Thank you, Mr. Dannenberg, for the opportunity to work with you. I would like to begin with a global question. How do you see what is happening in the world today? Yes, it may sound abstract and somewhat vague, but we are witnessing the end of the old world order and the emergence of new relationships. This is more a question for your political and geopolitical intuition.Thank you for having me on your program. Anything I can do to assist or help in the great fight that the Ukrainian people are engaged in right now, I’m happy to do. You’re absolutely correct, we’re facing a rapidly evolving geopolitical situation on the planet, both in terms of what Russian President Vladimir Putin has embarked upon, first with the annexation of Crimea and secondly with the full-scale invasion he has launched against Ukraine.This is an extraordinary event in the 21st century by any measure. Many of us believed that after the end of the Second World War, we would not see a major land war in Europe again in our lifetimes, certainly not in the foreseeable future or in the 21st century. Yet here we are, with the president of a nuclear power engaging in a war of aggression against a neighboring country.At the same time, looking more at the situation from a domestic perspective, we have an extraordinary president in the United States who holds a very different vision of America’s role in the world. It is quite different from what our allies and friends around the world have come to expect from the United States over the past two hundred years.We have a dynamic situation: a very transactionally oriented president dealing with a world increasingly divided along the lines of free states and capitalist democracies on one side, and autocracies with state-directed economies on the other.I can’t help but ask about President Donald Trump’s recent meeting with America’s top generals and admirals.He reiterated a familiar phrase several times, “Peace through strength.” We understand this as a reference to the possible use of force to deter creeping aggression, for instance from China, and perhaps also to the need to restrain the Russian Federation by strength if necessary.At the same time, there seem to be many unusual developments in U.S. politics. From Ukraine, it’s difficult to judge whether things are moving in a positive direction or, on the contrary, becoming more concerning.So I’d like to ask you: what exactly happened? What was the purpose of this meeting? President Trump, surrounded by senior American generals and admirals, sent some very serious messages. What was the real meaning and intention behind it?In my view, this meeting was mostly aimed at addressing what the president sees as a trend within the U.S. military, a lack of focus on warfighting and combat readiness. He believes that under the Biden administration, the military has become too focused on social issues. The intention was to steer it away from what they describe as being “too woke,” a term often used by the Secretary of Defense and the President.In any case, here in Ukraine we hope that the United States will once again seek to restore its role as a global leader — in the best sense of the word. The world today needs a force capable of balancing and regulating countless processes, as it is gradually, in some places, sliding into chaos. We’re talking about Russia, of course, but also about shifts in the behavior of China’s leadership. The world has grown tougher, more unpredictable — it’s changing right before our eyes.At the same time, we’ve all grown used to the idea that the CIA knows everything, about everyone, and keeps things under control.But from your perspective, do you think it’s still possible to stop this global entropy through the use of strength?It’s a great question, and I agree with your characterization of the evolving situation in the world. I think the current president of the United States is beginning to recognize the nature of the real opposition we face. There is a very close relationship between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. They have met more than fifty times, are ideologically aligned, and are increasingly working together to expand their countries’ spheres of influence and pursue their long-held ambitions.In Putin’s case, that means rebuilding some form of the Russian Empire. For President Xi, it is the reunification of Taiwan with the mainland. The President of the United States is, I believe, beginning to grasp the seriousness of the threat before us.You mentioned in your last question that the president has recalled generals and admirals from across the globe to emphasize that the principal responsibility of the Department of Defense is to prepare to defend the United States and conduct combat operations, rather than focusing on social issues or domestic ideological trends.The question in my mind is whether the president has the ability or the willingness to use America’s economic and military power effectively to deter the alliance led by Putin from engaging in further aggressive actions.When it comes to Russia and its overall power, I’d like to ask specifically about the capabilities of its intelligence services — the Main Directorate of the General Staff and the Federal Security Service. How would you assess them?Have they managed to significantly enhance their intelligence and sabotage operations, particularly in Europe, or in their activities in the United States and Canada? In your view, how effectively is Russia using cyberspace, gaining access to restricted databases, and operating in that domain overall?There’s a common perception that cyberwarfare and counterterrorism look the way they do in American TV series. But in reality, things are far more complex. So how would you describe Russia’s current level of capability?Well, I think that’s a great point.Since the beginning of this phase of Russian aggression against Ukraine, we’ve had the opportunity to learn a great deal about the capabilities of the Russian military and intelligence services, as well as the willingness of the Russian president to conduct operations through his special services targeting Western Europe, and to use cyber tools against the United States and Canada.To be fair, the performance of the Russian military so far in the invasion of Ukraine has been quite poor. Any success the Russians have achieved, in my view, is largely due to their willingness to lose significant numbers of soldiers and large amounts of equipment in order to capture very small pieces of Ukrainian territory. The tactics and equipment we’ve seen, especially during the first couple of years of the war, have been substandard.As for your question about the FSB, I would say that the assessment the FSB made of Ukraine’s ability to resist a Russian invasion — and which was then passed on to Vladimir Putin — has proven to be largely inaccurate.I think the activities of Russian special services and intelligence forces in Western Europe, the United States, and Canada have so far been largely ineffective in deterring the United States and its Western allies from continuing to support Ukraine. But the Russians have learned.If you look at how Russian forces have evolved their drone capabilities and their ability to use signals intelligence to confuse and conceal the scale of their attacks on Ukraine, it is clear they have adapted.However, the general assessment among my former colleagues in the CIA and within the U.S. government is that Russia’s overall performance, both in the field of intelligence and in conventional military operations, has been surprisingly poor in what we’ve observed so far in the war.I would also like to thank the Central Intelligence Agency and the United States for providing Ukraine and our fighters with vital intelligence. I can’t speak to the volume of that assistance, but the military reports it, and such information can prove decisive during operations.Mr. Dannenberg, I’d like to ask about another issue. Today we need to employ new and unconventional methods to counter acts of terror. In the past, the Middle East saw the use of so-called “torpedo” operatives, classic hired hands.Now we are seeing special operations that exploit drug addicts, marginalized individuals, and people willing to carry out tasks for small sums of money, for example, $50, often controlled remotely. This poses a very serious threat that will affect not only Ukraine but European countries as well.There are ongoing efforts to address this danger, but important questions remain about what must change and which measures will effectively neutralize it.Of course, I agree with your assessment of the Russian president’s willingness to use non-traditional means to undermine morale and weaken support for Ukraine in Western Europe, the United States, Canada, and elsewhere.This brings us back to the point I made earlier about deterrence. I think the traditional model of deterrence that we lived through in the twentieth century, the balance between two strong nuclear powers, is no longer effective. There needs to be a new paradigm for what deterrence looks like today.If we want to stop Russia from using the kinds of special operations tactics you described, or from continuing its aggressive behavior toward neighboring states, the United States and the West must engage with the Russian president in a way that is effective for dealing with someone of Putin’s mindset. And Putin is a bully.He has imperial ambitions and an exaggerated sense of his own strategic genius and ability. The only way to deal with someone like that is to demonstrate strength, resolve, and the willingness to provide the level of force and support necessary for the victimized country, in this case Ukraine, to do two things.First, to defend itself. That is why the provision of additional and significantly greater air defense support for Ukraine is essential. Second, to give Ukraine the capability to take the fight to the Russian Federation.I would argue that in the last couple of months Ukraine’s ability to strike energy targets inside the Russian Federation has become very significant. Putin has tried since the beginning of this war to hide the conflict from the Russian people and to convey that everything is going smoothly with the “special military operation.”When it becomes increasingly visible to the Russian population that the war is reaching Russian territory, whether through incursions into the Kursk region or through strikes deep inside Russia that affect ordinary Russians’ ability to buy gasoline, that visibility changes the dynamics of the conflict.On the table for consideration this Friday, when the US President meets with President Zelensky, is the potential to provide Russia’s neighbor with US Tomahawk cruise missiles with ranges of over 1,500 kilometers. That capability, together with the drone strikes Ukraine has employed so effectively, would allow Ukraine to strike targets even deeper inside the Russian Federation.I think there are two key factors for Ukraine’s success. One is to continue to impose heavy losses on Russian forces inside Ukraine. The second is to take the fight into the Russian Federation and make the Russian people understand the price Putin’s aggression is bringing to their country.This war is extremely serious, and it’s hard to say whether it’s moving toward de-escalation or, on the contrary, further escalation. There are certain indicators that may reveal the strategic intentions of our adversary. Perhaps there is some open-source information you could share on that.I fully agree that strikes on Russian military facilities, even those beyond the Urals, have a significant psychological and political impact on the Russian leadership. At the same time, such strikes often fail to deter the generals who continue to carry out their orders.If possible, I’d like to hear your assessment of how you see the broader strategic trajectory of this war and what prospects you foresee in the near term.I think the strategic paradigm you are describing is critical for citizens in the United States, Western Europe, and the free world to understand. What we are witnessing is an alignment between the leader of the world’s second most powerful economy, President Xi of China, and the leader of a major nuclear power, Vladimir Putin, who both believe that this is the moment in history for them to act on their ambitions. They see this as their opportunity to secure what they view as their historical legacies and the rightful place of their countries in the global order.It is important for everyone to understand how significant the war in Ukraine is for rebuilding a form of deterrence that could, I hope, give the world another century of peace.If Vladimir Putin achieves his objectives in Ukraine, it will send a powerful message to President Xi that aggression works. That message would also be heard and interpreted in Pyongyang, North Korea, with potential consequences for peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. It would certainly resonate with Iran’s leadership, reinforcing its sense of entitlement to build a nuclear weapon and shaping its approach to the Middle East.It all comes down to Ukraine. If the fight in Ukraine is lost, the global strategic paradigm will shift in a direction that could lead, unfortunately, to an even larger and more destructive war.The solution, I think, to rebuilding the kind of deterrence that prevailed for much of the second half of the twentieth century is to stand up to Putin’s aggression, give Ukraine the tools it needs, and for Europe and the United States to rebuild their military capabilities to show Putin that his aggression carries high costs for the West.If we look to a historical parallel, I would point to the final years of the Soviet Union and the way President Reagan dealt with Gorbachev. President Reagan signaled that America was prepared to expand its military capabilities, including strategic defense programs such as the Strategic Defense Initiative. Those programs imposed costs the Soviet economy could not sustain and helped persuade General Secretary Gorbachev that negotiation was the better path.We are in the twenty-first century facing aggression launched by the Russian president. The way to deal with him is through strength and firmness, by increasing the cost to Russia of this aggression and thereby deterring further advances.There was a decision to supply Abrams tanks after a long and complex debate. The provision of ATACMS was also discussed at length, and the delivery of HIMARS systems was far from straightforward. Now the issue is Tomahawk missiles.Tomahawks are both symbolic and highly potent. Their prospect has caused alarm in the Kremlin. Sadly, Russia leaves us little choice: it seeks to seize our territory, publicly humiliate Ukraine, and influence internal affairs.How effective, in your view, would weapons like Tomahawk missiles be in materially changing the battlefield? More broadly, regarding targets on Russian soil, there is abundant satellite imagery and open or semi-open information. Global intelligence services generally have a good idea where various military facilities are located. The key questions are about the tools, the priorities, and the objectives. What is your assessment?I think the discussion around providing Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine is important for both symbolic and practical reasons.Symbolically, it sends a clear signal to President Putin that the United States is willing to expand the scope of its support for Ukraine. If we look back to the beginning of this second Trump administration, it’s fair to say that President Trump initially believed he could reason with Vladimir Putin — that through persuasion, and perhaps a more business-like relationship with the Russian Federation, peace could be achieved.Clearly, that approach has not worked. Putin has not responded positively, and I believe there are now senior advisers within President Trump’s circle who are urging him to take a tougher stance and to follow through on his stated commitment to be firm with the Russian president.The provision of systems such as Abrams tanks, F-16s, ATACMS, and HIMARS is significant but limited. The Tomahawk missile, with its long range, would allow Ukraine to strike targets deeper inside the Russian Federation than it has so far been able to do. It is both symbolically and practically important.U.S. intelligence support has helped Ukraine target energy infrastructure in Russia. If I had to pick two target sets for Tomahawk strikes that would minimize escalatory risk, they would be continued strikes on energy infrastructure deeper in Russia and strikes on facilities used to manufacture the cruise missiles and attack drones that Russia employs against Ukraine. There is hysteria in Moscow about Tomahawks because of their long range and their historical association with nuclear-capable delivery platforms.I think it was former prime minister and Russian president Dmitry Medvedev who claimed that Russia could not distinguish whether Tomahawk missiles launched from Ukraine would be nuclear or non-nuclear and therefore risked nuclear war. I regard that as bluster.The Russians clearly have the capability to detect whether nuclear systems are in play in Ukraine and whether nuclear weapons are being launched at the Russian Federation. The target sets I described – continued strikes on energy infrastructure deeper in Russia and on facilities that produce cruise missiles and attack drones – seem appropriate for Tomahawk use and would minimize escalatory risk.I am not a military expert, but I hope President Zelensky will frame the discussion along these lines when he meets President Trump on the 17th.The Russians did not anticipate our special operation “Spiderweb.” They were genuinely caught off guard. The operation dealt a serious blow to one of the key components of Russia’s nuclear triad — its strategic aviation. Such operations are extremely complex, but I believe Ukrainian specialists are fully capable of carrying them out again if needed.Ralph Hoff, who previously oversaw related areas at the Central Intelligence Agency, has noted how effective and damaging operations of this kind can be for the adversary.In your opinion, how vulnerable are the Russians to such actions? And conversely, how vulnerable might Ukraine be to similar operations carried out by Russia on our own territory?That's a good question. I have a lot of respect for my colleague Ralph Goff and his assessment of what is happening in this conflict. He is truly invested in understanding it and in providing as much support as possible to Ukraine.Operation Spiderweb was a remarkable operation by any measure. The ability to insert and conceal drones deep inside Russian territory and then launch them simultaneously to strike important targets is a significant achievement. Hitting a key element of Russia's strategic triad in that way is particularly noteworthy.As a former intelligence officer, I have nothing but respect for the Ukrainian services' ability to plan and execute that operation. It clearly highlights gaps in Russian intelligence capability to detect, assess, or neutralize Ukraine's efforts to carry out such missions.I think many of us assumed that Russian penetrations of Ukrainian security services would be significant enough to tip them off to such operations. Clearly that was not the case. My compliments to the counterintelligence capabilities of the Ukrainian services.I hope Ukraine is preparing additional Spiderweb type operations to strike targets in the Russian Federation.This gets to a point I have tried to make consistently: the war needs to be taken to the Russian Federation. There comes a point when strikes on Russian territory will cause the Russian people to react to the cost of the war, both in casualties and in disruption to daily life. Ukrainian strikes on Russian soil are deeply embarrassing to a power like the Russian Federation. It should embarrass President Putin that Ukraine has been able to sustain this level of military resistance for more than three years.But secondly, to carry out such effective operations against strategic targets in the Russian Federation, one must wonder at what point the elites in Russia will conclude that Putin is leading them toward disaster and demand a change in leadership.You cannot rule out Russia’s ability to conduct further operations on Ukrainian territory. Still, so far my compliments go to Ukraine’s special services for their skill in identifying and neutralizing Russian operations in Ukraine.At one point, CIA Director Burns warned Ukraine that Russia was most likely preparing for a full-scale invasion, even as the Russians insisted they had no such plans. Now I’d like to ask you whether Russia might be preparing an operation or provocation against the countries of Central Europe. I’m referring to Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and the broader Baltic Sea region, since such a provocation could easily escalate into open confrontation.I think that’s the case. Again, my compliments to my former colleagues in the agency and to Director Burns, whom I know quite well.Our intelligence on Russia’s preparations and intent to invade Ukraine was very strong, and we were willing to share it both privately with Ukraine and our allies, and ultimately with the public.I think we are now seeing similar assessments regarding Russia’s intent to draw NATO into a more active form of confrontation in Ukraine.If you look at events over the past few weeks, such as drone overflights of Polish territory and Russian aircraft incursions into Estonian, Moldovan, and Romanian airspace, these are not accidents. They are deliberate acts.What President Putin has been telling the Russian people, and using as an excuse for the poor performance of his military in Ukraine, is that Russia is already fighting NATO. In his narrative, this is not just a war against Ukraine, it is a war against the West.I think Putin is once again receiving bad intelligence from his foreign and domestic intelligence services about the willingness of the West to respond to the provocations Russia is carrying out and planning right now.There is no question that if Russia continues to send drones and aircraft over NATO territory, at some point those drones and aircraft will be shot down. That will mark a serious escalation.But if you are the president of Poland or the prime minister of Estonia or another Baltic state, you cannot ignore aggressive overflights by a country like Russia. You have to defend your territory. This is clearly intentional on Russia’s part. I think Putin is getting poor advice, and I do not believe the Russian military is in any way prepared for a broader conflict with NATO.Whoever is advising Putin to continue these overflights is the same kind of person who gave him bad advice about the cost of the war and the likelihood of success in the invasion of Ukraine. We are at a very dangerous moment, and it is important to recognize that if we do not find a way to deter Vladimir Putin, we could find ourselves facing a third world war.