling. He kept talking. But he never was willing to accept a ceasefire, because Putin basically thinks that he should be able to do whatever he wants in order to succeed in Ukraine. So, I think the president now understands that Putin is not somebody you can trust. That if you’re going to deal with Putin, the only thing he understands is action, not words. President [Trump needs] to proceed with providing weapons that Ukraine needs, particularly Patriot missiles, in order to defend their country. And secondly, we [need to] continue to put pressure on Putin to recognize that he has no other choice but to eventually sit down and try to negotiate some kind of ceasefire in Ukraine.
It’s going to take both. It’s going to take pushing on the diplomatic side but also showing that we are going to do everything we can to try to support Ukraine in this war.
Sharashenidze: President Trump’s plan also includes supplying weapons to Ukraine — but with the cost primarily covered by NATO and EU member states. How do you view this idea of shared responsibility? How realistic is it in terms of meeting Ukraine’s immediate needs?
Panetta: I think from Ukraine’s perspective, any way they can get the weapons they need, they ought to be willing to try to work with it. This approach works. NATO is more unified than ever. NATO understands that it must remain a strong alliance, not only to confront Putin, but to confront other threats in Europe. I believe that the current approach of working with NATO, which is allowing them to receive the weapons [from the U.S.] and then provide them to Ukraine — works. We ought to put in place anything that works, and at the same time, the president ought to continue to pressure Russia with economic sanctions. The Senate has been willing to pass a strong sanctions bill. Trump has talked about that. But I think that the time has come for sanctions to be put in place in order to double the pressure on Putin.
Sharashenidze: How quickly can the U.S. and its NATO allies deliver weapons to Ukraine, especially when coordination is required between multiple countries? Is there a faster, more direct method for getting these systems into Ukrainian hands?
Panetta: I think it’s happening as we speak. Patriot missiles have been provided to our NATO allies, and the president has said we will send more to them. It always takes time — sometimes too much time. But the fact that they’re now getting those weapons systems, the fact that they’re able to put them in place [is positive]. The more we can continue to expand providing those weapons systems to Ukraine, the better position we will be in to get Putin to understand very clearly that under no circumstances are we going to allow him to succeed. That’s the message he needs to hear loud and clear.
Sharashenidze: You mentioned that as CIA director your approach to Putin was to never trust him. Based on that experience, how well do you think the U.S. and the West understand Putin’s mindset and strategy after more than two decades in power?
Panetta: The intelligence community has understood Putin for a long time. I can remember, when I was director and I was in discussions with my Russian counterpart about trying to see if there were ways we could work together on issues, and many at the CIA said “don’t waste your time,” because they simply did not trust the Russians. The intelligence community understands who they’re dealing with. I think Trump honestly thought that if he could talk with Putin, if he could work with Putin, that he could ultimately convince him to do the right thing, and he wanted to test that approach. I think he now knows the bottom line is that you cannot trust Putin. That he understands only force, not talk. I feel much more confident about policymakers in Washington now understanding that if you want to deal with Putin, you better deal with him from strength. Because if Putin senses weakness, he will take advantage of it. That’s his history. That’s what he does. The result is that we have to be very strong at this moment in time.
Sharashenidze: As a former secretary of defense, what do you think a realistic and sustainable security setup for Ukraine should look like after the war ends? What kind of guarantees will be necessary to prevent future Russian aggression?
Panetta: I think we have to send a very clear message. Both Zelensky and Putin ultimately have to negotiate an approach here if they’re ever going to get a ceasefire in Ukraine. But I think it ought to be made very clear to Putin that if there is some kind of ceasefire or resolution to the war, that the United States along with our NATO allies will continue to support the security of Ukraine, and that, even though there may be a ceasefire, if Russia tries to do the same thing in the future, they will again be met by force.
Sharashenidze: Let me shift to China’s role. Given its strong relationship with Moscow during Russia’s war against Ukraine, what steps should the U.S. take to limit China’s support for Russia? Do you see President Trump’s current administration taking a different approach to China in contrast to his first term?
Panetta: We’ll have to see how it plays out. But I think that it should be clear to the White House that whatever message we send to Putin is the same message we have to send to [President] Xi [Jinping] in China, which basically means that if Xi tries to invade and take over Taiwan, the United States will respond along with our allies to support Taiwan. That’s the message that Xi needs to hear.
Look, these are autocracies, both China and Russia — and North Korea, for that matter. They have been trying to work together. North Korea has been providing troops to Russia [to fight in Ukraine]. China has been trying to help Russia militarily and economically. So, we understand that we are dealing with autocracies here who are trying to work together. I think the message to autocracies like China and Russia and North Korea is that the United States will work together with our allies to confront any threat from those countries. That’s why it’s important that we have a strong NATO. That’s why we need to work with our Pacific allies such as South Korea, Japan, Australia, India, others, to make very clear to China that they are not just going to be met by the United States, they’re going to be met by the United States and our allies to prevent them from any kind of aggression in that part of the world.
Sharashenidze: Let me move to another region — the South Caucasus. Considering Russia’s war in Ukraine, Moscow’s influence seems to be weakening in parts of the region. What do you see Washington’s policy toward the South Caucasus should be? And why is this region important for the United States?
Panetta: I think Russia has hurt itself badly as a result of getting into this war. Putin thought initially he could invade Ukraine and within a few days Ukraine would collapse. That didn’t happen. And frankly, it was a surprise to a lot of intelligence officials because they thought that Putin and the Russian army would be strong enough to be able to do that. The didn’t happen. Russia has paid a price. They’ve lost a lot of Russian soldiers in this war. They’ve paid a price in terms of their economy. They’ve paid a price in terms of their strength. And as a consequence of that, I think Russia is weaker today than it was on the day it started this war against Ukraine. Having said that — again, I don’t think we can ever underestimate Putin and what he’ll try to do. We didn’t think he was going to invade Ukraine. He did. We didn’t think he was going to take Crimea. He did. We cannot afford to underestimate him. The countries of NATO, the countries of Europe have to always be vigilant about making sure that they’re doing everything necessary to provide a strong defense against any kind of Russian aggression. Period.
Sharashenidze: One last question. Many in Washington describe the administration’s foreign policy as more transactional than strategic. Do you share that view? And what impact does this approach have on U.S. national security interests?
Panetta: I think that happens every time we change administrations in this country. New administrations come in and they have to look at the world. They have to look at policies and decide what their position is going to be. Trump has gone through that. I think Trump initially thought that somehow the United States could withdraw from the rest of the world, that we could withdraw from our alliances. We could just take care of our own country. But what he found out is that that’s not the case. You can’t do that. The United States cannot just simply withdraw from the world. We saw that in the Middle East. The United States initially did not want to get involved in a war in the Middle East. But because of what Iran did, because of what it was threatening to do, because of the fact that it was trying to become a nuclear power, it was clear the United States would have to take action. And we did. We acted. I think Trump now understands that the world is not the way we would like it to be, the world is what it is. We have to understand the world we live in. It’s a dangerous world. It’s dangerous because of Russia. It’s dangerous because of China. It’s dangerous because of North Korea, Iran. It’s dangerous because of terrorists.
Because we live in a dangerous world, the United States is going to have to lead the world. We’re going to have to work with our allies. We are going to have to be strong in order to make sure that we protect our values and our beliefs, rather than those that would try to destroy democracies in the future.
Sharashenidze: Thank you so much, Secretary Panetta. It was a great honor to have you with us today.
Panetta: It’s good to be with you. Take care.
