Joining us now, Defense Secretary, Pete Hegset. Welcome to Fox News Sunday. I'm Shannon. Okay, so let's start here. Tomorrow marks three years, an anniversary of the start of this war. Russia, apparently, is planning to declare victory tomorrow. There are propagandists who say they're going to share messages that the West essentially abandoned Ukraine. I mean, how does the US, and will it counter that messaging if that's a victory lap Russia tries to take?

Well, Vladimir Putin can attempt to take all the victory laps he wants. The reality is the President is focused on one thing and one thing only, and that's stopping the killing and the destruction destruction across Ukraine and ensuring an enduring peace. Both sides are going to make a lot of claims, and the President has very directly engaged both sides in real-time. There's bilateral negotiations with Russia, which, by the way, no one else has been able to do. Joe Biden was never able to bring Russia to the table for actual peace talks. Only Donald Trump. He's the only man in the world that would be able to do that. He's also engaging directly with Ukraine. There's going to be bumps in the road in these conversations when you're seeking a historic peace. And Ultimately, our role is to do just that, and Donald Trump, President Trump is doing that. I don't need to get into the characterization of we know who invaded who, we understand the stakes of this game. America, more than any other country in the world, has invested in helping Ukraine defend itself. Now it's time for peace, and that's what the President is dedicated to.

Why has it seen that there is some reticence to say who invaded whom or who's responsible for this? There are questions about reports that a G7 statement the US opposed calling Russia the aggressor here in that statement. Also, there are these warring resolutions, allegedly at the UN. The US wanted to essentially water down what Ukraine is trying to offer. This is what the Wall Street Journal reports. The Ukrainian draft pins the worst cause on Russia and calls for a peaceful solution this year built around a Russian withdrawal from Ukrainian territory. The US resolution makes no reference to who started the war and makes no specific demands of the Kremlin. You know, your former colleague, my current colleague, Brian Kilmead, pressed the President numerous times on this on Friday, and he finally say, Okay, Russia attacked. But why does it seem there's some hesitance to say that?

My question is, does all the finger-pointing and pearl-clutching make peace more likely? That's the enduring question the President is asking. He wants peace. If that's the case, you've got to stare down the Russians and Vladimir Putin and who they've chosen to negotiate and have earnest conversations about difficult things, about security guarantees, about 2014 borders, what those will look like, about NATO member. Same thing with Ukraine. Constructively and productively. Standing here and saying, You're good, you're bad, you're a dictator, you're not a dictator, you invaded, you didn't. It's not useful, it's not productive. President Trump isn't getting drawn into that in unnecessary ways. As a result, we're closer to peace today than ever before. I've been privy to these conversations. Great progress is being made. Zelenskyy should come to the table because this economic partnership is an important thing for the future of his country, and we hope that he will very soon.

But fair to Why Russia attacked unprovoked into Ukraine three years ago tomorrow.

Fair to say it's a very complicated situation.

Okay, we'll leave it there. You have said previously that Putin is a maniac. You've called him a war criminal. How would you describe him today?

He's someone we're negotiating with to end a conflict. What I said as a private citizen has no bearing on what as Secretary of Defense, my job is as far as the characterization of a regime. I need to make sure our troops are ready. I need to be able to give advice to the President vis-a-vis future military Secretary aid, the posture in Europe. But I'm not driving these negotiations. Mike Walls and the Secretary of State and the Vice President and others are directly involved in these discussions. We're going to get to peace. But what the Defense Secretary thinks about Vladimir Putin is more or less irrelevant in this. I want peace. I want the killing to stop. I'm going to play my role. Donald Trump is leading it, and we're closer today than ever before.

Does the US have a role, though, on the world stage to say, This is a bad person. This is a dictator. This is an aggressor. Do we have a responsibility to say that?

We have done that plenty of times. It's not a crazy statement to say there was an incursion into Ukraine. There was an invasion into Ukraine. It was previous administrations who said a minor incursion and then welcomed Vladimir Putin, took that as a signal of weakness and enter. The other thing to step back on Ukraine here, Shannon, that's really important. Every part of this discussion for President Trump is from a position of strength. The perception from Vladimir Putin that Donald Trump is strong and means what he said, US has driven them and the Ukrainians to the table with an opportunity for peace. There's nothing weak about... It was Obama and Biden that allowed the Russians to take land, take territory, and be aggressors. Donald Trump never has. He's going to be in peace that nobody else would be able to do.

Okay, so a couple of deals trying to come together here, one that would end the conflict, but a separate one with the US and Ukraine, potentially about rare earth minerals, security guarantees that we may provide them in that scenario. There's that There are also these foreign leaders from France and the UK coming this week to the White House. Alex talked about them potentially putting together a 30,000 strong force of peacekeepers. Is there any scenario, whether it's the rare earth minerals agreement, whether it's this force that the Europeans want to stand up any scenario in which US troops are on the ground in Ukraine? No.

We've been very clear about that. Us troops will not be on the ground in Ukraine. But an economic partnership is important and an important commitment to Ukraine. My message in Brussels, which Russell ruffled some feathers, and that's okay. My point there was to inject realism into the conversation was, Hey, on the continent, Europe should lead. It's very encouraging to see European leaders saying, We're prepared to step in in Ukraine and help provide security guarantees. We welcome that, and we hope they step up and do it.

Okay, starting Friday night, some big changes at the Pentagon in personnel and leadership and assignments. Senator Reid, who is, as you know, a veteran, he is the ranking member on Senate Arm Services Committee, wrote this. He says, A clear message is being sent to military leaders. Failure to demonstrate personal and political loyalty to Trump could result in retribution even after decades of honorable service. Goes on to say, His military officers must remain free to give their best military advice without fear of reprisal. Is there room in military leadership for those who have loyalty to President Trump, but to those who may feel like that could be in conflict at some point to the Constitution?

That's a total mischaracterization from Senator Reid, as has been most of the hyperbole in the press around this. There is civilian control of the military. Nothing about this is unprecedented. The President deserves to pick his key national security and military advisory team. There are lots of presidents who've made changes, from FDR to Eisenhower to H. W. Bush to Barack Obama, who fired or dismissed hundreds of militaries during his term. There were six, three, and four three-star generals that were moved into different positions or retired on Friday night of 160 three and four-star generals. This is a reflection of the President wanting the right people around him to execute the national security approach we want to take. I have a lot of respect for CQ Brown. I got to know him over the course of a month. He's an honorable man, not the right man for the moment. Ultimately, the President made that call. Dan Raisingane is going to be a fantastic chairman. I look forward to working with him, and he will give straightforward advice, as he did to President Trump on the defeat of ISIS. No one else said it could be done in a matter of weeks.

Raising Cain said it could, and guess what? It happened. The President respects leaders who untie the hands of warfighters in a very dangerous world. I think Dan Cain is the man to meet the moment.

Okay, I got to ask you about this rumored list of people that you allegedly put together that we're all going to be cleaned out. Is there a list? Is there anybody left on the list if it exists?

There's no list, Shannon. I've heard that. I've seen that very rumor. Although we have a very keen eye toward military leadership and their willingness to follow lawful orders. This is all about defending the Constitution. Joe Biden gave lawful orders. A lot of them are really bad, and it's unfortunate how they eroded our military. Ideological COVID mandates. President Trump has given another set of lawful orders, and they will be followed. If they're not followed, and all these orders are in keeping with the Constitution and norms inside the military. If they're not followed, then those officers will find the door. That's It's not a tough calculation. We feel really good about the direction the Pentagon is headed under President Trump. We're going to focus on warfighting and lethality and accountability and be the most transparent Pentagon that folks have seen in a long time, which is why I explain these things on a regular basis.

Well, and Part of what you said on Friday night is that you were going to be looking for replacements, essentially, for Judge advocates general for several of the branches. For people who may not know, they give advice to the military about what is lawful and what isn't. Not surprisingly, there's been some backlash to those who are worried about their removal. One Georgetown law professor says this, Trump also firing the Army, Navy, and Air Force Jags. In some ways, that's even more chilling than firing the four stars. It's what you do when you're planning to break the law, you get rid of any lawyers who might try to slow you down.

Your response to her. I don't know who Rosa is and what her hyperbole is all about. Ultimately, we want lawyers who give sound constitutional advice and don't exist to attempt to be roadblocks to anything that happens in their spots. What we know about these T-jags, they're called T-jags inside the military. Traditionally, they've been elected by each other or chosen by each other, which is exactly how it works often with the chairman as well. Small group of insulated officers who perpetuate the status quo. Well, guess what? Status quo hasn't worked very well at the Pentagon. It's time for fresh blood. We're going to open up those positions to a broader set and a merit-based process to find the best lawyers possible to lead the army, the Air Force, and the Navy. There's nothing about purging. There's nothing about illegal. We've made clear from the beginning, Shannon, the military will be apolitical with the fidelity to the Constitution, prepared to close with and destroy our enemies. One thing people haven't noted yet, which I'll share, is we're going to take... Those are three-star billets, but traditionally, they've been two-star billets over time. There's been lots of inflation in the ranks over time.

We're going to return those billets to two-star billets. We're going to shrink the size of our headquarters units, the inflation of military general. We won World War II with seven four-star generals, Shannon. We have 44 today. We have 163 and four-star generals. Has it created better outcomes or not? We're challenging a lot of assumptions at the Pentagon to streamline what we do so that we get as many resources as possible to the warfighter.

Well, and we know the Pentagon has not ever passed one of its audits, and that's next on your list. We know you're asking for cuts. I could talk the whole hour with you. I want to get to Iran, Israel, China, all of that. So please come back. We would love to see you again soon. Love it. Secretary, thank you..