Transcription
Nate NATO is, you know, right now NATO is a paper tiger. And the reality is Russia is far more prepared to use nuclear weapons than Europe is to use those weapons against Russia. And now it'd be horrific in in either event, but uh the the Europeans and Americans have made a grave grave mistake. They think they're they're militarily stronger and superior to Russia. Not at all. They are weaker than Russia. All of them combined weaker than Russia.
>> Hello everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. I'm Lyanna Petrova with a new episode of World Affairs and Context. Today I'm very pleased to welcome back a good friend of our program, Larry Johnson. Larry is a former CIA analyst and State Department official focusing on counterterrorism, intelligence operations, and US foreign policy. Larry also runs a really great Substack, Son of the New American Revolution, which is an absolute must-read. So much important information. I frequently read his new posts. Definitely check it out and subscribe. Larry, welcome back. Thank you so much for being here.
>> Yeah, thanks Lena for the plug. Very kind words.
>> Oh, they're true. They're true. And I'm absolutely fascinated by your uh Substack posts and your analysis. there's just so many nuances and and so many details that are very important for understanding sort of the broader context and you know putting uh two and two together. So always appreciate your take on on uh the current events and and what's going on in the world. But the two-day NATO summit has just ended and um of course it focused on military spending on Ukraine on military production and NATO's long-term posture toward Russia. Uh NATO unveiled tens of billions of dollars in new military contracts and it appears to me that the focus has shifted from increasing military budgets simply toward this new logical step which is the expansion of Europe's ability to manufacture weapons at scale. Larry, what stood out to you the most at the NATO summit in Turkey? And what do you believe would be the most consequential um consequential um outcome for non-NATO states, particularly for Russia and possibly for Iran and maybe China as well?
>> They were delusional. I mean, this is uh this this is like somebody getting together to play a fantasy sport, you know, where they they draft they draft players that they really have no control over and then they play they play games and they get to take they take credit for things that they didn't do. So, for example, people say, "Well, what do you mean?" Well, Trump announced, "Hey, we're going to let we're going to let Ukraine manufacture its own Patriot missiles." How you going to do that? Because the way the current Patriot missile is produced in the United States, there are 20 different subcontractors. Each one makes a different part and then ultimately all those parts are sent to Lockheed Martin and they're assembled and it's according to the latest article I read takes two a total of two years from the start of the production of those parts till when they're assembled. two years. So, are all these different subcontractors going to send their parts to Ukraine where they assemble them? And let's not forget that several of those parts components are made with rare earth minerals that the United States has does not have that are controlled by this country called China. And China is not exporting those rare earth minerals. So, that's an example. Oh yes, we're going to let Ukraine now produce Patriot missiles and while we're at it, we're going to have unicorns fly out of their ass. You know, it's
>> I mean, it's they might have they're just talking nonsense or, you know, Germany and everybody that we're going to get we're gearing up. We're going to go to war with Russia. So, they're openly talking about going to war with Russia and they think that Russia therefore is going to sit back and say, "Yeah, let's wait until we're attacked. Russia is going to strike preemptively one of these days if Europe continues to uh launch these provocations against Russia. And like they're now touting, oh, we're putting these long longer range missiles that are striking deeper into Russia. Yeah, they're hitting targets in Russia. It's not incapacitating Russia. I mean, if if it was just if one missile strike was incapacitating, then why hasn't Ukraine collapsed? But what Russia is showing is that you know with these modern societies even something as relatively primitive compared to Russia as Ukraine is that is still they can absorb a lot a lot of abuse a lot of firepower. I mean the there there have been three straight nights of massive missile strikes and drone strikes in Keefe and destroying uh industrial plants and destroy uh warehouses uh critical government facilities etc. So uh what NATO is doing is talking about trying to ex expand or escalate against Russia thinking that Russia is just going to sit back and do nothing. And one of these days, I fear, uh, Russia will retaliate. They're going to hit targets in the UK and in Germany most likely, and then NATO is going to have its article 5 crisis because then they're going to come together and say, "Hey, uh, we need to go to war with Russia." And that that has to go before each legislature. And the polls are going to go, "No, no, no, no, no. We're not we're not going to war." Uh the same with Hungarians and the the Italians probably to say no to that and the Spaniards. So all of a sudden the NATO falls apart. That's where it's headed. This is uh there is no recipe for stability. On top of it, you got Finland and I guess Lithuania taking talking about putting nukes on their territory and and they think Russia is going to just sit back and go, "Gee, isn't isn't that interesting?" No. Russia will destroy those nukes before they have a chance to get there or be put into operation. So this is you you know this NATO summit was an indulgence and fantasy.
There are many um opinions that point to these long range strikes on Russia really sort of targeting um not so much the infrastructure but but aiming to provoke Russia into a retaliation that would then allow NATO to counter strike and perhaps use a tactical nuclear weapon. Um, so do you think this is sort of a trap that the long range strikes um that the long long range strikes are actually meant to provoke in a way that would justify NATO's aggression toward Russia.
>> Um, the the Europe reminds me of of a half- naked man with no running shoes that's standing outside the cave of a sleeping bear and says, "I got a great idea. Let's let's poke the bear with the stick till it wakes up. Cuz it's been sleeping for a while and it's hungry. And then what? Because without his running shoes, he's not going to outrun that bear. He's going to get eaten. That's what's going to happen to Europe. They're poking the bear. Sergey Karaganov who's a leading academic and u strategist within Russia you know he he was one of the ones first talking about that r that Russia's focus needed to be to the east with China with Siberia that they we had to break with Europe that Europe was no longer the future for Russia proved out you know and he was he was writing that more than 10 years ago like 12 12 14 years ago well he is precient that's exactly what is transpiring and that is exactly where Russia's future lies. And so he he's recently been writing and speaking about the fact that the the the deterrence, the fear of a Russian response that once was present in Europe has now disappeared and that Russia's only choice now is to reestablish that fear to uh and that may involve initially strikes with like the arric missiles, but he said it could ultimately to fully reestablish that it may require the use of tactical nukes. And the reality is Russia is far more prepared to use nuclear weapons than Europe is to use those weapons against Russia. And now it'd be horrific in in either event, but uh the the Europeans and Americans have made a grave grave mistake. They think they're they're militarily stronger and superior to Russia. Not at all. They are weaker than Russia. all of them combined weaker than Russia.
>> I noticed that in the NATO summit declaration in section two, Russia is identified as a long-term threat and China is not mentioned at all. Is this purely symbolic or is this an indication of of no peace with Russia in the near future at all?
>> Well, why would NATO I mean, put China as their major threat? They're in Europe. China is halfway around the world. China's not invading Europe. So I I give them credit for at least showing some modicum of sanity now. But again, identifying r Russia is not the one that's been launching wars, proxy wars against Europe. It's been the opposite. You know, Europe has been actively funding and involved. Well, hell, the mercenaries that are you've got Polish, German, Swedish, Finnish, uh, Romanian mercenaries in in in Ukraine fighting against Russia and and Russia's going, "This is deja vu all over again." You go back to World War II when the Soviets were invaded. the the Nazis fighting alongside the Nazis were Romanians, Hungarians, Czech, French, Spaniards, Italians, you know, so it was it was not just Germany. There were other European nations that joined in that. So, Russia hasn't forgotten that. They recognize the threat for what it is.
>> I've also noticed that NATO launched two programs that are quite interesting. So the first one is the front door for industry and then the second one is called NATO engine. And so these initiatives are uh seeking to integrate defense procurement in and also expand industrial production across member states and the alliance is now coordinating procurement, manufacturing and even critical raw material stockpiles across multiple countries. How significant is this shift and what does it tell us about NATO's expectations regarding um not only the duration of the war with Russia but also its uh long-term plans with regards to maybe taking on um you know other states or or you know doing something that would justify such a effectively war economy.
>> Yeah. So the problem is these countries have not agreed upon one weapon system. Okay. Uh and they producing an M1 Abrams tank is different from producing a Leopard tank. You know we go. So you know each you know at least Germany, England and France they have their own version of what they consider is the best tank. So you know which one are you stockpiling and building for? And this gets, you know, if if you're going to act as a cohesive unit, then that means you want everybody to have the same standard, which means we have the same equipment, not different, you know, not four different varieties of tanks which take different parts. You want, you know, I mean, from a standpoint of efficiency and military operations, you don't want to complicate your logistics supply chain. You want to simplify it so that instead of having 10 different aircraft that you have to buy parts for the 10 different parts departments, you wind up with one aircraft that everybody uses. So then that gets into, you know, which country is going to benefit from that. And what the United States keeps trying to do is and says that all these countries have to buy our planes except like like right now when I saw that they promised that Trump promised Turkey the F-35. If I'm the Turks, I would say why do you hate us? Why why are you selling us that piece of junk? Because the the F35 selling we're selling a turkey to Turkey. And so those who are not native English speakers, they don't understand that the term turkey is a derogatory term saying that it's it's uh ungainainely. It's not uh it's not the best.
>> But but the rea the reality is right now the secretary of the air force testified before the US Congress now three weeks ago that the combat readiness of the F-35 is 25 to 30%. In other words, out of a 100 aircraft, you've only got three that can fly in combat missions. The other seven are broken or waiting for some off software upgrade or they got some problem. I mean, to be candid, they're big drama queens. And then this is maybe an insult to drama queens to call the F-35 that. Um, then then you got the production issues. They admitted that the last six brand new F-35s that were delivered were delivered without the radars that go in the nose cone because China is the source for magnets and rare earth minerals essential to make those radars. So the radars aren't being made. So what did they do? They ran out to the local sports uh department like a Gold's Gym and they got, you know, if you've ever lifted a barbell, it's got plates, weight plates you put on each end. They put about 60 pounds of weights of those weight plates in the nose cone of each plane because it still had to have the weight up front even though it didn't have the actual functioning radar. Think about that. And so, and this gets back to, so what plane is going to be the NATO plane? Is it going to be the USF-35, which costs $100 million a pop? It costs $40,000 an hour to maintain it for, you know, per flight hour. So, if it flies for four hours, you're already at a quarter of a million dollars. So again, these NATO people, they get together and they make these decisions that they cannot be strategically integrated is what I'm trying to get it across.
>> Larry, you mentioned that Trump agreed to sell F35s to Turkey. And that actually reminds me that Turkey was actually prevented from purchasing them because they own Russia's S300, I believe, if I'm
>> S400. S400. Yes. Thank you. So, and of course, Turkey is a uh is an important player in the Middle East and and really globally. Um, so what is Erdogon providing to Trump that Trump is now agreeing to sell F-35?
>> Where is the trade-off?
>> Yeah, I think Trump is just desperate to ingratiate himself with Erdogan uh because uh because of the instability now uh in the Middle East. Syria is is a mess. Uh Turkey played a critical role in overthrowing Bashar al-Assad, but now is stuck with this character uh al-Shara aka Al Galani. Uh they want to use uh Turkey both to uh help consolidate power north of Iran in that belt that stretches to Aaraijan through Armenia >> and and through Georgia. Uh so they want to get control of the caucuses and they feel that Turkey is a good way to try to do that. Uh and then Turkey also plays it sits in a critical location south of Russia and potentially would like to wean Turkey away from its relationships with Russia. So, you know, Trump was simply acknowledging that the United States can no longer go on disrespecting Turkey or Tukia as they prefer to be called now. Uh that it would serve US interests to you know strengthen that relationship. Now the problem you got is Israel is threatening to destroy Turkey every other day. And so so so far Erdogan being, you know, the greedy bastard that he is because he's he's taking he's providing oil to Israel and he he and his family taking a big cut out of that. So they're getting paid handsomely. So here's Turkey being insulted by Israel but still providing it oil. If Turkey if Turkey pulled the plug on Israeli oil, Israel would be in trouble. They wouldn't be able to continue the war. So, you know, it's the world's not as it seems, I guess, is what I'm saying.
>> Absolutely not. And and since Israel failed to disarm Hezbollah, there are some conversations about uh Syria's al- Sharah possibly assisting sort of with with restraining Hezbollah. Now, we know that Turkey has also played an important role an important role in um effectively installing al-Sharah in Syria. So are there any connections there with with Erdogon receiving F-35s now than you know Hzbollah and Israel's interests?
>> Well, if again let's understand the the layout here. Who is Israel is saying its enemy? It's saying Hezbollah is its enemy and it's saying Turkey is its enemy. So Turkey therefore is going to back alsh to destroy an enemy of Israel. Whereas you might say that there might be a natural alliance formed between Turkey and Hezbollah to take on Israel >> since Israel is threatening both. This is where you know it gets it gets complicated. uh Turkeykey's influence I think in Syria is uh has been uh lessened over the past course of the last two years. Uh you you still have a Russian presence in the in the north uh near the border of Turkey. Uh the good news is the Kurds have gone quiet. They're not as active in threatening Turkey as they were before. So, so now the real problem is it really has been Israel and you got to step back and say why has Israel decided to verbally take on and attack Turkey like it has been.
>> Mhm.
>> Because you know the Turks the Turks haven't been you know there's a lot they could do you know is cutting off the oil to threaten Israel but they haven't done that yet. Candidly I don't know why they haven't. Um, of course, Russia and and the war in Ukraine have been central to the summit and Ukraine is effectively becoming increasingly integrated into NATO's military ecosystem even without formal membership. Um, what response from Russia is this likely to produce?
>> Well, I mean, look, the reality is they've been integrating Ukraine into NATO since 1995. So, we're not seeing anything new here at all. you know the base in western Ukraine called Yavariv. uh NATO basically NATO established its presence there in 1997 and from 1997 on uh Ukraine although not a member of NATO at least the joural member they were in fact a de facto member of NATO by virtue of the number of military exercises that took place in Ukraine. There are 32 countries in NATO only. There are only six countries in NATO that have hosted more NATO exercises than Ukraine. All right? So in other words, Ukraine has hosted more NATO exercises than 24 of the other NATO countries combined. That shows you that that integration has been underway for quite a while. And and that was why there was such high hopes, if you will, in the early days. You know, Putin's attack on February 24th, 2022 preempted what was going to be essentially a a Ukrainian strike backed by NATO that was going to finish off the Donbos. And uh the Russians basically prevented that from happening. So um the what's taking place right now and what has NATO so alarmed is it's it's being defeated. NATO is being defeated in a de facto manner because of Russia's defeat of Ukraine. And while Russia has taken its time building up its military strength, it is now today uh they went from roughly 900,000 active duty soldiers to about 1.6 million active duty soldiers. uh they went from only 150,000 soldiers in Ukraine back in 2022 to now over 700,000 and today Russia's operating on six different axes of attacks uh in Ukraine.
>> Um during the uh postsummit press conference, Donald Trump said that US backed Ukrainian strikes in Russia is quote an escalation but it's also an escalation that can lead to an end. he said and Rubio sat next to Trump and he effectively repeated the same exact idea saying quote I think that's one of the dynamics that's changed in this war over the last few months and that is the Russians are finding it more difficult to defend their own airspace and what we hope that means is that going to create the space now to negotiate the end of this war um so he's effectively saying that yes these long range strikes strikes are facilitated by us, but we hope that they will facilitate the end to this war. Um, to me, it seems that these strikes are actually meant to provoke, as we discussed earlier in this conversation, um, rather than lead to peace. So, what is your read on Trump and Rubio commentary and and what do they really mean?
>> Uh, I don't think they know what they mean. They're delusional. Again, we come back to the semi- naked man poking the bear, thinking that that's going to turn out okay. The bear is going to eat him up and that's what's going to happen to NATO and to the United States. You've already the tone has shifted now in Moscow dramatically. You know, Peskov, Lavough, uh, Muria, Zakarova, um, Medvidev, others throughout the government. I mean, they're saying negotiations with the United States are dead. That's a dead end. It's not that's not going anywhere. This is going to be settled militarily on the battlefield. And that's in fact what Russia is doing. You know, in in 2022, Russia only controlled about or the Detsk, you know, about 45% of it was still almost 50% was under the control of Ukrainians. Today, only 1% in terms of the land mass of chromatansk. So they've gone from 50% down to about 1%. Once those two settlements are secured and the Ukrainians kicked out or destroyed, uh then Russia will have full full control of the of the Donbas, both Lohansk and Daetsk. Uh it's already conducting simultaneous military operations in Sunumi, Kavis, Aparia, Neprop, and Kursan. And so that's going to escalate and continue. And so what it is is it's stretching thin the Iran the Ukrainian defenses, weakening them all ultimately all on the front and they uh when they collapse, you know, I don't know. Uh but I think it'll be sooner rather than later.
>> Previously, Vladimir Putin said that the buffer zone will extend along the Malarosia borders and now we're hearing Russian officials discuss Navarosia. Now historical Navarosia borders simply do not exist because at different times they sort of they they shifted and and so it is you know if you look at certain maps during a certain period you're going to see okay this is Navaroia but then you know 50 years later it was something else so it was slightly different.
>> Where do you think the new buffer zone will lie
>> uh from the Neper River uh going uh east? So they'll um and um it is at least it will include sumi at a a minimum. So sums sumi neopropet zaparisia nikolv and aessa, you know, all of those I think he I think he's ultimately going to be taken as well. Uh so it is um you know Russia Russia's now entered a new phase. the uh they gave Ukraine a chance to surrender, stop in place. That meant Russia would have vacated Sunumi and Kharkiv. But Ukraine says no, you know, yet. So Russia said, "Okay, well fine. We're going to we're going to take more." And that's where, you know, it was Putin that announced that Novaria is is now the target. And you know what is it? Chengeive is uh the other oblast over there.
>> It could ultimately include that as well.
>> But Russ, one thing is clear, Russia's not giving up territory.
>> Exactly. Is is NATO still pursuing the same strategic objectives in Ukraine that it did maybe in 2022, 2023? Or do you see evidence that its goals are also evolving?
>> Well, it it thought that by using Ukraine as a proxy force, it would weaken and destroy the US the the Russian army. It's done just the exa exact opposite. It's made the Russian army stronger, more technically sophisticated and it uh really reignited the Russian military-industrial base. So whatever the object, you know, the objective of weakening Russia has blown up in their face and the ones who are being weakened are in fact NATO itself because it's got growing internal divisions. There's no there is no consensus. They keep wanting to talk about, oh, Russia's the threat. Russia's the threat. And you step back and say, what exactly has Russia done to you? You mean Russia who provide you provided you with inexpensive oil? Russia who provided you with inexpens inexpensive liquid natural gas. That Russia, the ones that you've accepted, the United States blowing up the Nordstream pipeline. You've accepted imposing oil embargos on. So you don't want their oil. Europe is committing suicide. They're committing economic suicide. No other way to look at it.
>> I >> Is it because their economies are declining that the only option is war now? And and there's really no path to peace because these leaders are so unpopular domestically that effectively, you know, saying, "Okay, we're at war now and we cannot hold elections." Is that the only option that they have left at this time? You know, I know historically there's been some argument that sometimes for countries to go to war, it's economically beneficial. It actually was for the United States in World War II. But, uh, these European countries, they're they're they're facing enormous debt. So, they already, you know, they're going to have to they don't have the money in hand to build up factories to produce new weapons. And plus they don't compl control the supply chains at all. But just assuming that they somehow get control over the supply chains. Um where they get money to pay for this? Well, they're going to have to borrow it. They're going to have to their citizens are going to pay higher taxes or they're going to face raging inflation. So none of the econ all of the economic conditions that exist right now in Europe argue against expanded government spending. particularly on defense spending which does is does not add to the economic growth of the country.
>> Absolutely. Yes. And I I just uploaded a video on that too because it is absolutely shocking to see so many European states being in decline in in economic decline cutting social spending programs and yet they're announcing new military contracts. They're saying, "Okay, well now, you know, now our automobile industry is declining, so we're going to repurpose those facilities and produce drones." That's what we see across the EU. And it's absolutely striking. And also, um, the population of the EU has to understand that there is a trade-off. It's not like we can produce drones and still maintain the same standard of living. It means that there not going to be investments in in in the civilian infrastructure in roads, hospitals, schools, and there are going to be so many more other trade-offs that they will have to um unfortunately face because of these wararmongering policies that are being pushed in virtually every single state of the EU.
>> Yeah. you know u I'm sure u and you know you when you attended university uh that you took a class on economics is usually required that most people going into college will take an economics class and you know one of the fundamentals that are taught about the trade-off between guns and butter you can't have both >> if you're going to produce the butter not going to have as much for the guns you produce the guns going to get you know cut back on the better. Well, you know, that that lesson hasn't been learned. I I was just I just double checked, you know. So, when Donald Trump took office on January 21st or January 20th, 2025, uh the US national debt stood at 37 trillion. Today, it's 39.4 trillion. He's added almost $2.5 trillion to the debt in 18 months. Think about that. So this the United States this debt to GDP ratio, it's growing at an accelerated rate.
>> Absolutely. And I I really appreciate you looking at those figures because it's um it it's definitely something that US taxpayers will have to cover and the future generations. So that's that's a very important outcome of his foreign policy as well and his domestic policy too.
>> Oh yeah. I mean it's it's an economic disaster.
>> Yeah.
>> It it is it is a recipe. Okay. So there there are at least two types of inflation. There there is the inflation that comes when you print so much money and you have so many dollars dollar bills running around that with all that extra dollars then competing for a a set a fixed number of products that you're going to get price inflation that way. Um and uh but by the same token you can get inflation like what we're also experiencing that you know 40 almost 40% of the world's supply of helium disappeared when they closed the Persian Gulf on the 28th of February. So now you've got you got fewer chips being made. So the price of those just by the sheer supply that's going to drive it up. And oh, let let me correct myself. I I said that Trump the the debt when Trump took office was 37 trillion. No, it was 36. So he's added almost $4 trillion in 18 months. That is not sustainable. And I mean it's an astonishing number. But uh it's now our debt exceeds our GDP.
>> During the NATO NATO summit, the Trump administration struck carried out strikes on I believe 80 plus um sort of areas in Iran. Is this a timing just is this a coincidence or is this a message to America's allies within the NATO alliance that uh effectively uh you know either join join the United States or you're going to be the uh sort of the the extra?
>> Yeah. Well, look look I I really Excuse me.
>> Bless you.
>> I qu I question that number 80. uh US hit, you know, they bomb they bombed a number of sites or hit with missiles a number of sites.
>> Iranians actually came back and claimed that they hit 80 or 85 regardless of actually how many were hit. U something happened last night that enraged Donald Trump. And I believe what it is is that uh Iran fired, according to Trump, 111 anti-ship missiles at the US Navy that's parked 200 miles at least offshore of Iran. Uh I believe that one or more of those missiles hit the US aircraft carrier andor its accompanying destroyers and maybe multiple ships were hit. They weren't sunk, but they certainly suffered damage. And the Trump administration's heightened that. But that's why today he came back with such he's saying the memorandum of understanding's dead. Uh we're going to attack Iran again tonight. Now, you know, the last about two weeks ago, the Iranians uh hit a a ship that was trying to violate Iranian rules that basically were accepted by the United States. It's not like Iran was making rules up that the United States had opposed, but they were the the Iranian rule sent any ship wanting to come through the straight of Hormuz. Fill out an online application, identify the name of the ship, the destination of the ship, the cargo it's carrying, and the and the nationalities of the crew members. They wanted to make sure that nothing was going to Israel. There are no Israeli sailors, no products destined for Israel. That was the per purpose of it. And so in the course of enforcing that they hit the ever lovely United States responded to that by attacking points in in along the straight of Hormuz Bander Abba Sir Kesham Island Iran retaliated hitting inside Bahrain and Kuwait. US didn't resp retaliate after that. Next day again attempts to circumvent Iranian rags to control that straight of Hormuse. Once again, the Iran struck those ships because the Iranian protocols stipulate that any ship that does not follow the Iranian requirement to submit this application, they'll be they'll be there'll be a target of force. Iran will use force against them. Everybody's been warned. U and so again, the United States launched some initial retaliatory strikes. Iran responded in kind again hitting bases the air bases in Kuwait and Bahrain but it didn't go beyond that and it no and theou was still in effect and Trump didn't come out say oh theou's over oh I hate Iranians he did that today so that tells you some I think I think there's something that happened was the US ships were hit last night and now Trump is they're gonna he's going to escalate and as he escalates this is going to escalate a financial crisis that will envelop the United States.
>> I just looked up quickly and according to the independent Iran war cost tracker, up to $113 billion that were spent on the war in Iran through mid-June of 2026. So I apologize. So the estimates are around $113 billion in taxpayer costs through mid June of 2026. So it is absolutely shocking and now we have a new escalation. So is it fair to say that this this was a plan all along or is there still some hope for the US Iran negotiations to get back on track?
>> No, I think they're dead. I I don't think there's any basis for it to get back on track because of what's taking place this week in Iran with the funeral for the Ayatollah Ali Kami >> who was murdered. He was assassinated. Trump talks about Iran wants to assassinate him. The only one that's got blood on his hands right now is Donald Trump, not Iran. And what we've seen is something there is no precedent in history to point to this the the number of mourers that have come out to remember and to uh worship uh in in the context of the burial of the Ayatollah in Iran in Tehran just uh Tuesday. Um, so here we are Wednesday. So yeah, I guess it was on no on Monday.
>> Uh, it was uh 15 million 15 million Iranians out of a city of like 17 million. Okay, let's assume some came in from outside, but still uh over, you know, 80% of the total population of Iran was in the streets. um at home yesterday uh four to 5 million Iranians in Najaf in Iraq. These aren't Iranians but these are she or Shia you had you know 3 to four million estimated again today and then tomorrow Thursday at Mashad uh probably well over another 10 million. So when all is said and done, there will have been over 30 35 million people. You've never had something like that in history. Not with the death of name your pope, never had 30 million people come out for a dead pope or a dead president, John F. Kennedy or um you know, Joseph Stalin or Mount Sang, a dictator. Um, you know, you just this we're we're witnessing history. We're witnessing something that's never happened. And in those crowds, those people are chanting for revenge. Revenge against the United States for taking the lives not just of the ayah the Ayatah Ali Kami, but for murdering his 16-month-old granddaughter and his wife and his daughter-in-law. So this is uh this is resonating throughout Iran as a generational transformation moment in the same way that in the United States in the aftermath immediate aftermath of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941, it created both a mythology, a motivation and it brought a unity about in in the United States that led to victory in World War II. the same effects taking place right now in Iran. We just have yet to experience the consequences of that, but it's coming.
>> Um, the Russian leadership is clearly watching and observing uh not only the NATO summit but also uh the Trump administration carrying out strikes on Iran during the 60-day negotiations period and also uh given the uh theou being still in place at that time. How do Russian military planners likely view the outcomes of the summit? And also um how do they view the summit in the context of the broader escalation in the Middle East?
>> Um well they're they're not really connected I don't think you know NATO is you know right now NATO is a paper tiger. um the what what we're what we're witnessing or let's say the relevance of NATO is it has been a US dominated um u phenomena and um the US is weakening I mean the US the US influence in the world its control its military prowess etc are all in decline its control of the economy through the petro dollar in decline and this is the the weakness of the United States has been on display in in the Persian Gulf uh with um with um the fact that it could not defeat Iran that it failed it doesn't have a ground option its naval force has been found to be basically impotent and its air power has failed to defeat Iran's ballistic missiles. So there there's this disconnect now where the United States like to think is the most powerful military in the world and has used its leading role in NATO to project that. But what what has transpired not just in Iran, you go back to what happened last year in the straight of Hormuz, not in the Straight of Hormuz, in the Red Sea with the Houthis there. Again, the United States failed to defeat the Houthis and then bringing it to NATO and Ukraine as as US military power, military equipment, US intelligence, has that made a difference? Has that is that brought about victory uh over Russia? No, just the opposite. So, the United States is being exposed itself as a bit of a paper.
>> Larry, thank you so much for joining us. This was an absolutely fascinating conversation. I know we tried to cover a lot of ground and and and a lot of topics, but I know that our viewers would absolutely love to have you back on the program for a new episode. Thank you so much for joining.
>> I thank you. I look forward to the next invitation. And thanks a lot, Lena.