Judging Freedom - Larry Johnson: NATO the Cause of Ukraine War

Episode Date: April 28, 2025

Larry Johnson: NATO the Cause of Ukraine WarSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

you Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, April 28th, 2025. Larry Johnson will be here with us in just a moment on just how trustworthy or untrustworthy is NATO. But first this. While the markets are giving us whiplash, have you seen the price of gold? It's soaring. In the past 12 months, gold has risen to more than $3,000 an ounce. I'm so glad I bought my gold.

It's not too late for you to buy yours. The same experts that predicted gold at $3200 an ounce now predict gold at $4500 or more in the next year. What's driving the price higher? Paper currencies. All around the world they are falling in value. Big money is in panic as falling currencies shrink the value of their paper wealth. That's why big banks and billionaires are buying gold in record amounts. As long as paper money keeps falling they'll keep buying and gold will keep rising. So do what I did. Call my friends

at Lear Capital. You'll have a great conversation and they'll send you very helpful information. Learn how you can store gold in your IRA tax and penalty free or have it sent directly to your doorstep. There's zero pressure to buy and you have a 100% risk-free purchase guarantee. It's time to see if gold is right for you. Call 800-511-4620, 800-511-4620, or go to learjudgenap.com and tell them your friend the judge sent you.

Larry Johnson, welcome here, my dear friend. Thanks for accommodating my schedule. You have a very fascinating, You have two fascinating pieces out, one about our friend, Sergey Lavrov, and the other about the untrustworthiness of NATO. Before we get to either of them, were you surprised that no high-ranking Israeli official attended the Pope's funeral? No, I wouldn't be surprised. They've been a classless outfit from the beginning. So why, why change now?

You know, the, the smart thing, the diplomatic thing would be to go and make that gesture, even if you didn't mean it. I mean, that's, you know, they say the art of diplomacy is learning how to lie. Uh, or tell also tell people uncomfortable truths and they say thank you at the end so, you know There's this old saying Israel never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Yeah, but you know from your perspective and Raise and mine the Pope didn't do nearly enough He really did very little to to reduce the slaughter in Gaza from the Israeli perspective

Calling a priest at a church in Gaza on the phone a couple times a week. That's Diplomatically offensive. Come on the priest works for him That's diplomatically offensive. Come on the priest works for him Now I mean what the Pope should have done was sent his envoys emissaries Into Gaza into the trajectory in Gaza didn't do that. He should have sent a relief convoy That would under a Vatican flag if you will and it forced the Israelis to turn it away He could have put a lot of pressure on Israel, but he didn't. He just talked. So, but again, he thinks that he was being, you know, conciliatory in some aspect to not provoke Israel. A lot of good it did. It didn't change a thing. Yeah. How serious are the political divisions in Israel as we speak?

The opposition leader in the Knesset, Yair Lapid, says he wouldn't be surprised if soon Jews will be killing Jews. Aharetz, a newspaper that you and I read every day, the English version of it, says Netanyahu was trying to establish a dictatorship. Is this stuff just political claptrap or is it evidence of serious divisions? Well, I have limited experience with the Israelis. I visited Israel twice. I was involved in one training program for a group of Israeli police, senior crisis management seminar 20 years ago. So I rely more on Alastair and his wife, Asli,

or for their analysis and assessment, because they actually, you know, they dive deep into the Hebrew press and it's serious. The divisions, the divisions are real. They are deep. They are irreconcilable, because they represent really two fundamentally different worldviews. And it would appear that those aligned with Bibi Netanyahu are more in the ascendancy. But you've still got the old, let's call it the European crew, the folks who were more liberal, less religious. They're not inclined to sit there and believe that everything written in the Old Testament is

the absolute immutable word of God and therefore must be adhered to. But this attack on the head of Shin Bet, that appears to be a watershed moment in the history of Israel. Yeah, it does appear to be a watershed moment. And now, last night Netanyahu filed papers under oath accusing the head of Shin Bet of lying. And it doesn't appear that his allegations of lying are gaining traction, but the allegations against him are. His friend was in Wall Street. Chris, you have those clips? This is Ben Gavir in New York City yesterday, and he's being harangued and harassed by American Jews who were shouting at him in Hebrew in New York,

to the point where they had to find the police to give him a death sentence for it. So in Hebrew, we can't translate it. They're not praising him, that's for sure. But he's a convicted terrorist. Yes! We allowed a convicted terrorist into the United States. Wow.

Well, we provide aid to the president of Syria, even though that's a felony, providing aid to a terrorist organization. The government does whatever it wants when you are its contemporary or in this case perpetual ally. Yeah. Well, remember, it was in the Israeli court, convicted of terrorism charges. Not an American, not a not a Nazi not a German not a British. It was an Israeli court So it was Jews who judged him as a terrorist. Did he go to jail? I don't know if it was a suspended sentence or what but he he was convicted and I twice

or what, but he was convicted. And twice, twice convicted. How serious is the push to remove Secretary of Defense Hegseth, and who or what is behind it? I got the best insight into that from the interview that Tucker did with Dan Caldwell. One of, you know, he was a long-time associate of Hexseth and had been with him if he concerned Veterans of America. And he intimated that he thinks that this is the effort to get rid of Hexseth or rein him in so that he will not be an opponent of military strikes against Iran.

Caldwell made a point that there were still several holdovers from the Biden administration sitting on defense policy boards and such that hadn't been rooted out. That they were the most likely sources of leaks. He insisted he had nothing to do with leaking. He hadn't talked to any reporter. I take him at his word.

Somebody at the White House put pressure on Hegseth to any reporter. I take him at his word. Somebody at the White House put pressure on Hegseth to do this. And I don't know if it's Suzy Wiles. I mean, it most likely didn't have to be Wiles because there's really nobody else at the White House. Why would they want somebody like Caldwell, who's a longtime colleague, obviously trusted? Was the White House surprised that those signal transcripts, when it was Hegseth, and I was surprised, as I know Pete, when it was Hegseth who was advising against

an attack on Iran? Well, right, but Caldwell's views were known and others. There apparently been some friction within the Pentagon between the pro-war and the anti-war camp. And I'd put Caldwell, you know, as is usually the case, those who've actually been to war are the ones least likely and willing to go out and start it again. They know the cost, they know the pain. So definitely there are efforts to take Hegseth out, but it looks like he's weathering the storm so far Okay Is

Trump really adverse to war? I mean in the same week that he sent out that truth social Tweet or whatever whatever you call posting saying Vladimir stop and then on Air Force One said how horrible it was that the Russians are killing civilians. The very same week his people were killing civilians in Yemen. Well it's not it's not only that but Trump likes to pretend that all the responsibility for the war in Ukraine is just Joe Biden and Barack Obama man I had nothing to do with this. Ukraine is just Joe Biden and Barack Obama, man. I had nothing to do with this. Wrong. Utter nonsense. Trump's first term, the three-part series that you referenced that I produced over the weekend, the Road to War in Ukraine at sonar21.com, I go in detail how NATO was being built up starting in 1992 and then how it accelerated to the decade of the

2000s and then into the decade of 2011 to 2021 when Donald Trump was president in 2017 the NATO exercise shifted from being defensive to being offensive because in 2017 for the first time in Operation Sea Breeze it's listed as doing anti submarine warfare amphibious warfare mmm River Trump proudly says I sent

javelins I didn't send blankets like Obama I I sent javelins. Okay, so he's sending weapons to Ukraine that Ukraine was going to use in attacking Russians. Then, in 2020, well, who's still president? Donald Trump. For the first time, B-52 bombers fly along the Crimean coast as part of a military exercise. What would we think if Russian bombers were flying along the Mexican border as part of an exercise? We would lose our minds. So Donald Trump likes to pretend that he's some sort of neutral mediator in this, and

I got nothing to do with this war. Nonsense. He's a facilitator of it. He's an enabler of it. He has got blood on his hands, just like Barack Obama and Joe Biden. He is one of the same and he needs to cut the crap. He needs to stop this act like, oh, well, Russia and Ukraine, they're just fighting and I don't know why. No. When I lay out under that NATO article, when you go back and look, in 2011, the Ukrainian Army stood at a man strength of 200,000 with 120,000 reserves. Ten years later, those reserves were at 900,000. The army was at 250,000. So they'd gone from basically a 300,000 man force to a 1.1 million force under the auspices of Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and then there's just Barack Obama and Donald Trump.

That's when that's when that army in Ukraine grew. Didn't grow under Joe Biden, it grew under Donald Trump and Barack Obama. And he's got to own that. And so- Whoever is interested in this fascinating series that Larry has published, that's not very long and it's easily readable.

The Road to War in Ukraine, the history of NATO and US Military Exercises with Ukraine, a three-part series. You can go to Larry's website, sonar, S-O-N-A-R 21, sonar and then the number 21.com and you will find it right there. It captivated me, Larry. I linked onto it late at night and I couldn't stop reading it and I'm happy that you did it and I'm happy that you're here to explain it. Judge, let me just comment. One other fact that I was surprised by, when I went back and I said, hey, they've done all these exercises. Where have they done it? Which countries have hosted these NATO exercises?

So there are 28 countries in NATO. You think those 28 countries, it would be them that would host the exercises. Of the top seven, the two were Ukraine and Georgia, who were not NATO members. They were hosting a majority of the NATO exercises. What the hell? Well, when General Kellogg made his absurd offer

which to end the war, which would have resulted in a partitioning of Ukraine, much like Germany after World War II and implicated NATO. A, how unbelievable is that? B, how untrustworthy is NATO to keep the peace? And C, why under heaven would Trump have authorized Kellogg to have made that offer publicly? Yeah, yeah, he shouldn't have.

Look, what is clear is that Russia wants to One of Russia's goals or stated goals is that NATO is going to end all military exercises on its borders That will no longer an exercise with Ukraine. That's a given but the military exercises in Poland Romania and the Baltic, that's going to end too. Russia is no longer going to be living under this threat because that is exactly what it is.

These are military exercises designed to prepare for an attack on Russia. They like to pretend, oh, these are defensive. We're preparing in case Russia invades. Nonsense. They're just the simple fact that when you run an anti-submarine warfare mission, an amphibious warfare mission, and as you saw in one of the articles, I posted a video And as you saw in one of the articles, I posted a video from 2017. Who was president then? Donald Trump. Right. US Marines landing in amphibious craft on the beaches of Ukraine down in the Black Sea.

Now when we did that on Tarawa, when we did that on Iwo Jima, when we did that on Guadalcanal, we didn't call those defensive operations. Those were offensive operations. So we've got to recognize that we've created this massive war machine and it's been targeted at Russia for 32 years. Here's one of the people that spoke out in favor of that targeting. He just now happens to be the secretary of state

of the United States. Chris, cut number two. Quote, Vladimir Putin is the real aggressor in this war and he is attempting an unjustified takeover of a sovereign democratic country. The United States cannot recognize Putin's claims, or we risk establishing a dangerous precedent for other authoritarian regimes, like the Chinese Communist Party, to imitate.

What message does it send to China and other adversaries if the United States allows Russia to keep the land it's illegally claimed? Well, first of all, I would say that right now there's a lot of press reports about this, that, or these concessions or that concessions. A lot of things have been discussed, and the reason why those things are being discussed is very simple. Not because we're going to force anyone to do anything or pressure anyone to do anything like this, but because we need to understand what are the options to bringing about an

end to the war. We need to be grown-ups and realistic here. In any negotiated end to a war, both sides get something and both sides have to give something up. That's a reality. Without speaking specifically about that or another, you wrote that, you talk about that was back in September of 2022. Since September 2022, this war has continued. Thousands of more people have died. A generational destruction that Ukraine's going to spend two generations rebuilding from. This is a war that needs to end now. And so in order for this war to end, there are things Russia wants that it will not

get, and there are things Ukraine wants that it will not get. And explain his change of mind 180 degrees, except that he now works for Donald Trump. Yeah. Well, and he's still wrong. You know, he says well both sides you have to give something up. No Russia is not going to give an inch just today our friend Sergey Lavrov

was giving an interview to the Brazilian newspaper O Global and Let me just quickly tick off. Here's what he said. Ukraine must lift its legislative ban on negotiations with Russia. Ukraine cannot become a NATO member and must maintain a neutral and non-aligned status. Russia seeks to overcome the consequences of the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev,

including efforts to legislate and physically destroy everything Russian, which includes language, media, culture, traditions, and canonical orthodoxy. Russia demands international recognition of its ownership of Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia. Lavrov stated all of Kiev's obligations must be legally secured have enforcement mechanisms and be permanent And then he went on to say they've got to demilitarize denazify lift the sanctions and address the lawsuits and arrest warrants and return Russian assets

Do you hear any concessions in there judge? I don't know. No, no, there's no concessions And that's all wonders wonders though. I don't know what Trump and Zelensky talked about. Nobody was listening to them, which my knowledge of Donald Trump is that's dangerous. A, he doesn't remember everything, and B, he'll come away with his own version of things. Well. However, there's no concession coming from the Russians, notwithstanding the efforts of Mark Reprennan to try and get some from Sergey Lavrov. Here's one of my favorite clips from her interview with him yesterday.

Chris, cut number seven. Will Russia continue targeting Kiev despite President Trump saying, Vladimir, stop? You're not listening to me. yesterday. Chris, cut number seven. Will Russia continue targeting Kiev despite President Trump saying Vladimir, stop? You're not listening to me. We will continue to target the sites used by the military of Ukraine, by some mercenaries from foreign countries, countries and by instructors whom the Europeans officially sent to help target Russian civilian sites. You see him catch himself about mercenaries. He knows that some of those mercenaries and some of those instructors are Americans. Yeah, absolutely. And you know, again, what a place that I called it a masterclass in how to do diplomacy. Can you imagine we don't have I can't name a single American politician or diplomat

that could go on Russian television in Russian language and put and deal with questions from a hostile interrogator with the aplomb and skill demonstrated by Lavrov. Not one. Agreed, agreed, agreed entirely, Larry. Here's another one, cut number six. Will Russia... If you want a ceasefire, just to continue supply arms to Ukraine, so what is your purpose? You know what what Kaya Callas and what's his name Mark Rute said about the the the CISFAR? The NATO secretary general and the European Union. They bluntly stated that they can support only the deal which at the end of the day will make

Ukraine stronger, would make Ukraine a victor. So if this is the purpose of the ceasefire, I don't think this is what President Trump wants. This is what Europeans, together with Zelensky, want to make out of President Trump's initiative. It's 100% correct. The Europeans do not want peace. von der Leyen wants to become the commander in chief of a military. Now, you know, I can make the case that the Russians, particularly during the presidency of Obama and Trump, were extraordinarily naive, that they were entirely too trusting, that they believed too much that they could actually diffuse a future conflict through negotiation. Because all I can tell you is looking back on the 32-year record that I documented in

my recent pieces, that the United States is committed unalterably to destroying Russia. There is no, while people like Donald Trump, yes, appear to want to have a deal, want to work it out. You gotta deal with the statements by people like, even Senator John Kennedy, who was just on the air in the last 24 hours, saying, either Putin gives into a ceasefire or we're gonna turn him into dust.

Really? That's your play. That's your play against a country that has hypersonic missiles at least three categories that are some of them are intercontinental. We don't have a single one. And yet they've defeated every military system we put on the battlefield in Ukraine and that we plan, our generals were planning the operations. We were providing the intelligence for the operations and they defeated us. And instead of that, we continued to be bellicose and make these threats against Russia. I think they finally are awake in Moscow and realize there's no negotiating. We'll talk to these people. We will try still leave negotiation open as a channel,

as Love, Roth made clear to Margaret Brennan during that 45 minute interview. But Russia's not, they're not gonna pull their pants down and let us have their way with them. They're not gonna do that. Senator Kennedy, who's actually a lot smarter than his country bumpkin image, actually said the United States would turn Vladimir Putin and his country into fish food. Yeah, fish food. This may be something that plays well

in Louisiana, but it's absolutely, absolutely absurd. I wonder what you think of this Marco Rubio saying we're going to give them another week, just a week. Cut number one. We think we brought the sides closer than they've been in a very long time, but we're not there yet. And it needs to start happening. We need to start. I think this is going to be a very critical week. This week is going to be a really important week in which we have to make a determination about whether this is an endeavor that we want to continue to be involved in

or if it's time to sort of focus on some other issues that are equally if not more important in some cases. But we want to see it happen. There are reasons to be optimistic, but there are reasons to be realistic, of course, as well. We're close, but we're not close enough. The good news out of that is I hope he's right because he's two options, not three. Option one, okay, we go on. We continue to keep the negotiations open. We'll come to a negotiated settlement.

Option two, we're walking away. We're getting out. he did not lay out option three, which could have been, we're going to re up our armament. We're going to give them everything they need to fight. We're going to give them intelligence. We're going to up this war against Russia. Didn't say that. So I took that as good news. Larry Johnson. Thank you, my dear friend. Very, very helpful, very insightful. Again, I encourage anyone interested in a rational, easy to follow history of NATO and Ukraine to go to Larry's website, sonar21. It won't take you very long to absorb all this. Larry, we'll see you Friday with that youngster who's testing his Russian all over Moscow this week. I bet you'll have four stains all over his shirt.

All the best, Larry. Thank you. All right, my friend. Thank you. Of course. And coming up later today at two o'clock, Kivork Almazian and at three o'clock, Scott Ritter, Justin Napaltano for Judging Freedom. You