From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

Tucker Carlson’s interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, published Thursday night, was an 80-minute conversation that provides remarkable insights on war and politics beyond the narratives we are told by the news.

Tucker Carlson’s interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was posted Thursday night.

If you are interested in whether there will be a world war, why, and indeed whether it has already started, the 80-minute conversation will provide remarkable insights beyond the narratives we are told by the news.

Carlson begins with the question of the moment: Is the U.S. at war with Russia?

Lavrov says no, but that the danger is obvious. NATO and the West, he says, “don’t believe that Russia has red lines, they announce the red lines, these red lines are being moved again and again and again. This is a very serious mistake.”

Statements such as this can be dismissed as “Russian propaganda.” Yet Lavrov is simply stating the case. The Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center – the home of “world-leading” U.S./NATO strategic thinking – has admitted that “nudging Russian red lines” has been the gambit of the West for many years.

Lavrov explains the situation conversationally, but with a frankness uncommon from Western diplomats.

He explains that Russia seeks to avoid war, though it remains prepared to fight one.

READ: Putin calls out Biden for ‘escalating’ war in Ukraine right before Trump takes office

“We are ready for any eventuality, but we strongly prefer a peaceful solution through negotiations” – to the Ukraine conflict.

It was “Russian propaganda” until recently to speak of this as a U.S./NATO “proxy war” waged by the West against Russia, until Boris Johnson admitted it was a proxy war in an interview last week.

With so many former “conspiracy theories” having come true in the West, such as the Hunter Biden laptop, the tainted and dangerous COVID mRNA injections, and the narrative of the Ukraine war itself, Lavrov’s genial and revealing chat with Carlson reveals a rich seam of information.

He covers the death of Alexei Navalny, the effective suspension of U.S. diplomacy with Russia, the now obvious role of Boris Johnson in destroying peace and prolonging war in Ukraine, along with Russian relations with China and its role in the current Syrian war.

His remarks provide food for thought for an audience ravenous for information. It is understandable that Lavrov’s view of these events would prove controversial, as the denial of the obvious is a basic principle of the liberal-global system which is currently fighting Russia in two theaters of war.

It is a credit to Carlson that he asks Lavrov, at around the one-hour mark, what his opinion is on the question of who is in charge in the United States.

“Who do you think has been making foreign policy decisions in the U.S.?” Carlson asks.

“I wouldn’t guess,” says Lavrov. “I haven’t seen Tony Blinken in four years”.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken is the chief diplomat of the United States and is effectively Lavrov’s counterpart. That he has not spoken to Lavrov since 2020 is an extraordinary fact in itself, given the nuclear brinkmanship his administration has lately pursued, following a long campaign towards a failed proxy war against Russia.

Lavrov says in these four years all he has had from Blinken is a “few words” outside a G20 meeting, where Blinken astonishingly told the Russians, “Don’t escalate.”

Lavrov described the brief exchange: “I said, we don’t want to escalate. You want to inflict strategic defeat upon Russia?”

Apparently, Blinken rejoined, “No, no, no, no, it is not, it is not strategic defeat globally. It is only in Ukraine.”

Yet it is not only Blinken playing peek-a-boo. Lavrov’s description of the last meeting of the 20 most powerful nations is startling.

“Europeans are running away when they see me. During the last G20 meeting, it was ridiculous. Grown up people, mature people. They behave like kids. So childish and unbelievable,” he said.

Following this shocking depiction of the state of Western diplomacy, Lavrov moves to the serious business of regime change, saying it has long been U.S. strategy to “make trouble and see if they can fish in the muddy water” afterwards – in Iraq, for example. As for “the adventure in Libya,” he says, “after ruining the state [there] … they went on to leave Afghanistan in very bad shape.”

His summary recalls that of JD Vance, who denounced the last four decades of forever war as “a disaster” in his speech in May, when he asked, “What are the fruits of the last 40 years of American foreign policy? Of course, it’s the disaster in Iraq, it’s the disaster in Afghanistan, it’s Syria, it’s Lebanon, it’s on issue after issue after issue.”

Lavrov was far more polite about the matter, and said simply, “If you analyze the American foreign policy steps – ‘adventures’ … is the right word.”

There is simply no way to do justice to the example set by Russia’s leading diplomat. Of course, he skillfully represents Russian interests, but it is not to collude with him or his nation to note a master at work. 

His extraordinary composure and command of the situation contrasts starkly with the near total absence of any diplomacy at all by the U.S. with this most significant strategic rival – or future partner. It is a credit to Carlson that he brings this view to the West, which explains so much of the crises in Ukraine and Syria from a viewpoint that has been canceled in the formerly free world.

If you have 80 minutes to spare you will learn more about the state of the world watching Lavrov than in a year’s consumption of mainstream media. One obvious shock is how impoverished our political system is, that it produces no one of the caliber of our supposed enemies, no one who discusses with cordial directness the naked truth of a near-nuclear crisis.

His sobering analysis can be condensed into one statement, from which it is hoped the red line nudgers will not seek to test. Lavrov warns the game players of the U.S. and NATO:

“They must understand that we are ready to use any means not to allow them to succeed in what they call a strategic defeat of Russia.”

This strategic defeat, now impossible in Ukraine, is being pursued right now by Western proxies in Syria. With one war about to end, another has been started. Russian patience is exhausted, and they have committed fully to preventing the takeover of Syria by U.S. and Ukrainian backed “foreign terrorists.”

It is to be hoped that someone will be in charge in a few weeks’ time who will listen, rather than hiding and seeking escalation.