Judging Freedom - Larry Johnson : Putin's Views of NATO.

Episode Date: September 8, 2025

Larry Johnson : Putin's Views of NATO.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Don't let an expensive wireless bill disrupt your summer plans. As you map out beach getaways, backyard gatherings, and long weekends, your wireless bill shouldn't be a source of stress. With Mint Mobile, you get the reliable coverage and high-speed performance you're used to at a significantly lower cost. For a limited time, Mint is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for just $15 a month, while others are dealing. with overage fees and surprise charges, you can enjoy peace of mind and more money in your

pocket. Say goodbye to overpriced plans and hello to simple, straightforward wireless service. Every Mint mobile plan includes high-speed data, unlimited talk and text, and access to the nation's largest 5G network. Plus, you can keep your current phone number and contacts. Make the switch and get three months of unlimited service for just $15 a month. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three-month unlimited wireless plan for just $15 a month at mintmobile.com slash freedom. That's mintmobile.com slash freedom. Up front payment of $45 required.

That's an equivalent to $15 a month. Limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited. plan. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details. Hi, everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, September 8th, 2025. Larry Johnson joins us now. Larry, I want to spend some time chatting with you about President Putin and NATO. But before we do, this morning, Secretary Rubio announced a crackdown of United

States visas from persons coming from Central and South America because of their exercise of the freedom of speech in their own countries. Why are we picking fights with people in Latin America, with Latin American countries? What is this all about? I really have no idea. I mean, this tendency to want to pick a fight with everybody in the world is to me sort of a sign of mental illness that seems to have seized the Trump administration. Instead of starting off with, hey, how can we get along? What can we do to cooperate? And I guess I'm presuming that Rubio's actions are taken against those individuals

and countries that are speaking out against the genocide in Israel. That would be my guess. He's also claiming that some of them, by the, their words are helping China. I don't get the connection at all. But it's all very fanciful. It's all based on the freedom of speech. It's all based upon punishing innocence.

This is the same rubia that won't allow anybody with a Palestinian passport, whether you're Mahmoud Abbas, or whether you're some kid that needs a prosthetic leg to come into the United States. Well, we're also upset that China has made significant inroads in establishing economic ties with a number of countries, in particular Brazil.

And just in the last two months with the imposition of Trump's tariffs, Brazil is now no longer selling coffee in any quantity to the United States. It's all going to China. China is purchasing soybeans from Brazil instead of from the United States. but you've got China also involved with economic projects in Peru and I believe Chile as well. So, you know, the United States is now trying to push back to take back its quote control of the hemisphere.

The problem is China, the relationship with China doesn't come with all these huge strings attached like it does with the United States. we're like the the mafia coming in and tell you hey you need some protection or your shop's going to get blown up no my shop's fine

just watch you know we're in a protection racket and you know I think it's the United States is really coming at this too late to try to defang the economic muscle of China do you think any of this is a reaction

to the extent extraordinary show of military force in Beijing last week? Maybe to an extent, but, you know, you forget, you know, we won World War II. China hardly had anything to do with it in Trump. Well, that's what Trump claims. In Trump world, you know, his so-called, he calls his social media posts on true social. He calls him truths. And it's, you know, it would be.

it would be funny in a different context, but he is telling untruth on truth. So it was, though, quite a, you know, quite a discrepancy, or it highlighted the differences between China and the United States. Trump put on a parade that was, you know, basically a joke with soldiers who couldn't march in unison. And whereas China put on this. extravaganza that even dwarfed what Russia did on May 9th and did it with tens of thousands

of soldiers, all who were meticulously trained. So it showed that China is not just some authoritarian state, that the Chinese hierarchy, the leadership from the top down was able to convey, here's the standard, here's what we want to achieve, and they achieved it. You know, we can't do that. We're capable of doing that in the United States, but we don't do it. Do you think that they revealed the existence of weapons of which the Pentagon had previously been unaware?

That I don't know. I've heard some reports that they certainly did demonstrate some more, some weapons that they had not been seen in public. Now, usually the DOD and the CIA. they're pretty good at being able to come up with photographs and the images of these things before they're publicly acknowledged. But this was the, you know, I think particularly some of the directed energy systems, I think that was the first time they were on public display. What are directed energy systems? Like lasers.

Got it, got it. To what extent are NATO officers or grunts participating in the special military operation in behalf of Ukraine and against Russia? Well, there's a YouTube channel called Brazikman, who every day puts out about an 8 to 10 minute video on attacks. He's made several in the last four weeks. where the russian attacks killed according to him uh nato officers and nato personnel from one who were manning a patriot system a group of brits who were helping plan future attacks in crimea etc so what we haven't seen is any public you know publicity surrounding this in the west So I take the reports with a grain of salt.

Maybe they're true, but Russia has made it very clear that if NATO openly tries to deploy any forces into Ukraine, they will be targeted and they will be destroyed. Here's Dimitri Peskov, the chief spokesperson for the Kremlin being asked a question about this three days ago. Chris, cut number one. We consider it a danger for us, presence of international forces or any foreign forces or NATO country forces on the soil of Ukraine next to our borders. So in our understanding, it will not help us get closer to the solution of Ukrainian country. But why doesn't Ukraine have the right, as far as Russia is concerned, to invite whoever it wants, whichever soldiers it wants, onto its terrorist?

I mean, Russia is inviting North Korean troops. Then it's a danger for us. It's a real danger for us because we are an enemy of NATO. This is... North Korean troops are a danger to Ukraine. It's written in NATO's documents. So we cannot afford that. And we'll do whatever is necessary to ensure our security.

Have you ever heard an official Russian spokesperson used that phrase before, Larry? We are an enemy of NATO. Right. well um i by the way here's here's the precision troops chris put that back up the the precision troops that you uh talked about we're only looking at a few there were a hundred thousand of them yeah yeah i mean there's just row up on row and again to get people to march and to do this and you know it's just remarkable no um i put a piece up on sonar 21 about three

days ago, going through, first it's a video from 2001 where Vladimir Putin reads, declassifies a document. They're at the summit in Slovenia, and George W. Bush is standing there. Oh, I saw that, and Bush is laughing like a child. Yeah, just, you know, a dummy. And Putin reads this declassified document from 1954. in which the Soviet Union approached NATO and said, hey, why don't you let us join?

We'll be part of this. And the West said basically, no way in hell. Go away. Because, you know, if we don't have the Soviet Union as out there as the enemy, how do we justify this continued military expansion and buildup? And then Putin then went on to say, and he said that I made the request to Bill Clinton. And the former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, just said, no way.

So from that point on, it's in 2007, first at the, I think the Munich Security Conference, that Putin really laid into NATO and explained why NATO was creating a threat for Russia. He reiterated that at the, I think it was the Bucharest Summit, in April. of 2008. So it was very clear what Russia's position was vis-à-N-NATO. And the West has consistently told the Russians, go to hell. You know, we don't care what you think.

We're going to do what we want to do regardless. And why the hell was Bush laughing? Yeah, it's a mystery. It's just, I mean, it was so out of, think, you know, instead of taking that opportunity to say, hey, I'd never heard or knew that. So, yeah, President Putin, I pledged to you today. We're going to work so that we can work together. Yeah, you can join NATO.

We're going to, because we do that, we no longer need a trillion dollars in the Defense Department. Right. Oh, excuse me, the Department of War. I forgot about that. Here's President Putin himself. This is just three days ago on NATO in Ukraine. Number three, Chris. Regarding possible military contingents in Ukraine, this is one of the root causes trying to involve Ukraine in NATO.

So if any troops appear there, especially during the ongoing hostilities, we assume there will be legitimate targets for defeat. That's international law. If any troops appear there, there'll be legitimate targets for defeat. If they're out of uniform, they don't have Geneva Convention Protection. They can be arrested and summarily executed as spies. If they're in uniform, they're legitimate targets. Correct. Or MI6 and CIA on the ground advising Ukrainians.

how to pinpoint Russian targets and kill them. Russian assets are Russian human beings? Well, yeah, I'm sure there's MI6 CIA personnel in country. And one of the areas is of intelligence support. So the CIA can be, and I'm sure has been a conduit to both the military branch, but also the intelligence branch and the SBU. You know, the United States is complicit, you know, it has blood on its hands from Russians who have died in this war,

both civilians and military. And again, that's why I don't understand why Donald Trump, who, you know, proclaims a desire for peace, continues to enable this activity. If the United States stopped the funds, stopped the weapons, stop the intelligence sharing Ukraine, I think, would be hard-pressed to continue

fighting for another two or three weeks. Wow. And he, of course, did boast that the war would be over within 24 hours, and then he checked himself and said he might be able to end the war before I'm even inaugurated. And, of course, we all know what has happened. His most recent public order, public order, was the authorization for 35.

500 medium-range missiles. Ritter says, Scott says, they're not even built yet, but Trump made a big splash about authorizing them. Yeah, yeah. Again, I don't know if there are some out there like Alex Kramer who argue that Trump is doing this as a way to defuse the neocon opposition to his, you know, quiet behind-the-scenes efforts to actually work out a peace deal with Putin. You know, I would hope that that is the case, but you still got to look, you know, it's not just a matter, we can ignore what Trump says, let's watch what he does.

And outside of Ukraine, you know, we haven't seen him take any steps right now to cartel, military support on the intelligence side, no sign of that whatsoever. And then we watch him in other areas of the world continuing to enable the slaughter of, Palestinians to the genocide by the Israeli, boosting military forces off the coast of Venezuela and making threats. So, you know, Trump seems hell-bent on provoking conflicts instead of settling. Here's President Putin on whether or not he would meet with President Zelensky. The short answer is, yeah, only if Zelensky comes to Moscow. I can't imagine that happening.

Anyway, Chris, number four. It's a path to nowhere to meet with the current head of the administration, to put it carefully. It's possible, I never rejected it, if this meeting is well prepared and will lead to some positive possible results. By the way, Donald asked me if it is possible to hold it. such a meeting. I said, yes, it is possible. After all, if Zelensky is ready, he should come to Moscow, and the meeting will take place. I mean, he's obviously suggesting something you know Zelenskyy's not going to do, because here's Zelenskyy's response, which basically says, yeah, Putin can come to Kiev, which is also inconceivable. Chris, cut number five.

He said he will meet if you come to Moscow. He can come to Kiev. He can come to Kiev. You know, if a person doesn't want to meet during the war, of course he can propose something which can be acceptable by me or by by other, it's understandable. I can't go to Moscow when my country is under missiles, under attacks each day. I can't go to this capital of this terrorist. It's understandable and he understands it. in the same proposition, as I said, that he has to come to Kyiv. So it's understandable that he is doing it for, again, to postpone the meeting. We said, I always said we can't trust Putin. He played games, and he's playing games with the United States. I mean, is this the way negotiations in a neutral city, like, say, Geneva, begin,

Or are these guys just tweaking each other? Well, Putin, he said some things prior to what was shown on that clip. And he went through a detailed explanation of the Ukrainian Constitution. And he pointed out, there's nothing in the Ukrainian constitution that allows a president, once his term ends, to continue in office using the excuse of martial law that we can't hold elections. On that, he's correct. Legally, he is correct. Yeah, and so that was Putin's point. He said, yeah, I can meet with him, but it doesn't accomplish anything because Zelensky, legally, under the Ukrainian constitution, no longer has the power or the authority to represent the country.

The one that legally now would be in a position to do something would be the head of the Rada, the head of the legislature. So, you know, Putin was said. look, yeah, we can meet, we can talk, but the more fundamental issue is who's coming to the table prepared to, you know, we've got several issues. Issue one for Russia is these, the territories we currently occupy, those are permanently part of Russia. That's not open for discussion. That's not open for negotiation.

No bargaining on that. The Crimea and then Zaporizia, Hearson, the Nets, the Hans. These are permanently part of Russia. Secondly, NATO's got to get out. You've got to stop doing military exercises. No more NATO military personnel in Ukraine. That is a non-negotiable point for Russia. And people say, well, then how can it be negotiations if they refuse to compromise?

They're not going to compromise on that. So people need to get that out of their head that Russia somehow is going to compromise. Because what Putin has learned, as you go back to that 2001 exchange with George W. Bush, followed by his very direct, candid remarks to NATO in both 2007, 2008, is he's the one that's been getting bamboozled. He's the one that's been played for a fool. And he's no longer going to accept that. And so, yeah, they would like to resolve it peacefully. But I think they realize, the only way this is going to get settled is on the battlefield. Do you think that President Putin told President Trump in Alaska that the Russians would not use nukes in Ukraine?

No, I don't think so. I don't think he's got, Putin's not going to box himself in and take anything off the table. It would be, you know, he may have done that, but I think it would have been foolish on his part. You leave everything on the table because otherwise the West assumes you're not serious. Do you accept the theory that Putin's goal in Ukraine, in addition to making sure NATO doesn't show up, and in addition to capturing the Russian-speaking and historically Russian areas in the East, wants to obliterate the Ukrainian military and hence the slow methodical destruction of it.

Yeah, no, he made the two objectives from the outset to demilitarization, denotification. That means, to speak of denotification, it means you're going to eliminate the current parties that are allowed to exist in Ukraine that have strong ties with this ultra- her right fanatics, the right sector, Azov Battalion. But then you're going to make sure that Ukraine no longer has a modern military.

It will have a, it will be allowed to have a police force, you know, sort of, if you will, a national guard. But no longer is Russia going to put up with letting them have a full-blown military capability on their border. They were, if you go back to the negotiations in. March and April of 2022, Russia then was actually willing to accept a Ukrainian military, a reduced in size, but it was going to accept it. Going forward, no, there will not, this Ukrainian military, once it's defeated, will cease to exist.

How close is the current Ukrainian military to the end, Larry, do we know? Now, you know, you look at it, I don't see how they've survived this long. Those who think that we'll be in the same situation a year from now, I doubt that. Because Putin and his general, they are increasing the tempo of operations. So the war will be ended at least, and they'll take full possession of the Natsk, Le Hans, Zaporizia, Kersan. And then it'll be up to Ukraine to decide does it want to retain any access to the the Black Sea or is Russia is going to press on and take that as well? What about Finland, Larry? Are NATO troops in Finland? Because that has a huge border

with Russia. I think they were crazy to join NATO. They were happy, prosperous when they were neutral, but that's not the case at the present time. Well, Finland has a history. Remember who they sided with during the second world war they sided with nazi germany um and yes there are nato personnel and there's a nato basis uh effectively nato basis uh they're not necessarily identified as such but but the reality finland finland is small potatoes you know finland finland's not a large country and finland doesn't have a large army um and it's the same reason that you know russian Russia is not preoccupied with the antics of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia on its northern border.

Because they're trying to turn the tide against NATO. The most effective place to do that now is in Ukraine. But you correctly note that NATO is not just in Finland. They've been trying to provoke Russia in the Baltic Sea. And so that is another, you know that you talked with Doug McGregor about this last week. That is a flashpoint out there that could rapidly ignite and spin this off into a much larger war than what we're witnessing. Hi, Larry, thank you very much. This seems to be no end to all this.

I appreciate your allowing me to go across the board and all this. And thank you for the great research that you post at your website, Sonar. 21. As you know, I read it first thing in the morning. Thanks so much. Hey, let's find something cheery to talk about next time. We'll do our best. I'll find something that'll make you, and maybe I'm promising something I can't deliver. You and Ray McGovern laugh or be happy about on Friday. There's a challenge. All right. We'll see you then. Thank you, Larry. All the best.

Okay, bye. Bye. Coming up later today on all of this, at 1.30, this afternoon, Professor Jeffrey Sachs at 3 o'clock this afternoon, Scott Ritter. Judge Napolitano for Judging Freedom. Thank you.