🚨 Russia Goes After NATO-War Centers in Kiev, Iran Winning Big | Larry C. Johnson

## From Attrition To Escalation The conversation captures a decisive inflection point in two parallel conflicts: what had long been framed as wars of attrition are now shifting toward deliberate escalation. Throughout the exchange, participants argued that Moscow has moved beyond the posture of constrained regional engagement and signaled a willingness to broaden the battlefield — or at least to ratchet up pressure within Ukraine in ways that directly threaten Western personnel and assets. That change is not merely rhetorical. It is the outcome of a strategic calculation: if peripheral tolerance for risk and the implicit understandings that kept violence mostly inside Ukraine erode, the combatants will test new thresholds. The speakers place much of the responsibility for this shift on a recent series of public statements and operational choices by Russian officials, which collectively signal that the previous informal limits to the fight are no longer sacrosanct. The point made repeatedly is simple but consequential: when diplomacy is used to telegraph intent — warnings to evacuate diplomats, public declarations that certain NATO-related facilities are now permissible targets — it transforms deterrence calculations on both sides. The result is a new phase where tactical targeting inside Kyiv is less about immediate battlefield gains and more about strategic messaging to the Collective West. This is not an accident of timing. The panelists traced the trajectory from 2022’s initial invasion through years of grinding exchanges to today’s declared willingness to strike intelligence and military nodes that are staffed by Western personnel. What makes this turning point dangerous is that it narrows options for de-escalation. Once a capital becomes contested in this way, the presence of foreign advisors, contractors, and liaison officers transmutes from an advisory role into a liability: their very physical presence becomes a potential casus belli or bargaining chip. The conversation drives home that the shift from attrition to escalation is both an operational and psychological transition — the battlefield has become political theater with higher stakes. ## Russia’s Endgame In Ukraine The analysis of Russia’s endgame in Ukraine presented in the discussion is stark: Moscow appears to be preparing to make Kiev unsustainable for foreign military and intelligence personnel, and possibly for the Ukrainian government itself. Speakers referenced a constellation of signals — from diplomatic readouts to comments by influential Russian analysts — to argue that Moscow’s objective has moved toward territorial consolidation and coercive leverage rather than a quick regime overthrow. The endgame, as sketched in the exchange, is a blend of coercion, attritional pressure, and territorial control that aims to force Western recalibration. Larry C. Johnson’s contributions frame this as a watershed that reflects both capability and intent. He points to an accumulation of missiles, artillery, and manpower that gives Russia the operational confidence to pursue more aggressive targeting inside Kyiv. That does not mean an immediate, reckless march into Western capitals. Rather, the conversation emphasizes a graduated escalation: sustained strikes on command-and-control nodes, intelligence facilities, and the infrastructure that enables Western influence in Kyiv. If successful, this approach would have the dual effect of degrading Ukraine’s defensive posture and pressuring Western publics and policymakers to reevaluate the costs of continued proximal engagement. The discussants also explored the domestic politics that shape these choices. In Russia, public sentiment has often been more hawkish than the leadership; Moscow’s recent posture reflects a convergence of elite direction and public readiness for a tougher line. In Western capitals, by contrast, leaders can be rhetorically belligerent but operationally constrained; public reluctance and logistical limits often blunt the translation of bluster into action. This asymmetry matters: it increases the odds that escalation emanating from Moscow will meet strategic confusion rather than coordinated retaliation, thereby enhancing the potency of Russia’s coercive signaling. A crucial caveat emerged repeatedly: escalation is a spectrum, and much depends on Western responses. The discussants argued that Europe’s political bravado—threats of seablockades or interdiction—often collapses when faced with operational realities. If that pattern repeats, Russia can embed gains without crossing the catastrophic threshold that would trigger unified NATO military retaliation. Thus, Russia’s endgame looks less like global confrontation and more like a carefully calibrated campaign to impose new facts on the ground while preserving ambiguity about crossing red lines. ## Abraham Accords And Gulf Talks A parallel thread of the conversation examined developments in the Middle East and the rapid diplomatic reordering surrounding the Abraham Accords and Gulf security talks. The basic argument is that the diplomatic realignment between Israel and several Arab states, coupled with new security dialogues with Gulf players, is altering regional balances in ways that interact with both the Ukraine and Iran theaters. These agreements are no longer peripheral: they reshape alliance structures, affect arms flows and basing arrangements, and change how the United States and its partners prioritize resources. Speakers posited that the Gulf’s hedging behavior — building discreet security ties with Israel while recalibrating relations with major powers — creates a compartmentalized security marketplace. In this marketplace, the United States remains the principal security guarantor but is strained by simultaneous demands from Israel, Ukraine, and other partners. The result is an emergent triage: limited capacity means Washington cannot prioritize all theaters equally, and regional actors are responding by diversifying their partnerships and warfighting approaches. Importantly, the conversation linked these diplomatic shifts to operational consequences. New Gulf security arrangements could alter basing patterns and intelligence-sharing, with implications for force posture and escalation dynamics in both the eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea. That reshaping can constrain or enable crisis responses, affecting how states like Iran calculate risk. The participants suggested that what looks like localized partnership-building actually ripples outward, changing adversaries’ strategic calculus and feeding back into the logic of deterrence and escalation elsewhere. ## Sanctions And Diplomacy With Iran The discussion then turned to Iran, where the speakers argued that Western sanctions and diplomatic approaches are producing unintended consequences. Rather than deterring Tehran, pressure has catalyzed adaptive strategies: greater regional partnerships, a focus on asymmetric capabilities like drones and missiles, and outreach to non-Western markets that blunt the economic pain. The panelists warned that sanctions alone are an insufficient lever when Iran’s political leadership is willing to accept economic hardship in exchange for strategic autonomy. A recurrent theme was the asymmetry of vulnerability. Large powers subjected to intermittent strikes or supply chain shocks can be more sensitive to economic and energy disruptions than smaller actors operating under sanctions. Iran has invested in capabilities that can impose disproportionate costs — seizing shipping lanes, licit and illicit oil flows, and supporting proxy networks — and the conversation emphasized that these levers expand Tehran’s strategic options. In short, Iran’s leadership is not merely surviving sanctions; it is weaponizing economic ties and regional partnerships to convert punitive measures into long-term geopolitical gains. At the same time, participants flagged a diplomatic windo

Russia Goes After NATO Centers in Kiev, Iran Winning Big | Larry C. Johnson Updates on the Ukraine-Proxy War and the Iran War with Larry C. Johnson: Both wars are about to get worse as NATO is trying to expand the fight into Russia. Moscow will now escalate in Kiev to send final message to Collective West. At the same time, the global economic shock from the Iran War will only grow deeper and more intensive with every day. Links: Larry Johnson Sonar21: https://sonar21.com Larry Johnson Substack: https://larrycjohnson.substack.com Counter Currents YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@counter_currents_channel Larry Johnson Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=80288936 Larry Johnson Buy Me a Coffee: https://buymeacoffee. com/lcjohnson1M Neutrality Studies substack: https://pascallottaz.substack.com (Opt in for Academic Section from your profile settings: https://pascallottaz.substack.com/s/academic) Merch: https://neutralitystudies.com/shop Donation: https://neutralitystudies.com/donate Timestamps: 00: 00:00 Russia’s New War Phase 00:06:52 From Attrition To Escalation 00:14:18 US Role And Ukraine Air Defense 00:24:19 Russia’s Endgame In Ukraine 00:28:10 Trump, Ukraine And Iran 00:29:04 Abraham Accords And Gulf Talks 00:33:20 US Bases And New Gulf Security 00:37:33 Sanctions And Diplomacy With Iran 00:43:10 Lebanon, Oil And Wider War Risks 00:46:11 China, Commodities And Market Collapse #Pascal Welcome back, everybody, to Neutrality Studies. Today, again, with the one and only Larry Johnson. #Larry C. Johnson Larry: Hi there. Thank you, Pascal. #Pascal Well, thank you. A lot has been happening over the last week when it comes to Russia and Iran, and both of these things don't seem to be going well, especially what is happening now with Russia, with Ukraine having basically killed all these teenagers in Lugansk, and the Russians not taking it anymore, now having issued even a warning that foreign diplomats in Kyiv should evacuate. Do you think the Russian approach to the war is now going to change? #Larry C. Johnson Yes. I think this is a watershed moment. They've made the decision to change. They haven't yet fully acted on it. You know, we got the hint that it was moving in this direction about three weeks -- 1 of 17 -- ago, or was it four weeks ago, when Ambassador Dmitry Polyansky appeared on Danny Davis's podcast and commented that, you know, basically, targets in Europe were on the table now because of the drone attacks that were taking place inside Russia. That was followed up two, three days later by Sergei Ryabkov, the deputy foreign minister. And, you know, I know Dmitry. I spent some time with him. He was sort of my host when I spoke to the United Nations Security Council. And then Sergei Ryabkov, I first met him back in December of 2023. It was a small 12- person seminar. I was there with Alastair Crooke and Pepe Escobar. And so, Sergei Ryabkov is a very serious diplomat. And he reiterated the same message that Ambassador Polyansky had delivered. So that told me right off the bat, because, you know, Dmitry is not the kind of guy who's going to go out and just start spouting off, “Yeah, man, we're going to go kick some European ass.” #Pascal You know, that's not him. #Larry C. Johnson What he said was measured, but it was direct. And it was clear that he was acting on instructions that had been provided from the foreign ministry. And then finally, we get the readout from this week's conversation between Senator LeRolph, the foreign minister, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. It was not what I'd call a happy conversation. You know, LeRolph is very direct. And warning, you know, the Russian readout contained this. The U.S. readout didn't say a thing, but it was saying, Western diplomats, get out of Kiev. Russia does not make idle threats. As Raymond Governe, who spent many, many years studying and analyzing the Russians with his job at the CIA, said, if you want to know what the Russians are going to do, just listen to what they say. Because they're not notorious bullshitters. They're very direct. They can be diplomatic. But in this case, we have to take very, very seriously what's being said. And what they're signaling is they're going to attack intelligence and military targets in Kiev that are currently, I think, staffed with Westerners — U.S. CIA personnel and military personnel, both NATO and U.S. So, and I believe this is one, you know, people say, well, why hadn't they attacked this before? Why now? Well, this latest terrorist attack against civilians — and that's what it was — whoever uses violence in killing civilians, that's the very definition of terrorism. And it's worth noting that despite this incredibly massive, massive Russian retaliation in Kiev, I don't think they killed any civilians. So, you know, they were taking care to inflict damage on the military and intelligence infrastructure. #Pascal So the numbers they published right after it happened, the morning after, were four people. That is not confirmed, but that is what was said from their side. And Carlos actually then on Twitter said, -- 2 of 17 -- like, this is pure terrorism. They are intending to kill. It's a genocide. They're intending to kill as many as they can, which is, I mean, it's another level of stupid, but that's what came out of the West. #Larry C. Johnson Yeah, well, all we can say is, if that was really Russia's intention, they're really bad at it, you know. #Pascal Especially you and the Russians, right, in densely populated areas and not managing to kill people at least in the two digits. Yeah, you are really, really, really, really bad at your game. But okay, how do we read that then? Because what I hear from you is that Russia saying "take out your diplomats" actually is Russia saying "take out these people in Kiev who we know are responsible for killing our people. And if you don't take them out, we will take them out." #Larry C. Johnson Yeah. Well, just tell them to, particularly the Westerners, get out of town because Russia is going — they are going to hit Kiev and keep hitting it in preparation for taking it with a ground force. I think they are going to capture and control Kiev maybe by the end of the summer. You know, one of the reasons I think that they never in the past carried out this kind of attack was they didn't want to risk, you know, killing Westerners and then escalating the conflict to, you know, they might say, okay, this is an Article 5 violation that Russia was simply not prepared to take on. Now they're ready. I think they made sure they got ample supplies of missiles ready, and artillery and soldiers. They boosted their numbers. So I think that's why they're now upping the game. And it's not just Dmitry Polyansky; it was Sergei Karaganov as well who made comments about using nukes against Europe. So the war, it's entered a whole new phase now. I don't know if they're going to rename it, but it's going beyond special military operations. #Pascal Hey, very brief intermission because I was recently banned from YouTube. And although I'm back, this can happen anytime again. So please consider subscribing not only here, but to my mailing list on Substack. That's pascallottaz.substack.com. The link's going to be in the description below. And now, back to the video. What caused that? Because in my reading, the last four years had these different phases. The first phase was Russia trying to do a surprise, a bad surprise for Ukraine, to force them to come to a neutrality agreement for Ukraine at the negotiating table. They almost had them there. The virus blew in, blew it up, said, go and fight. The Russians basically had to make do with how they could, a retreat in order to regroup. -- 3 of 17 -- And then from there on, ever since 2023, they were basically for three years in a war of attrition where they said, sure, okay, you, Ukraine and NATO, throw at us what you have, we'll destroy it, we demilitarize you that way, and we go slowly and methodically. And from the Russian side, they wanted to keep up the fiction that it's just a military operation. And the West wanted to keep up the fiction that this is just them helping Ukraine. But the implicit agreement was, we keep it in Ukraine, right? Whenever there was a danger that it would spill over, actually both sides dialed it down. And that seems to have been kind of, for different reasons, the approach. But it seems that the Europeans are now salami-slicing themselves into trying to take the war to Russia proper without the war coming to their territory. And Russia is not going to take that, right? Are you reading it the same way? #Larry C. Johnson Yeah, you know, you're exactly right. And let's compare and contrast the leadership in Russia with public opinion and the leadership in the United States with public opinion with respect to war. Vladimir Putin, you could argue, has always been a little behind public opinion. In fact, he's not been out trying to rally public opinion to, "Let's step it up," you know. He's always been more cautious, whereas the average Russians have been more willing to be more aggressive. And it's reflected, you know, in comments by Dmitry Medvedev, as an example, and Sergei Karaganov. Both are, you know, both are well-respected and are serious people in Russia. Well, now Putin is stepping out because it was clear that what Lavrov said was at the orders of Vladimir Putin. Putin told him, you call that Marco Rubio character, and this is what you tell him. And the same message had been delivered to Ryabkov and to Dmitry Polyansky. So, do you remember the musician Alice Cooper? ’70s, ’80s in the United States—was before your time. But he had a song called “No More Mr. Nice Guy.” And that's Putin now. No more Mr. Nice Guy. Russia's turned a corner in this war, and I expect them to fully execute this and basically make Kyiv unlivable for foreign diplomats and foreign military personnel and former intelligence officers. #Pascal I mean, them now saying we're going to dial it up against Kyiv is actually, in my reading, also a way to tell the Europeans, look, this is the last thing we do inside Ukraine. If you don't stop it here, then the next thing is going to be outside of Ukraine. So... Plus, when it comes to this thing, like chasing out not only the diplomats but also the NGOs and the foreign command center and so on, while basically forcing the Ukrainians to keep government structures and everything in Kyiv, it's probably going to create quite a headache. But do you see any chance that the government itself and the military structures will retreat to Lviv or something like that? #Larry C. Johnson -- 4 of 17 -- Eventually, I think that's what will happen. And, you know, you astutely noted the critical point. Instead of, you know, because when both Ambassador Polyansky and Sergei Ryabkov, the Deputy Foreign Minister, first spoke about going after Europe, in my mind, I'm thinking, okay, they're going to start targeting European cities. This is a way where they can hit European targets in Ukraine. It is, you know, an intermediate step before going to full escalation. Again, giving them a chance to back off, get out of the way, save yourselves. And, you know, it looks like it's had some effects. Both Starmer and Macron have been a little less belligerent of late. It's, you know, this is like the small dog phenomenon. Have you ever been around, you know, a really big, powerful dog? It usually doesn't need to bark at you. It just intimidates the hell out of you by being there. It's those little yappy dogs that, you know, all they're doing, they're an annoyance. That's Kaja Kallas. You know, that's von der Leyen, or as I call her, Fond of Lying. You know, they're making the belligerent threats, but they have no means to carry out or execute on those threats. #Pascal So, I mean, even if this new phase of the war remains inside Ukraine, it seems to me that the Europeans are dead set on sti