Mike Pompeo On Authoritarian Regimes: We Will Crush Them

• 30.10.2026, 15:36

This will require tremendous determination and exceptional political leadership.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo believes that Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown no willingness to end the war against Ukraine. Pompeo warns that Moscow’s increasingly close cooperation with Beijing, Tehran, and Pyongyang poses a serious threat to Western security.

In an interview Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Pompeo—who served in the first administration of President Donald Trump.

– Against the backdrop of a new wave of Russian attacks, mounting pressure on Kyiv, and risky diplomatic maneuvers, the situation in Ukraine appears to be changing rapidly. How do you assess the current situation?

– I think it’s obvious to everyone that we haven’t yet reached the point where Vladimir Putin has shown any willingness to abandon his terrorist campaign—which is precisely what he is waging. In his view, the costs clearly do not outweigh the benefits of continuing this conflict.

He is trying to make this winter incredibly difficult, first and foremost for the Ukrainian people, more so than for the Ukrainian armed forces.

The Ukrainian military (is dealing him crushing blows; the largest fleet of UAVs in two years has descended on Moscow—Belarus News—Charter ’97) —42,000 casualties a month—but he’s targeting the Ukrainian people… To convince the political leadership—and, frankly, the political leadership in Washington, Brussels, and European capitals—that it is not worth continue to provide Ukraine with the support they have been providing so far.

– Can Washington and its allies trust any diplomatic initiatives proposed by Putin at this point?

– The answer to that question is no, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue diplomatic efforts, right? But not a single word he says can be trusted. We just have to watch his actions. But in principle, talking to someone you don’t trust isn’t uncommon.

After all, you try to work out a framework and an agreement, then sign it, and then monitor its implementation—and you only trust it when it’s actually being carried out.

For now, as you know, the fact remains that Putin is unwilling to agree to anything other than the most insignificant ceasefires. Currently, there is such a temporary, short-term ceasefire in effect in one city. At the same time, Volodymyr Zelenskyy has agreed to a broad ceasefire in the energy and agricultural sectors and in the Black Sea region, and has also agreed and publicly stated that he is ready for a ceasefire along the current lines of contact between the troops. This is radically different from the stubbornness with which Vladimir Putin approached the negotiations.

– President Zelenskyy warns that Ukraine is facing serious and intensifying political and military pressure. Isn’t the West pushing Kyiv toward unfair concessions?

– I cannot imagine that Kyiv will ultimately make unfavorable concessions. They have been fighting for too long. They are fighting too tenaciously. And, frankly, they’ve achieved too much success—with tremendous support from the U.S. and Europe, by the way.

That’s why I suspect that President Putin’s belief that he can persuade the West to force Kyiv to the negotiating table and agree to an unfavorable deal will ultimately prove unfounded. I believe Putin is mistaken if he thinks he is winning.

– What would a realistic and secure final outcome look like that wouldn’t sow the seeds for another Russian invasion?

– That is, perhaps, the most important question. What outcome would adequately protect Western civilization?

I think the answer to this question depends less on where the dividing lines are drawn. That’s usually what discussions focus on. But what’s far more important is the existence of long-term commitments—a security architecture that would make the costs of Vladimir Putin’s next offensive simply unacceptable.

And this doesn’t depend on whether those countries are NATO members or not. I don’t know how important this is. But the presence of European troops along the line of contact would make any attack that occurred after the agreement took effect a genuine attack on the West, not just on Ukraine.

– Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is scheduled to visit Atlanta this weekend, where a G20 ministerial meeting will take place. What is the most important “red line” the United States must draw when meeting him face to face?

– Oh, my God, that’s the line that, to be honest, the Americans haven’t been willing to draw yet, right? And Europe, too? I’ve seen critical comments—and I’ve made them myself—regarding the diesel fuel agreement. President Trump recently stated that we will purchase a certain amount of Russian diesel. I don’t think this solves America’s energy problem, and I don’t believe it brings us any closer to a negotiated settlement.

But, to be honest, the Europeans continue to spend enormous sums to prop up the Russian military machine. That’s hypocrisy. It deserves criticism—and that’s putting it mildly.

And so it’s not about what they’ll say to Lavrov in Atlanta this weekend. The issue is what actions the West is prepared to take to support Ukraine’s efforts to defend its borders against this aggressive terrorist attack, which has dealt such a blow to European sovereignty.

– President Zelenskyy also expressed concern that restrictions on Ukraine’s access to Starlink are affecting the operations of defensive drones. Given your numerous recent visits to Kyiv and the region, as well as the fact that you have personally seen Ukrainian command centers, how dangerous is it when decisions by technology companies disrupt military operations on the front lines?

– You know, it’s complicated. I mean, the simple answer would be: it’s very dangerous. I’ve seen a lot of explanations of what actually happened—who said what to whom, when, and how long it actually lasted. Was the speed limited? I don’t know. I don’t know what to make of this, except that there seems to be a consensus that the restriction was in place for a certain period of time.

This is a major problem for Ukrainian forces. At the same time, one of the hallmarks of Ukraine’s success is that it has managed to independently develop autonomous solutions—a set of capabilities it has created without relying on any other country.

I think this clearly demonstrates to every country that, in order to accomplish the necessary tasks, it needs its own set of capabilities. I am very pleased that the United States continues to support Ukraine by providing intelligence assistance and an American product developed by a remarkable American company—developed by Elon Musk and his team. But it’s important that we remain good partners in these efforts.

– For many years now, you have been warning that Moscow is not acting alone and that we are witnessing coordinated efforts by Russia, China, and Iran aimed at systematically undermining Western security. Are we dealing with a formal military alliance, or simply a pragmatic coalition whose goal is to neutralize American power?

– You know, that’s an interesting question. I don’t know if it matters much which of these two options is correct. It’s clear that the alliance exists. It’s clear that they’re acting in concert. In fact, it’s Pyongyang, Beijing, Tehran, and Moscow acting in concert. And the Venezuelans would have joined them, but we’ve significantly reduced that threat...

There are many disagreements among them. There are areas where they cannot cooperate. But when it comes to destroying Western civilization, they are unanimous. This is a group of leaders who couldn’t care less about human life, who couldn’t care less about fundamental property rights, and who are completely indifferent to religious freedom.

They are united by this shared set of beliefs. Their principles and values reflect precisely this understanding of human nature. And so, when they have the opportunity to promote their vision of what the world should look like, they act in concert, even despite the disagreements that arise among them.

This is evident at the tactical level—in the exchange of weapons systems, electronic components, and intelligence at both the tactical and strategic levels. But, more importantly, this is evident at the highest levels of leadership, at the state level, where these countries have clearly demonstrated a willingness to work together, to undermine the global architecture that emerged after World War II—an architecture that has been so beneficial to the United States, so remarkable for Europe, and, frankly, so remarkable for freedom around the world.

– Given this cooperation, is the West’s current defense strategy effective enough to deter a multi-theater conflict in which China would be engaged in the Indo-Pacific region and Russia in Europe at the same time? Does the West have the military capabilities and strategy necessary to conduct operations in both theaters simultaneously?

– I’ll get straight to the point. We will crush them. In other words, we will emerge victorious, but this will require tremendous resolve. It will require outstanding political leadership. It will require European leaders who are prepared to explain to their citizens why this responsibility falls on them and why it is in the interests of Europeans.

Every EU country—and there are more than two dozen of them—must make an effort to achieve positive results in the interests of its people. This means allocating funds, training soldiers, and participating in military and strategic efforts. This requires true political leadership, and I hope that people around the world will see what happens to countries that are not prepared for this.

If you do not defend your borders, Islamists will eventually end up in your country. If you do not secure your own freedom by building armed forces capable of participating in the efforts of an entire civilization, then malicious actors will try to take advantage of this. Every country must do this to protect its sovereignty and work diligently toward this goal. I am convinced that we will all do this, but there is still much work to be done.

– What specific steps should the United States and its allies take today to cut off the supply lines connecting Tehran to Moscow?

– Yes, there are many aspects to this. There are—as I would call them—tactical and military measures that can be taken. Ships can be detained. Cargo can be intercepted. The United States has done this in conjunction with the Europeans, and, to be honest, other countries have been more actively involved in this.

The economic pressure that the United States is exerting on Iran and its leadership is very real. As you know, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent spoke of a matter of weeks before the possible collapse of the Iranian economy. I don’t know if it will be exactly a few weeks, but it will happen. This regime will collapse. As we saw with the Soviet Union, it is impossible to predict the day, the hour, or even the year, but the regime will by no means be able to withstand the combination of the current blockade, the economic pressure being applied, and, as I hope, ongoing efforts—including military measures—which, as President Trump has indicated, he may be prepared to take even in the coming weeks.

This will give the Iranian people the opportunity to do what is necessary. We will be able to topple the regime in a way that will yield a result that is wonderful for the Iranian people, incredibly important for the Arab states of the Persian Gulf and Israel, and extremely valuable for the United States of America.