Key Reflections
* What happens in Ukraine will reveal a lot about what the 21st century will look like. Undermining Putin’s agenda will strengthen democracies for the future.
* Russia’s military has been depleted due to the resilience of the Ukrainian people. Putin wants to try to retain and extend control in eastern Ukraine. Kyiv needs to be provided with sufficient arms to defend itself.
* The ability to deal with global threats from a position of strength requires unity, democracy, and multilateral alliances such as NATO and the Quad. Russia’s aggression in Ukraine has unified NATO’s resolve.
* China is trying to tread carefully over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Beijing’s rhetoric may support Russia, but China will not go further for now.
* The Haqqani Network could once again make Afghanistan a safe-haven for terrorists including al-Qaeda and ISIS to use as a launchpad to attack the West.
* The Abbottabad operation in Pakistan that found and eliminated Osama bin Laden demonstrated the effectiveness of counter-terrorism cooperation and resilience.
* Women need to be given the same opportunities as men to serve in combat positions in the military.
Transcript:
SG: Dr. Sajjan Gohel
LP: Leon Panetta
SG: Hello, and welcome to DEEP Dive, brought to you by NATO’s Defence Education Enhancement Programme. I’m your host, Dr. Sajjan Gohel. Each episode, we speak to experts and practitioners in international security and defence, counter-terrorism, and geo-political current events to gain insight into the most pressing matters of global affairs.
In this episode, we speak to the former Defence Secretary of the United States, Leon Panetta, who also served as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in President Barack Obama’s administration and was the White House Chief of Staff in the Bill Clinton administration. Secretary Panetta co-founded The Panetta Institute for Public Policy with his wife Sylvia to help provide a platform for people to engage in public service and strengthen democracy. He is the author of Worthy Fights: A Memoir of Leadership in War and Peace.
Secretary Panetta, thank you for joining us on NATO DEEP Dive, it’s a huge honour to have you on the podcast.
LP: Good to be with you.
SG: There are so many important issues to discuss with you. But let’s start with the most immediate, pressing concern, and that is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We are seeing an escalation in the conflict with the Russian military systematically destroying infrastructure, even targeting schools and hospitals and transportation hubs. It’s resulted in the deaths of civilians and has contributed to Europe’s biggest humanitarian crisis since the Second World War. What do you believe is Vladimir Putin’s end goal in this conflict?
LP: Well, I’m sure that whatever his goal is, now, it wasn’t the goal that he had in mind, when he began the invasion. It’s pretty clear that he thought that the invasion would proceed very rapidly, that they would be able to capture the capital, that the government would fall, and that Russia would be in charge of Ukraine. That did not happen, as we all know, due to the bravery of the Ukrainians, and also the unity of the United States and our NATO allies, not only in applying sanctions, but also in providing arms to the Ukrainians. So, as a result of that, I think Putin is trying to decide just exactly what his goal is going to be. Because, in effect, phase one has concluded, and Russia has failed to achieve the mission that they embarked on.
And so now the question remains, does he engage in a siege warfare, where he just totally destroys the country? Does he retreat to the areas in the east with a hope that he can, at the very least, maintain control of the Donbass area? I think that if I had to guess, that he’s really trying to feel his way, because the Russian army has been depleted, and they’re trying to rebuild and reinforce it. They’re in the middle of conscripts going into the army, they’re not sure what kind of performance they’ll get out of these conscripts. And so I really think that right now, he’s hoping that he can at least be able to get something out of all of the deaths that have taken place, all of the Russians that have been killed, all of the failures that they’ve endured, that in the very least he can achieve at least some of the Ukrainian territory. I think that’s probably what he’s focused on right now.
SG: Is there anything that you think needs to be done that is currently not being done to try and prevent Russia from either creating further problems in Ukraine or potentially escalating it to other theatres?
LP: Well, as a former Secretary of Defence, I really think this is an opportunity that hopefully won’t be passed over because the reality is that the Russians are not only retreating from their positions, they’re trying to rebuild and regroup as an army. And we shouldn’t allow that to happen. The Ukrainians can’t allow that to happen. So, this is an opportunity, if we can provide sufficient arms to the Ukrainians, not just javelins and Stinger missiles, but ammo, as well as drones, as well as hopefully S300s and S400s, and whatever is needed to be able to go after both artillery and missile sites. I think if we’re able to provide significant arms to the Ukrainians, that the Ukrainians themselves, are going to be able to keep pushing and putting pressure on the Russians. And frankly, that is the best course of action right now, because the only thing Putin understands, is force. He doesn’t understand ‘pretty please,’ he understands force. And that’s what Ukrainians have to do.
SG: Speaking about pressure and force, there is a lot of talk about the role of China, and what Beijing could do to bring an end to the Russian aggression in Ukraine. Both President Putin and President Xi of China, they enjoy strong relations, they have met, I believe, about 38 times in the last 10 years, which is even more remarkable based on the fact that we’ve had the pandemic for the last couple of years. Do you think China is willing to get involved and get Putin to back out of Ukraine because they seem to be oscillating a lot in the last couple of months?
LP: I think that’s probably a good way to say it, which is that China is not quite sure what they should do in the situation. They’ve seen how Putin has become a pariah. They’ve seen the terrible destruction and brutality that the Russians have shown. They’ve seen the failure of the invasion. They’ve seen the fact that the world is unified in terms of sanctions against Russia. And I think President Xi is trying to tread very carefully here. And he knows that it would not be in China’s interests, if China and he become a pariah in the world, like Russia. He certainly doesn’t want to receive the kind of sanctions that Russia is under, which would harm the Chinese economy. And he’s making an effort, obviously, to try to spread his influence around the world, he’s trying to do that through the Belt and Road Initiative, through diplomacy, through investments in other countries. But if he’s a pariah, if he’s simply someone who’s trying to help Putin kill people, I don’t think that’s what China really wants at this point. So, I guess the best way to say it is they are proceeding very carefully, they may use rhetoric to support Putin and Russia, but I do not see them taking the kind of actions that could result in the sanctions and retribution that will harm China and the Chinese economy.
SG: One related theme to all of this is the perception of the haphazard withdrawal by the West from Afghanistan in 2021 motivated countries like Russia and China to be more assertive, globally. In their mind, they think that there is a decline of the West taking place. Do you believe that even in a small way that the fallout from Afghanistan has emboldened Russia and China?
LP: Well, I think what has happened over a period of several administrations, particularly in the Trump administration, but several administrations, Putin and for that matter Xi, sensed weakness on the part of the United States. Obviously, Putin is a bully, he’ll take action as a bully if he thinks he can get away with it, and if he senses weakness, that’s when he will act. And so that’s why, in sensing weakness on the part of the United States, he went into Georgia, he went into Crimea, he went into Syria, he went into Libya, and he conducted a bold cyber-attack against the United States. And I honestly think that when he looked at what happened with Afghanistan, and the mistakes that were made there, that he again assumed weakness on the part of the United States, distrust among our allies, and for that reason, took advantage of it by invading Ukraine. Only to find that this time, the United States and our allies were willing to unify and make clear that he would pay a price. So, I think there was a perception of weakness on the part of both Russia and China, they were trying to fill the vacuum left by the withdrawal of United States leadership. But I also think that at the present time that President Biden, the United States, and our allies are doing exactly what is necessary, which is to unify, come together, and make clear that we are unified in opposition to Russia. And for that matter, it’s the same message that ought to go to China, that ought to go to North Korea, and that ought to go to Iran. That the United States and our allies, if we are unified, can ensure that if these adversaries get aggressive, they will pay a price.
SG: Absolutely. Sticking with Afghanistan, we are seeing the fact that the Haqqani Network, which is a prescribed terrorist group globally, part of the Taliban, are effectively now in charge of the country. Sirajuddin Haqqani, who is the Taliban interior minister, under his reign of terror, hundreds of U.S. soldiers were killed during the period that the NATO alliance was in Afghanistan. This is now the man running Afghanistan. He is close allies with al-Qaeda and there is this concern that al-Qaeda is showing signs of regrowth with an increase of messages.
Does it worry you, sir, that the Haqqanis are running Afghanistan and what that could actually mean for security in the region, and potentially, the fact that you could have foreign fighters and other terrorist groups re-emerging in this theatre that caused so much havoc in our lives, pre-9/11, and even post-9/11?
LP: It concerns me a great deal. I think it’s tragic what has happened in Afghanistan. Both as CIA director and Secretary of Defence, I was very aware of what the Haqqanis were doing in killing our troops. And the fact that the Haqqanis are now in charge, again, in Afghanistan, the Taliban is in charge of Afghanistan. After all, the one lesson we learned from 9/11, was to try to make very certain that Afghanistan would never again, be controlled by the Taliban and become a safe haven for terrorism. That was one of the missions, in going into Afghanistan. Unfortunately, that mission has not been achieved.
And the result is that right now, Afghanistan is a haven for terrorists. Al-Qaeda will regroup in Afghanistan, ISIS will find some kind of safe haven, in Afghanistan. I think there is a real danger, that terrorism can not only reorganise itself. But will use the opportunity to have Afghanistan as a base from which to conduct attacks, not only in the region, but against the United States. I think the situation in Afghanistan is a real threat to not only our national security, but to the security of other countries.
SG: Absolutely. And as director of the CIA, as well as when you were US Secretary of Defence, you had to deal with the conundrum of Afghanistan and Pakistan on almost a daily basis, you faced a lot of challenges. One in particular, was the terrorist attack on Camp Chapman in Khost, Afghanistan in 2009. When the al-Qaeda terrorist Humam al-Balawi blew himself up with a massive bomb, which killed seven CIA personnel. One of the worst tragedies in the history of the agency. You spoke about this in great detail in your memoirs, but I thought what was significant was that you chose to talk about it in your prologue. I think I understand the reasons for this, but I’m interested in your perspective, why you chose to start your autobiography that way.
LP: Well, in many ways, what happened at Khost, which was a tragedy, we lost the seven officers and had many others who were wounded. A suicide bomber, who was really a double agent blew himself up as a result and, you know, caused real tragedy for the CIA, we lost, probably, as many officers as we’ve ever had, and those stars are now on the wall at the CIA and Langley. But what happened was that the CIA, in reaction to what happened at Khost—in many ways it reinvigorated the CIA, to really go after not only those who had set up the suicide bomber but go after bin Laden and make sure that we did everything necessary to try to locate bin Laden and go after him. So, in many ways, what happened at Khost, as tragic as it was, became a tremendous inspiration to the CIA and to the military, to not stop the mission of going after bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and those involved in 9/11. And that’s why I wanted to use that at the beginning to show that that event, in many ways, was the real inspiration for what ultimately happened with the mission that went after bin Laden and brought him to justice.
SG: And it was a very powerful story. And I want to come to the bin Laden operation in a second. But one other aspect about the Khost attack was that Humam al-Balawi was supposed to provide information about the deputy of al-Qaeda at the time, Ayman al-Zawahiri. He seemed to play that game of turning Balawi around and basically become the suicide bomber who caused all that devastation. Is there a reason why it’s been difficult to get Ayman al-Zawahiri? Because he’s still out there, in fact, only recently, he’s issued a message, which is proof that he’s actually alive because he’s spoken about recent events. And does it concern you that he still is able to get that oxygen of publicity and taunt the West and potentially use that for recruitment?
LP: There’s no question al-Zawahiri is the successor to bin Laden. But at the same time, he really doesn’t have the stature of a bin Laden. He is someone who’s been ill, has not been located in a place where he can really exercise real leadership with al-Qaeda, he has been in hiding, and no question he’s been in successful hiding. But in many ways, that’s also an indication that he really has lacked the kind of leadership capability to really pull al-Qaeda together, to become a threat again.
But having said that, I think it is really important for the United States and our allies to continue the search for al-Zawahiri. Because one of the one of the successful things we did as a result of 9/11 is that we targeted the leadership of al-Qaeda. And we did it pretty successfully, using our operations and using the kind of counter-terrorism operations that we developed very capably between the intelligence people and the military, especially Special Forces. So, I think we want to continue the effort to try to locate al-Zawahiri, I think ultimately, we will, one way or the other. After him, we have to continue to target those who would succeed al-Zawahiri as well.
The point is, the more we can go after their key leadership, the more we undermine their ability to be able to organise and conduct the kind of attacks that have killed innocent men, women, and children.
I’ve often had the same thoughts of where the hell al-Zawahiri is located because we were ultimately successful with bin Laden. I’m really surprised. Either al-Zawahiri is very ill and is operating in a situation that is very difficult to penetrate. But at some point, we’ll get a break.
SG: Well, it could happen, because I think he is being protected by the Haqqanis. And I think that it’s interesting how he went quiet for the last 18 months and then suddenly post-Haqqani takeover he’s churning out all these messages suddenly, and that could actually lead to his exposure.
LP: I think that’s right, whether it’s through his couriers or whether it’s through the sounds in whatever tapes he’s doing, we’ll figure it out one way or the other.
So, terrorism remains a real threat to the United States and to the world. And we’ve had a lot of metastasis with al-Qaeda. We have ISIS. We’ve got branches of al-Qaeda, not only in Somalia, but also Boko Haram in North Africa. So, there are a lot of terrorist groups that we’re continuing to confront. And they have one goal, which is to kill people in the West and that’s why they remain one of our national security threats that we cannot stop going after.
SG: Absolutely. And I think it’s so important to remind everybody that transnational terrorism has not gone away. And just because of other pressing concerns, there still remains the threat from al-Qaeda, from ISIS, and other groups that may emerge. As you very rightly pointed out,
I said, we’d go back to the issue about bin Laden and Abbottabad. I think the whole world knows that you were the CIA director at the time of that operation that successfully eliminated the head of al-Qaeda. What struck me the most in your memoirs is just how humble you are about your own role. Of course, there are many actors involved in this, but a lot of people I’ve spoken to have said that you were actually absolutely pivotal to convincing President Obama to sanction what would become Operation Neptune Spear, and that you were also a very reassuring and calm presence, as the operation unfolded.
Maybe this is a dynamic about leadership. But how were you able to firstly, keep things so cool under pressure? And at any point did you contemplate the consequence if the operation had failed? Because this was one of the most daring military operations in American history, there was no take two. So, I am just curious to get your perspective on that.
LP: Well, it is without question, a very proud moment for me to have been a part of that operation. And the reason it was successful is because there were a lot of dedicated intelligence officers who were involved in the search for bin Laden, who looked at every potential possibility to try to locate him. I mean, after all, when I established the task force at CIA, it had been almost 10 years, and there was simply no lead as to where bin Laden was located. But thanks to that task force, and thanks to our intelligence capabilities, we were able ultimately to locate the couriers for bin Laden and establish not only a name but a face. And that really was kind of a breakthrough.
And then, obviously, we proceeded to do a lot of surveillance over this compound that we were able to locate. And although there was a lot of evidence that it might well be the location of bin Laden—there was a mysterious family on the third floor; there was this individual who would come out every day, walk in circles, and go back in. I can remember telling the CIA, “We should get a facial ID because that could be bin Laden.” They said, “There’s a lot of problems; there’s 18-foot walls on one side, 12-foot walls on the other side. It’s very hard to do.” And I remember telling them, I said, “You know, I’ve seen movies where the CIA can do this.” We all laughed about it. But we never had 100% evidence on bin Laden.
And when the president decided to do the mission—because we were worried that it might leak that we were focused on this compound—we looked at several operations. But most importantly, I selected somebody called Bill McRaven, who was head of Special Forces, to basically develop the mission. And while some of what he proposed was rejected, it was agreed to go with a commando raid—two teams of seals going 150 miles into Pakistan, two helicopters rappelling down, going after bin Laden, getting back on the helicopters, and coming back. No question, it was a risky operation. It was risky. When we went to the National Security Council—there were a lot of members of the National Security Council, some of them had been around when the Carter helicopters went down, when we were going after our individuals who were part of the embassy that had been captured by Iran. And so, there was some legitimate concern about that.
But I think I remember when the president asked me what I thought, I said, “Mr. President, I have an old formula I used when I was in Congress, which was when I was facing a tough decision, pretend I was talking to an average citizen in my district and saying, ‘if you knew what I knew about this issue, what would you do?’ And that helped me make decisions.” I said, “In this instance, if I told the average citizen that we had the best evidence on the location of bin Laden since Tora Bora, I think they would say we have to go. And that’s what I’m recommending to you, Mr. President.”
And to the credit of President Obama, he made a very risky and tough decision. We were nervous about the operation, obviously. You have two helicopters at night going into Pakistan. And particularly when one of the helicopters—because it was hot that day, the air came up and stalled one of the helicopters, and it came down, thank God, nobody was hurt. And I remember asking Bill McRaven, “What’s happening?” Because that’s one of those moments where you really are concerned that the mission may be falling apart. And I remember—he never missed a beat—he said, “We’re going on with the mission, we have backup helicopters coming in, we’re going to breach through the walls, and we’re going to continue the mission.”
I remember that very clearly, because it told me that they were going to continue to fight to get it done. And so, a lot of credit here belongs to obviously the intelligence officials, but also to the Special Forces, the seals that went on that mission, and to Bill McRaven. This was really a mission where we really pulled it together. And it was important because we sent a message to the world that nobody attacks the United States of America and gets away with it.
SG: Well, you definitely can be exceptionally proud of that operation. And, again, it’s just an important testament to your leadership that this was able to be done. One aspect that attracted a lot of interest at the time was the location in Abbottabad, which is not somewhere in the tribal areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s an urban centre, it’s right next door to Pakistan’s military academy, their version of West Point. There’s always been this concern that how much did the Pakistani security establishment know about bin Laden’s whereabouts? Obviously, you didn’t consult them prior to the operation, and they only found out afterwards. Do you think that Pakistan’s military was playing a double game? Was that a concern in why they were not consulted?
LP: Well, that’s a question that has turned over and over in my mind for a lot of years. I honestly don’t think that officials at a high level were aware of the location of bin Laden. But when you look at Abbottabad and where this compound was located, it was three times the size of other compounds: 18-foot walls on one side, 12-foot walls on another side, 7-foot wall on the third floor. And they were going 90 miles away to make phone calls, they had very high security. Abbottabad, as you’ve mentioned, is this kind of…it’s almost a resort-type area, because it’s in the mountains. But it is the location of their West Point; it’s the location of an intelligence centre as well. And at one point, when we were doing surveillance, a military helicopter—a Pakistani military helicopter—actually went right over the compound. So, I have to believe that they were aware that something was happening at that compound. And I would not be surprised if some of the local military or intelligence officials knew exactly what was happening at that compound. But I have also never been able to establish that people at a high level really knew that that was the case.
SG: That’s very interesting. If we sort of look at what then took place after that, President Obama appointed you US Secretary of Defense, which was, of course another high-pressure job to take on. And in terms of that, during your tenure, what we saw was the emergence of what is now known as the Quad, which is the strategic security dialogue involving the United States, Australia, India, and Japan. You’ve spoken about the importance of the Quad in the past. How do you see it evolving and developing in terms of supporting global security?
LP: Well, as we’ve discussed, there are a number of danger points in the world. We’ve talked about war in Ukraine. We’ve talked about Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, terrorism, the Middle East. I think ultimately our ability to deal—and I say “our” ability, the United States and our allies throughout the world—our ability to deal with those threats requires that we do what we’ve seen done in Ukraine, which is to unify and to come together, and to make clear that we are going to make sure that a line is drawn with regards to those that would try to take advantage of it.
And I see that in the Pacific, with regards to China. I think it’s critical for us to have strong allies. I think the Quad is a good foundation, based on nations like Australia, India, South Korea, Japan. Add to that our ability to work with the ASEAN countries, those other Asian countries that have developing economies. If we could develop a security alliance with them as well, and also make it a trade alliance that is strong, I think that represents a real force in dealing with China. And it gives us the ability to deal with China from strength, not from weakness, but from strength. So, I’m a believer that alliances are the key to dealing with these threats that I talked about. I think we need to build the Middle East alliance, moderate Arab nations, Israel, to confront both terrorism and Iran. I think we need to build and strengthen obviously NATO, which is incredibly important in terms of the security of Europe, particularly with regards to Russia. I think we need to do that in Latin and Central America, I think we need to do that in Africa. I think alliances are the key to our ability to provide security in the future.
SG: Of course, maybe it’s a biased opinion, but I don’t think there’s any greater alliance than the NATO one that has led at the forefront of so many different challenges throughout history. The other aspect of your time as Defense Secretary is that you helped end the US military’s long-time ban on women serving in combat. And you spoke about being moved by seeing women in various sensitive positions that protect America but by extension also contribute to global security. We know that there were many women in the CIA during your tenure as Director that contributed to tracking down Osama bin Laden. In 2022, how much progress have we made in creating an environment for women to be in important positions of intelligence and defence? And what more can be done?
LP: Well, you know, I’m really proud to say that a great deal of progress has been made to give women and, for that matter, to give people, regardless of their colour or their creed or their beliefs or their gender, the ability to serve their country. And I’m a believer in that. I think everybody—I guess because I’m the son of Italian immigrants—but I really believe that everybody ought to have the opportunity to be able to serve their country. And I saw that first-hand with the military that I was responsible for as Secretary. These were men and women who really were able to work together, and to serve, and to fight bravely on the battlefield. And I saw that happening. And when it was brought to my attention that women were prevented from being in combat positions, that’s when I went to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and I said, “Look,” I said—he indicated that we might be lessening standards if we allowed women to be in combat, and I said, “We don’t have to lessen standards. But if there are women that can meet those standards, they ought to have the opportunity to be able to be in combat, and Special Forces, and Green Berets, and all the other areas that they were prevented from being a part of.” And Martin Dempsey, who was Chief of Staff, went to the other military leaders, they looked at it, and they came back and said, “You know, we ought to proceed to give them that opportunity.” And we did. And now women are very much a part, not only of our combat forces, but are part of our Special Forces as well.
And I think that sends a very important signal, to the American people, and for that matter, the world—that we’re a country, where, regardless of where you come from, if you want to serve your country, we think you ought to have that chance. What we’ve seen—it’s very interesting—what we’ve seen in Ukraine is something that I’ve always believed, as Secretary, even going back to my own military experience, that if you have a fighting force that’s made up of those who really believe in their country and believe in making sure that they protect their country and are willing to fight and die for their country, I’ll take that kind of warrior anytime, over somebody who’s kind of ordered to go in and attack somebody else for no reason. I’ll take the warrior who is truly dedicated. And that’s what we have right now, in the US military, is a broad cross section of our country serve in our military. And I think that’s healthy for our democracy. I also think it’s healthy for our national security.
SG: And it also makes us much stronger as a united force as well. You deserve huge credit for that. So, one final question, sir, is you run the Panetta Institute for Public Policy in California. What are you currently focusing on at the institute? And what would you like to focus on in the future?
LP: Well, we’ve talked a lot about national security. I have to tell you one of my concerns…one of the key threats to our national security is a potential dysfunction in our democracy. And if we allow partisanship and polarisation in this country to divide our leadership, to make our democracy unable to function, and to deal with the issues that have to be dealt with, it will hurt our national security, and it will hurt our ability to survive as a democracy. What happened on January 6, with the attack on the US Capitol, is really a wake-up call for this country, that we cannot allow that to happen. We can’t allow our democracy to be stopped by a mob. So, it is very important to come together and work.
The work at the Panetta Institute is to try to inspire young people to become part of our democracy, to serve, and to be willing to dedicate their lives to public service, because that’s how a democracy is going to survive. You know, leadership may have its failures today, but new generations will become leaders in the future. And if they believe in what this country is all about, if they believe in service, if they believe in the values that are important to our country—freedom and the dignity of each individual, and the ability to self-govern, the freedoms that we have as a people—those are the values that make us a great country. I think that’s what keeps our democracy strong. So, the purpose of our institute is to try to make sure that we’re inspiring future leaders of our country, who will bring the right values to the responsibility of leadership.
SG: I think it’s such an important point to conclude on about democracy is actually what defines us. It is the cornerstone of our culture, our value system. It’s also what makes us strong and helps us to defend our allies, as opposed to those that seek to undermine it and try and, I guess, promote a more dystopian future, as we’re trying to see what Russia is doing in Ukraine. Secretary Panetta, it’s been such a privilege and honour to have you on the NATO DEEP Dive podcast. Thank you for giving up so much of your time for this.
LP: Well, thank you. I’ve enjoyed this. You’ve touched on an awful lot of very important issues. I hope that people understand that it is absolutely essential that we discuss these kinds of issues, and that ultimately, we come together in trying to make sure that we protect our country and protect the world from what we’ve seen happen in Ukraine. I think this is a pivotal moment. It’s a very pivotal moment. What happens in Ukraine can tell us a lot about the 21st century and what it’s going to look like. And if it goes right, if we’re able to undermine Putin and Russia, I think it will strengthen democracies for the future. That’s a very important goal to be achieved.
SG: A very important goal that we all need to strive for. Thank you again, sir, for taking this time. It’s been a complete privilege.
LP: Thank you very much.
SG: Thank you for listening to this episode of DEEP Dive. I’m your host, Dr. Sajjan Gohel. DEEP Dive is brought to you by NATO’s Defence Education Enhancement Programme. The production and research team are Marcus Andreopoulos and Victoria Jones. For additional content, including full transcripts of each episode, please visit: deepportal.hq.nato.int/deepdive.
Disclaimer: Please note that the views, information, or opinions expressed in the DEEP Dive series are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily represent those of NATO or DEEP.