An international forum focused on human development, as well as global ethical and philosophical issues, has opened in Moscow

The ‘Inventing the Future’ symposium was launched at the newly built ‘Russia’ National Center in Moscow on Monday. Attended by more than 3,000 representatives from over 100 countries, the event focuses on scenarios for humanity’s development, and global ethical and philosophical challenges.

The three-day forum, running from November 4 to 6, brings together scientists, philosophers, futurists, popular sci-fi writers, and representatives from business and creative industries. Delegations represent member states of BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and various regions, including Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Participants include representatives from India, Italy, Iran, China, the UAE, Serbia, the US and France, according to the organizers.

The symposium’s agenda features more than 60 events divided into several themes, including “Future of Humanity,” “Future of Technology,” “Future of a Multipolar World,” and “Future of Civilizations.”

In his greeting message to participants, President Vladimir Putin emphasized that “we must determine our future ourselves, based on a sovereign worldview, national culture, tireless creative exploration, and a firm commitment to indisputable moral and patriotic ideals and values.”

On opening day, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov addressed the need for direct dialogue between nations and regions, which would contribute to forming a truly multipolar world and end the West’s neo-colonialist policies on the international stage.

“The role of regional and interregional interstate associations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America is strengthening. An important step toward multipolarity should be the establishment of direct contacts and horizontal links among them,” the minister stated, adding that “the West will come to its senses when it realizes that its colonial ways are harmful, including to the West itself.”

In addition to various panel discussions, the symposium features several major exhibitions. One showcases innovations and future plans, such as the Russian-Chinese project to establish a scientific station on the Moon, which aims to launch a nuclear power plant into outer space by 2035.

Another exhibition presents over 250 artworks employing diverse techniques – from painting to video art – created by talented young artists from Russia, China, India, Brazil, Ethiopia, and Iran.

The ‘Russia’ National Center was established in July to preserve the legacy of the International Russia Expo held earlier this year and to demonstrate the nation’s achievements on a permanent basis.

A group of soldiers was repeatedly hit by strikes in Donbass town of Krasonogorovka, according to a clip shared by a war reporter

Russian forces have blown up a building with a Ukrainian infantry squad inside, RT Russian has reported, releasing video of a relentless drone hunt in a Donbass town.

An undated five-minute clip shared by RT war correspondent Andrey Filatov on Tuesday shows intense battlefield action in Krasonogorovka, about eleven miles (18km) west of Donetsk and nine miles east of the key Ukrainian-controlled logistics hub of Kurakhovo.

The footage, filmed from a reconnaissance drone, begins with operators spotting three Ukrainian military vehicles approaching the town at high speed. The Russian drone operators, who had the opportunity to observe the entire process of the redeployment from above, later become excited when they see a vehicle – a US-made Hummer or Humvee – carrying at least six Ukrainian soldiers.

As one of the vehicles comes to a halt next to a dilapidated building, several consecutive explosions go off a few meters away from the soldiers as the troops are apparently hit by Russian artillery. While the first explosion appears to have caused no casualties, it is unclear if the same was true for the others. Meanwhile, a Russian UAV continued to buzz the entrance to the building, dropping a bomb on a trajectory that allowed it to fly directly into the hangar where at least some of the soldiers were taking shelter.

The clip later shows an armed Ukrainian soldier in a flak jacket walking inside the building, which is then rocked by another explosion, sending clouds of smoke through the skeleton roof. Despite poor visibility, a Russian drone operator is heard shouting that the strike had hit the infantryman.

Krasonogorovka lies on the approaches to Kurakhovo, a town on a key road leading to the regional logistical hub at Pokrovsk, which is essential for supplying all Ukrainian forces in Donbass. The Kurakhovo area has been the scene of fierce fighting between Russian and Ukrainian forces since October, after Moscow made significant gains in the region in recent months.

Освобождение курского приграничья: десантники уничтожают оккупантов
Бойцы ВДВ устроили засаду и полностью разгромили группу ВСУ. Уничтожены мотовездеход с экипажем, БМП и западный бронеавтомобиль.
📹 Минобороны/ТАСС

Последовательность  сжигают   врага в Курском приграничье 

A Russian kamikaze drone has destroyed a US-made HIMARS multiple-launch rocket system in Zaporozhye Region, Telegram channel ‘The Wrong Side’ has reported, citing an anonymous source. The story has been circulated by Russian media outlets.

The US first supplied Ukraine with the system, which boasts a longer range and higher precision than its Soviet-era equivalents, back in June 2022. Since then, Washington has repeatedly replenished Kiev’s stocks. The M142 HIMARS is capable of firing various types of munitions, including GPS-guided GMLRS rockets and ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles.

In a post on Monday, ‘The Wrong Side’ Telegram channel – a pro-Moscow outlet that reports on hostilities in Ukraine – published a short undated video clip purportedly showing the moment a Russian Lancet drone hit a Ukrainian HIMARS near the village of Novosoloshino in Zaporozhye Region. The US-made launcher was apparently on the move as part of a convoy when it was struck. The extent of the damage is not clear from the footage, which appears to have been shot from another UAV.

The Telegram channel quoted its unnamed source as saying the HIMARS launcher had recently relocated to the region, and that Russian surveillance teams quickly established its route. According to the source, the system caught fire after the strike, but did not explode, as it was apparently not loaded at the time. The post added that after the successful kill, the Russian drones moved on to pursue another high-priority target elsewhere.

In its daily report on Sunday, the Russian Defense Ministry claimed that Ukrainian casualties in the past 24 hours had exceeded 1,500 along the frontline. In addition, Russian forces obliterated multiple pieces of Ukrainian hardware in the Donetsk People’s Republic, including two US-made M113 armored personnel carriers, a Polish-made Krab self-propelled 155mm artillery gun, several ammunition depots, and Soviet-designed artillery and electronic warfare systems.

President Vladimir Putin has approved changes to the Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence

Russian President Vladimir Putin has officially signed a new national nuclear doctrine that outlines the scenarios in which Moscow would be authorized to deploy its nuclear arsenal. Here are the key points of the updated document, as stipulated on the Kremlin's website.

State policy on Nuclear Deterrence is defensive by nature, it is aimed at maintaining the nuclear forces potential at the level sufficient for nuclear deterrence, and guarantees protection of national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State, and deterrence of a potential adversary from aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies. In the event of a military conflict, this Policy provides for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies.

The Russian Federation considers nuclear weapons as a means of deterrence, their use being an extreme and compelled measure, and takes all necessary efforts to reduce nuclear threat and prevent aggravation of interstate relations, that could trigger military conflicts, including nuclear ones.

The Russian Federation ensures nuclear deterrence toward a potential adversary, which is understood to mean any individual states or military coalitions (blocs, alliances) which see the Russian Federation as a potential adversary and possess nuclear arms and/or other weapons of mass destruction or conventional forces with a significant combat capability. Nuclear deterrence is also ensured toward any states which provide the territory, airspace, and/or maritime space under their control as well as resources for preparing and conducting an aggression against the Russian Federation.

An aggression of any single state from a military coalition (bloc, alliance) against the Russian Federation and/or its allies will be regarded as an aggression of the coalition (bloc, alliance) as a whole.

An aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies of any non-nuclear state with the participation or support of a nuclear state will be regarded as their joint attack.

The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear arms and/or other weapons of mass destruction against itself and/or its allies, as well as in the event of an aggression against the Russian Federation and/or the Republic of Belarus as constituents of the Union State using conventional arms, if such an aggression creates a critical threat for their sovereignty and/or territorial integrity.

The decision to use nuclear weapons is taken by the President of the Russian Federation.

President Vladimir Putin has promised a decisive response to any aggression, criticizing the West for escalating tensions, and reiterated Moscow’s willingness to engage in peace talks to resolve the Ukraine conflict.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: I would like to inform the military personnel of the Russian Federation Armed Forces, citizens of our country, our friends across the globe, and those who persist in the illusion that a strategic defeat can be inflicted upon Russia, about the events taking place today in the zone of the special military operation, specifically following the attacks by Western long-range weapons against our territory.

The escalation of the conflict in Ukraine, instigated by the West, continues with the United States and its NATO allies previously announcing that they authorise the use of their long-range high-precision weapons for strikes inside the Russian Federation. Experts are well aware, and the Russian side has repeatedly highlighted it, that the use of such weapons is not possible without the direct involvement of military experts from the manufacturing nations.

On November 19, six ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles produced by the United States, and on November 21, during a combined missile assault involving British Storm Shadow systems and HIMARS systems produced by the US, attacked military facilities inside the Russian Federation in the Bryansk and Kursk regions. From that point onward, as we have repeatedly emphasised in prior communications, the regional conflict in Ukraine provoked by the West has assumed elements of a global nature. Our air defence systems successfully counteracted these incursions, preventing the enemy from achieving their apparent objectives.

The fire at the ammunition depot in the Bryansk Region, caused by the debris of ATACMS missiles, was extinguished without casualties or significant damage. In the Kursk Region, the attack targeted one of the command posts of our group North. Regrettably, the attack and the subsequent air defence battle resulted in casualties, both fatalities and injuries, among the perimeter security units and servicing staff. However, the command and operational staff of the control centre suffered no casualties and continues to manage effectively the operations of our forces to eliminate and push enemy units out of the Kursk Region.

I wish to underscore once again that the use by the enemy of such weapons cannot affect the course of combat operations in the special military operation zone. Our forces are making successful advances along the entire line of contact, and all objectives we have set will be accomplished.

In response to the deployment of American and British long-range weapons, on November 21, the Russian Armed Forces delivered a combined strike on a facility within Ukraine’s defence industrial complex. In field conditions, we also carried out tests of one of Russia’s latest medium-range missile systems – in this case, carrying a non-nuclear hypersonic ballistic missile that our engineers named Oreshnik. The tests were successful, achieving the intended objective of the launch. In the city of Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine, one of the largest and most famous industrial complexes from the Soviet Union era, which continues to produce missiles and other armaments, was hit.

We are developing intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles in response to US plans to produce and deploy intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. We believe that the United States made a mistake by unilaterally destroying the INF Treaty in 2019 under far-fetched pretext. Today, the United States is not only producing such equipment, but, as we can see, it has worked out ways to deploy its advanced missile systems to different regions of the world, including Europe, during training exercises for its troops. Moreover, in the course of these exercises, they are conducting training for using them.

As a reminder, Russia has voluntarily and unilaterally committed not to deploy intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles until US weapons of this kind appear in any region of the world.

To reiterate, we are conducting combat tests of the Oreshnik missile system in response to NATO’s aggressive actions against Russia. Our decision on further deployment of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles will depend on the actions of the United States and its satellites.

We will determine the targets during further tests of our advanced missile systems based on the threats to the security of the Russian Federation. We consider ourselves entitled to use our weapons against military facilities of those countries that allow to use their weapons against our facilities, and in case of an escalation of aggressive actions, we will respond decisively and in mirror-like manner. I recommend that the ruling elites of the countries that are hatching plans to use their military contingents against Russia seriously consider this.

It goes without saying that when choosing, if necessary and as a retaliatory measure, targets to be hit by systems such as Oreshnik on Ukrainian territory, we will in advance suggest that civilians and citizens of friendly countries residing in those areas leave danger zones. We will do so for humanitarian reasons, openly and publicly, without fear of counter-moves coming from the enemy, who will also be receiving this information.

Why without fear? Because there are no means of countering such weapons today. Missiles attack targets at a speed of Mach 10, which is 2.5 to 3 kilometres per second. Air defence systems currently available in the world and missile defence systems being created by the Americans in Europe cannot intercept such missiles. It is impossible.

I would like to emphasise once again that it was not Russia, but the United States that destroyed the international security system and, by continuing to fight, cling to its hegemony, they are pushing the whole world into a global conflict.

We have always preferred and are ready now to resolve all disputes by peaceful means. But we are also ready for any turn of events.

If anyone still doubts this, make no mistake: there will always be a response.

A new hypersonic missile, conflict escalation and a warning for NATO: What you need to know from Putin’s latest address

Russia’s newly unveiled Oreshnik missile has quickly become the focus of major international attention. Announced by President Vladimir Putin on Thursday, this medium-range hypersonic weapon is seen as a significant advancement in the country’s missile capabilities. One that could have far-reaching consequences for both the Ukraine conflict and broader international security. 

With its apparently unmatched speed and precision, and the prospect of mass production on the immediate horizon, this missile could be a game-changer for Moscow’s military operation. 

Here’s what we know so far about the Oreshnik and its potential impact.

A new weapon, not an upgrade

Contrary to some claims, the Oreshnik is not an upgrade of Soviet-era missile systems, according to Putin. Instead, it is a completely new development built on modern Russian technology. The president emphasized that the missile represents the culmination of efforts within “New Russia,” referring to developments after the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991. “It was created on the basis of modern, latest developments,” he stated.

Hypersonic capabilities and precision

The Oreshnik missile is described as a high-precision, medium-range weapon, with hypersonic speed. Putin clarified that while it is not considered a “strategic” weapon, its capabilities are still formidable. “Due to its striking power, especially with massive, collective use, and even in combination with other high-precision long-range systems, the use of Oreshnik will be comparable in power to strategic weapons,” he said.

This missile is designed to fly at speeds of up to Mach 10 (around 7,600 miles/12,200km per hour), which is roughly ten times the speed of sound. The high velocity makes it extremely difficult to intercept using current missile defense systems. “There are no means of counteracting Oreshnik-type complexes in the world,” Putin asserted, explaining that Western missile defense systems, including those deployed in Western Europe, cannot intercept such fast-moving projectiles.

First combat use and response to Ukraine

The Oreshnik missile was first used in combat on November 21, 2024, when it struck a Ukrainian defense facility in the city of Dnepropetrovsk. The target was the Yuzhmash industrial complex, a key Ukrainian defense site inherited from the USSR that produces missile equipment. Putin justified the strike as a response to Kiev’s use of long-range missiles, like the American ATACMS and British Storm Shadow systems, against Russian territory. “The regional conflict in Ukraine has acquired elements of a global character,” Putin said, highlighting the broader implications of Western involvement.

Mass production and deployment

Following the successful test and first use of the new weapon, Russia has committed to mass-producing the system. “Serial production of Oreshnik is practically organized,” Putin confirmed, with the missiles slated for inclusion in Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces (RSVS). This suggests that they will become a key part of Russia’s long-term military strategy, with the potential for widespread deployment in the coming months.

Putin noted that the missile’s development process was swift and efficient, with domestic technologies ensuring that Moscow has “resolved import substitution issues.” This suggests that Russia has managed to develop the Oreshnik entirely with its own resources, minimizing reliance on foreign components.

Global impact and strategic significance

The Oreshnik missile has the potential to change the dynamics of the Ukraine conflict. According to General Sergei Karakayev, the head of Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces, the Oreshnik “can hit targets throughout Europe.” This makes the missile not only a powerful weapon in the context of Ukraine but also one that could have wider geopolitical implications if tensions escalate further.

While Russia has not explicitly described the missile as a weapon of mass destruction, its precision and destructive power mean that it could be used to target critical infrastructure in enemy states. In Putin’s view, it provides Russia with a technological advantage that currently cannot be matched by any other country.

International reactions and future developments

The Oreshnik missile has raised alarms in the West. The use of this new weapon, combined with the conflict in Ukraine, has spurred calls to strengthen air defenses. Ukrainian officials have already approached the US to discuss receiving advanced systems, which could include modernized Patriots or even Aegis missi

READ Lavrov’s  Interview  With Tucker Carlson (FULL VERSION)

Russian 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.

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.

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 stronge

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.

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.

Large language models can be used for several purposes:

• Information retrieval: Think of Bing or Google. Whenever you use their search feature, you are relying on a large language model to produce information in response to a query. It's able to retrieve information, then summarize and communicate the answer in a conversational style.
• Sentiment analysis: As applications of natural language processing, large language models enable companies to analyze the sentiment of textual data.
• Text generation: Large language models are behind generative AI, like ChatGPT, and can generate text based on inputs. They can produce an example of text when prompted. For example: "Write me a poem about palm trees in the style of Emily Dickinson."
• Code generation: Like text generation, code generation is an application of generative AI. LLMs understand patterns, which enables them to generate code.
• Chatbots and conversational AI: Large language models enable customer service chatbots or conversational AI to engage with customers, interpret the meaning of their queries or responses, and offer responses in turn.

A large language model (LLM) is a deep learning algorithm that can perform a variety of natural language processing (NLP) tasks. Large language models use transformer models and are trained using massive datasets — hence, large. This enables them to recognize, translate, predict, or generate text or other content.

Large language models are also referred to as neural networks (NNs), which are computing systems inspired by the human brain. These neural networks work using a network of nodes that are layered, much like neurons.

In addition to teaching human languages to artificial intelligence (AI) applications, large language models can also be trained to perform a variety of tasks like understanding protein structures, writing software code, and more. Like the human brain, large language models must be pre-trained and then fine-tuned so that they can solve text classification, question answering, document summarization, and text generation problems. Their problem-solving capabilities can be applied to fields like healthcare, finance, and entertainment where large language models serve a variety of NLP applications, such as translation, chatbots, AI assistants, and so on.

Large language models also have large numbers of parameters, which are akin to memories the model collects as it learns from training. Think of these parameters as the model's knowledge bank.

A transformer model is the most common architecture of a large language model. It consists of an encoder and a decoder. A transformer model processes data by tokenizing the input, then simultaneously conducting mathematical equations to discover relationships between tokens. This enables the computer to see the patterns a human would see were it given the same query.

Transformer models work with self-attention mechanisms, which enables the model to learn more quickly than traditional models like long short-term memory models. Self-attention is what enables the transformer model to consider different parts of the sequence, or the entire context of a sentence, to generate predictions.

Large language models are composed of multiple neural network layers. Recurrent layers, feedforward layers, embedding layers, and attention layers work in tandem to process the input text and generate output content.

The embedding layer creates embeddings from the input text. This part of the large language model captures the semantic and syntactic meaning of the input, so the model can understand context.

The feedforward layer (FFN) of a large language model is made of up multiple fully connected layers that transform the input embeddings. In so doing, these layers enable the model to glean higher-level abstractions — that is, to understand the user's intent with the text input.

The recurrent layer interprets the words in the input text in sequence. It captures the relationship between words in a sentence.

The attention mechanism enables a language model to focus on single parts of the input text that is relevant to the task at hand. This layer allows the model to generate the most accurate outputs.

There are three main kinds of large language models:

• Generic or raw language models predict the next word based on the language in the training data. These language models perform information retrieval tasks.
• Instruction-tuned language models are trained to predict responses to the instructions given in the input. This allows them to perform sentiment analysis, or to generate text or code.
• Dialog-tuned language models are trained to have a dialog by predicting the next response. Think of chatbots or conversational AI.

What is the difference between large language models and generative AI?

Generative AI is an umbrella term that refers to artificial intelligence models that have the capability to generate content. Generative AI can generate text, code, images, video, and music. Examples of generative AI include Midjourney, DALL-E, and ChatGPT.

Large language models are a type of generative AI that are trained on text and produce textual content. ChatGPT is a popular example of generative text AI.

All large language models are generative AI¹.

A large language model is based on a transformer model and works by receiving an input, encoding it, and then decoding it to produce an output prediction. But before a large language model can receive text input and generate an output prediction, it requires training, so that it can fulfill general functions, and fine-tuning, which enables it to perform specific tasks.

Training: Large language models are pre-trained using large textual datasets from sites like Wikipedia, GitHub, or others. These datasets consist of trillions of words, and their quality will affect the language model's performance. At this stage, the large language model engages in unsupervised learning, meaning it processes the datasets fed to it without specific instructions. During this process, the LLM's AI algorithm can learn the meaning of words, and of the relationships between words. It also learns to distinguish words based on context. For example, it would learn to understand whether "right" means "correct," or the opposite of "left."

Fine-tuning: In order for a large language model to perform a specific task, such as translation, it must be fine-tuned to that particular activity. Fine-tuning optimizes the performance of specific tasks.

Prompt-tuning fulfills a similar function to fine-tuning, whereby it trains a model to perform a specific task through few-shot prompting, or zero-shot prompting. A prompt is an instruction given to an LLM. Few-shot prompting teaches the model to predict outputs through the use of examples. For instance, in this sentiment analysis exercise, a few-shot prompt would look like this:

Customer review: This plant is so beautiful!
Customer sentiment: positive

Customer review: This plant is so hideous!
Customer sentiment: negative

The language model would understand, through the semantic meaning of "hideous," and because an opposite example was provided, that the customer sentiment in the second example is "negative."

Alternatively, zero-shot prompting does not use examples to teach the language model how to respond to inputs. Instead, it formulates the question as "The sentiment in ‘This plant is so hideous' is…." It clearly indicates which task the language model should perform, but does not provide problem-solving examples.

In addition to these use cases, large language models can complete sentences, answer questions, and summarize text.

With such a wide variety of applications, large language applications can be found in a multitude of fields:

• Tech: Large language models are used anywhere from enabling search engines to respond to queries, to assisting developers with writing code.
• Healthcare and Science: Large language models have the ability to understand proteins, molecules, DNA, and RNA. This position allows LLMs to assist in the development of vaccines, finding cures for illnesses, and improving preventative care medicines. LLMs are also used as medical chatbots to perform patient intakes or basic diagnoses.
• Customer Service: LLMs are used across industries for customer service purposes such as chatbots or conversational AI.
• Marketing: Marketing teams can use LLMs to perform sentiment analysis to quickly generate campaign ideas or text as pitching examples, and much more.
• Legal: From searching through massive textual datasets to generating legalese, large language models can assist lawyers, paralegals, and legal staff.
• Banking: LLMs can support credit card companies in detecting fraud.

Get started with Generative AI in Enterprise. Watch this webinar and explore the challenges and opportunities of generative AI in your enterprise environment.

With a broad range of applications, large language models are exceptionally beneficial for problem-solving since they provide information in a clear, conversational style that is easy for users to understand.

Large set of applications: They can be used for language translation, sentence completion, sentiment analysis, question answering, mathematical equations, and more.

Always improving: Large language model performance is continually improving because it grows when more data and parameters are added. In other words, the more it learns, the better it gets. What’s more, large language models can exhibit what is called "in-context learning." Once an LLM has been pretrained, few-shot prompting enables the model to learn from the prompt without any additional parameters. In this way, it is continually learning.

They learn fast: When demonstrating in-context learning, large language models learn quickly because they do not require additional weight, resources, and parameters for training. It is fast in the sense that it doesn’t require too many examples.

Popular large language models have taken the world by storm. Many have been adopted by people across industries. You've no doubt heard of ChatGPT, a form of generative AI chatbot.

Other popular LLM models include:

• PaLM: Google's Pathways Language Model (PaLM) is a transformer language model capable of common-sense and arithmetic reasoning, joke explanation, code generation, and translation.
• BERT: The Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) language model was also developed at Google. It is a transformer-based model that can understand natural language and answer questions.
• XLNet: A permutation language model, XLNet generated output predictions in a random order, which distinguishes it from BERT. It assesses the pattern of tokens encoded and then predicts tokens in random order, instead of a sequential order.
• GPT: Generative pre-trained transformers are perhaps the best-known large language models. Developed by OpenAI, GPT is a popular foundational model whose numbered iterations are improvements on their predecessors (GPT-3, GPT-4, etc.). It can be fine-tuned to perform specific tasks downstream. Examples of this are EinsteinGPT, developed by Salesforce for CRM, and Bloomberg's BloombergGPT for finance.

The arrival of ChatGPT has brought large language models to the fore and activated speculation and heated debate on what the future might look like.

As large language models continue to grow and improve their command of natural language, there is much concern regarding what their advancement would do to the job market. It's clear that large language models will develop the ability to replace workers in certain fields.

In the right hands, large language models have the ability to increase productivity and process efficiency, but this has posed ethical questions for its use in human society.

To address the current limitations of LLMs, the Elasticsearch Relevance Engine (ESRE) is a relevance engine built for artificial intelligence-powered search applications. With ESRE, developers are empowered to build their own semantic search application, utilize their own transformer models, and combine NLP and generative AI to enhance their customers' search experience.

Supercharge your relevance with the Elasticsearch Relevance Engine

This is what friendship is about.

If only we human beings could learn from these cute animals.

This world will be a much better place for everyone one of us.