Trump ally and Ukraine advocate: Pompeo talks war, peace, and U.S. strategy

Mike Pompeo is a Republican and former U.S. Secretary of State under Donald Trump, who remains a loyal ally and continues to support his candidacy in the upcoming elections.

Pompeo has also made it clear that he is ready to once again "serve America" if Trump wins the presidential election and invites him back to the team.

Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Pompeo has repeatedly demonstrated his support for Ukraine, calling Russia's actions genocide at the onset of the war and consistently advocating for increased military aid to Ukraine, emphasising the importance of faster and more decisive U.S. actions. Furthermore, Pompeo is a vocal critic of the current Biden administration, particularly regarding its approach to the war in Ukraine. 

During this trip, Pompeo attended the "YES-2024" conference [Yalta European Strategy] and even had a personal meeting with President Zelensky, who thanked him for the military and financial support for Ukraine. However, Zelensky also reminded that Ukraine needs permission to use long-range weapons.

A former military officer, CIA Director, and U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo also shared his views on how he sees the development and conclusion of Russia’s war against Ukraine in an interview with Ukrainska Pravda.

"Too little and too slowly"

How do you, in general, assess the current U.S. administration and its approach in supporting Ukraine during this war against Russia?

It has leaned in and provided support, and that is a good thing. But it has provided that support too slowly. It has just been parsed out over time. And secondly, it has limited the utility of some of the weapon systems that they provided, some of the tools; it hasn't done as much intelligence sharing if I understand correctly all those things. 

So too little and too slowly over time and then finally they spent the bulk of the first two years of the conflict speaking about the things they would not do. Because they were worried about escalation, that is they communicated to their adversary that this line we shall not cross – because if we cross that, this is what Putin will do. That's a mistake. 

Even if it's the case that you don't intend to do something, you don't broadcast it. You speak about the things you intend to do and the outcomes you intend to seek and if you do that, your adversary will be on his back foot instead of having your partner, in this case Ukraine, on its back foot. 

Can we expect approval of the long-range strikes to Russia in the nearest future?

I don’t know. I’m not a part of that administration.

Talking about the escalation. How do you assess the actions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in Kursk Oblast, on the territory of the Russian Federation? 

Yeah, it was remarkable. It was executed – as best [as] I can tell – very well, with great surprise, which is important. I was a soldier once a long time ago. I hope that they can hold that territory effectively. I hope they can maintain the other places there. 

And then I hope the follow-on resources will come so that Ukraine can be successful. It matters to Ukraine, for sure. It matters to the Ukrainian people terribly, it matters to Europe, but it matters to the United States of America to get this right as well.

"Peace plan"

In your op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, you’ve outlined what Donald Trump's "peace plan" might look like if he wins the presidential election. It involves increasing military aid to Ukraine and its membership in the EU and NATO. You also mentioned that "War stops immediately". How do you see the ending of this war? 

Yeah. I talked about it from my perspective with my co-author, Dave Irvine, and we talked about this as the way we thought one could begin to get a good resolution for the world.

I laid out what I believe the elements of that are: none of them are simple to do but all of them incredibly important. Because in the end, what you're doing is, you're restoring deterrence. If you say if you back up one step to the level of theory, you're restoring deterrence. 

For four years, Vladimir Putin wouldn't invade Ukraine. He invaded Ukraine under President Obama, and he did it again under President Biden. For four years, he wouldn't. Why?

But the war was continuing during this time.

But he didn't take any land and he didn't steal any more real estate. He took a fifth of Ukraine under President Obama and he went back at it again. Why is that? Vladimir Putin didn't change. Vladimir Putin has wanted to restore the Soviet Union since its fall, right? He believes that deeply. This was the greatest calamity of the 20th century. So he didn't change. What was different, was that the American leadership demonstrated resolve. And demonstrated to him that the cost of doing that, of taking another fifth of Ukraine, exceeded the benefit. 

And in this situation, how do you think the war will end, which territories will be brought back to Ukraine? 

I don't know the answer to that. President's Zelenskyy will get to decide how he wants to approach that. 

But what I do know is: the world needs an outcome where it looks, and actually is, a loss for the aggressor, for Russia, for Vladimir Putin. 

The perception of a Putin loss is essential. It’s essential, because you have to get back this deterrence, right? You have to convince Xi Jinping in China. You have to convince chairman Kim in North Korea, and you have to convince the Ayatollah in Iran that stealing another nation's sovereign territory by force, by aggression, is not a winning outcome for you. That it is bad for you and for your people. President Biden hasn't been able to do that. He hasn't been able to do it in the Middle East. He didn't do it in Ukraine.

Xi Jinping is ramming Coast Guard vessels in the Pacific. He has not demonstrated that he's prepared to impose sufficient costs to convince these bad guys not to continue their aggressive behavior, and in the case of Ukraine, the full scale invasion of its country.

You have a book, its name echoing the Ukrainian view on the conflict [Never give an inch – ed.]. However I can’t imagine a scenario where Russia would willingly give Crimea back. In this case, how can the war be stopped "in 24 hours", as Donald Trump mentioned, or "immediately" as you mentioned in your op-ed?

You end it by convincing Vladimir Putin that continuing the conflict is too costly. This is the way. I wish I had a more sophisticated answer than that.

But in the end, Vladimir Putin is doing math every day. Is my political life at risk? Is my actual life at risk? Are the people of Russia about to say: "That's enough of my boys going off to war."? If the economy is faltering, you have to impose costs on him sufficiently, it's just not worth staying at this or trying to achieve more. There's no more simple truth than since my early days at Academy at West Point. [Pompeo graduated first in his class from the United States Military Academy at West Point – ed.]

You have to deliver that, and that takes a level of seriousness. So it also is very important. You’ve mentioned red lines earlier. Red lines can't be defensive. They have to be lines that say: if you do this, I'm going to impose real costs on you. And when you draw a red line you damn well better mean it. Once you draw a red line and walk away from it – you have told the bad guys in the world they can walk. 

It's just like when you tell your child: "If you throw that food on the table again, you're going to your room," and they throw the food and you don't send them to their room. Godspeed, Mom. Godspeed, Dad. It's a little oversimplified, but the model of human nature and the model of the interactions of nations often simply reflects national interest and costs. For the world, it is an absolute imperative that Ukraine achieves an outcome. That is, a good outcome for the good guys.

The sanctions aren't enough

Talking about economics. Do you believe the current sanctions on Russia are sufficient? What new sanctions or economic measures would you propose to further weaken Russia’s capacity to wage war?

Well, I think by definition, the sanctions aren't enough. As the conflict continues – I should go back and look – but I remember in the opening, if not days, weeks, Secretary Blinken and Jake Sullivan said well, you’ve just got to give the sanctions time. So we impose sanctions that take time. That's actually a true statement that does take some amount of time.

I don't think anybody thinks that three years, two and a half years, two years and seven months wherever we're at exactly, from when the sanctions began – I don't think that's what they meant. And so it's clearly insufficient. 

Remember, it's one thing to put sanctions on. It's another thing to enforce them. And my core critique on the Biden Administration sanctions model – both the Russian sanctions and the sanctions they put in place in other places, including on Iran – they don't enforce them and sanction without enforcement is literally the equivalent of a red line drawn and not enforced. That's a really, really bad incentive for bad guys to move about the cabin freely.

It is important that Russia understands that the economic model that existed before doesn't exist anymore. The Germans aren't going to buy gas from them, right? No longer are we gonna permit Western nation states to be dependent on Vladimir Putin. He has proven to be an unreliable, indeed indecent, partner, and so that's difficult if you're France or Germany or a European nation that has been dependent on Russian gas for an awfully long time; you have to find alternative ways to achieve the energy and the power that you need, and I hope every country will do that. 

And I would say the same thing in other places where there's risk. If you're too dependent on a bad actor, if you depend on Venezuela for crude oil, if you depend on the Chinese Communist party for… you pick it…. 

It gives them a normal political leverage, and the bad actors will use that leverage in ways that are deeply detrimental to the sovereignty of your nation and the lives of your people.

You mentioned that these countries shouldn't buy gas but should these countries sell something to Russia? For example, the United States still sells some component parts for Russian missiles. 

Well, I hope not. I hope we're not selling weapons parts. I'm sure it happens. I'm sure the product moves through the black market, but I assume it's a felony to sell a weapon system to the Russians today. I assume that these are items that are being used as a dual use item that is not permitted to be sold lawfully. 

Again, [it’s] one thing to have a rule, another thing to enforce it. So yes, by the way, I've seen American components show up in Iranian missile systems too, Iranian guidance systems as well. Black markets are hard to defend. I can see this. These are very difficult propositions, but there ought to be a lot of resources devoted to making sure that that happens just as little as possible.

Donald Trump as a president 

If Donald Trump becomes president and offers you to be the negotiator between Ukraine and Russia, will you accept the offer?

Oh goodness, I hadn’t thought about that. I don’t think I’ve been asked that before. What I have said more broadly, is that if President Trump is elected, and he asks me to do whatever to help, I’ll do everything I can, if I think I can make a difference. He hasn’t asked me to do a thing yet, but if he were to do so, and I think I can help, I’m all about trying to serve America.

How should Ukraine’s leadership engage with the U.S. and its allies to ensure that their interests are fully represented in any possible peace negotiations?

Oh goodness, I think the Ukrainian people can have confidence in that. I think the negotiations we handle directly with President Zelenskyy, [that he] wants to have, leading that conversation, that he will be in control of those conversations, and make decisions, and articulate why he makes those particular decisions to the Ukrainian people very clearly. It's really important. It's hard to do, when you're trying to wind a conflict down, but he'll need to.

The Ukrainian people have sacrificed so much, and I'm confident that he will do the right thing in articulating his vision for what this outcome should be.

Alina Poliakova, UP