777 fortune gems
How China Became the World’s Largest Gold Consumer and Producer
(Bloomberg) -- Nvidia Corp. assured investors that its new product lineup will continue to fuel an artificial intelligence-driven growth run, while also signaling that the rush to get chips out the door is proving costlier than expected. Listen to the Bloomberg Daybreak Europe podcast on Apple, Spotify or anywhere you listen. Speaking after the release of quarterly results, Chief Executive Officer Jensen Huang said that Nvidia’s highly anticipated Blackwell products will ship this quarter amid “very strong” demand. But the production and engineering costs of the chips will weigh on profit margins, and Nvidia’s sales forecast for the current period didn’t match some of Wall Street’s more optimistic projections. That brought a tepid reaction from investors, who had bid up Nvidia shares almost 200% this year heading into the earnings report. After that dizzying rally, which turned the chipmaker into the world’s most valuable company, anything but a blowout quarter was bound to be a disappointment. The shares fell as much as 3.6% on Thursday before rebounding by the afternoon. They closed up 0.5% at $146.67. Nvidia predicted fiscal fourth-quarter sales of about $37.5 billion. While the average analyst estimate was $37.1 billion, projections ranged as high as $41 billion. “The guidance seems to show lower growth, but this may be Nvidia being conservative,” said Alvin Nguyen, an analyst at Forrester Research Inc. “Short term, there is no worry about AI demand. Nvidia is doing everything they should be doing.” The company’s biggest moneymaker is its accelerator chip, which helps develop artificial intelligence models by bombarding them with data. Since OpenAI’s ChatGPT chatbot debuted in 2022, a frenzy of AI services has created insatiable demand for the product. All About Nvidia Chips, AI Hype and What Lies Ahead: QuickTake Wall Street has been closely watching the launch of Blackwell, the latest entry in that category, which is faster and has an improved ability to link up with other semiconductors. Manufacturing challenges have slowed the rollout, and Nvidia warned again of supply constraints on Wednesday. Demand for the products is expected to exceed supply for several quarters. “Critical questions around Blackwell’s production ramp and customer concentration remain key concerns,” Emarketer analyst Jacob Bourne said in a note. “There’s little room for execution missteps in 2025.” Huang said that Blackwell is now in “full production,” and there’s still an appetite for Hopper, the previous design. “Blackwell is now in the hands of all of our major partners,” he said during the conference call. But the switch to Blackwell has taken a toll on profitability. The company’s gross margin, which measures the percentage of sales remaining after deducting the cost of production, will dip to as low as 73% this quarter from 75% in the previous period. The figure is expected to rebound when the new products reach larger-scale production, and the economics are more favorable. When asked whether Nvidia’s gross margin could be back in the mid-70s by the middle of next year, Chief Financial Officer Colette Kress said that’s a reasonable assumption. Nvidia remains far above its peers in this category: Its nearest rival, Advanced Micro Devices Inc., has a gross margin that’s 20 percentage points narrower. Intel Corp.’s isn’t even half of Nvidia’s total. Nvidia’s growth over the past two years has been staggering. Its sales are poised to double for a second year in a row, and it now notches more money in profit than it used to generate in total revenue. Nvidia’s revenue rose 94% to $35.1 billion in the fiscal third quarter, which ended Oct. 27. Excluding certain items, profit was 81 cents a share. Analysts had predicted sales of about $33.25 billion and earnings of 74 cents a share. Nvidia’s biggest division, the data center unit, saw revenue double from a year earlier to $30.8 billion. That beat Wall Street estimates. But networking revenue within that unit declined sequentially, and the business is more dependent than ever on a small group of customers: cloud service providers. That cohort, which includes companies such as Microsoft Corp. and Amazon.com Inc.’s AWS, accounted for 50% of data center revenue, up from 45% in the prior period. Investors want that number to go down, to show that the use of AI is spreading across the economy. Other recent earnings reports have given strong signals for AI. Nvidia customers, including Microsoft, Amazon and Meta Platforms Inc., have reaffirmed their commitment to spend heavily on AI infrastructure. WATCH: Nvidia's Surprising AI Origin Story Nvidia has only missed analysts’ estimates on quarterly revenue once in the past five years. And it has exceeded expectations by as much as 20% in recent periods, creating a high bar for its performance. Its data center division alone now has more revenue than rivals Intel and AMD have in total, combined. Net income this year is on course to exceed revenue at Intel, a business that was the chip industry’s biggest company for decades. Nvidia made its name by selling graphics processors, but discovered that the technology also has applications for AI. Its chips help software models during the training process, when they learn to recognize and respond to real-world inputs. Nvidia’s components are also used in systems that then run the software, a stage known as inference, and help power services such as ChatGPT. The Santa Clara, California-based company has rapidly expanded its product lineup to include networking, software and services, as well as fully built-out computer systems. Huang is traveling the world lobbying for a broader adoption of his technology and trying to spread its use by corporations and government agencies. “The age of AI is upon us and it’s large and diverse,” Huang said. More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com ©2024 Bloomberg L.P.
Okanagan MLAs express concern with removal of religious sign from nativity scene49ers RBs McCaffrey, Mason both headed to IRPhoto: The Canadian Press FILE - The OpenAI logo is displayed on a cell phone in front of an image generated by ChatGPT's Dall-E text-to-image model, Dec. 8, 2023, in Boston. (AP Photo/Michael Dwyer, File) A 7-year-old rivalry between tech leaders Elon Musk and Sam Altman over who should run OpenAI and prevent an artificial intelligence "dictatorship" is now heading to a federal judge as Musk seeks to halt the ChatGPT maker's ongoing shift into a for-profit company. Musk, an early OpenAI investor and board member, sued the artificial intelligence company earlier this year alleging it had betrayed its founding aims as a nonprofit research lab benefiting the public good rather than pursuing profits. Musk has since escalated the dispute, adding new claims and asking for a court order that would stop OpenAI’s plans to convert itself into a for-profit business more fully. The world's richest man, whose companies include Tesla, SpaceX and social media platform X, last year started his own rival AI company, xAI. Musk says it faces unfair competition from OpenAI and its close business partner Microsoft, which has supplied the huge computing resources needed to build AI systems such as ChatGPT. “OpenAI and Microsoft together exploiting Musk’s donations so they can build a for-profit monopoly, one now specifically targeting xAI, is just too much,” says Musk's filing that alleges the companies are violating the terms of Musk’s foundational contributions to the charity. OpenAI is filing a response Friday opposing Musk’s requested order, saying it would cripple OpenAI’s business and mission to the advantage of Musk and his own AI company. A hearing is set for January before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland. At the heart of the dispute is a 2017 internal power struggle at the fledgling startup that led to Altman becoming OpenAI's CEO. Musk also sought to be CEO and in an email outlined a plan where he would “unequivocally have initial control of the company” but said that would be temporary. He grew frustrated after two other OpenAI co-founders said he would hold too much power as a major shareholder and chief executive if the startup succeeded in its goal to achieve better-than-human AI known as artificial general intelligence , or AGI. Musk has long voiced concerns about how advanced forms of AI could threaten humanity. “The current structure provides you with a path where you end up with unilateral absolute control over the AGI," said a 2017 email to Musk from co-founders Ilya Sutskever and Greg Brockman. “You stated that you don't want to control the final AGI, but during this negotiation, you've shown to us that absolute control is extremely important to you.” In the same email, titled “Honest Thoughts,” Sutskever and Brockman also voiced concerns about Altman's desire to be CEO and whether he was motivated by “political goals.” Altman eventually succeeded in becoming CEO, and has remained so except for a period last year when he was fired and then reinstated days later after the board that ousted him was replaced. OpenAI published the messages Friday in a blog post meant to show its side of the story, particularly Musk's early support for the idea of making OpenAI a for-profit business so it could raise money for the hardware and computer power that AI needs. It was Musk, through his wealth manager Jared Birchall, who first registered “Open Artificial Technologies Technologies, Inc.”, a public benefit corporation, in September 2017. Then came the “Honest Thoughts” email that Musk described as the “final straw.” “Either go do something on your own or continue with OpenAI as a nonprofit,” Musk wrote back. OpenAI said Musk later proposed merging the startup into Tesla before resigning as the co-chair of OpenAI's board in early 2018. Musk didn't immediately respond to emailed requests for comment sent to his companies Friday. Asked about his frayed relationship with Musk at a New York Times conference last week, Altman said he felt “tremendously sad” but also characterized Musk’s legal fight as one about business competition. “He’s a competitor and we’re doing well,” Altman said. He also said at the conference that he is “not that worried” about the Tesla CEO’s influence with President-elect Donald Trump. OpenAI said Friday that Altman plans to make a $1 million personal donation to Trump’s inauguration fund, joining a number of tech companies and executives who are working to improve their relationships with the incoming administration.
Victoria’s Secret & Co. Reports Third Quarter 2024 ResultsHealth minister Damodar Rajanarsimha directed officials to complete the setting up of 22 central medicine stores (CMS) within a week. With this, each of the districts will have a CMS. To address the reported shortage of medicines in hospitals, the minister ordered the formation of 10 task force teams, one for each undivided district, to inspect hospitals and CMS. During a meeting with officials, Rajanarsimha suggested that the supply chain management be divided into three stages. He also recommended holding workshops for pharmacists on the use of the existing e-Asuhadi portal. He directed hospitals to place indent orders in time with the TGMIDC for medicines in the necessary quantities. After procurement, medicines should be distributed to the CMS, where computers have been installed. The CMS staff should record stock details online, including medicine quantities and signatures from recipients. He suggested that all information, right from the medicine indent request to its delivery to the patient, should be recorded online.
How $1000 Became a Fortune. NVIDIA’s Stunning 15-Year SurgeExterminators PLC, Sri Lanka’s leading pest management digi-tech environmental enhancement company, clinched gold at the Sri Lanka Entrepreneur Awards (Western Province) in the selected category. Organised by the National Chamber of Commerce of Sri Lanka and the National Enterprise Development Authority, this prestigious event took place at the BMICH in Colombo on December 11th. The awards aim to celebrate entrepreneurial excellence in areas such as financial performance, innovation, employment generation, productivity, and corporate social responsibility. Tharindu Sooriyampola, joined Exterminators PLC as an intern in 2008 and now serves as the head of sales and marketing, alongside Hiroshima Senadheera, who began her career with the company in 2014 as an intern and currently holds the position of customer relationship manager, represented the firm at this ceremony. Their impressive, combined tenure of over 26 years highlights the company’s commitment to fostering talent and promoting professional growth within its ranks. The selection process for these awards involved a rigorous evaluation that ensured transparency and fairness. Applicants were judged based on criteria including business focus, market reach, market share, and environmental sustainability. The company, founded in 1998 by Marlon Ferreira, began its journey with a modest initial investment of Rs. 75,000 (approximately USD 1,000) and a single employee equipped with a spray gun and a motorbike. Under Ferreira’s leadership, Exterminators PLC has redefined industry standards to become Asia’s first publicly listed, carbon-neutral, and Great Place to Work-certified pest control company.
Panic among spectators at soccer game kills at least 56 in the West African nation of GuineaThe Atlanta Falcons re-signed linebacker Rashaan Evans to the practice squad on Tuesday. Evans played in two games for the Falcons earlier this season and received one defensive snap and five on special teams. He was on the roster Weeks 9-15 before being released Dec. 21. Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings. Stacker examined Census of Agriculture data from the Department of Agriculture to see which states produce the most Christmas trees. Click for more. States that produce the most Christmas trees
None
SAN DIEGO, Dec. 02, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Zentalis ® Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ZNTL , a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company discovering and developing clinically differentiated small molecule therapeutics targeting fundamental biological pathways of cancers, today announced that on December 2, 2024, the Compensation Committee of Zentalis' Board of Directors granted the following equity awards: non-qualified stock options to purchase an aggregate of 3,028,800 shares of the Company's common stock to Julie Eastland, who joined the Company as Chief Executive Officer and President, non-qualified stock options to purchase an aggregate of 712,650 shares of the Company's common stock to Dr. Ingmar Bruns, who joined the Company as Chief Medical Officer, and non-qualified stock options to purchase an aggregate of 753,660 shares of the Company's common stock to five newly hired employees. The stock options were granted under the Zentalis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2022 Employment Inducement Incentive Award Plan (2022 Inducement Plan) as an inducement material to each such individual's entering into employment with Zentalis in accordance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5635(c)(4). The 2022 Inducement Plan is used exclusively for the grant of equity awards to individuals who were not previously employees of Zentalis, or following a bona fide period of non-employment, as an inducement material to each such individual's entering into employment with Zentalis, pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5635(c)(4). The stock options have an exercise price of $3.66 per share, which is equal to the closing price of Zentalis' common stock on The Nasdaq Global Market on the date of grant. The stock options granted to Ms. Eastland have a 10-year term and will vest over four years in equal monthly installments until the stock options are fully vested. The stock options granted to the other newly hired employees have a 10-year term and will vest over four years, with 25% of the options vesting on the first anniversary of the vesting commencement date and the remaining 75% of the options vesting in equal monthly installments over the three years thereafter. Vesting of the stock options is subject to the employee's continued service to Zentalis on each vesting date. About Zentalis Pharmaceuticals Zentalis ® Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company discovering and developing clinically differentiated small molecule therapeutics targeting fundamental biological pathways of cancers. The Company's lead product candidate, azenosertib (ZN-c3), is a potentially first-in-class and best-in-class WEE1 inhibitor for advanced solid tumors. Azenosertib is being evaluated as a monotherapy and in combination across multiple clinical trials and has broad franchise potential. In clinical trials, azenosertib has been well tolerated and has demonstrated anti-tumor activity as a single agent across multiple tumor types and in combination with several chemotherapy backbones. As part of its azenosertib clinical development program, the Company is exploring enrichment strategies targeting tumors of high genomic instability, such as Cyclin E1 positive tumors, homologous recombination deficient tumors and tumors with oncogenic driver mutations. The Company is also leveraging its extensive experience and capabilities across cancer biology and medicinal chemistry to advance its research on protein degraders. Zentalis has operations in San Diego. For more information, please visit www.zentalis.com . Follow Zentalis on Twitter at @ZentalisP and on LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/company/zentalis-pharmaceuticals . ZENTALIS ® and its associated logo are trademarks of Zentalis and/or its affiliates. All website addresses and other links in this press release are for information only and are not intended to be an active link or to incorporate any website or other information into this press release. Contacts: Elizabeth Hickin Vice President, Investor Relations ehickin@zentalis.com © 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield calls off plan to cap anesthesia coverage in at least one state
Are you merely observing as others profit from the crypto surge? Watching people get rich from cryptocurrencies overnight can be tough and exhilarating, making you feel left out of the windfall. But here's some great news: you still have time to get involved in top crypto projects . People are flocking to four major crypto presales, setting the stage for impressive returns in 2025, including BlockDAG, Best Wallet, 5th Scape, and iDEGEN. These presales promise significant rewards, excellent scalability, and a developer-friendly setup. They aim to provide a strong foundation for those new to the crypto space. 1. BlockDAG (BDAG): Swift, Scalable & Developer-Oriented At the forefront of our top crypto projects is BlockDAG (BDAG) , a venture that transforms blockchain with its Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) structure and Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus. This cutting-edge approach overcomes traditional limitations, enabling exceptional transaction speeds, scalability, and enhanced security. BlockDAG has gathered over $165.5 million in its presale, with its value escalating from $0.001 to $0.0234 in batch 26, yielding early backers a return of 2240%. BlockDAG prioritizes its community, evident in its novel 5-tier bonus system that rewards initial buyers with a 150% bonus using the code BDAG250. The incentives grow with each additional purchase. The project's ecosystem is also expanding rapidly. It features a low-code/no-code platform that allows enthusiasts to create meme coins, while its WASM compatibility helps developers produce sophisticated dApps. Additionally, the TG Tap Miner, a popular game on Telegram with over 70,000 participants, rewards users with Tap Points that can be converted into BDAG coins. With such remarkable success in its presale, analysts anticipate that BDAG could climb to $20 by 2027, driven by its technological advancements. BlockDAG is a leader among the top crypto projects for traders aiming for growth and innovation in 2025. 2. iDEGEN: A Fresh Take on Crypto with AI Next up among the premier crypto presales is iDEGEN, an ambitious blend of AI technology and cryptocurrency that's stirring the market. This platform doesn't just bring new ideas—it adapts and evolves by analyzing live data from Crypto Twitter, reflecting the direct sentiments of its community. Operating on the Solana blockchain, iDEGEN introduces a unique adaptive auction mechanism that tailors pricing to current demand. This approach positions it as a thrilling opportunity. Its standout feature is the melding of AI-driven strategies with meme culture and decentralized community engagement, transforming it into a unique combination of social endeavor and crypto innovation. 3. Best Wallet Token: Enhancing Crypto Utility Best Wallet Token ($BEST) is our third highlight, offering an adaptable and straightforward platform for crypto handling. It supports leading blockchains such as Ethereum and BNB, appealing to new users and experienced traders alike. $BEST excels by delivering tangible benefits like reduced transaction costs, priority access to presales, and superior staking rewards. As the cornerstone of the Best Wallet infrastructure, which includes the Best DEX multi-chain wallet and the forthcoming Best Card, it enables users to influence important updates. With close to $3 million gathered in its presale phase, Best Wallet Token is establishing itself robustly among the top crypto projects . 4. 5thScape: Merging VR and Blockchain for Future Tech Completing our list of must-see crypto presales is 5thScape: a revolutionary project, using augmented reality and virtual reality on blockchain to enhance the safety and transparency of interactions. Running on Ethereum and accelerated through Skale Network's Layer 2 for scalability, 5thScape aims to revolutionize the virtual reality market by providing a smooth, engaging user experience with potential applications in gaming, health, education, and corporate training. The users can earn 5SCAPE tokens, with the access of the tokens giving the user extra special features on the application. This makes 5thScape a hub for the convergence of both virtual and real-world landscapes. Assessing the Top Contenders for Crypto Growth Each of these presales has something unique to it. Best Wallet Token has the practical advantages and ease of use, iDEGEN brings AI-led innovation, and 5thScape pioneers in merging VR with blockchain. However, BlockDAG is at the center of the most promising crypto presale for 2025 because of its growth prospects. The fact that it has an innovative DAG structure and it had an extremely fast presale indicates potential for great returns. Its strong framework and its aggressive plan make BlockDAG stand out as one of the top crypto projects for the seekers of great growth in the crypto space. Join our WhatsApp Channel to get the latest news, exclusives and videos on WhatsApp _____________ Disclaimer: Analytics Insight does not provide financial advice or guidance. Also note that the cryptocurrencies mentioned/listed on the website could potentially be scams, i.e. designed to induce you to invest financial resources that may be lost forever and not be recoverable once investments are made. You are responsible for conducting your own research (DYOR) before making any investments. Read more here.AP Business SummaryBrief at 6:41 p.m. ESTBENIN – Edo State Governor Monday Okpebholo has said that Christmas represents the values that unite us as a people, regardless of tribe, religion and politics. Governor Okpebholo made the declaration while delivering his message at the Edo Christmas Carol, 2024, held at the Lawn Tennis Court of the Samuel Ogbemudia Stadium in Benin City. Dignitaries at the event included the Deputy Governor of Edo State, Rt. Hon. Dennis Idahosa; the Secretary to Edo State Government, Barr. Musa Ikhilor; former Speakers of the Edo State House of Assembly, Rt. Hon. Justin Okonoboh and Francis Okiye; Head of Service (HOS), Anthony Okungbowa; other top government officials, party leaders, religious and traditional rulers, Permanent Secretaries, civil servants, among others. Governor Okpebholo noted that Christmas is a season of love and hope, as it reminds everyone of the importance of compassion, generosity and peace. He noted that the event was more than just singing, but represented the values that unite the people regardless of tribe, religion and politics. “It is with great joy that I welcome all of you to this beautiful Christmas Carol as we gather to celebrate our Lord Jesus Christ. “It is particularly memorable for me because this is the first time I have the honour of standing before you as Governor during such an event. “Christmas is a time of love, hope, and unity. It is also a season that reminds us of the importance of compassion, generosity and peace. “This Carol symbolizes much more than singing and entertainment; it is a testament to the values that bind us as one people, regardless of tribe, religion and political differences. “As we listen to the wonderful voices tonight, let us remember that our strength as a people lies in our diversity. “To our children, may the joy of tonight inspire you to dream big and grow with love and kindness in your hearts. Together, we can build a brighter and more inclusive tomorrow. “On behalf of the entire leadership of our beloved State, I wish you all a Happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year.” Governor Okpebholo in his quest for Edo people to celebrate a unique Christmas, instituted a raffle draw for winners to go home with a mini bus, tricycle, generating sets, sewing and grinding machines, among other items. There were melodious rendition by choirs from various denominations, including the Living Faith Church, Miracle Assembly, Blessed Virgin Mary, Church of God Mission and EL Excess Band. The event also saw a special performance by the Theatre Arts Department from the University of Benin (UNIBEN) and Leetu Man. Bible lessons were read in pidgin and English languages by various personalities which included the administrator, office of the First Lady of Edo State, Edesili Anani-Okpebholo, representative of wife of Deputy Governor and Edo South representative on the board of SUBEB, representative of vegetable sellers, a returnee and a bus driver, among others. Highpoints of the event was the presentation of prizes to winners in the raffle draw.
EASTENDERS fans are convinced Nigel Bates’ return means one huge soap legend will make a shock comeback after years of rumours. Paul Bradley , 69, has left BBC viewers stunned as he reprises his legendary character for Christmas , leading many to believe that another show legend could be heading back to Albert Square. Advertisement 3 EastEnders fans are convinced Nigel Bates’ return means one huge soap legend will make a shock comeback Credit: BBC For years, there's been speculation surrounding the return of Grant Mitchell, one of EastEnders' most memorable and explosive characters. The rumours gained further momentum last month when actor Ross Kemp , 60, was spotted leaving the Walford set in a car with dark-tinted windows. Grant’s exit from the soap back in 2006 left a significant void, with his turbulent relationship with brother Phil and his fiery temper making him a household name. However, despite numerous rumors over the years, Grant has not yet made his comeback. Advertisement read more on EastEnders EastEnders' Natalie Cassidy reveals disgusting advice June Brown gave her Xmas shocker Paul Bradley reveals why he returned to EastEnders after 26 years Now, with Nigel’s sudden reappearance, fans are convinced the stage is being set. The two characters share a history , as Nigel's role in the show has always been tied to the Mitchell family, and his return has sparked wild theories about the possibility of Grant's re-emergence. Social media has been buzzing with excitement since the news broke, with fans eager to see what the future holds for the Mitchell family. Taking to X, formerly Twitter, one wrote: "Actually this makes sense, cause grant and Nigel were best friends back in the day, so if phil needs saving who bettervtgen to bring back grant #eastenders." Advertisement Most read in Soaps Xmas shocker Paul Bradley reveals why he returned to EastEnders after 26 years jack the lad Inside EastEnders star Scott Maslen’s life off-screen with stunning wife memory lane EastEnders fans insist they ‘didn’t recognise’ soap legend after shock comeback GUILTY AS CIN EastEnders fans ‘work out’ who stole the USB as crisis looms for Cindy Another added: "There's a mention of " Ghosts returning from the past" during tomorrow's 2nd episode of #EastEnders. "If Grant returns during the 2nd episode for Phil's storyline I think I'll lose my mind." Someone else gushed: "This was such a lovely surprise! I didn’t recognise him at first though! But surely this means a Grant return must also be on the cards at some point." EastEnders legend makes shock comeback after 26 years - and he's hiding huge secret One more concluded: "IM CRYING WE JUST NEED GRANT." Advertisement Ross became a fan favourite while playing tough guy Grant from 1990 to 1999. Although he left the show to pursue other ventures, he has made a number of memorable comebacks over the years. His latest appearance was in 2016 for the emotional funeral of his on-screen mother, Peggy Mitchell, played by the late Barbara Windsor. This September, The Sun reported that Ross would be participating in the anniversary festivities by hosting a one-off documentary about the soap. Advertisement A source revealed: "He will interview stars past and present about why it is so good and how important it is. "EastEnders will always have a special place in his heart and he's really excited." While Ross has been tight-lipped about any potential on-screen return, his recent sighting near the EastEnders production set has left fans abuzz. During a recent This Morning interview, Alison Hammond pressed the actor about the rumors, asking: "What is going on, are you going back for the 40th anniversary? Tell us what’s going on." Advertisement Ross responded cryptically, saying: "I can tell you nothing. "I am very proud of the show celebrating 40 years and I wouldn’t have had a career, good or bad, without it. I absolutely love it and I still support it." The BBC has been keeping details of the anniversary week under wraps but has teased that it will feature an unprecedented live episode with an interactive element. Fans will be given the chance to vote on the outcome of a pivotal love story, with the cast and crew adapting live to the audience's choice. Advertisement The live broadcast is set for February 2025 and promises to be a historic moment for the show. Executive Producer Chris Clenshaw said: "The 40th anniversary is a milestone event for EastEnders, and we have been planning this week for a long time to ensure that it’s a week full of drama and surprises." EastEnders Christmas and New Year schedule Monday December 23 - 6am iPlayer & 7:30pm BBC One Tuesday December 24 - 6am iPlayer & 7:45pm BBC One Christmas Day - 7:30pm & 10:35pm BBC One & iPlayer Boxing Day - 8:30pm BBC One & iPlayer Monday December 30 - 6am iPlayer & 7:30pm BBC One Tuesday December 31 - 6am iPlayer & 7:30pm BBC One New Year's Day - 10pm BBC One & iPlayer Thursday January 2 - 6am iPlayer & 7:30pm BBC One This week, Paul revealed exactly why he agreed to return to his old job. Nigel could be seen back in Walford having fallen on hard times during EastEnders' Christmas Eve episode. Advertisement However, it appears from today’s episode his life has changed significantly. Nigel was last seen in 1998 when he left Walford for a new life in Scotland with wife Julie, daughter Clare and stepson Josh. But, now back in Walford, Nigel was seen looking homeless as he came into contact with Yolande Trueman at the community centre’s soup kitchen. Paul said he is still recognised on the street by soap fans and said the cast have been friendly and welcoming. Advertisement He said: “I’m thrilled and honoured to be back as Nigel. Despite it being such a long time ago, I still get recognised as Nigel in the street. "Returning has been great as I’m so familiar with many of the faces at EastEnders, and they are a very friendly bunch. "It’s fantastic to work with Steve McFadden again - I’m a huge admirer of his work, and he sets the bar really high. I’m having a really good time.” Despite his new life in Scotland, Nigel has mysteriously returned to Walford alone as Phil will get a visit from the ghost of Christmas past. Advertisement Read more on the Scottish Sun SHOCK SWOOP Former Celtic boss 'lines up shock January transfer swoop for Kyogo Furuhashi' MAKE THE YULETIDE GREY White Christmas update for Scots as snow & 80mph winds wreak chaos The Sun on Sunday exclusively revealed how Paul was making a shock comeback in time for the 40th anniversary. However, his return for Christmas was totally unexpected. 3 Paul Bradley is back in EastEnders after 26 years Credit: BBC 3 Ross Kemp played Grant Mitchell from 1990 to 1999 Credit: BBC AdvertisementGrandmother shut out of Christmas celebrations
Uwill Founder & CEO Michael London Named Innovator in HealthcareRussian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has given an exclusive interview to conservative American journalist Tucker Carlson this week. The two talked about a wide range of topics of international concern, primarily the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, as well as the state of US-Russia relations. Here’s the full text of the conversation. Carlson: Minister Lavrov, thank you for doing this. Do you believe the United States and Russia are at war with each other right now? Lavrov: I wouldn’t say so. And in any case, this is not what we want. We would like to have normal relations with all our neighbors, of course, but generally with all countries, especially with a great country like the United States. And President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly expressed his respect for the American people, for American history, for American achievements in the world, and we don’t see any reason why Russia and the United States cannot cooperate for the sake of the universe. Carlson: But the United States is funding a conflict that you’re involved in, of course, and now is allowing attacks on Russia itself. So that doesn’t constitute war? Lavrov: Well, we officially are not at war. But what is going on in Ukraine is what some people call a hybrid war. I would call it a hybrid war as well, but it is obvious that the Ukrainians would not be able to do what they’re doing with long-range modern weapons without the direct participation of American servicemen. And this is dangerous, no doubt about this. We don’t want to aggravate the situation, but since ATACMS and other long-range weapons are being used against mainland Russia as it were, we are sending signals. We hope that the last one, a couple of weeks ago, the signal with the new weapon system called Oreshnik , was taken seriously. However, we also know that some officials in the Pentagon and in other places, including NATO, started saying in the last few days something like that NATO is a defensive alliance, but sometimes you can strike first because the attack is the best defense. Some others in STRATCOM, Thomas Buchanan is his name, representative of STRATCOM, said something which allows for an eventuality of exchange of limited nuclear strikes. And these kinds of threats are really worrying. Because if they are following the logic which some Westerners have been pronouncing lately, that don’t believe that Russia has red lines, they announced their red lines, these red lines are being moved again and again. This is a very serious mistake. That’s what I would like to say in response to this question. It is not us who started the war. Putin repeatedly said that we started the special military operation in order to end the war which the Kiev regime was conducting against its own people in parts of Donbass. And just in his latest statement , President Putin clearly indicated that we are ready for any eventuality. But we strongly prefer a peaceful solution through negotiations on the basis of respecting the legitimate security interest of Russia, and on the basis of respecting the people who live in Ukraine, who still live in Ukraine, being Russians. Their basic human rights, language rights, religious rights, have been exterminated by a series of legislation passed by the Ukrainian parliament. They started long before the special military operation . Since 2017, legislation was passed prohibiting Russian education in Russian, prohibiting Russian media operating in Ukraine, then prohibiting Ukrainian media working in the Russian language, and the latest, of course there were also steps to cancel any cultural events in Russian. Russian books were thrown out of libraries and exterminated. The latest was the law prohibiting the canonic Orthodox Church, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. You know, it’s very interesting when people in the West say we want this conflict to be resolved on the basis of the UN Charter and respect for the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and Russia must withdraw. The Secretary General of the United Nations says similar things. Recently his representative repeated that the conflict must be resolved on the basis of international law, the UN Charter and General Assembly resolutions, while respecting the territorial integrity of Ukraine. It’s a misnomer, because if you want to respect the United Nations Charter, you have to respect it in its entirety. The United Nations Charter, among other things, says that all countries must respect the equality of states and the right of people to self-determination. And they also mentioned the United Nations General Assembly resolutions, and this is clear that what they mean is the series of resolutions which they passed after the beginning of this special military operation which demand the condemnation of Russia, that Russia get out of Ukraine; territory in its 1991 borders. But there are other United Nations General Assembly resolutions which were not voted on, but which were consensual, and among them is a declaration on principles of relations between states on the basis of the Charter. And it clearly says, by consensus, everybody must respect the territorial integrity of states whose governments respect the right of people for self-determination, and because of that represent the entire population living on a given territory. To argue that the people who came to power through military coup d’état in February 2014 represented Crimeans or the citizens of eastern and southern Ukraine is absolutely useless. It is obvious that Crimeans rejected the coup. They said, leave us alone, we don’t want to have anything with you. So we did: Donbass and Crimeans held referendums, and they rejoined Russia. Donbass was declared by the putschists who came to power a ‘terrorist group’. They were shelled, attacked by artillery. The war started, which was stopped in February 2015. The Minsk agreements were signed. We were very sincerely interested in closing this drama by seeing the Minsk agreements implemented fully. It was sabotaged by the government which was established after the coup d’état in Ukraine. There was a demand that they enter into a direct dialogue with the people who did not accept the coup. There was a demand that they promote economic relations with that part of Ukraine. And so on and so forth. None of this was done. The people in Kiev were saying we would never talk to them directly. And this is in spite of the fact that the demand to talk to them directly was endorsed by the [UN] Security Council. The putschists said they are terrorists, we would be fighting them, and they would be dying in cellars because we are stronger. Had the coup in February 2014 not happened and the deal which was reached the day before between the then president and the opposition [been] implemented, Ukraine would have stayed in one piece by now, with Crimea in it. It’s absolutely clear. They did not deliver on the deal. Instead they staged the coup. The deal, by the way, provided for the creation of a government of national unity in February 2014, and holding early elections, which the then president would have lost. Everybody knew that. But they were impatient and took the government buildings the next morning. They went to this Maidan Square and announced that they had created the government of the winners. Compare the government of national unity to prepare for elections and the government of the winners. How can the people whom they, in their view, defeated, how can they pretend that they respect the authorities in Kiev? You know, the right to self-determination is the international legal basis for the decolonization process which took place in Africa on the basis of this charter principle, the right to self-determination. The people in the colonies, they never treated their colonial powers, colonial masters, as somebody who represents them, as somebody whom they want to see in the structures which govern those lands. By the same token, the people in the east and south of Ukraine, people in Donbass and Novorossiya, they don’t consider the Zelensky regime as something which represents their interests. How can they do that when their culture, their language, their traditions, their religion, all this was prohibited? The last point is that if we speak about the UN Charter , resolutions, international law, the very first article of the UN Charter, which the West never, never recalls in the Ukrainian context, says, “Respect human rights of everybody, irrespective of race, gender, language, or religion.” Take any conflict. The United States, UK, Brussels, they would interfere, saying, “Oh, human rights have been grossly violated. We must restore the human rights in such and such territory.” On Ukraine, never, ever have they mumbled the words “human rights,” seeing these human rights for the Russian and Russian-speaking population being totally exterminated by law. So when people say, “Let’s resolve the conflict on the basis of the Charter,” - yes. But don’t forget that the Charter is not only about territorial integrity. And territorial integrity must be respected only if the governments are legitimate and if they respect the rights of their own people. Carlson: I want to go back to what you said a moment ago about the introduction or the unveiling of the hypersonic weapons system that you said was a signal to the West. What signal exactly? I think many Americans are not even aware that this happened. What message were you sending by showing it to the world? Lavrov: Well, the message is that you, I mean the United States, and the allies of the United States who also provide these long-range weapons to the Kiev regime, they must understand that we would be ready to use any means not to allow them to succeed in what they call the strategic defeat of Russia. They fight for keeping the hegemony over the world on any country, any region, any continent. We fight for our legitimate security interests. They say, for example, 1991 borders. Lindsey Graham, who visited some time ago Vladimir Zelensky for another talk; he bluntly, in his presence, said that Ukraine is very rich with rare earth metals and they cannot leave this richness to the Russians. We must take it. We fight. So they fight for a regime which is ready to sell or to give to the West all the natural and human resources. We fight for the people who have been living on these lands, whose ancestors were actually developing those lands, building cities, building factories for centuries and centuries. We care about people, not about natural resources which somebody in the United States would like to keep and to have Ukrainians just as servants sitting on these natural resources. So, the message which we wanted to send by testing in real action this hypersonic system is that we will be ready to do anything to defend our legitimate interests. We hate even to think about war with the United States, which will take nuclear character. Our military doctrine says that the most important thing is to avoid a nuclear war. And it was us, by the way, who initiated in January 2022 the message, the joint statement by the leaders of the five permanent members of the Security Council saying that we will do anything to avoid confrontation between us, acknowledging and respecting each other’s security interests and concerns. This was our initiative. And the security interests of Russia were totally ignored when they rejected at about the same time the proposal to conclude a treaty on security guarantees for Russia, for Ukraine in the context of coexistence and in a context where Ukraine would not ever be a member of NATO or any other military bloc. These security interests of Russia were presented to the West, to NATO and to the United States in December 2021 . We discussed them several times, including during my meeting with Antony Blinken in Geneva in January 2022 . And this was rejected. So we would certainly like to avoid any misunderstanding. And since the people, some people in Washington and some people in London, in Brussels, seemed to be not very capable of understanding, we will send additional messages if they don’t draw the necessary conclusions. Carlson: The fact that we’re having a conversation about a potential nuclear exchange and it’s real... thought I’d never see. And it raises the question, how much back-channel dialogue is there between Russia and the United States? Has there been for the last two and a half years? Is there any conversation ongoing? Lavrov: There are several channels, but mostly on the exchange of people who serve [prison] terms in Russia and in the United States. There were several swaps. There are also channels which are not advertised or publicized, but basically the Americans send through these channels the same message which they send publicly. You have to stop, you have to accept the way which will be based on the Ukrainian needs and position. They support this absolutely pointless ‘peace formula’ by Vladimir Zelensky, which was additioned recently by [his] ‘victory plan’. They held several series of meetings, Copenhagen format, Burgenstock. And they brag that [in the] first half of next year they will convene another conference and they will graciously invite Russia that time. And then Russia would be presented an ultimatum. All this is seriously repeated through various confidential channels. Now we hear something different, including Vladimir Zelensky’s statements that we can stop now at the line of engagement, line of contact. The Ukrainian government will be admitted to NATO, but NATO guarantees at this stage would cover only the territory controlled by the government, and the rest would be subject to negotiations. But the end result of these negotiations must be the total withdrawal of Russia from Ukrainian soil. Leaving Russian people to the Nazi regime, which exterminated all the rights of the Russian and Russian-speaking citizens of their own country. Carlson: If I could just go back to the question of nuclear exchange. So there is no mechanism by which the leaders of Russia and the United States can speak to each other to avoid the kind of misunderstanding that could kill hundreds of millions of people. Lavrov: No. We have this channel which is automatically engaged when a ballistic missile launch is taking place. As regards this Oreshnik hypersonic mid-range ballistic missile. 30 minutes in advance, the system sent the message to the United States. They knew that this was the case and that they don’t mistake it for anything bigger and really dangerous. Carlson: I think the system sounds very dangerous. Lavrov: Well, it was a test launch, you know. Carlson: Yes. Oh, you’re speaking of the test, okay. But I just wonder how worried you are that, considering there doesn’t seem to be a lot of conversation between the two countries. Both sides are speaking about exterminating the other’s populations. That this could somehow get out of control in a very short period and no one could stop it. It seems incredibly reckless. Lavrov: No, we are not talking about exterminating anybody’s population. We did not start this war. We have been, for years and years and years, sending warnings that pushing NATO closer and closer to our borders is going to create a problem. In 2007, Putin started to explain [this] to the people who seemed to be overtaken by the ‘end of history’ and being dominant, no challenge, and so on and so forth. And of course, when the coup took place, the Americans did not hide that they were behind it. There is a conversation between Victoria Nuland and the then-American ambassador in Kiev when they discuss personalities to be included in the new government after the coup. The figure of $5 billion spent on Ukraine after independence was mentioned as the guarantee that everything would be like the Americans want. So we don’t have any intention to exterminate Ukrainian people. They are brothers and sisters to the Russian people. Carlson: How many have died so far, do you think, on both sides? Lavrov: It is not disclosed by the Ukrainians. Vladimir Zelensky was saying that it is much less than 80,000 persons on the Ukrainian side. But there is one very reliable figure. In Palestine during one year after the Israelis started their operation in response to this terrorist attack, which we condemned . And this operation, of course, acquired the proportion of collective punishment, which is against international humanitarian law as well. So during one year after the operation started in Palestine, the number of Palestinian civilians killed is estimated at 45,000. This is almost twice as many as the number of civilians on both sides of Ukrainian conflict who died during ten years after the coup. One year and ten years. So it is a tragedy in Ukraine. It’s a disaster in Palestine, but we never, ever had as our goal killing people. And the Ukrainian regime did. The head of the office of Vladimir Zelensky once said that we will make sure that cities like Kharkov, Nikolaev will forget what Russian means at all. Another guy in his office stated that Ukrainians must exterminate Russians through law or, if necessary, physically. Ukrainian former ambassador to Kazakhstan Pyotr Vrublevsky became famous when giving an interview and looking into the camera (being recorded and broadcast) he said: “Our main task is to kill as many Russians as we can so that our children have less things to do” . And statements like this are all over the vocabulary of the regime. Carlson: How many Russians in Russia have been killed since February of 2022? Lavrov: It’s not for me to disclose this information. In the time of military operations special rules exist. Our ministry of defense follows these rules. But there is a very interesting fact that when Vladimir Zelensky was playing not in international arena, but at his comedy club or whatever it is called, he was (there are videos from that period) bluntly defending the Russian language. He was saying: “What is wrong with Russian language? I speak Russian. Russians are our neighbors. Russian is one of our languages” . And get lost, he said, to those who wanted to attack the Russian language and Russian culture. When Vladimir Zelensky became president, he changed very fast. Before the military operation, in September 2021, he was interviewed, and at that time he was conducting war against Donbass in violation of the Minsk agreements . And the interviewer asked him what he thought about the people on the other side of the line of contact. He answered very thoughtfully there are people and there are species. And if you, living in Ukraine, feel associated with the Russian culture, my advice to you, for the sake of your kids, for the sake of your grandkids, get out to Russia. And if this guy wants to bring Russians and people of Russian culture back under his territorial integrity, I mean, it shows that he’s not adequate. Carlson: So, what are the terms under which Russia would cease hostilities? What are you asking for? Lavrov: Ten years ago, in February 2014, we were asking only for the deal between the president and the opposition to have government of national unity, to hold early elections, to be implemented. The deal was signed. And we were asking for the implementation of this deal. They were absolutely impatient and aggressive. And they were, of course, pushed, I have no slightest doubt, by the Americans, because if Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador agreed the composition of the government, why wait for five months to hold early elections? The next time we were in favor of something was when the Minsk Agreements were signed. I was there. The negotiations lasted for 17 hours (well, Crimea was lost by that time because of referendum ). And nobody, including my colleague John Kerry, meeting with us, nobody in the West was worried about the issue of Crimea. Everybody was concentrated on Donbass. And the Minsk Agreements provided for territorial integrity of Ukraine, minus Crimea (this was not even raised) and a special status for a very tiny part of Donbass, not for the entire Donbass, not for Novorossiya at all. Part of Donbass, under these Minsk Agreements, endorsed by the Security Council, should have the right to speak Russian language, to teach Russian language, to study in Russian, to have local law enforcement (like in the states of U.S.), to be consulted when judges and prosecutors are appointed by the central authority, and to have some facilitated economic connections with neighboring regions of Russia. That’s it. Something which President Macron promised to give to Corsica and still is considering how to do this. And when these agreements were sabotaged all along by Pyotr Poroshenko and then by Vladimir Zelensky. Both of them, by the way, came to presidency, running on the promise of peace. And both of them lied. So when these Minsk Agreements were sabotaged to the extent that we saw the attempts to take this tiny part of Donbass by force, and we, as President Putin explained, at that time, we suggested these security arrangements to NATO and the United States, which was rejected. And when the Plan B was launched by Ukraine and its sponsors, trying to take this part of Donbass by force, it was then that we launched the special military operation . Had they implemented the Minsk Agreements Ukraine would be one piece, minus Crimea. But even then, when Ukrainians, after we started the operation, suggested to negotiate, we agreed, there were several rounds in Belarus, and one later they moved to Istanbul. And in Istanbul, Ukrainian delegation put a paper on the table saying: “Those are the principles on which we are ready to agree.” And we accepted those principles. Carlson: The Minsk Principles? Lavrov: No. The Istanbul Principles. It was April 2022. Carlson: Right. Lavrov: Which was: no NATO, but security guarantees to Ukraine, collectively provided with the participation of Russia. And these security guarantees would not cover Crimea or the east of Ukraine. It was their proposal. And it was initialed. And the head of the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul, who is now the chair of the Vladimir Zelensky faction in the parliament, he recently (a few months ago) in an interview, confirmed that this was the case. And on the basis of these principles, we were ready to draft a treaty. But then this gentleman who headed the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul said that Boris Johnson visited and told them to continue to fight. Then there was... Carlson: But Boris Johnson, on behalf of... Lavrov: He said no. But the guy who initialed the paper, he said it was Boris Johnson. Other people say it was President Putin who ruined the deal because of the massacre in Bucha . But they never mentioned any more massacre in Bucha . I do. And we do. In a sense, they are on the defensive. Several times in the United Nations Security Council, sitting at the table with Antonio Guterres, I (last year and this year) at the General Assembly, I raised the issue of Bucha and said, guys, it is strange that you are silent about Bucha because you were very vocal when BBC team found itself on the street where the bodies were located. I inquired, can we get the names of the persons whose bodies were broadcast by BBC? Total silence. I addressed Antonio Guterres personally in the presence of the Security Council members. He did not respond. Then at my press conference in New York after the end of the General Assembly last September, I asked all the correspondents: guys, you are journalists. Maybe you’re not an investigative journalists but journalists normally are interested to get the truth. And Bucha thing, which was played all over the media outlets condemning Russia, is not of any interest to anyone - politicians, UN officials. And now even journalists. I asked when I talked to them in September , please, as professional people, try to get the names of those whose bodies were shown in Bucha. No answer. Just like we don’t have any answer to the question, where is the results of medical analysis of Alexey Navalny, who died recently, but who was treated in Germany in the fall of 2020. When he felt bad on a plane over Russia, the plane landed. He was treated by the Russian doctors in Siberia. Then the Germans wanted to take him. We immediately allowed the plane to come. They took him. In less than 24 hours, he was in Germany. And then the Germans continued to say that we poisoned him. And now the analysis confirmed that he was poisoned. We asked for the test results to be given to us. They said, no, we give it to the organization on chemical weapons. We went to this organization, we are members, and we said , can you show to us, because this is our citizen, we are accused of having poisoned him. They said that the Germans told us not to give it to you. They found nothing in the civilian hospital, and the announcement that he was poisoned was made after he was treated in the military Bundeswehr hospital. So it seems that this secret is not going... Carlson: So how did Navalny die? Lavrov: Well, he died serving the term in Russia. As far as it was reported, every now and then he felt not well. Which was another reason why we continued to ask the Germans: can you show us the results which you found? Because we did not find what they found. And what they did to him, I don’t know. Carlson: What the Germans did to him? Lavrov: Yeah, because they don’t explain to anybody, including us. Or maybe they explain to the Americans. Maybe this is credible. But they never told us how they treated him, what they found, and what methods they were using. Carlson: How do you think he died? Lavrov: I am not a doctor. But for anybody to guess, even for the doctors to try to guess, they need to have information. And if the person was taken to Germany to be treated after he had been poisoned, the results of the tests cannot be secret. We still cannot get anything credible on the fate of Skripals - Sergei Skripal and his daughter. The information is not provided to us. He is our citizen, she is our citizen. We have all the rights and the conventions which the UK is party to, to get information. Carlson: Why do you think that Boris Johnson, former Prime Minister of the UK, would have stopped the peace process in Istanbul? On whose behalf was he doing that? Lavrov: Well, I met with him a couple of times, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he was motivated by some immediate desire or by some long-term strategy. He is not very predictable. Carlson: But do you think he was acting on behalf of the US government, on behalf of the Biden administration, or he was doing this independently. Lavrov: I don’t know. And I wouldn’t guess. The fact that the Americans and the Brits are leading in this “situation” is obvious. Now it is becoming also clear that there is a fatigue in some capitals, and there are talks every now and then that the Americans would like to leave it with the Europeans and to concentrate on something more important. I wouldn’t guess. We would be judging by specific steps. It’s obvious, though, that the Biden administration would like to leave a legacy to the Trump administration as bad as they can. And similar to what Barack Obama did to Donald Trump during his first term. Then late December 2016, President Obama expelled Russian diplomats. Just very late December. 120 persons with family members. Did it on purpose. Demanded them leave on the day when there was no direct flight from Washington to Moscow. So they had to move to New York by buses with all their luggage, with children, and so on and so forth. And at the same time, President Obama announced the arrest of pieces of diplomatic property of Russia. And we still never were able to come and see what is the state of this Russian property. Carlson: What was the property? Lavrov: Diplomatic. They never allowed us to come and see it though under all conventions. They just say that these pieces we don’t consider as being covered by diplomatic immunity, which is a unilateral decision, never substantiated by any international court. Carlson: So you believe the Biden administration is doing something similar again to the incoming Trump administration. Lavrov: Because that episode with the expulsion and the seizure of property certainly did not create the promising ground for beginning of our relations with the Trump administration. So I think they’re doing the same. Carlson: But this time President Trump was elected on the explicit promise to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. So I mean, he said that in appearance after appearance. So given that, there is hope for a resolution, it sounds like. What are the terms to which you’d agree? Lavrov: Well, the terms, I basically alluded to them. When President Putin spoke in this Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the 14th of June he once again reiterated that we were ready to negotiate on the basis of the principles which were agreed in Istanbul and rejected by Boris Johnson, according to the statement of the head of the Ukrainian delegation. The key principle is non-bloc status of Ukraine. And we would be ready to be part of the group of countries who would provide collective security guarantees to Ukraine. Carlson: But no NATO? Lavrov: No NATO. Absolutely. No military bases, no military exercises on the Ukrainian soil with participation of foreign troops. And this is something which he reiterated. But of course, he said, it was April 2022, now some time has passed, and the realities on the ground would have to be taken into account and accepted. The realities on the ground are not only the line of contact, but also the changes in the Russian Constitution after referendum was held in Donetsk, Lugansk republics and Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. And they are now part of the Russian Federation, according to the Constitution. And this is a reality. And of course, we cannot tolerate a deal which would keep the legislation which are prohibiting Russian language, Russian media, Russian culture, Ukrainian Orthodox Church, because it is a violation of the obligations of Ukraine under the UN Charter , and something must be done about it. And the fact that the West (since this russophobic legislative offensive started in 2017) was totally silent and it is silent until now, of course we would have to pay attention to this in a very special way. Carlson: Would sanctions against Russia be a condition? Lavrov: You know, I would say probably many people in Russia would like to make it a condition. But the more we live under sanctions, the more we understand that it is better to rely on yourself, and to develop mechanisms, platforms for cooperation with ‘normal’ countries who are not unfriendly to you, and don’t mix economic interests and policies and especially politics. And we learned a lot after the sanctions started. The sanctions started under President Obama. They continued in a very big way under the first term of Donald Trump. And these sanctions under the Biden administration are absolutely unprecedented. But what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, you know. They would never kill us, so they are making us stronger. Carlson: And driving Russia east. And so the vision that I think same policymakers in Washington had 20 years ago is why not to bring Russia into a Western bloc, sort of as a balance against the rising east. But it doesn’t seem like that. Do you think that’s still possible? Lavrov: I don’t think so. When recently President Putin was speaking at Valdai Club to politologists and experts, he said we would never be back at the situation of early 2022. That’s when he realized (for himself, apparently, not only he, but he spoke publicly about this) that all attempts to be on equal terms with the West have failed. It started after the demise of the Soviet Union. There was euphoria, we are now part of the ‘liberal world’, democratic world, ‘end of history’. But very soon it became clear to most of the Russians that in the 1990s we were treated as - at best as junior partner, maybe not even as a partner, - but as a place where the West can organize things like it wants, striking deals with oligarchs, buying resources and assets. And then probably the Americans decided that Russia is in their pocket. Boris Yeltsin, Bill Clinton, buddies, laughing, joking. But even at the end of Boris Yeltsin’s term, he started to contemplate that this was not something he wanted for Russia. And I think this was very obvious when he appointed Vladimir Putin prime minister, and then left earlier, and blessed Vladimir Putin as his successor for the elections which were coming and which Putin won. But when Vladimir Putin became president, he was very much open to cooperation with the West. And he mentions about this quite regularly when he speaks with interviewers or at some international events. I was present when he met with George Bush Jr., with Barack Obama. Well, after the meeting of NATO in Bucharest, which was followed by NATO-Russia summit meeting in 2008, when they announced that Georgia and Ukraine will be in NATO. And then they tried to sell it to us. We asked: why? There was lunch and President Putin asked what was the reason for this? Good question. And they said this is something which is not obligatory. How come? Well, to start the process of joining NATO, you need a formal invitation. And this is a slogan - Ukraine and Georgia will be in NATO. But this slogan became obsession for some people in Tbilisi first, when Mikhail Saakashvili lost his senses and started the war against his own people under the protection of OSCE mission with the Russian peacekeepers on the ground. And the fact that he launched this was confirmed by the European Union investigation, which they launched and which concluded that he gave the order to start. And for Ukrainians, it took a bit longer. They were cultivating this pro-Western mood. Well, pro-Western is not bad, basically. Pro-Eastern is also not bad. What is bad is that you tell people, either/or, either you go with me or you’re my enemy. What happened before the coup in Ukraine? In 2013, the president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych negotiated with the European Union some association agreement which would nullify tariffs on most of the Ukrainian goods to the European Union and the other way around. And at some point, when he was meeting with Russian counterparts, we told him, Ukraine was part of the free trade area of the Commonwealth of Independent States. No tariffs for everybody. And we, Russia, negotiated agreement with World Trade Organization for some 17 years, mostly because we bargained with European Union. And we achieved some protection for many of our sectors, agriculture and some others. We explained to the Ukrainians that if you go zero in your trade with European Union, we would have to protect our customs border with Ukraine. Otherwise the zero tariff European goods would flood and would be hurting our industries, which we tried to protect and agreed for some protection. And we suggested to the European Union: guys, Ukraine is our common neighbor. You want to have better trade with Ukraine. We want the same. Ukraine want to have markets both in Europe and in Russia. Why don’t we sit three of us and discuss it like grownups? The head of the European Commission was the Portuguese José Manuel Barroso. He responded it’s none of your business what we do with Ukraine. And then the president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych convened his experts. And they said, yes, it would be not very good if we have opened the border with European Union, but the customs border with Russia would be closed. And they would be checking, you know, what is coming. So that the Russian market is not affected. So he announced in November 2013 that he cannot sign the deal immediately, and he asked the European Union to postpone it for until next year. That was the trigger for Maidan, which was immediately thrown up and ended by the coup. So my point is that this either/or. Actually, the first coup took place in 2004, when after second round of elections, the same Viktor Yanukovych won presidency. The West raised hell and put pressure on the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to rule that there must be a third round. The Constitution of Ukraine says there may be only two rounds. But the Constitutional Court, under the pressure of the West, violated the Constitution for the first time then. And pro-Western candidate was chosen. At that time, when all this was taking place and boiling, the European leaders were publicly saying Ukrainian people must decide: are they with us or with Russia? Carlson: But it is the way that big countries behave. I mean, there are certain orbits, and now it’s BRICS versus NATO, US versus China. And it sounds like you’re saying the Russian-Chinese alliance is permanent. Lavrov: Well, we are neighbors. And of course geography is very important. Carlson: But you’re also neighbors with Western Europe. And you’re part of it, in effect. Lavrov: Through Ukraine the Western Europe wants to come to our borders. And there were plans that were discussed almost openly to put British naval bases on the Sea of Azov. Crimea was eyed. Dreaming about creating NATO base in Crimea and so on and so forth. Look, we have been very friendly with Finland, for example. Overnight, the Finns came back to the early years of preparation for World War II when they were best allies of Hitler. And all this neutrality, all this friendship, going to sauna together, playing hockey together, all this disappeared overnight. So maybe this was deep in their hearts, and the neutrality was burdening them, and niceties were burdening for them. I don’t know. Carlson: They’re mad about the ‘winter war’. That’s totally possible. Can you negotiate with Zelensky? You’ve pointed out that he has exceeded his term. He’s not democratically elected president of Ukraine anymore. So do you consider him a suitable partner for negotiations? Lavrov: President Putin addressed many times this issue as well. In September 2022, during the first year of the special military operation , Vladimir Zelensky, in his conviction that he would be dictating the terms of the situation also to the West, he signed a decree prohibiting any negotiations with Putin’s government. During public events after that episode, President Vladimir Putin is asked why Russia is not ready for negotiations. He said, don’t turn it upside down. We are ready for negotiations, provided it will be based on the balance of interest, tomorrow. But Vladimir Zelensky signed this decree prohibiting negotiations. For starters, why don’t you tell him to cancel it publicly? This will be a signal that he wants negotiations. Instead, Vladimir Zelensky invented his ‘peace formula’. Lately, it was complemented by a ‘victory plan’. They keep saying, we know what they say when they meet with European Union ambassadors and in other formats, they say no deal unless the deal is on our terms. I mentioned to you that they are planning now the second summit on the basis of this peace formula, and they don’t shy away from saying, we will invite Russia to put in front of it the deal which we agreed already with the West. When our Western colleagues sometimes say nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine in effect, this implies that anything about Russia without Russia. Because they discuss what kind of conditions we must accept. By the way, recently they already violated, tacitly, the concept nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. There are passes, there are messages. They know our position. We are not playing double game. What President Putin announced is the goal of our operation. It’s fair. It’s fully in line with the United Nations Charter . First of all, the rights: language rights, minority rights, national minority rights, religious rights, and it’s fully in line with OSCE principles. There is an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe which is still alive. And well, several summits of this organization clearly stated that security must be indivisible, that nobody should expand his security at the expense of security of others, and that, most important, no organization in Euro-Atlantic space shall claim dominance. This was last time it was confirmed by OSCE in 2010. NATO was doing exactly the opposite. So we have legitimacy in our position. No NATO on our doorsteps because OSCE agreed that this should not be the case if it hurts us. And please restore the rights of Russians. Carlson: Who do you think has been making foreign policy decisions in the United States? This is a question in the United States. Who is making these decisions? Lavrov: I wouldn’t guess. I haven’t seen Antony Blinken for years. When it was the last time? Two years ago, I think, at the G20 summit. Was it in Rome or somewhere? In the margins. I was representing President Putin there. His assistant came up to me during a meeting and said that Antony wants to talk just for ten minutes. I left the room. We shook hands, and he said something about the need to de-escalate and so on and so forth. I hope he’s not going to be angry with me since I am disclosing this. But we were meeting in front of many people present in the room, and I said, “We don’t want to escalate. You want to inflict strategic defeat upon Russia.” He said, “No. It is not strategic defeat globally. It is only in Ukraine.” Carlson: You’ve not spoken to him since? Lavrov: No. Carlson: Have you spoken to any officials in the Biden administration since then? Lavrov: I don’t want to ruin their career. Carlson: But have you had meaningful conversations? Lavrov: No. Not at all. When I met in international events one or another person whom I know, an American, some of them say hello, some of them exchange a few words, but I never impose myself. It’s becoming contagious when somebody sees an American talking to me or a European talking to me. 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. Unbelievable. Carlson: So, you said that when in 2016, in December, the final moments of the Biden administration, Biden made the relationship between the United States and Russia more difficult. Lavrov: Obama. Biden was vice-president. Carlson: Exactly. I’m so sorry. The Obama administration left a bunch of bombs, basically, for the incoming Trump administration. In the last month since the election, you have all sorts of things going on politically in bordering states in this region. In Georgia, in Belarus, in Romania, and then, of course, most dramatically in Syria, you have turmoil. Does this seem like part of an effort by the United States to make the resolution more difficult? Lavrov: There is nothing new, frankly. Because the US, historically, in foreign policy, was motivated by making some trouble and then to see if they can fish in the muddy water. Iraqi aggression, Libyan adventure - ruining the state, basically. Fleeing from Afghanistan. Now trying to get back through the back door, using the United Nations to organize some ‘event’ where the US can be present, in spite of the fact that they left Afghanistan in very bad shape and arrested money and don’t want to give it back. I think this is, if you analyze the American foreign policy steps, adventures, most of them are the right word - the pattern. They create some trouble, and then they see how to use it. When the OSCE monitors elections, when it used to monitor elections in Russia, they would always be very negative, and in other countries as well, Belarus, Kazakhstan. This time, in Georgia, the monitoring mission of OSCE presented a positive report. And it is being ignored. So when you need endorsement of the procedures, you do it when you like the results of the election. If you don’t like the results of elections, you ignore it. It’s like when the United States and other Western countries recognized unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo, they said this is the self-determination being implemented. There was no referendum in Kosovo - unilateral declaration of independence. By the way, after that the Serbs approached International Court of Justice, which ruled that (well, normally they are not very specific in their judgment, but they ruled) that when part of a territory declares independence, it is not necessarily to be agreed with the central authorities. And when a few years later, Crimeans were holding referendum with invitation of many international observers, not from international organizations, but from parliamentarians in Europe, in Asia, in post-Soviet space, they said, no, we cannot accept this because this is violation of territorial integrity. You know, you pick and choose. The UN Charter is not a menu. You have to respect it in all its entirety. Carlson: So who’s paying the rebels who’ve taken parts of Aleppo? Is the Assad government in danger of falling? What is happening exactly, in your view, in Syria? Lavrov: Well, we had a deal when this crisis started. We organized the Astana process (Russia, Türkiye and Iran). We meet regularly . Another meeting is being planned before the end of the year or early next year, to discuss the situation on the ground. The rules of the game are to help Syrians to come to terms with each other and to prevent separatist threats from getting strong. That’s what the Americans are doing in the east of Syria when they groom some Kurdish separatists using the profits from oil and grain sold, the resources which they occupy. This Astana format is a useful combination of players, if you wish. We are very much concerned. And when this happened, with Aleppo and surroundings, I had a conversation with the Turkish minister of foreign affairs and with Iranian colleague. We agreed to try to meet this week. Hopefully in Doha at the margins of this international conference. We would like to discuss the need to come back to strict implementation of the deals on Idlib area, because Idlib de-escalation zone was the place from where the terrorists moved to take Aleppo. The arrangements reached in 2019 and 2020 provided for our Turkish friends to control the situation in the Idlib de-escalation zone and to separate the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (former Nusra) from the opposition, which is non-terrorist and which cooperates with Türkiye. And another deal was the opening of M5 route from Damascus to Aleppo, which is also now taken completely by the terrorists. So we, as ministers of foreign affairs, would discuss the situation, hopefully, this coming Friday. And the military of all three countries and the security people are in contact with each other. Carlson: But the Islamist groups, the terrorists you just described, who is backing them? Lavrov: Well, we have some information. We would like to discuss with all our partners in this process the way to cut the channels of financing and arming them. The information which is being floated and it’s in the public domain mentions among others the Americans, the Brits. Some people say that Israel is interested in making this situation aggravated. So that Gaza is not under very close scrutiny. It’s a complicated game. Many actors are involved. I hope that the context which we are planning for this week will help stabilize the situation. Carlson: What do you think of Donald Trump? Lavrov: I met him several times when he was having meetings with President Putin and when he received me twice in the Oval Office when I was visiting for bilateral talks. Well, I think he’s a very strong person. A person who wants results. Who doesn’t like procrastination on anything. This is my impression. He’s very friendly in discussions. But this does not mean that he’s pro-Russian as some people try to present him. The amount of sanctions we received under the Trump administration was very big. We respect any choice which is made by the people when they vote. We respect the choice of American people. As President Putin said, we are and we have been open all along to the contacts with the current administration. We hope that when Donald Trump is inaugurated, we will understand. The ball, as President Putin said, is on their side. We never severed our contacts, our ties in the economy, trade, security, anything. Carlson: My final question is: how sincerely worried are you about an escalation in conflict between Russia and the United States, knowing what you do? Lavrov: Well, we started with this question, more or less. Carlson: It seems the central question. Lavrov: Yes. The Europeans whisper to each other that it is not for Vladimir Zelensky to dictate the terms of the deal - it’s for the US and Russia. I don’t think we should be presenting our relations as two guys decide for everybody. Not at all. It is not our style. We prefer the manners which dominate in BRICS , in Shanghai Cooperation Organization , where the UN Charter principle of sovereign equality of states is really embodied. The US is not used to respect sovereign equality of states. When the US says we cannot allow Russia to win on Ukraine because this would undermine our rules-based world order. And rules-based world order is American domination. Now, by the way, NATO, at least under Biden administration, is eyeing the entire Eurasian continent, Indo-Pacific strategies, South China Sea, East China Sea, is already on NATO agenda. NATO is moving infrastructure there. AUKUS, building ‘quartet’ Indo-Pacific Four as they call it (Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea). US, South Korea, and Japan are building military alliance with some nuclear components. And Jens Stoltenberg, the former Secretary General of NATO, last year after the summit he said that the Atlantic security is indivisible from Indo-Pacific security. When he was asked does it mean that you go beyond territorial defense, he answered - no, it doesn’t go beyond territorial defense, but to defend our territory, we need to be present there. This element of preemption is more and more present. We don’t want war with anybody. And as I said, five nuclear states declared at the top level in January 2022 that we don’t want confrontation with each other and that we shall respect each other’s security interests and concerns. And it also stated nuclear war can never be won, and therefore nuclear war is not possible. And the same was reiterated bilaterally between Russia and the United States, Putin-Biden, when they met in 2021 in Geneva in June . Basically, they reproduced the statement by Reagan-Gorbachev of 1987 ‘no nuclear war’. And this is absolutely in our vital interest, and we hope that this is also in vital interest of the United States. I say so because some time ago John Kirby, who is the White House communications coordinator, was answering questions about escalation and about possibility of nuclear weapons being employed. And he said, “Oh, no, we don’t want escalation because then if there is some nuclear element, then our European allies would suffer.” So even mentally, he excludes that the United States can suffer. And this is something which makes the situation a bit risky. It might – if this mentality prevails, then some reckless steps would be taken, and this is bad. Carlson: What you’re saying is American policy makers imagine there could be a nuclear exchange that doesn’t directly affect the United States, and you’re saying that’s not true. Lavrov: That’s what I said, yes. But professionals in deterrence, nuclear deterrence policy, they know very well that it’s a very dangerous game. And to speak about limited exchange of nuclear strikes is an invitation to disaster, which we don’t want to have.