Russia: Will Deploy Missiles at Close Range from the US/West! Conversation w/Larry Jonhson!

All right, hello everybody and welcome to Geopolitical Trends, where truth matters. Very excited to be with you as always. And of course, today is the 18th, as I mentioned to you, we'll have our none other than Larry Johnson. So everybody was asking, when is Larry coming back? I said, well, he is overseas, and when he's back, he'll, he'll be here. So Larry is here, so I'm going to bring him in right away, guys. Because we got a lot to cover. The only thing I need to let you know is that don't forget to join me tomorrow for both the live stream at 12:15, uh, Central Standard Time, and the one at 20:00 hours. I'll be talking to my guest in China directly, so don't forget that one. So, all right, uh, let me just see quickly who's here. Well, hi to all of you guys. I can't go through the list, you know how it is. So let me bring in Larry. Hi, Larry.

Hey there, David.

Good to see you as always. And on behalf of the community, by the way, we say thank you for carving out time for us here. So we don't take things for granted in this community.

No, I always appreciate the invitation. Well, it means a lot to be wanted.

Well, it means a lot to us, Larry, because here's, here's the hard truth. I always tell the my folks at the community, uh, the guests that I bring is the ones that you're gonna learn from. I care less for the numbers, I care less for the viewership and all that. All that stuff doesn't matter to me. What matters is the substance. And this is why you are one of those. And I'm not saying it to be Mr. Nice. By the way, guys, I'm gonna ask you a question about Larry, and I'd like you to answer. Don't be nice, you know. Describe Larry in one word. In the chat box, if you will be kind. One word, describe Larry. So that's, that's to me how it works out. All right, what I want to start with, Larry, is your recent trip. If I may just address this one briefly, because a lot of people do not know about the St. Petersburg International Conference, you know. Can you please just, just enlighten my community here for them to understand what this convention is all about?

My understanding is, and they call it the International Economic Forum, but you're right, it's also a convention. It started, I don't recall if it's 24 or 27 years ago, but right now it brings people from 136 different countries. Wow. You've got, oh, there were like well over 25,000 participants and the organization, just the logistics of putting that together were remarkable. You know, you have to be a pretty advanced developed country to do that because, you know, in addition they required PCR tests of everybody getting into the venue. Well, just, you know, the, yeah, putting, doing those tests, then processing them, and then linking them to particular IDs and particular badges. And, wow, you know, that's all pretty involved. There were banks, businesses, members of government. I know that at the session I was presenting, the ambassador— Syria's ambassador to Moscow was there and sort of warmly received my remarks. So This is a cutting-edge conference. It is like the opposite of the World Economic Forum. This is talking about, let's call it the New World Economic Forum. The BRICS is the foundation, and it has accelerated over the last 2 years with the imposition of sanctions against Russia, attempt by the And the West's constant talk about attacking China has really accelerated efforts by the Russians, the Chinese, and the Indians, along with the South Africans, the Brazilians to a lesser extent. But they're really serious about creating this alternative world economic order that you're not going to be held hostage to the dollar anymore. And, you know, those people that tend to believe that the dollar is forever You know, they haven't looked at history. Look at the United Kingdom. Look at the Republic of Rome. You know, they used to control the world currency. How'd that turn out? So, uh, the, the, these empires are not guaranteed eternal life. And the United States, by its very actions right now, as was demonstrated at this forum— now, there were— I was a minority there were a very, very, very small number of Americans attending there. And I said, ditto for Europeans. They're trying to ignore it, pretend it's not there. But for God's sake, when you got 136 countries, you've got of the top 4 economies in the world, 3 of the 4 are BRICS nations. China, number 1, India, number 3, and Russia, number 4. Well, them combined completely overwhelm, outshine the United States. Yeah, it's just stupid not to be a part of it. So very, quite dynamic. Uh, it was a week long. Yeah. And you know, it, it's, it's going to grow in importance, I believe, as time goes on, not diminish.

Well, I'm glad you shared this because a lot of us here in the West, we don't hear much about the Saint Petersburg, uh, forum, economic forum there. So I'm glad you were there, so you saw with your own eyes, and for the audience to hear it directly from you. So thank you for that. So let's get into our really what we're gonna be talking and what I would like, uh, to have your input in, uh, your analysis, your perspective, your understanding. What do you make up of the deployment of a nuclear submarine 90 miles away from Florida?

Uh, a lot of this is political theater. So the Russians have had submarines and do have submarines off our coast for the last 70 years, 60 years at least. So the fact that they surfaced it and brought it into Havana was— it was to give it a reminder to the United States that, hey, You know, you want to be off of our coast, you want to be off of, you know, outside our land boundaries threatening us. Who can play that game? Now, the arrival of this, of these, I think it was 4 Russian ships and the submarine. This, you know, you know, from your prior experience, these things are planned in advance, usually a year in advance. So this was not necessarily tied to the recent statements by the United States and NATO talking about putting weapons in the hands of Ukrainians that would then be used to hit targets inside Russia and basically encouraging a broader war against Russia. However, just because it was pre-planned and they were going to do this anyway, and they, the Russians did it again last July, July 7th, I Yeah, so it's not like this is the first time. That's how it was played in the Western media. Oh my God, the Russians are out of control. Yeah, but, um, the Russians still were willing to use it as a way to send a visible message to the United States that, look, we have military capabilities that if we do, uh, off, off your shores that we can threaten you. You know, the United States, the United States has been threatening Russia without the people of America realizing it since 2007 up until 2021. So we're talking roughly 14 years. The United States conducted an annual military exercise in the Black Sea with Ukraine called Sea Breeze. Yeah, you know, we were landing Marines in landing craft on the shores of Ukraine. And some of these are— they were laughable. They were described as, oh, these were anti-piracy exercises. Oh, for God's sake, please. That, you know, we're not that stupid, okay? We understand exactly what's going on, as did the Russians. And, and you say, well, how can you say that? I say, okay, just flip it. What would you, if you're an American citizen, think that if for the last 14 years Russia had sailed its fleet into the Caribbean and conducted landing exercises on the coast of Mexico with Russian Marines? Would we be cool with that? Oh, hell no. I mean, we'd go, oh my God, this is a threat. You're threatening our hemisphere. This is my, you know, we'd break out the Monroe Doctrine. And so it just, it underscores the hypocrisy, excuse me, the just gross hypocrisy of Washington and the politicians there, that we, we don't think twice about creating a military provocation against Russia in its own backyard Whereas if they did the same to us, we would be out of our minds. We'd see it as a, almost an act of war. Yeah. So, so that's what we're playing with. And so that's, that's what this thing in Cuba was planned to— it was planned. They arrived, they didn't bring any nuclear weapons with them. Uh, they had hypersonic missiles though. Yeah. And those hypersonic missiles could cause, uh, terrific damage, particularly to ships and, uh,, that would be based in, say, Norfolk.

Yeah, they can go that far. So, but at the same time, Larry, uh, as a geopolitical analyst, I have to think in terms of, of course, the optics of it. You and I understand, we came from almost similar background, that, you know, context matters. The fact that the timing of it, uh, which coincided with this statement by NATO about, about having 300,000 troops prepared to deal with the Russians and all that. So to me, it was like the optics of it. But here is, here is one question that I would like to have your input in, and this is just a hypothetical, a hypothetical. Let's say, for example, China and North Korea decided to join Russia for those exercises at the Caribbean.

Yeah, yeah.

How, how will that be perceived in your opinion? Let's just, for the sake of thinking this might happen. How do you think Washington—

yeah, well, that, that would have really been a significant message. Now, uh, people in America ought to pay attention to the fact that Russia, China, and Iran have been conducting military exercises, but they're doing it— they're doing it off the coast of Iran, and they're doing it in the Persian Gulf and near the Straits of Hormuz. So It's not a far-fetched fantasy, it's a reality. But that would have, you know, bringing them to Cuba to conduct such an exercise, United States would have said, oh, that's an offensive action, you're threatening us. Yeah, damn straight, Skippy. That's exactly what they're doing and that's exactly what we are doing. And that's the point people— and the, you know, our media fails to adequately report in this country that just how serious our breaches are and the kind of saber rattling we're doing because it's getting to a point now where it's really, you know, it's like lighting matches inside a room filled with gunpowder. You light that match and it hits the wrong thing, you're going to set the whole thing off. And when we're talking about setting this off, we're talking about, you know, an escalation to use of nuclear weapons. Yeah, it's— this is, you know, this is as dangerous a time as you and I have ever seen in our lifetimes. Indeed.

And this will lead me to— I want to go back a little bit in history, Larry, and just consider back the 1962 crisis when Nikita Khrushchev Now, the argument was, and I wrote this about it in my book and all that, some analysts in Washington were saying at that time, based on the argument, is that, well, Nikita Khrushchev was just bluffing. I counter-argued that and I said, no, he wasn't bluffing. Right. He was not bluffing. What do you guys, what do you think, Larry? Was he in case of—

Oh, no, no, he wasn't bluffing. He was reacting. So the United States had deployed missiles to Turkey, uh, and they were, they were in play, nuclear-tipped. Now, what's, uh, Timothy Weiner, who wrote the book Legacy of Ashes, he describes in there that during the Cuban Missile— at the very start of the Cuban Missile Crisis, there was a recorded conversation between John F. Kennedy, then president, and his, uh, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy, uh, the Secretary of Defense, I believe it was McNamara. And, and so, and Kennedy muses out loud, he goes, why would the Russians do this? And he then said, they're acting like we've, we've deployed missiles on their border. And the room, the room goes dead silent. And McGeorge Bundy goes, uh, sir, we have. And Kennedy was like, oh. And so here's the guy who's sitting in the, you know, the big chair, top of the heap. And he didn't have it. He didn't have a clue that we had already created the provocation. And so at that point, uh, Russia was serious. They were going to, you know, equip those missiles, make them— they were going to be, uh, combat operational in a short time. And then we would have been facing what Russia was facing with those missiles that were based in Turkey. And so that was the deal that was cut, that we, we agreed, you know, not publicly, but Hey, okay, you, you take those down and we'll take ours down. We promise. Yeah. And, and at least back then we still had credibility. United— you know, Russians still believed us. We don't have it. The US doesn't have that credibility anymore. Yeah, which is why— yeah, I just said, which makes it so dangerous. That's what makes today so dangerous.

Indeed. Like, I mean, I got pushed back, especially after Because I had to send the manuscript at that time to, you know, the government for approval and so forth. And I got an email. I was like, Mr. O, you know, I think you were wrong there. He was just bluffing. I said, no, he wasn't. He wasn't. Because you guys don't want to admit the reality for it. So, so I'm glad you clarified this. So I wasn't thinking to myself, you know what, I'm going to ask Larry when he comes in here to get your—

No, you're not, you're not, you're not crazy. I agree with you.

Thank God somebody believes in me, right?

Yeah.

Now, now let's talk about this NATO plan of deploying those 300,000 troops and armored against Russia. You know, what is this is all about?

Uh, delusional thinking. So, um, the, you know, conventional military doctrine is that an attacking force— and so in this case NATO would be an attacking force. Can we agree on that? And they'd be going up a defending force. Well, the defending force in this case are the Russians. Well, the Russians have 1.3 million troops. The conventional military doctrine suggests you have to have a 3-to-1 rate, you know, uh, advantage. So, you know, I'm not great at math, but if the Russians got 1.3 million We're talking 3.9, almost 4 million troops. So they're sending up basically 9% of that. Guess what? Not going to work. All it's going to do is get a bunch of people killed. And Russia's become real good at killing them. You know, they're, um, they're, they're like, uh Clint Eastwood in his last movie, Pale Rider, I killed, you know, I've killed, you know, he is a killer. And Russia's become a very effective combat killer as where they were able to minimize their casualties and maximize Ukrainians. And, you know, they've been killing some Westerners along the way. If the West is foolish enough to try to intervene in that way, this war will expand. Now, I don't anticipate Russia using nuclear weapons out of the blue. They're going to have to be provoked. And I think, candidly, what's come out of NATO this week and the United States and So you had Kirby say just yesterday that, oh yeah, we've got it, we're going to keep backing Ukraine till they defeat Russia. So right away you've got a declaration of war by the United States against Russia without Congress approving it. And we're going to support, we're going to back Ukraine until they militarily defeat Russia. Well, Russia is not going to be militarily defeated, but Russia hears that And they recognize, okay, you know, the United States is basically declaring war on us. Then they see the B-52s that are flying up onto— to adjacent, in close proximity to Russia's borders, and Russia scrambles interceptors and goes out and pushes them back. Well, again, that's an unnecessary provocation. Because those B-52s can carry nuclear weapons, and Russia understands that. And so Russia has to make the judgment. How do we know this ship is not actually carrying a live bomb right now and that their plan is to attack us? And then you had Stoltenberg at the NATO yesterday reiterate and start talking about how NATO is going to expand its nuclear weapons and move them closer to Russia's border. Now, if you're the chief of Russian intelligence, or if you're the head of the Stavka, the General Staff, you're hearing this and you got two options. You can say, ah, those Americans, those NATO people, they're just funnin'. They don't mean it. They're— yeah, they just they're just talking smack, they had too much to drink last night. No, that, that's not what they're saying. No, they're saying, okay, they mean what they say, we're going to take them that they absolutely are coming to attack us. So we've now, we've got to be ready for this, and we're going to put in place contingency plans to respond, some of which may include preemptive strikes. I mean, that's, that's how dangerous this is. And it's like you want to grab these people and shake them and say, do you not realize what you're doing? Yeah, for God's sake, wake up.

This—

you are playing with radioactive fire. It's that simple.

Well, actually, this is why I believe, uh, I think what it was, what was it, 2 months or 3 months ago when the Russians did the drills for the tactical nukes?

Just a month ago. And they're doing a new set right now with Belarus.

Uh, Russia.

Yeah. But you know, having, having worked on military exercises for a long while, it's important to know these were not just recently dreamed up. They didn't, they didn't get the orders to start to put together an exercise in the last 3 to 4 weeks. They're usually, that's an extensive planning process in advance. Yeah, but part of that planning process is you recognize we have to train to— and let me explain what these exercises consist of. The purpose of this, these exercises, is one, to ensure that when there is an event or an incident that a government's going to have to react to that the national, let's call it the national command authority, or in this case, President Putin, can communicate with his Ministry of Defense, and they in turn can communicate with the relevant military units that are involved with that particular mission, and that they can do so quickly and efficiently. And then those military units can communicate back up the chain of command that, okay, yeah, we're ready, we've mobilized our people, we've called everybody back from leave, whatever. And then you go through an actual planning process. And there are two types, basic types of planning process. One's a crisis response, you know, the terrorists have taken over the Achille Lauro, the ship is out here in the middle of the Mediterranean. What are we going to do? Well, then, hey, we can send SEAL Team 6. SEAL Team 6 has got the capability to land on and board that ship underway and conduct a hostage rescue operation. And so then the whole planning process, you know, they go through that planning process. That's crisis response. It's contained within, say, 2 days to 7, 8 days, short period. Short time frame. You then have the longer-term exercises that are more conventional, but again, within that, you go through the process of alerting the units, issuing them a warning order, telling them to get ready, get prepared to do something. They have to write out a concept of operations. Hey, Here's what we propose to do. Here's, here's our plan of action. And then it goes back up the chain of command. The plan of action signs off. So in this particular case with these nuclear exercises, they're wanting to make sure that one, when, when the Kremlin gives the order, okay, deploy those missiles. These are on mobile launchers so that the, the units can scramble. They can get their personnel actually into the units. Start them up and drive them off. Now, where are you going to drive them to? So you work on that. You know, they get orders on here's where you're going to deploy. Then once you deployed, how do you set up? You go through the process of setting up, getting it ready to fire. And then you work on the communications back and forth of, you know, either you do a simulated fire, you get the command, or you say, oh, you know, back down, move. You know, so that's what these exercises are about. So they're, they're not to be ignored. Yeah, but, but they were— these also were planned in advance. So, you know, I wanted to go into depth on that because a lot of times people don't understand what you talk about military exercise, what it actually means.

Yeah, well, great for those. Thank you for those insights. A lot of people do not know. I mean, some of us who've been in the military, we had to go through the process and understand how it works and so forth. I wanna, I wanna get your take, Larry, on the proposal. And I use the term very carefully here, the truce proposal that Russia proposed to Ukraine. Yeah, yeah. What do you make out of that, uh, given what just happened in Switzerland with the so-called Ukraine Peace Initiative, which by the way was a complete failure. I just read the final communiqué. 8 countries refused to sign, right? And anytime you have a final communiqué that not all the parties agree, that means it's failure. What do you make out of that?

Um, have you ever seen somebody go into a car dealership? And so they go in and they say, okay, here's this, I'm going to buy this Lamborghini, and it's cheap. You're gonna We'll give it to you for $100,000, but you need to put $15,000 down. And you go, no, no, no, no, no. You walk away from the deal. So then you come back and say, okay, I'm ready to buy now. Okay, well, the price now is $150,000 and you got to put $50,000 up front. Well, wait, wait, wait, what happened to the $15,000? Well, that's exactly what's happened to Ukraine here. Yeah, so in 2022, they had a deal on the table with Russia. Wasn't fully fleshed out, but in March of '22, that they could keep Donetsk, they could keep Luhansk. There had to be some security guarantees, but they had to also reject that they weren't going to be part of NATO, and Russia would, you know, withdraw its forces. Oh, Ukraine crapped all over that at the— under the pressure from the United States and Great Britain. Boris Johnson was the one to deliver the message in person. Don't do this or else. So Ukraine walks away. All right, Putin's back. Now what's he saying? Okay, here's a deal. We're going to keep Donetsk, we're going to keep Luhansk, we're going to keep Zaporizhzhia, we're going to keep Kherson. You pull all your troops out of those areas because you still got troops in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia and Donetsk. Pull them out and, uh, no longer agree to be part of NATO, and we'll, we'll stop attacking you right now. They did not— didn't say anything about pulling out. We'll stop attacking you. Well, right away you can— oh, that's outrageous! And, you know, United States. Now, oh, that's outrageous, you know. No, no, no, no, no. Notice what Russia didn't say in that. They didn't say anything about Kiev or Kyiv. Yeah, they didn't say anything about Odessa. Things that can be still be negotiated. Well, that was, that was last week. Yeah, so the next offer I think that will come in will be You know, you can clear out of Odessa, you can clear out of Kiev, and we won't continue killing you. But that was the best deal. That was the second best deal Ukraine could have got, what was offered last week. And it was serious on the part of the Russians. Now the West go, how dare they? Well, you know what? Who was it? Austin said they can't dictate Actually, it was a talking point. Both Austin and Stoltenberg said the Russians are in no position to dictate. Oh, I beg to differ. They're in a great position to dictate because they got more soldiers on the battlefield. They got more guns than we do. All right. They got more, more of everything, more planes, more helicopters, more artillery, more tanks, and most most importantly of all, more soldiers, trained soldiers, and they're going to continue to press forward. So if Ukraine doesn't accept this, you know, the next stop is going to be, I predict, an unconditional surrender. That'll be because Russia's— Russia is not giving anything back now. That's not That's not a negotiable possibility. You're not going to sit down and Russia can go, oh, okay, well, we'll let you know. It's not like playing Monopoly. Okay, I'll, I'll let you have Park Place for Venture Avenue or whatever. No. Or I'll let you, I'll let you have Donetsk and Luhansk, but you got to give us, uh, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. No, no, no, no, no, no, not happening. Russia's in. We're— these are now federal republics of Russia. Russian Federation. Yeah, you're right, they're part of us. So they're not— they're not going away, they're staying. Uh, you get out, and if you don't get out, we'll push out. And then, which is exactly what's going to happen.

Well, that's why I wanted to ask you, because I've been reading elsewhere, and I usually— I'll dig through the, the sort of think tanks and even institutes for, for peace and so forth. And one of them that was, I don't know if you're familiar, Larry, with the Institute of Study of War.

Oh yes, ISW, the neocon.

Yeah, yeah, you won't believe the title what it says. And by the way, guys, I'm gonna put the link for you. You can read the article later on. I'm gonna put it right here in the chat box for you guys. And that was one of the reasons why I wanted to ask you, Larry, about this one, because the title of it, it says, why Putin remains interested in meaningful negotiations with Ukraine. I think they flipping— manipulation. That's the— that was, uh, I read what the Kremlin statement issue in regarding what the Russia proposed. I looked at it, you know, as one looking from outside in. I said, well, that's a better deal. But yeah, I had my doubts Ukraine won't be able to make a decision unilaterally, and it can't.

So yeah, yeah, they were, uh, you know, this was as clear a proposal as you get. There was, you know, like I said, I was, I was more interested in what wasn't in it. Yeah. Than what was in it. Because once you, once you see that they didn't say a thing about Odessa, didn't see a thing about Kiev, because they could have said, and, uh, you know, as you know, you pull your forces out of these provinces and then also we'll discuss what the status of Kiev and Odessa will be. They could have said that. They didn't. So that's true, you know, that's true.

Uh, I want to get your take on the recent statement that just happened yesterday by none other than the incompetent and liar— that's what I call him, and I don't shy away from saying it because it's the truth— uh, uh, Jens Stoltenberg, uh, by saying now, well, uh, NATO countries, or NATO in general, will have to increase its defense spending for this year. And guess what? By about 18%. And that makes me think, who's gonna afford that?

But remember, remember what happened about, uh, about a month ago? Yeah, Stoltenberg was complaining bitterly about all these NATO countries who had made these pledges of support to Ukraine. They were going to kick in X amount of dollars and X amount of military equipment. That's what they promised, and they didn't do it. And so they still haven't done it. And that's the thing, that talk, you know, you know the old expression, talk is cheap. Man, you could say anything, you know, I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today, you know, Wimpy from Popeye. And that's sort of what the West has become, making all these fantastic promises to Ukraine and not even delivering half of what they're promising. So, uh, it is— it's just, again, it's symptomatic of the failed— of the failure of NATO. Because already you're seeing the strains in NATO. You have, uh, Hungary saying, no, you know, we're not— you know, we're not going to go all in on this, on this Ukraine project. Turkey notified NATO If you're going to go to war with Russia, count us out. We're not there. You know, and there you go, right away you're removing the second largest army, uh, in NATO. So, you know, what do you do then? Slovakia, similar. Uh, so, you know, you're getting, getting signs of the so-called unity of NATO is starting to fray around the edges. And then, you know, just— and you had Germany and Poland both reject pleas by the United States and NATO to send their Patriot missile batteries to Ukraine. Both said, oh, hell no, no, no, we're keeping them for us.

Yeah, yeah, because they will become a target, as simple as that. This brings me to one point, Larry, you mentioned earlier in the scenario of the— if hypothetically things go in a direction where Ukraine will have no other option but surrender. Are we gonna see— hypothetically, are we gonna see similar setting to that of 1945 by the Japanese, or it will be different?

No, no, I think it'll be different. I think it'll be more akin to what happened with, uh, the last time the, you know, the— yeah, the Allies and the Soviets forced the Germans to sit down at a table and sign a surrender document. It'll be, it'll be more like von Paulus surrendering at Stalingrad.

Yes.

Okay. You know, I think, uh, I, I think, you know, maybe by the end of the summer, uh, the Russians will surround Kyiv. Yeah. Uh, that, uh, the situation for the Ukrainian military is going to become pretty, pretty dire because they are losing they're losing troops now at a very, very high, probably double the rate of what they were a year ago. And it was, it was high a year ago, but this is now the killing has intensified because they are, they've got some now entrenched Russian positions and they're attacking them and they're getting slaughtered.

Yeah, I did see some, uh, some clips from overseas of now how the females. Ukraine has to recruit now females for— I mean, snatching people from the streets into— but it doesn't work because the civilians are pushing back against those who wants to snatch people. So it's just, I don't see that happening. So by the way, guys, uh, just prepare a question or two for Larry for later on as we continue our conversation here. And, uh, so this way you'll— I'll have the questions ready, uh, when, when that time comes up. Uh, as you know, tomorrow, guys, I will be talking to you. I'll do my depth analysis on all that stuff. For now, I want to turn it over to Larry to provide us his insights about the Russian president's visit to North Korea, which is the first in about 24 years. Now, to me, Larry, this doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Well, right.

What do you think?

Well, there's a lot of misinformation and political spin being put on this, particularly in the West. So let's recall that 6 months ago, 7 months ago, the North Korean leader was in— I think it was Vladivostok. I don't think he ever made it to Moscow. I think Putin went out to meet him in the eastern part of Russia, but nonetheless, he came to Russia. So this was a reciprocal visit. And yeah, it's right here, you know. So we're showing, uh, you know, Putin is returning the courtesy, showing, you know, that they are equals, that they're treating North Korea, like, uh, you know, as an equal. The West has this interesting propaganda lie that, oh, that North Korea is— that Russia is desperate, desperate for missiles. Oh my God, they're, they're running out. Yeah, they're, they're on, they're on life support, and that North Korea is keeping them in the game. So this is Putin groveling, I guess, before Kim to get some more missiles. That is, I mean, it's complete garbage. It's not true. Now, what is true is that Putin has given the green light, and I think this was one of the issues that were discussed during the visit in Russia 7 months ago about using— allowing North Korean weapons to be used on the front lines, and that North Korean technical advisors will be there to monitor their performance. Why? Because they don't have to fire them off into an ocean as a test. By God, they get to test them on the battlefield. Yeah, they get real-life experience. So there is that element. But, you know, let's also remember that it was, you know, Donald Trump 5 years ago, 6 years ago, he traveled to the border and held the talks with Kim. So again, it was part of a nation's diplomacy. So, you know, Russia is just seizing the initiative here. The U.S. has lost the initiative, preferring to treat North Korea as an enemy. And, you know, I'm not arguing that North Korean society is Shangri-La and, you know, a beacon of liberty and justice. Yeah, but, you know, they figured out their own way what they are. And, you know, the West It seems just, you know, we're hell-bent on having to change everybody. Yeah, we're like, we're like that bad boyfriend or girlfriend you get that they want to change everything about you because they don't like the way you are. I guess they, they never, never sang Billy Joel, you know, I Love You Just the Way You Are. We don't, we don't love, we don't love anybody the way they are, by God. We got to change him into our own image.

Yeah, that's, uh, I mean, I was thinking, and as I said, guys, tomorrow I'll be talking more about this one. But the thing, Larry, is the way I looked at it, and again, I could be wrong into this, uh, to me, I, I, I just looked at the statements, uh, because to me, words tends to turn into policy of sort. And I recall the Russian president stated, which was only a few weeks ago, that now the gloves are off as far as the possibility of sharing certain type of weapons with other entities.

Oh yeah, no, absolutely.

And that's how this— because to me now, the trip to North Korea is going to cement that step forward into assisting North Korean in developing more nuclear technology.

Yeah, up to this, I, I think Russia will be cautious in that they, they will not necessarily take the lead. I think they'll defer to China. Because China traditionally has sort of had the— been the caretaker of North Korea, trying to keep them on a short leash. Yeah, but if nothing else, Putin can provide some assurances that, you know, looking for an exchange. I do think one thing North Korea has that will benefit Russia is labor. So Russia has a real need for workers, trained, educated workers, and North Korea can provide that. So, but you know, this is again, this, we're moving it, we're moving in a direction, yeah, where the United States has been trying to isolate these countries, and instead of isolating them, reaching out and building stronger relationships with each other, number one. And then beyond that, they're going to reach out to other parts of the world that traditionally have been ignored or bullied.

Yeah, but, but could this, Larry— and again, because I am very curious, because to me something, a trip like this, it will have some far, far-reaching consequences in for the countries themselves to move in one direction or another. Could this also has to do with what's li— what lies ahead regarding NATO Because I got a word, I got a word that the, the meeting that's going to take place in Washington in July, they might announce that now NATO is going to go global, which means Far East. Could it be that the Russians and North Koreans are just preparing themselves?

Yeah, definitely possibility. But I mean, you know, look, again, yeah, think how, think how crazy that is, what NATO's talking about.

I know, I know.

They can't even take care of Europe. Oh, but now we're going to take care of the world. You know, it's like, um, it's a serial degenerate junkie. It is a heroin addict, and it can't, you know, it has to continue to up the dose. So now we're not content with trying to conquer Russia. By God, we're going to conquer China. Yeah, and you come back to the question, how, how exactly are you going to carry that off? That's the problem. The West, the West is confronting the reality that they're dependent, you know, chromium. Let's just take chromium as one example. I think there is in the United States one chromium mine. There are 3 in Russia, 5 in China, and they got 2 or 3 scattered around the rest of the world. Without chromium, you're not making military, uh, armaments, armaments, period. So if the United States is basically a— has a very, very, very limited supply here in the States, yeah, and they're talking about going to war not just with Russia but with China. Can't sustain it. It's unsustainable.

Yeah. And, and speaking of China, Larry, next time, uh, when you and I, we met here for the community, I'd like us to address— I have something in mind. I'll, I'll run it by you later on, and I'd like really your insights into this, because again, what I see over the horizon, and at the heart of it is China. So we'll— you and I will talk offline later on.

Yeah.

About this one here. So, all right, guys, last word. Larry, I want to turn it over to you before I'll take any questions. Where do you see this moving forward with all this bravado statements from NATO, with this failed summit in Switzerland, with what the US is saying over allocating now an extra $100 billion for Ukraine? Where do you see all this going?

I think there's a great risk that we're going to stumble into a war that we're not prepared to fight and that we'll certainly lose. And, uh, you know, it's extremely dangerous. And I think most of the American people are just not awake to that fact. They've, they bought into a lot of the propaganda about, you know, Russia being an imperial power, China being an imperial power, we got to stop them. Yeah. And so we accept that rhetoric without thinking it through. What does it mean? And what does it mean for us? So it is the war fever that's taken over Washington, because it's not just the belligerent remarks about China and Russia, you know, it's also the remarks about, hey, we're going to institute the draft, bring back the draft. And, uh, the House drafted, applied it only to men, but the words are— the Senate's saying, okay, well, we'll include women. Wow. If the Senate backs that, I, I, you know, personally, I don't see how they, they go through with this in an election year. But if they pass the legislation and then Biden signs it, good God, if you're, if you're Russia and China, you got to look at that and say, they're gonna, they're coming after us. And so you're gonna push back and be potentially more aggressive than you might be. Wow. It's just, like I said, extremely dangerous. Let's hope it doesn't.

Yeah, let's hope it doesn't happen. So, but I did see the, uh, the bill, I think, that, uh, put the age between 18 and 26. And, uh, so let's hope the Senate does the right thing because that will pave the way for, uh, riots inside this country here. So, uh, I want to say thank you first to Taroman Harris. Thank you so much for your super sticker and appreciate your communication, by the way, on X. I, I follow, uh, Taroman, so thank you so much for that. So let's take a first question, and I have it right here. I'm going to share it with you all. Amber Spirit, you wrote, question: Russian anti-ship long-range missiles already been granted to North Korea to attack the US bases in Japan? And South Korea. Any, any validity to that, or truth?

I, I don't— I have no— I have no knowledge about that, but it's, you know, it's plausible. And it would not be, uh, it would be in line with what both Putin and Lavrov has said, that, okay, United States wants to start supplying weapons to Ukraine to be used to attack Russia, we, we have others that we can supply weapons to that can be used against the United States. And that would, that'd be an excellent example right there. Wow, interesting.

Uh, second question from Dave H. Uh, is there a connection between A, the failure of Switzerland, meaning that, uh, the Ukraine peace summit, and B, the timing of Istanbul peace treaty details? People now see that peace was on the table.

Why now?

Good question.

Yeah, they're, uh, I don't know what the specific motive was to put it out in the New York Times other than I would note that it was not really the full accurate story. Yeah, it was somewhat, uh, edited and tailored to, to reflect more of a, um, let's call it a pro-Western view. I think part of it was designed to maybe go with the narrative that, see, Russia's had a chance before and didn't, didn't follow through. They, they could, because they said nothing about the fact that it was Lloyd Austin and Joe Biden, then with Boris Johnson, they were going to Zelensky and saying, you know, no, do not negotiate, we'll, we'll back you to continue the fight. Wow. Wow. Wow.

Uh, last comment here, it's not a question, is a comment from Chanel, another avid supporter of the channel. She said, thank you, Larry, Dr. Oualaalou. Now you're most welcome. So, well, guys, uh, Larry, I can't thank you enough, man. I appreciate you. I appreciate your insights. Uh, always the community comes out with something, they learn something. So, and I usually appreciate—

yeah, I'm honored, honored, honored by the invitation there, David.

Uh, Larry, you're, you're a friend. I consider you a friend. Friend. It's not a term that I use loosely. I think you know about me by now. I don't sugarcoat things, and, uh, I don't just call whomever a friend. That, that's not in my, uh, my nature. But I do consider you a friend, and also I appreciate the knowledge that the community can learn from, because that's what this is all about. So I'm very grateful, and I look forward to seeing you next time. So on behalf of the entire community, I say thank you.

Great, thank you so much, Larry.

My pleasure. Hi guys, I hope you all enjoyed this conversation. I hope you learned some insights from Larry. As always, he's a straight shooter, you know, someone I trust. You know, again, it's not a term that I use loosely about people. Uh, I, I've known people here in the US that worked with for years and so forth and never called them friends because they were never friends of mine. So I don't— but anyway, I am very grateful to have you here. I look forward to seeing you tomorrow, uh, at 12:15. I'll be providing you my own analysis about the trip of the Russian president to North Korea and to Vietnam. I am aware of that as well, and I will elaborate more onto this. So, uh, once again, appreciate all the support, uh, so By the way, someone that asked me to not disclose the name, and I will not out of respect, uh, provided some very generous support for the channel. So that's all I can say. I'm, I'm very grateful for the person, but he or she was asking that I keep the name off the record, and I will respect that one. So anyway, thank you all, uh, to all members and so forth. I hope you had access to upload the link to my, uh, Saudi book. And I am working on putting my other books, except this last one I can't because of the legal contract. I won't be able to upload this one here. I can't. I have to wait, uh, the publisher and so forth. And, uh, when that time comes, you'll see it over there. So as always, guys, remember, geopolitics impact your daily life. In more ways than one. Till next time, bye-bye!