NATO: Fueling More Tensions While Aiming at Expanding into Asia!

All right, hello everybody and welcome to Geopolitical Trends, where truth matters. Excited to be with you as always. Today, of course, I have a great guest for you, is none other than Larry Johnson. So we're gonna be diving into talking about NATO's, uh, hypothetical initiative or plan in expanding into Asia., and we're gonna get some into the depth with about this topic with Larry's perspective. All right, let me bring in Larry here onto this. Hey, Larry!

Hey, man, it's good to see you. Thanks for having me.

Of course, as always. And the community was very, very excited waiting for this conversation. So you guys know who Larry is, he doesn't need an introduction here. And by the way, I always put Larry's bio along with his links to all his social media outlets in the description. So just check it out there, and I will post it here during this conversation towards the end. So let's— I'm not gonna waste much time here, guys, because there is a lot to cover. Larry, I want to get your insights first of all about the final communiqué of NATO that is mentioning that now they're gonna be opening, by the way, a liaison office in none other than the Jordanian capital of Amman in the Middle East. Why the heck is NATO going to the Middle East for?

Uh, they are like 3-year-old child with a hammer, you know, a plastic hammer. They're always looking for something to hit with it, you know, regardless of whether it needs to be hit or not. And so that's what you're seeing with NATO. They, they're, they're failing in their mission in Ukraine. So the NATO attempt to use Ukraine as a proxy is, it's a complete utter failure. They just haven't accepted it yet. So they're in, you know, what Kübler-Ross calls the 5 stages of grief. They're still in the denial phase, maybe approaching the bargaining phase, but they certainly haven't got to the acceptance stage. So therefore, NATO's looking for new enemies to conquer because as long as you got new enemies on the horizon, you can justify your existence. And, you know, they're talking— the talk about getting involved in the Middle East doesn't concern me as much as it— as their talk about getting involved with China. Now, I don't know if you're old enough to remember SEATO. SEATO, Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, set up in 1954. Basically, this was NATO for Asia back then. It was headquartered in Thailand, and basically, you know, unstated purpose, you know, it was to combat the spread of communism. This wasn't— this was a NATO organization under the guise of being SEATO. That was to sort of buck up French colonial interests in Southeast Asia, in particular Vietnam. And the collapse of SEATO coincided with the end of the war in Vietnam, 1975. It was based in Thailand. Now nobody's heard about it. Guess what? Now we're back to the future. So that's why I say this is sort of a, you know, the, like the movie Back to the Future. We're going, we're going back in time and they're now, now they're going to confront China directly. See, the, the purpose for SEATO in the 1950s, '60s was to confront communism, which was seen as China, even though in Vietnam it was Russia that was supporting the Vietnamese, not the Chinese. So, you know, a whole nother issue. But now NATO's talking about confronting China, and you're going, you guys can't even defeat the Houthis, okay? That's true. And you definitely can't defeat Russia, so you're wanting to take on China? What is wrong with you? It's just crazy stuff.

Yeah, well, this is like a segue to a key question that the community have been asking about. And this has to do— and we're gonna be talking in the hypothetical here, Larry. It's because just— I hope it never materializes because it will be the end. But given your military background, given your professional experience, and you've been around long enough to know how these things work, hypothetically, if there is a conflict, a military one, one-on-one between the US and China, How do you see this play out? Will we ever be able to win?

Well, there you have to define what is, quote, victory. If victory with respect to China, at least from the perspective of the United States, would mean the removal of the government of Xi Jinping and removal of the Communist Party completely, from power, the installation of a government that is considered friendly to the West, one almost subservient to the West. So defined in those terms, can the, can the United States prevail over China? No, not at all. China has too many built-in advantages apart from the fact that it's defending its home territory. Any force that the United States brings to try to attack China, we don't, we don't have— number one, we don't have the manpower in the US Army to launch any kind of ground attack, you know, an amphibious landing to occupy and invade parts of China. The Chinese, in terms of sheer manpower, just would overwhelm us. The ability of our naval task force, a carrier task force, to get close to China is also in question because the Chinese have hypersonic missiles that can defeat any air defense system that's on the carrier battle group. So those ships, if they try to get close, would be sunk. And well, that means U.S. is left with air power. Well, conventional air power will be, you know, ineffective in China. Yeah, it could cause a little bit of damage, but a lot of U.S. aircraft will get shot down, which means the U.S.'s only other option is a nuclear strike. And are we ready to escalate to nuclear war when the Chinese are capable with both submarine and land-based systems, and as well as air launch systems, that they could strike back? And they've got the added advantage that they've got Russia as a partner now. So, I mean, this is just— for the United States to entertain something like that, it'd just be suicide. So what we have is a case of, you know, the drunk guy in the bar that's mouthing off, threatening to fight everybody, and then you look over and realize he's sitting in a wheelchair. He can't get out of his wheelchair to fight and even throw a punch. That's about where the United States is right now. Tough talking, belligerent, making lots of threats, but its ability to really follow up and implement them, very, very unlikely.

Well, this is why I had a chance to read some info from Washington Inside about— it was a report basically from the Pentagon— the indication as far as the Chinese naval assets. And this is to me what led me to believe there is no way we will be able to defeat the Chinese, let alone logistically it won't make any sense. Well, what I did find out is that the PLA and the People's Liberation Army Navy as of today has about 355 ships in its fleet. So the expectation is that the PLA, uh, PLN, uh, intend to increase that to 420 by the next 4 years, and by sort of, uh, 2030, it will be about 460. We stand no chance against the Chinese for that one. So yeah, now, yeah, now speaking of this, uh, uh, within the realm of this one here, we all heard about how NATO now is aiming at expanding in Asia, which is to me laughable. Uh, what the heck is NATO, the North Atlantic, going to do in Asia? Where the— and laughing aside, because sometimes we might think, well, those are crazies in Brussels that they're thinking in these terms of us, and they end up doing the craziest things ever. Hypothetically, if this to move forward, how do you expect Asia to respond to this expansion of NATO?

Uh, I think Asia will be hostile to it. Um, let's define, you know, whoever they are— Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, uh, Cambodia, uh, would be, I think, the principal ones resisting it. The one that's, uh, right now sort of in favor of it is, uh, the Philippines, which is odd because the one of the major trading partners for the Philippines is China. China. So why, why alienate the Chinese? It just doesn't make sense. Um, so this is, uh, you know, United States is, I guess, hoping to, you know, rebuild its presence in the Philippines at the basis. Remember, there was during the, uh, uh, early 1990s, the, the Filipinos sort of, after the Marcos regime fell, basically got rid of— they pushed the United States out of places like Clark Air Base and Subic Bay, the naval base. Now the United States is coming back and Not surprisingly, you've got a Marcos son of, uh, in power, uh, pandering to the United States in that regard. So, you know, the Philippines is playing a very dangerous game here. They are not necessarily ensured the support of the other countries in the region because I know that Vietnam, Thailand, uh and do not necessarily see China as a problem. That's one of the reasons, you know, for example, that both Thailand and Vietnam are moving towards BRICS. They're going to be in an economic union with China, not in economic warfare with China. So the, these steps by the United States and his NATO allies, bullish.

Absolutely foolish, especially when we consider, for example, Japan. What is Japan? Is, is, even though there are some voices inside Japan saying no expansion to, uh, NATO in Asia, but you have, of course, the South Koreans, the Philippines, Australia, and soon to be New Zealand moved into that sphere. And I'm like, okay, where this is headed?— just my big concern, Larry, is just I'm seeing the signs over the horizon as to what lies ahead for Asia. Yeah, this is why the Chinese are pushing back against this plan of NATO. Now this leads me to talk about the recent trip of the Prime Minister of Hungary to China after he visited Moscow and had a one-on-one audience with the Russian President Vladimir Putin. What do you think transpired in that meeting?

Well, Orbán's trying to insert himself as a mediator to bring an end to the war in Ukraine, and that's why he first went to Kyiv and met with Zelensky and basically got the cold shoulder there. Then turned around and went to Moscow, had cordial conversations with Vladimir Putin, again trying to assess what is sort of— what is Putin's negotiating stance? What is he willing to concede? What is he not willing to concede? You know, is there any room for negotiation? Then he went to Beijing doing the same thing, trying to take the temperature, find out, you know, will I have, will we have the support of these guys? What's it going to take to get a deal done? So I think all of that is, it's a good sign on the part of Orbán, but the problem is all of his other EU colleagues attacked him. I heard, I did not independently verify, that he had actually talked to some key NATO members and got the thumbs up from them to go ahead and do this, to sound out Russia, sound out China. And it may be that, you know, countries like Germany and even France not wanting to get— or in Italy, not wanting to get on the bad side of the United States necessarily, sort of gave him the behind-the-scenes nod and a wink. Yeah, go ahead and do this while publicly condemning him. But you know, it wouldn't be the first time politicians played a game like that where they lied to the public and said a different thing behind the scenes. Yeah.

Now, uh, will the European Union be, or Parliament, that is, be in possession? Because it will be a violation of the law, isn't it, to strip him out of the right for voting rights since Hungary holds the presidency for the EU?

Hey, these laws, man, They're like toilet paper, something you can just change and use to suit your convenience. I mean, you know, they'll find, they'll find a way around it. They're going to try to get rid of him because his pursuit of peace goes right against what most of them want to do.

Yeah, well, shouldn't he just consider leaving NATO and EU altogether?

Well, you know, I, I think, you know, right now that may not necessarily make sense. Yeah, but with BRICS, the organization of BRICS is accelerating beyond just being an economic union of economic cooperation. Yeah, and I think it's, it's well on its way to becoming a major political force, to the point that even Putin himself this week was talking about creating like a parliamentary assembly of BRICS nations, much like the European Council or much like the United Nations. In fact, I can see, you know, if things continue on the current trend of the West seeing how many people it can alienate in the Global South, that you could see the BRICS creates an institution that will be independent of and actually more powerful than the United Nations with respect to operating in countries that are members of BRICS.

Very, very interesting aspect. Now, will this succeed into— especially, for example, the financial aspects of it, to unify those? Because that would be where the problem for the US, I'm assuming.

Yeah, they're trying to. So there are several things underway. One, the, the BRICS countries are trying to de-dollarize, which means no longer accept payments in dollars. And remove the dollar as the essential currency. Um, they talk about developing Bitcoin, where the BRICS nations would use Bitcoin as a way to settle accounts between them. Yeah, but countries like China are buying up enormous amounts of gold, so it's also the possibility of creating a new gold standard among the BRICS nations. The one thing that's certain is there are a variety of different international organizations like the International Russophile Movement. Its Russian acronym is MIR, M-I-R, meaning peace. Um, the SCO, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which just met a couple of weeks ago, there are talks of that being folded in. So You could write all of these different disparate groups that have promoted multipolarity, multinodal activity, um, and cooperation. They could all come together under one umbrella that would be both a political, a military, and an economic force, which will be a reflection of the new multipolar world order. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Think of it this way. Right now, yeah, of the top 4 countries in terms of GDP based as measured by purchasing power parity, 3 of those 4, 3 of those 4 are BRICS nations. And when you look at the— you dig into the actual economies and figure out what's, you know, what do those economies thrive on, 75% of the U.S. economy is what they call the service industry. You know, service industry means, uh, hey David, would you like me to supersize that Coke, or would you just want the regular— do you just want the regular fries? You know, that's service industry. Waiting on your tables, uh, figure out what beer you want, what cheeseburger do you want to have, uh, selling your life insurance maybe. Consulting. So it's work that doesn't necessarily create actual value, value in terms of creating things. It doesn't make planes, doesn't make trains, doesn't make cars, doesn't make phones. That's just, you know, words and ideas. Whereas the BRICS nations, India, China— China is the number one manufacturing country in the world. India's not too far behind, and Russia, for its size, is, is dominant, you know, industrial power.

Well, speaking of Russia, there I just read the report from the World Bank that their, uh, uh, Statistica— I'm sorry, through Statistica, but it was an internal report through the World Bank— that their GDP now per capita has increased in Russia to almost $15,000. It's $14,067, somewhere around those numbers, almost $15,000. And this right after the sanctions were imposed. It tells you the story right there. The sanctions have backfired on, uh, on the West. So exactly, for those, for those who just joining us here, I am having a conversation here with Larry Johnson And by the way, just guys, prepare some of your questions for later on when we continue our conversation here. So I want to shift, Larry, to, uh, some statements that I heard during the NATO summit, and I usually pay close attention to those. Uh, one particular that caught my attention was when, uh, our incompetent president said that, uh, the US is intended to place missiles in Germany. By 2026. Now, this reminds me of what we did in Philippines with the, uh, uh, uh, mid-range, uh, capacity missiles.

Yeah, the Tomahawks.

That's correct. We had them over there. Now we're gonna have that in Germany. How do you see this playing out geopolitically and militarily, given that the defeat of Ukraine now is a fait accompli anyway? That's a done deal. It's just a question of when we're going to reach an agreement with the Russians. How do you see Russia responding to this?

It better not happen, because if we decide to deploy those weapon systems, we're going to be looking at Cuba Missile Crisis 2.0. Russia will view those missiles in much the same way as the United States viewed Russian ballistic missiles in Cuba, as a direct existential threat to the United States. And Russia will act accordingly. I, I don't think it's actually going to get there because part of that announcement was, hey, we're going to provide you hypersonic missiles too. Well, U.S. so far has been trying in vain to produce hypersonic missiles. I'm, I'm acquainted with, uh, one of the program managers for the hypersonic missile program, and I recall Gosh, it was this fall of, uh, 2022, him saying, oh yeah, we're going to have the hypersonic missile ready to go in 6 months. All right, here we are almost 2 years later. How's that hypersonic missile coming along? They're still not ready to launch. Uh, so the Tomahawks they're putting in there are old, they're not new. Yeah, but, but still, Russia would view it as an existential threat and probably take them out. And that's why I think Germany, once that's made clear to Germany, I don't think the Germans want to go there.

So this is nothing but hypes, basically? That's all there is?

Yeah, yeah. Well, and, and the picture's changing now with JD Vance as Trump's vice president candidate.

Yeah.

So both Trump and Vance together, uh, they're gonna have a pretty united front against just, you know, funding NATO and trying to spike, uh, yeah, temperatures in, in Europe and, and other places.

Yeah, I was aware of, uh, JD Vance, the, the candidate now for the VP slot. I was aware of his position regarding the Ukraine war. He's not in support of that. He's not in support of it. But I'm wondering how the establishment is going to react to that.

Oh, they hate him. The establishment, they've already reacted. I call it the, the RINO crowd, or the George W. Bush, Jeb Bush Republican crowd. They hate JD Vance because he doesn't embrace their worldview of having to go to war with everybody. Yeah. And much more, he is much more in line with Donald Trump's views of stay at home, make America great, work on improving the lives of American citizens, get rid of illegal aliens, and tighten things up here at home before you go overseas meddling, trying to tell people what to do.

So will it be fair, Larry, to say hypothetically again, if Donald Trump wins the elections and now you have this new administration, would it be fair to say that the expansion of NATO to Asia won't happen, that the peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia will enter into effect, and that the Trump administration will come— will end this conflict regarding Ukraine once for all. Is there possibility to all this?

Yes. With the only exception I draw is with respect to the end of the war in Ukraine. Yeah, um, they're not going to sit— Ukraine and Russia are not going to sit down at a negotiating table as equals. Russia is going to hold all the cards. Ukraine is going to be basically in the position of having to surrender, and Russia will dictate terms, and it will dictate those terms in accordance with what it's telling Washington. It's not going to seek permission from Washington. Yeah, Russia knows this interest, and it's going to pursue its own national interests because they no longer trust the West. And so Trump's going to have to do a lot more than just talk. He's going to have to make some concrete promises. Yeah. And back those up.

Yeah, I'm still having doubt, Larry, and, and please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm still having doubt when Trump says, well, I'll end the war in a day or two.

Right.

Come on, man. Come on, man. Uh, it doesn't work that way.

Well, he'll be able to cut off the funding immediately, and then he'll be able to order U.S. forces that are on the ground in Ukraine providing critical assistance to the, uh, Ukrainian military to get out of country. So that, that in and of itself will almost bring that war to a screeching halt. And that'll be just the start. So he— and he's got some added leverage that once, once Zelensky realizes the gig is up, and he, he either— if he surrenders and surrenders to the Russians, they could take him as a prisoner of war or for— or as a human rights violator. So Zelensky is going to want to get the hell out of there, find safe haven someplace. So if he wants to come to the United States and find safe haven, good. Just recognize, uh, you know, you got to do what we, we tell you to. Yeah. So he's not— it's not in a good position for Zelensky. Yeah.

And I'm sure he's aware of that reality. But, but even with this, Larry, what will happen to, for example, now that the U.S., uh, has been granted access to about 15 bases in Finland? Which is right on the border with the Russians. So will hypothetically Trump reverse that decision?

Uh, yeah, probably, uh, if he gets his way with NATO, because the key is all these countries got to kick up their— not only their, their financial contributions, but their troop contributions. Um, because I was looking at the numbers the other day, Germany's at about 57,000 troops. United Kingdom's 70,000. France is after— is the third largest army in NATO. The US is largest, then Turkey, then France. Well, you know, NATO is going to come to the realization that it's an anachronism. Its day has come and gone. It's no longer relevant to the real world, to the modern world. So that, that, uh, the United States breaking up NATO will be the least of their concerns, I believe.

Concerns for that. And, and that brings that— that's a good point because you'll start to wonder what the heck NATO, a relic of the past, that is doing in today's reality that has no place in it whatsoever.

So, uh, yeah, go ahead. It's a lot like somebody with the horse cavalry trying to figure out what— yeah, we're going to get into Formula 1 racing and want to see how we can use these buggy whips. It just doesn't work. Good luck. Yeah, it's irrelevant. Thank you very much for playing, though.

That's true. That's true. I want to get your take, Larry, and I know this is like far from our conversation about Asia, about the recent elections in Iran. And he got the neo-reformist, and he's a hard surgeon based on my research that I read up on him. And where do you see Iran's foreign policy moving forward in conjunction with— now we've been hearing a conversation about what about North Korea, Russia, China, and Iran forming an alliance, military one, that is?

Well, they already have, you know, Iran, Russia, China already have a de facto military alliance because Iran, China, and Russia have been conducting annual military exercises for at least the last 4 years. So you got to take that into account. You know, that's significant. They've also conducted some land exercises together. So I think where Iran is headed right now, even under this new president, They're going to recognize that there's no path forward with the United States, at least right now. Yeah. And that their only path forward is by having a strong relationship with Russia and China. And I think that, that relationship is going to continue to expand because the relationship with Russia puts Russia in a position ready to, to buck and break with the sanctions that have been imposed upon Iran. I think Iran— I think Russia and China and other, other countries in the global south, India, they're sick and tired of the United States saying, do this or else we're going to sanction you. It's like, you're not my mother, you're not my father, you're just another country. I'm another country, and you don't get to be in charge of me. Go screw off. You know, that's where we're gonna— that's right.

And it's becoming very old when we just dictate, uh, we will sanction you if don't do this and that. And, uh, speaking of India, you mentioned India, and I'd like to have your take about the recent trip of Prime Minister Modi to Moscow, which, by the way, he had a, a great welcome, a warm welcome from the Kremlin during his visits. What do you make out of all that, Larry, and what the message India is sending, if there is one?

Well, they're telling the United States to go pound sand. Because, you know, recall that Modi's been under pressure from the United States to cut off ties to Russia. And that's the messaging that's coming out of Washington, D.C. And Modi answered that very clearly. Cut ties? No, I'm not cutting ties. I'm going to sit down with him, talking to him, and we're going to see what new agreements and relationships we can develop. Which, you know, I don't understand the West being this stupid, you know, the Americans being this stupid. I mean, some of your viewers disagree with me. Of course we'd expect them to be that stupid. Yeah, but, uh, the— there have been warm, friendly relations between India and Russia that go back into, you know, at least 54 years ago, uh, when, uh the president, uh, at the time, or, yeah, or it was, yeah, the Indian president. He was on a trip to Moscow, which was then part of the Soviet Union, and he died. I think he died in like, uh, January of 1969. Is that right? No, I take that back. Uh, he probably died January of 1972. So, um, in January of 1973— I know this for a fact— my wife was on a college winter tour program at the time, and she stayed with the family, uh, the prime minister's name— or the prime minister's name was Bandura Shastry— and she was staying in the home of Bandura Shastri a year after he had died. So they were commemorating and remembering his death in Moscow from a heart attack. So again, you— when you got the Prime Minister, you know, 54 years ago going to the Soviets, they're maintaining good ties with the Soviets in part because, you know, India had the frictions with Pakistan, and Pakistan was seen as a as a hardcore supporter of the West, particularly America. Remember, the U-2 plane was based out of Pakistan, flying out of Pakistan air bases over the Soviet Union at that time. And Pakistan was seen as the big enabler of fighting the Mujahideen and Taliban with the United States. Yeah. So India has had sort of a natural affinity towards Russia, even going, you know, back that far.

Interesting, interesting. I always tend to ask my guests, especially those who are familiar with this kind of topics here, about the possibility, and I'd like to have your take, Larry, the way you see it. Is there a possibility for India and China to sit down and sort of press the reset button regarding their differences so they can move sort of cohesively together, uh, as part of BRICS and so forth?

Yeah, absolutely. I think that process is underway. That's what we're seeing with BRICS and these other exchanges. So, um, you know, as, as historians will look back on over this, yeah, let's say the last 100 years um, and going back, you know, actually go 110 years, good, let's go back to 1914. I think they'll come to the conclusion that an enormous amount of effort was expended by the United States and its European allies to promote wars and conflicts around the world instead of promoting peace We were encouraging, inciting war between Iran and Iraq, between Pakistan and India, between India and China, between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, because it was a vested interest for the both the military-industrial complex. Yeah, as well as creating that kind of chaos in the world made it easier for the United States to maintain its dominant position. It's sick, it's cynical, but I think there's a lot of good circumstantial evidence to support that thesis.

And it certainly is coming to an end, given now the shifting sands of the geopolitical landscape that we are witnessing today. So I remain hopeful. The only question I always wonder, Larry, as one who, you know, been dealing with this kind of topics for a while, I wonder how the US is gonna react to this new change on the global stage. Will we resist it or will we cooperate in it?

We're not— that's the problem, David. We're not reacting at all. We're missing the boat. We're clueless. So if, uh, you had the special the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting 2 weeks ago. Yeah, and significance of that is Belarus was brought in as a member, and I think Turkey was attending. So Turkey is clearly signaling that it's— hey, it's headed towards BRICS and towards Shanghai. And then ultimately Shanghai is going to be folded into BRICS, I believe. Well, this, you know, they're not— what started off as a been talked about, an organization to seek an economic alternative, a financial alternative to being dependent on the dollar, is now accelerated into something that is not just financial, not just economic, but is geopolitical and military. Putin just the other day was talking about creating a parliament, a BRICS parliament, where all members of BRICS would have representatives elected and come there, and they would meet and discuss and pass legislation that would, you know, necessarily be pertinent to the members of BRICS. And right now, when you total up the BRICS membership in terms of its GDP, and compare it to the GDP of the G7, which is United States with Europe, a few countries in Europe, and Japan, BRICS is now bigger than the G7. That wouldn't have been the case 8 years ago, 9 years ago. It's the case now. So, uh, you would think that the United States, confronted with this, seeing this, this thing's really developing, is taking off, that it would go Oh my God, we got to do something. We gotta, we gotta get involved with BRICS, maybe become a part of it so you have a voice. Uh, but I, I see at some point the— whatever comes out of BRICS is going to supplant the United Nations. The, the countries of the Global South, so most of Africa, a lot of Latin America, Yeah, much of Asia. And they're gonna, they're gonna unite and stay away, stay away from the UN because, you know, the chances that the Brits and the French would agree to that— one of them must drop as a permanent member of the Security Council and that another country from Asia should be added, such as India or, or that another country in Africa, or a country in Africa, should be added to the Security Council, um, say Nigeria or South Africa. Or maybe they come up with, uh, we're going to have a continent-based membership. So, uh, North American continent gets one member, one permanent member. Europe gets one permanent member. Uh, you know, Russia gets one permanent member, Asia gets one permanent member, and South America gets a permanent member. And then, uh, you know, from that you then have other members of the world could come in. But, you know, nobody's going to go for that. So the UN Security Council right now is completely ineffective, completely, uh, handcuffed. And by virtue of being handcuffed, because, you know, U.S. can veto anything it doesn't like, and vice versa, so do the Chinese and Russians, but it doesn't really fairly represent what the world is. That's why I say BRICS is creating something that's going to be a new alternative, and more people are going to line up to be a part of it.

Yeah, well, it's, it's kind of the change we, we forced it. Due to our ill-conceived policies anyway, because we never had a strategy for the last 30, 40 years. And of course, the world had to change.

Self-inflicted wound.

Exactly. We shouldn't be blaming others.

So we pulled the gun from our holster, had the finger on the trigger, and shot ourselves in the ass.

Yeah. Even though they always said never put a finger on the trigger.

Until you got the gun pointed at what you intend to shoot. To shoot.

You're right. So, all right, let me take a few questions here, uh, before I let you, Larry, go. But I want to say thank you to some avid supporters here of the channel. Uh, Jane Hwang, thank you so much. Stay cool in the heat. Well, it is hot here, at least for me in Texas. So, uh, it is a question from Francis Tango, and thank you very much, Francis Tango. Question: How far does the United States government want to go with war against China or Russia, also a nuclear war, that is? Are they still normal people in DC?

Well, yeah, there are still some normal people in DC. So if Donald Trump and JD Vance are in power, yeah, I think the odds of going to nuclear war and escalating conflict would diminish. That's the good news. Let's divide your question into two parts. Rhetorically, yes, the United States is headed to war. We're going to go rhetorically, we're going to threaten everybody, we're going to bully everybody. But in terms of actual capability to act on it, United States has got very limited capability. It's just, you know, like right now the total size of the US Army is 452,000. Marine Corps is about 177,000. So, you know, we don't even, we don't even reach, uh, uh, you know, I guess it's a little over 620,000, roughly 630,000. Total ground forces that we could employ. Well, in Ukraine alone, with the size of the Russian army now being 1.3 to 1.4 million active duty soldiers, uh, an attacking force like the United States would need an army of around, you know, almost 4 million men. Well, we don't have 4 million men. Ditto, ditto for China. Oh my God, it's got to be even more, more. So, uh, and then both being able to activate, transport, deploy, sustain in the field with logistics— that requires literally right now a year and a half of preparation to pull that off. So this is— you've got the United States making very reckless, belligerent verbal threats. Yeah, but thank God does not have the wherewithal to follow up on those threats.

Very, very interesting. Next question from Tempucha. Thank you for being here. Uh, question: How will NATO provide the weaponry for war with China if they have run out of supplies for Ukraine?

A good one. They will put in their request with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I mean, you know, as opposed to saying, oh, let's, uh, let's bring our industry back. I, I don't know if you saw a report, I think it was called by the Gavini Institute or group, but they did a study, came out 2-3 months ago pointing out that at least 12 major weapon systems of the U.S. military are entirely dependent on computer chips, software that comes out of China. So you start doing— you start doing the math on this, and all right, so we're calling China an enemy, but we're utterly dependent for these 12 major weapon systems on China. So if China cuts us off, we're totally screwed because we don't have it, we can't make it. Oh, okay. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah. Let's, let's threaten China some more. And I tell you, the Chinese are getting fed up with it. Yeah. I mean, just, just think, put yourself in the position. You got a crappy neighbor who's always threatening you. And I mean, he comes out someday, hey, I'm going to, I'm going to shoot you in the head. I'm going to shoot your wife. I'm going to shoot your kids. After he does it about the second time, I mean, obviously you'd call the police. Hey, this man's assaulted me, because that, that's a verbal assault, but it constitutes criminal act.

Criminal act, yeah.

Then at that point, you're going to step up, and if the police aren't responding, you're going to arm yourself, and you may even warn him, said, next time you threaten me, I'm killing you. Yeah, then see if that gets his attention. That's fair. Yeah, yeah.

Interesting. Another question from Hongwan. Good to see you here as always. Will Hungary be forced off being the presidency of the Council of the EU for visiting China and Russia?

Probably. I mean, there's— I think there's enough support among the crazed European states to do that. And at which point, you know, countries like Romania, Slovakia need to reassess, or Austria. Do we really want to stay part of this outfit? Is it worth our while? Because the point we made earlier about Shanghai Cooperation Organization with Turkey showing up, Turkey spent what, last 25 years trying to get into the EU. EU, that's true. It's in NATO. It's got the second largest army in NATO, but they still treat Turkey like the redheaded stepchild. Like, you know, you're not really part of the family. You know, yeah, we invite you to Thanksgiving, but you're not really part of the family. We just pretend that we like you. Now they go to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and they find, hey, these people actually like us and they respect us. And I think that's going to lead to growing political pressure in Turkey to say, tell the EU and NATO to screw off, we're going with Russia and China, which I think is highly likely and will, uh, will further shake up the West.

Yeah, well, so funny, we have a Robo, thank you very much for your Super Sticker, and has the key question here: Turkey withdraw from NATO, 5-year implications.

So yeah, no, once Turkey goes, NATO's— NATO's just an— it's an empty balloon.

Interesting.

It's like, or it's like a hot air balloon filled with hot air but no real substance. Yeah, I don't— but yeah, I think I could, I could conceive that NATO would come to an end in 5 years.

It's about time, if not even sooner than that. I'll take the last question here, Larry, if you allow me here.

Sure, sure.

From John Smith. Uh, good to see you. What's Van's position on Israel?

Yeah, it's not much different than Trump's, and Vance has been taking money from AIPAC, is my understanding. So, so yeah, you're not gonna if they're elected, you're not going to see any dramatic change in U.S. policy. You may just see continued support. On the other hand, Vance is not a blind ideologue, and Trump is not a blind ideologue in this either. Yeah. And I think if they can be explained to them how detrimental, how damaging to Israel and Israel's future survival the current US strategy is. And that if the United States simply intervened to force Israel into some legitimate negotiations and reaching an accommodation with the Palestinians, that they could save Israel, then, you know, they might, you know, they might move in that direction. So I think they're much more willing to look for a pragmatic solution. As opposed to say, Israel, right or wrong, we're going to continue to support. They may even say that outwardly, but I think from a policy standpoint, they'd be looking for an exit strategy.

Well, very, very interesting insights, Larry. I, uh, truly appreciate you, man, for taking the time out of your busy schedule. You are a busy man after all, and I'm very, very grateful, uh, that you are able to come on the channel here, sharing knowledge with all of us.

I'm always appreciative of the invitations from you, and thank you for thinking that I'm worth talking to.

Oh yes, you are. Yes, you are. And I'll let the, uh, you, you guys can put in that comment, so I don't need to speak for you. So you all know Larry, you all know the type of information he shares with us, and, and you want to hear the voices of, uh, pragmatism, of logic. And that's what we get when Larry is here. And I'm always excited when you really have time and all that, because I learn a new things from you, Larry. And I'm very thankful. So on behalf of the entire community, I say thank you for being here. And I look forward to having you next time.

Great, David. Thanks so much, man. We'll see you soon. Bye.

Soon. Thanks, Larry. All right guys, I hope you'll find this conversation very interesting. Larry is always very interesting to talk to, someone who, you know, been around long enough. You spend— once you spend time in Washington for many years, you learn the ins and outs. So for me, it started back in— Larry spent more time longer than me in, in, in Washington. So we both came from a military background, but he has more knowledge and depth into— given his age and all that, but also his knowledge. He spent a lot, a lot of time in Washington. So I'm always excited when Larry is here, and he always tells me, hey man, just reach out whenever your audience wants to, whatever they want to learn about, just reach out. And he always respond. I send an email, within 24 hours I'll get a response. So I know some of you guys provide me some names and I send the emails Like one of you just sent a comment about, uh, uh, Dr. O, you need to invite, uh, Norton, Ben Norton. I did send an email a month and a half ago, never heard back. So maybe you went to the spam, maybe, I don't know. But just to guys let you know, I do follow up through it, just I don't like to chase after people. I just don't like it. It's my personality, that's how I am. So anyway, I look forward to seeing you tomorrow at 12 12:15 for our conversation about the UK. And, uh, much appreciate your kind support for the channel. Uh, to those who wants to support the channel, you can do it on, uh, on, on either the, uh, if I can find the, uh, yeah, there's the channel, the links right here. If you guys wanted to support the channel, I'm always grateful. And as always, remember, geopolitics impact your daily life in more ways than one. Till next time, guys.

Bye-bye.