as indiscriminate attack by russia, against its free spirited, brave and dexterous neighbour, which bipolar would logic should prevail sooner or later. thanks to the high morales, its troops and the generous support of its allies. is this scenario as a voltage, if, as it may be passing the reality check, we'll discuss it. i'm now joined by larry johnson for my analyst with the us central intelligence agency and c o o berg associates. mr. johnson is a great to talk to or thank you very much for your time. thank you for having me else on us. if you read them before the which rushes pursuing in the ukraine should not be termed as of war. uh, the, because the russian didn't go all in it's using its forces and resources and they're pretty limited. and i think still selective fashion, but people watching us would ask uh, why should we care about how we term it?

because people are dying any way. why engage in this, linguistically taking? well, because the amount of people that are dying, but i'm talking civility is, is, so would be drastically higher if this was an actual war, if, if you're looking at an actual war. but while we're talking about russia would be taking out all intelligence surveillance, recognizance assets that are in the air, in or around russia and ukraine. they're not doing that. they would take out the attack satellites. they're not doing that. they would be destroying every government building a kid of the motors in any way involved with assisting the war. they haven't done that. so there are a lot of things that russia has not done. and i think part of it is one to avoid cavellas killing civilians. not necessarily that's, you know, quite a contrast to the past conduct of the countries like my own,

the united states in great britain during world to where there was indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas without regard to the civilian casualties. so, i think the linguistics does matter. now, mr. johnson, many americans are people from the west life to sort of refer us to history a long way back. but what strikes me about this whole, this course in the west, there's that somehow it seems that the, the, the very notion of a nation's using it's military or forced to defend its strategic interest has been a lot. it's considered a legitimate where's the west is in actuality, the largest military blog and it has to be sad. the it's, it hasn't been shy of using force in foreign countries in recent decades and all just in world war 2, right? but then the date is, and i think when we look at the context of american war in afghanistan or in the

rocket, it cannot be described as particularly discriminated. but why do you think so many people a shock that russia would use? it's military or forced to defend what it repeatedly describe public you described as a spread the major part of the problem is this call it the parochial nature of the united states. the vast majority of the us citizens are not well read. they 2, they pay very little attention to a foreign policy and they would have trouble located in ukraine on a map. and as a result, they've been very susceptible to a steady stream of propaganda that has painted russia as this aggressive imperial pal. you'll hear the many americans talk about the imperial ambitions of russia, completely clueless about the reality to that of since 1990. the only country in

the world that has carried out expeditionary military operations in more than 6 other countries is united states, not russia. um, when you tried to point out to people the fact that if the united states was facing the chinese military activity of mexico or russian military activity in mexico or in canada, united states would take gach, we would view that as a direct threat to us. yet when the united states does the same thing to russia by have in fact, over the last us 2014, if carried out over 8 military exercises with nato and us troops and ukraine. that of the russia could only interpret as a preparation to attack russia. and yet, in the united states, you don't see that at all is provocative for a, as a, causing the russians to,

to react. now is it, uh them being clueless or is it them assuming that you know, the united states to has the right to do whatever it wants because its, uh, on the right side of history and russia simply uh for whatever reason and kind of use the resources at its disposal to defend its own, you know, but i think it, i think what we're looking at is clue, look, clueless us. and then the people that have been overwhelmed with propaganda says, you know, when, when ever the united states has faced about an opportunity to get engaged overseas . they've taken advantage of the noise painted it in terms of we're fighting them there. so we don't have to fight them here that this is in the pursuit of freedom of so you know, the states invaded rock twice and didn't leave that country any more feet or

prosperous. the same thing for afghanistan, upward engaged, were currently engaged in syria with absolutely no legal justification. and yet the vast majority of americans aren't even aware of that kind of involvement. so it is, it's, it's really a function of the lack of education in this country. and the control of information which has become really said to me, i like you, i'm old enough to remember the days of the cold war during the seventies and eighties, when we saw on the soviet side a control of information and, and of the, of a failure to tell the truth about a lot of states. well, now we've seen the roles reversed. the united states is operating very much like the old days of proff, the toss under the soviets. you pointed out in other interviews the victory in uh, in, in, in our home. so it depends not only on whether you happen to find yourself on the

us, a good us assigned, good or right side of history. but also, i'm pretty practical factors, manpower, and your access to weapons, as well as the ability of your man to operate all those weapons. and when we look at the, at these hard data, it's pretty clear that there's a huge gap. it's been what your brain has to and what russia has and what the russian may have, you know, a couple of years or months down the line. now i can understand that, uh, this is not an interesting subject for le, public, but uh, i can't believe that the american generals or native generals would not know these were not known about this gap. why are they, you know, sort of going along with the store and the, the high morales, the grades, ukrainian soldiers will ultimately deliver the fixture in the that's the, one of the most remarkable and disturbing developments in the course of this uh,

you know, the last 18 months since the start of the military operation, and in your train, the number of retired generals and we're talking people were 3 the lower 3 and 4 stars, which meant that they were at the top of, of the military permit. people like david betray a spin, hodges, who was the commander of the, to the in europe or the european command. all the others, like stanley mcchrystal and, and jack t, you know, i usually go down the list. they all keep failing to acknowledge the logistics reality of what's taking place in this war. that for example, they all of a said that we need to look at the parallels of the united states and fading a rock. and that was our, our, our ability to overcome the sit on. so army was made possible because we had the air supremacy or. and then in the next breath,

they talk about ukraine being able to break through russian defense of lines. and you have, acknowledging your crane does not have anything approaching our supremacy. they are called the opposite end of that spectrum. they have no air force that can effectively challenge or attack russian lights. it is rushed to that has their supremacy. know, mr. mason, just like me, i can, i'm hoping to just hear and ask you, what do you see of the main reason? because again, the american public can be clueless. so you're kind of blamed for that, but military or war fighting is a profession. i mean, these people are being taught for decades. they have, you know, decades of experience. they are supposed to know this stuff, why they're saying they're going along with this fantasy thinking, because as you said before, i mean they, they, they, they participated in all the competing. they know that it's not just about what you imagine. it's actually happening on the ground. well, part of it is that's kind of people that have been selected for command,

the processes. it's a bureaucratic process where those who don't ask critical questions. those who do not engage with critical thinking don't to promote the people that get promoted or the folks that are saying, hey boss, that's a great idea or the they do, the staff work can provide a gentleman with choices. and all they have to do is say, i'm going to take a, b, or c my, you know, like choosing what the eat off of a chinese menu of. so when they get to these, the top positions, very rarely are you dealing with people who have demonstrated great critical thinking skills and independence skills. they don't do their own righty as they don't do their own analysis. they depend upon others for that. so that once they're out of the military, they no longer have that kind of staff to do that work for them, so they're left to on their own devices. and so what we're seeing are basically people who have yeah, lots of experience,

but they're not very intelligent. they're not very smart. they don't know how to do critical thinking. i mean i'm, you know, i'm not presenting myself with some g p a so i can figure out that if one side of the engaged in a conflict is firing a 100, but artillery rounds and the other side it aspiring a 1000 rounds back. that, that the, the, the side this fire we're going to 1000 rounds has the advantage off the human told to these math because i mean the science of aspiring uh, only a hundreds rounds, i mean is, is forced to lose many more people. do you think that those, all those folks for glorifying the debris of your premium soldiers and the grief ukrainian nation, i actually carrying about the fact whether the ukrainian soldiers were leave to see another day? you know there's, there's absolutely, there's 0 regard for the faith to the ukrainians and the fact that so to manage the number of actual casualties heading it while exaggerating rushes casualties. again,

the target audience for that is just simply to persuade the american people to continue to support what is a lost cause. and the nature of that last cause has become more apparent. you get people like david to trace this retired general. he also was the head of the c i a he just said the other day that that unlike rush of ukrainians, there are 5 being cuz the they look over their shoulders, they look back at their homeland. that's what gives administration. and here, you know, completely clueless about rushes, history and fending off foreign invaders, making this chronic conflict even more relevant, given the neo nazi elements that dominate in ukraine, in the modern or in the modern era. the, the resurrection of people like stuff and bundle. so they're dealing with a genuine nazi threat and they don't understand how that resonates among the people

of russia who still carry the memory to world war 2. most americans are forgotten about world war 2, but that's not the case in russia because so many russians died in that conflict. absolutely, and thank you for still holding that the memory and bringing that history to a wider audience has. but so the time being we have to take a very short break, but we will be back in just a few moments extension the or the

oh, what else seemed wrong? just to save house and engagement the trail. when so many find themselves worlds of parts, we choose to look for common ground, the the welcome back to wells, of course, with larry johnson's former analyst with the us central intelligence agency and c.

o, o berg associates. mr. johnson, before the break we're, we're talking about um, how one wins of war and whether the high morale is his enough or for weapons or for training your soldiers properly. and you pointed out that the russians to have a deep spirited interest in and there are many volunteers who are going to the front lines. but that in itself is not enough. the government has to provide no equipment and training so that the people survive. and this is one of what i want to ask you about because uh, in the last couple of months, there is a new friends that enter the russian vernacular. and i think i would term it as a unit or 2, cuz usually this is something that you cannot import. i mean, even if you have the manpower, if you have the weapons, you need to make sure the, the, you know, people can operate together effectively. and it's not just

a type of, you know, technical thing, it's a psychological thing as well. um, and i know that from my insurance with uh for and gas that many uh, military professionals in other countries are watching that looking at how this conflict develops and how, you know, all the various rep and read the their watches providing can be able to read it and how successful they've been operated. what kind of lessons do seeing they're drawing at this point in as well, they're certainly not accurately, per train. what is occurring in russia. they are projecting onto russia. the actual things that are transpiring in your craving, for example, they're talking about the poor, military leadership, the russia russians, generals, or exercises, that there's poor morale among the russian troops. that these conscripts that are forced into the russian military are poorly trained and poorly equipped. now, none of that is true and what we know throughout history,

regardless of the army that troops when they get and get basically combat they fight for each other. up what we've seen from russia is a methodical development of its troops and providing them adequate training overtime. and that's the training service to purposes, primarily one big equip them with the skills they need to have to survive in a combat environment. but to, to build that unit, cohesion as a, as they get to know each other, they get to work together. they work on common task that builds a bond of, of that in last through callbacks. well, what you're getting onto ukraine's side is the drag and people off the street boys as young as 1617 years of age, and mid the before 50 years of age and older though they just had the other day. the financial times reported a 71 year old guy that had been dragged into a to be

a tank code running a tank. and he's been training in germany. i mean, this is unheard of. so and when the ukrainians are only getting 4 or 5 weeks of military training at that level, is that not enough time to acquire the military scale to go into combat. but they don't develop the kind of unit cohesion which is also a critical factor. and so that, that's what the west is missing, they, they continue to paint russia as a cartoon version of a military without understanding. is this a very serious military and quite capable? let's talk about this one there. weapon phenomenon, this ever expanding, at least still well supplied. to ukraine, can you explain the logic of this ever increasing nomenclature of weapons without addressing the quantity gap? because even if you supply, you know, all the times from all over the world to your credit, that's not going to make your koreans more capable. if a,

if the numbers of those tangs a limited let alone if they don't know how to alter rate them. yes, this is hollywood fault live with dougherty, because at hollywood you've got the silver bullet, the carrier tells the werewolf or the garlic that kills dracula. or photo is really, you know, the ring of power that's going to control the world is increases mentality that there is one kind of magical weapon that can change the entire landscape. and it's just not true. you know, we've seen it over and over and over in the course of this conflict. you know, 1st it was the arrival of the emperor triple 7 howitzer with a 155 millimeters shells. boy, that was going to be a game changer. keep hearing that word, then the high bars. no, no, that's going to be the game changer. now they're the cluster munitions, whole, another game changer, the tanks, game changer, f sixteens, the future game changer. none of it works. that is, that all of these weapon systems depend upon the most important factor,

which is having the ability to actually do combined arms and having groups that are trained and properly led to tax acute those commands. so the weapons, those weapon systems are nice add ons, and they do provide some capability, but it is not the game changer and, and what you really have a psychologist, stuck as a hollywood legacy. it is convince people to believe that there is the magic weapon can that can turn things around. now speaking about this whole live with an influence or indoctrination, i would say, i think well if this in my opinion, one of the secondary goals of this military operation is to do away with this american mantra. the perception is reality and i think the americans and the westerners, the ukrainians, are still a student. still seem to be convinced. the perception trumps every spring. where's the russians have a pretty much, well,

they don't have many took capabilities and when it comes to in the global informational more. but i think the main focus is on creating, shaping and maintaining the realities on the ground. and the gap between the perception and the actual reality is widening. i wonder how, how long i am going to give it before it will become impossible to sustain it before the best narrative that is being set to global audiences will collapse on itself. but i think we're approaching that in game because you're, you're correct. you know, we, we've got historical examples of this for, you know, we saw an in saddam hussein's, the rock that a guy called baghdad. bob kept insisting there are no american tanks in baghdad in the background, you can see that the tanks actually rolling down the streets. so the re out what the ultimately catches up with these lies. what, what i find so to disturb big nasa in america is the breath and audacity

of the lice that a lift rate on the american side. yeah, and it's as primary goal. it does not affect how russia flights the war it does, but what it does, the fact is, provides at least some modicum of support among the american people. for all this cause, without stepping back to realized, the united states already has spent is much the total amount of money spent on the warner rock, both in miller area, commercial aid, exceeds what re, uh, shelves are on. it's the old military budget. this is still on a sheet, and so the, the, these lies that are pushing the united states really to bankrupt itself. and i think, i think the, the 1st break is going to come in this side of the ocean from an economic crisis. because once we hit enter, that economic crisis will no longer be able to afford this luxury of just poor and

money down the rad holes. that is ukraine. now i heard you say in another interview that this conflict is not going to end until the dinner is alaska is gone. and the in, in your view, the most likely scenario would be he's a military generals or military commanders pushing him out. i wonder though if the western that leads to may have, at some point an interest in seeing zelinski gone of the may, you know, he has become a bit of an error temper. this constant, a request for more guns and more ammunition and more of money at the same time that he just, you know, it continues to buy up lot, 3 properties and other countries around the world. it probably just, uh, purchased at a state and in egypt. so i, you know, i can see the west uh, becoming quite tired of him. but i, i do think you really emphasis because the ones who are paying for the costs of his

policies is not really his policy. she's a, is a carpet in this, you know, he's not the strategic genius. he's a comedian who played a piano with a part of his anatomy. so he's not really a serious strategic thinker. but he has, he's been put into that role and like a good actor, he's been playing that role. well, you know, some good strategic fingers here in most could believe this. one is also pretty well, uh, pretty good deal for there for the americans because it provides them with an opportunity to all 5, undermining their a strategic rival on a cheat. because ultimately it's the hendrick ranch hall, losing the lives on the western countries get an opportunity to offer, are getting rid of the old rust the weaponry and the for having to order some new, more expensive ones. i wonder though if there is anything that you can foresee that may change the calculus among the west and that leads and make before i'm

profitable for them for, for them to see or want to see and, and to this conflict. well, i say i think that process has already started to the west made in the norm as the newest calculation for the at the outset of this big thought, number one, rushes economy was we can fragile that if you impose sanctions, you're going to cause that economy to break, which will pro political pressure to get rid of a lot of them are put. that was number one, number 2, they had invested heavily in the ukraine army. keep nice that even though ukraine was not part of nate, so affinity, it was a de facto member. and as a fact of ukraine's army at as of february 2022 to a half ago, ukraine's army presented the 2nd largest army and nato, followed by either the united states was number one, your grade number 2, turkey number 3. so what the west was calculating is that this 2nd most powerful

army in nato would be able to either, if not break russia, we cannot substantially so that the west would be in a position to take it over. that desk completely collapsed. they didn't count on the fact that russia is self sufficient at all critical, natural resources has still intact military industrial complex. the west no longer has that capability. at the outbreak of world war 2, russia and the united states are the soviets in the united states. that's the type produced the same number of tanks over for the period of january 1942 to april of 1945. they had the same kind of power. that's no longer the case. the united states is basically hollowed out, its ability to be an investor to power militarily or russia is likely to prevail. but i think that the leads must go with a very dangerous terrorist threat because the ukrainian nation, understandably so, is very aggrieved. there are many people who are, who have lost the ever thing. many people for are psychologically disturbed and the,

what happened to your client is a huge tragedy for the russians. the 1st and foremost, how do you think the russians should address it? and do you think that's also a problem for the west? the, you know, they agree via credit in school have no future and signed. but that's one of the other things. the west is betting on the for. so for general comment? well, now alternately, the will, i will started insurgency a guerilla warfare, a terrorist warfare against russia. and that'll weaken russia, but keep forgetting russia has already been through this kind of conflict instruction. yeah, they faced this various terrorist threats, the kill thousands of russians civilians. and yet russia old lead prevailed in that conflict. and the advantage here is that some like, you know, the united states badly nicest terrorist where the united states has no knowledge of the culture of language. and then no experience in those particular areas. for those groups operate, russia knows ukraine,

most of the training and people speak russian. this was not a language difference. there's not a cultural difference. uh, so i have the ability of russia to quell any kind of terrorist campaign, i think is great. it's quite robust. well, we have to leave it there, but it's been great talking to thank you very much for your expertise and sharing it. thank you for having meetings and thank you for watching hope to see her again . on walter part of the, the 1950 to us as i was returning to peaceful life with the newspapers didn't report

ongoing massacres in the ukrainian ss, according to intelligence ukrainian nationalist and the ukranian installation ami said by real mind, she'll give each the joy to these atrocities for future was the best hold of the old school and what, but i senior this all school. the way to would be likely to be like listen please. of course we'll do an a new one. obviously the plaintiff was the head of the n k v d sabotage department at the time. he was tasked with stopping the atrocities in ukraine for a good reason, general sort of blonde. it was very familiar with the situation. he had experience finding the nationalist before the war named, loveless to con, get a z a do. it's a native book. so didn't know, could i e, but it was, well that's funny. so give me the task, was tremendously difficult, but suit up a lot. that was determined to complete as we had personal accounts to settle with the ukranian nationalist.

the red lines of the new government says into the negotiations with powers on the withdrawal price. lowest country practice between the police, a rock in the neighborhood, in sweetest, good, largest city, as a nation continues to allow chromebook bye is our prime minister says abundance of us what was left behind. and maybe we have been supposing it is intelligent to his country's national security. find in the in authorities all report of the considering the re name and the nation is call me note.