this is bbc news. the headlines: ukraine says more than 200 and 60 soldiers from the azovstal steelworks in mariupol have been evacuated. the defence ministry said all of them would return to ukrainian territory under exchange agreements with moscow. 50 are said to have been taken to local hospitals but in russian—held areas. elsewhere, ukrainian troops are thought to be back in control of territory on the russian border near kharkiv, the country's second city. western military sources say president putin is now directly involved in the day—to—day running of the conflict, a sign the war wasn't going to plan. president biden is expected to visit buffalo, new york, to meet families of the victims of saturday's mass shooting that killed ten people. it's the worst so far

in the us this year. an investigation is under way to see if any clues left by the attacker were missed. now on bbc news, hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. for the last decade, the founder of wikileaks, julian assange, hasn't known freedom. first he was holed up in the ecuadorian embassy in london. for the last three years, he's beenin belmarsh prison outside london. his lawyer is making a last—ditch attempt to stop the uk government extraditing him to the us to face espionage charges. my guest is stella moris, the lawyer who worked on his defence team, became his wife, and is the mother of two of his children. why hasjulian assange become

such a polarising figure? stella moris, welcome to hardtalk. thank you for having me. it's a pleasure to have you in the studio. over the next few days, the british home secretary, priti patel, is going to make a very big decision on whether to extradite your husband, julian assange, to the united states. does this feel to you like his last chance? well, indeed, priti patel has my husband's life in her hands. we have some avenues of appeal still to go. but ultimately, over the last

few years, over the last 12 years, in fact, what has happened is a flagrant abuse of the legal system in order to persecute publisher, for publishing the truth about the us and its conduct of war in iraq and afghanistan, conducting torture in guantanamo bay, and so on. this is a political persecution, it's a political case. in purely legal terms, i know that you have — at least you in personal terms, but the legal team backing julian assange in professional terms — have put final submissions before the home secretary. so what is the basic argument today as to why he should not and cannot be extradited? well, there's a whole swathe of reasons why he shouldn't be extradited. he's a publisher who published true information about tens of thousands of civilian casualties in iraq and afghanistan.

he's being persecuted because he exposed the united states committing war crimes that have not been punished. and it is basically the revenge of the united states. just talk to me a little bit about his mental health and his state of mind, because one of the contentions put before the high court was that if he were extradited to the united states, that would be extremely damaging to his mental health. it might even create a suicide risk. is that argument still part of your case? well, thank you for asking about howjulian is doing. indeed, the high court had has accepted thatjulian faces a real risk of being driven to suicide because of oppression if he is placed in conditions of isolation. and the us, as you know, has about 80,000 people

in solitary confinement on any given day. but the united states did, in discussing this particular issue before the courts, did give assurances that he will be treated in a way that would not be fundamentally damaging to his mental health. well, those so—called assurances are anything but assurances. in fact, if you look at the wording of the letter of the us government to the uk government, they said, "we reserve the right to place him under "the conditions" — the very conditions that the high court accepted would kill him. so frankly, it is inexplicable that the high court accepted those assurances. and it still stands, the medical evidence that was presented to the magistrates�* court still stands at the high court level. the only change of circumstances that the high court accepted were these assurances which amnesty international said that

the decision by the high court was a travesty ofjustice. how is his health today? i don't know when you were last able to see him, but i know he did experience a serious health condition in the autumn of last year, he had i think what people are calling a mini—stroke. how is he today? well, yes, his doctors have concluded it was a mini—stroke. he has been in decline since, well, since 2012, really, since he entered the ecuadorian embassy. there was no outside space, there was no access to sunlight. it was a small apartment, really. and he's been in belmarsh prison for over three years under extremely harsh conditions. and, of course, you canjust imagine, you go to the zoo, you see what what confinement does to animals. well, it does that to people, as well. julian's been in steady decline, and his doctors have documented this over the years. in october, on the first day of the appeal hearing, he suffered a mini—stroke.

and, you know, i'm terrified that he will have a catastrophic health episode at any moment. and, as anyone knows, or at least can imagine, if you have a catastrophic health episode in prison alone in your cell, that can be fatal. you married julian earlier this year, and you've had two children withjulian — conceived, i think, when he was in the ecuadorian embassy. so, does that make any difference? you have residence rights in the united kingdom. he now has two children who were born in the united kingdom. will that make any difference as priti patel considers this extradition? well, our children are british, and i am a permanent resident in the united kingdom, i've been here for 20 years. of course, ourfamily circumstances should be taken into account, but obviously there are political considerations at play in this

case, which are very obvious. butjulian should also not be extradited, because if he is extradited, that is a death sentence for julian. and it is also... well, forgive me, but not literally, because clearly the americans are seeking long—term imprisonment. they're not seeking the death penalty. they're seeking 175 years — so you tell me the difference. also, if placed in isolation... but to be clear, he is not facing execution, because, of course, that would... i don't see any difference, actually. if they convict him to a long sentence, a life sentence, he will die in prison — if he survives that long. and the us says that it reserves the right to place him in extreme isolation, bury him alive, prevent him from speaking to me maybe just 15 minutes once a month. that will kill him — and the medical evidence also concludes that he will be driven to suicide. you began to get to know him as part of his legal team going back, what, a decade and more.

and i'm just really intrigued to know when there was the crossover from an entirely professional relationship as one of his lawyers, to obviously a deep and personal relationship. well, julian has described the embassy like a space station, and it really was a little bit like a space station. he was there for seven years. i speak spanish, i also speak swedish. and, once he entered the ecuadorian embassy, i kind of became a constant in the embassy because not all the staff spoke spanish in meetings, and so on. and yeah, it was then i spent more and more time with him, got to know him more and more not as a, erm, you know, a julian assange persona, but a human being. right, i mean, again, sorry to be blunt, but i mean, he was a client. you were a lawyer,

he was a client. it was a professional relationship. i guess it's fair to say lawyers aren't supposed to then develop personal relationships with their clients. but i guess that happened. in a space station, yeah. i mean, ifollowed my heart. and we're married, and i'm primarily his wife, the mother of his children. and frankly, you know... i'm driven by my heart. i know, i get that. i suppose what's difficult to understand is how your heart could allow itself to fall in love in such a weird environment. you know, we know they had surveillance cameras all over that embassy. we know thatjulian, by and large, was confined to a very small space. it can't have been conducive to really getting to know each other. well, love finds a way. and, you know, it was an intense environment,

and you actually get to know people really well when you're in a high—pressure environment with lots of — you know, lots of things were happening all the time. could you, actually — i mean, again, without, i really don't mean to be prurient, but could you find a space where you knew you weren't being watched? well, we knew where the obvious cameras were. and when we were in front of those cameras, we avoided, you know, being seen as a couple — the corridors, the meeting room, the kitchen, and so on. julian had the front room where he worked. and there was some privacy — we had a camping tent where we tried to have actual privacy, but of course, there were also hidden cameras and hidden microphones, as we have since found out. in spain, there's under way a criminal investigation against the security firm that was working inside the embassy. and it turns out they were working for the cia,

and they were recording julian's legal meetings, they were instructed to take the dna of our six—month—old baby. imean, that... hang on, that's an extraordinary detail. how do you know that? well, i know that from two things, actually, in december 2017, one of the security guards came up to me outside the embassy. he followed me out and he said, "the baby that you bring "into the embassy, don't bring him in any more. "because it's not safe." and this came out of nowhere, and i said, you know, "why are you saying that?" and he said, "we're being asked to do very strange things. "they've asked me to get a nappy from the baby "to retrieve the dna." and i tried to get more information out of it, but he just basically conveyed to me that the situation was very dangerous and sinister, and it wasn't safe for the baby. do you feel that, all along the way, you've taken the decisions that were right for you? do you have any regrets at all about what you've done?

no, no regrets. i know that these have been difficult decisions, but precisely because they've been difficult decisions, i've taken the decisions that i knew were the right decisions, not the easy decisions. and, perhaps because i understood the extraordinary situation thatjulian was in from from the get—go, while i... yes, i decided to get involved. from the get—go, you were involved because julian was fighting allegations of sexual assault in sweden — which have never been resolved, and now, for all sorts of reasons have been dropped in sweden. but i just wonder whether, you know, at any point when you were developing the relationship, whether that gave you pause? well, they were dropped due to lack of evidence. and the swedish case is like a catalogue of how not to investigate sexual allegations.

it's a scandal, frankly. the swedish and the uk authorities did everything in their power to prevent a proper investigation. they refused to question julian in the uk. how is it possiblyjustifiable for investigators to refuse to question, to speak to the main suspect? everyone knows, in sexual assault allegations, that the first thing you have to do is speak to the people involved — and they didn't speak to him for six years. it is a scandal of enormous proportions. let's come back to the charges againstjulian in the united states. you, at the beginning of our conversation, characterised him as a journalist and a publisher. now you know that in the united states, he is characterised as somebody who aided and abetted an egregious invasion of secrecy, confidentiality within the us government.

that he wasn'tjust the recipient of information, he was involved in the gathering of that information, given his relationship with chelsea manning. right, and the uk high court has described him as a journalist. he's been a member of his journalistic union since 2009. he has received dozens ofjournalism awards. there's no question that he's a journalist. but he is being accused of conspiring with a source. and what does that mean? well, he spoke to his source. and if that is a crime, then everyjournalist, at least those that speak to sources, are now exposed to being prosecuted and put in prison. he encouraged the source, according to information released by the us government in conjunction with the indictment — this is a quote — "during the conspiracy, manning and assange had real—time discussion about the transmission of classified records. assange to manning said,

when he'd received some information from chelsea manning, he said, �*curious eyes never run dry in my experience.”' and, according to the united states, that was a clear encouragement to get more information, dig deeper — which we then know chelsea manning did. well, what an extraordinary claim, right? of course, journalists all the time make requests for information. right now, do you have evidence of war crimes in ukraine? it's being broadcast constantly. we're encouraging — and we should encourage people to come forward if they have evidence of war crimes. and look what's happened here, this is a complete inversion. you have the person who put into the public domain actual concrete evidence of war crimes — and what happens? they want to put him in prison for the rest of his life. war crimes that have never been punished. journalists, by and large, when they get leaked

information, they sift it, theyjudge it, and they publish it with a sense of responsibility. julian assange didn't do that. he just dumped massive amounts of raw, confidential information, all sorts of information which, according to the us government, compromised sources, led to direct threats to individuals. hejust dumped it on the internet. well, that's simply not true. and i dispute the premise that wikileaks is in any way different to, for example, what the international consortium of investigative journalists... right, but your problem is that many of the journalists that he worked with at one time or another then disowned the way he handled some of the information that wikileaks received. look, wikileaks, in the process of the extradition, a lot of information is now in the public domain as part of the legal case. people who are actually working side—by—side withjulian say that julian was extraordinarily responsible. it is simply not true that

wikileaks dumped information. 15,000 of the afghan war diaries were withheld. the iraq war logs were actually criticised by wired for being over—redacted. when you'd put side—by—side the wikileaks war diaries with information that had been released by the us government through freedom of information act requests — actually, the us government's copy was less redacted. and, in relation to the cables, wikileaks had a painstaking redaction process that it rolled out over the course of 9—10 months, it engaged over 100 media organisations in over 50 countries. i just come back to the fact thatjournalists, respected journalists — and i'm now looking at the associated press, one of the most respected institutions in americanjournalism, did a retrospective look at a lot of the information wikileaks had put into the public domain over years.

now, this was conducted in august 2016, and ap concluded that, "in its spectacular mass disclosures over years, wikileaks have, at one time or another, included the personal information of hundreds of people, including in some cases sick children, rape victims, and mental health patients." there's the question of whetherjudgment is used byjulian assange. well, obviously, judgment is used byjulian assange. we're talking about publications, yes, at scale — he's taken every step to protect people who were at risk of coming to physical harm. and, in fact, the us government has had to admit under oath that they have not found a single case in which a person has come to physical harm as a result of the publications. what aboutjulian assange�*s willingness to take information from russia? from russian hackers tojulian assange, to publication on wikileaks? is that a channel, a flow of information that

you think is justifiable? are you referring to the 2016 publication? yes, iam. well, there is, in fact, no clear evidence that russia was the source. in fact, julian has stated that russia was not the source. and there is just no question that those publications in 2016 were in the public interest. in fact, judge cottle from the southern district of new york has affirmed that the 2016 publications were of the highest public importance. that was when the democratic national party... again, perhaps, is about perceptions as much as anything. 0pen—source advocates — an opendemocracy activist in the united states has said, "nothing has been more damaging to wikileaks�* reputation than the publication of leaked democratic national committee emails, fuelling the perception that the organisation," that is wikileaks, "was costing up with the political circles of donald trump and vladimir

putin." well, nothing could be further from the truth, because those publications, what they, in fact, revealed were that the democratic national party was rigging the primaries against bernie sanders, and bernie sanders was the more competitive candidate against donald trump. the polls at the time were showing that if clinton ran against trump, trump would win. but if sanders ran against trump, sanders would win. and as i said, you know, the new york times, dean baquet, the editor of the new york times, said that if he had received the information, the same leaks, he would have published. so it's just an attack. what about the allegation thatjulian assange also was presented with information, a cache of documents which related to the russian government? interesting information, secret information about the russian government? and, according to chat messages and a source who was involved in the exchanges, julian assange chose not to publish this information. why would that be?

well, all sorts of claims can be made about sources having sent information. how can that be verified, really? wikileaks has published information about the russian government. it's called the russia spy files in 2018, i think. and there are, i think, about 600,000 documents referencing russia, books about russia as mafia state have been written, based on wikileaks cables. and of course, you know, all sorts of claims can be made and you can't verify them. and the proof is in the pudding. wikileaks has published about russia again and again, and again. does it matter, do you think, to the strength ofjulian�*s case and the support he has that he does, if i may say so, appear to have alienated a lot of people at one time or another, who were inclined to support him and work with him, and left their association with him, saying that he was impossible to work with, an extremely difficult man? does that matter?

well, i think you might be referring to people in the media, perhaps. imean... well, i'm referring to all sorts of people, to be honest, from, you know, people he collaborated with on the guardian newspaperfor a while, to andrew geoghegan, who was supposed to write a biography with him but walked away from the project saying it was impossible. james ball, who worked with him at wikileaks briefly and said that, "i don't thinkjulian necessarily meant to build a cult, but wikileaks operated like one." to the ecuadorian government, which, of course, offered him safe haven, and then completely fell out with him. well, it's completely absurd, in relation tojulian�*s dealing with the media, if you take your mind back to 2010, wikileaks was new on the scene. it revolutionised journalism — the methods that wikileaks has brought to journalism are now standard. and, you know, it was a new kid on the block that was basically showing the legacy media, showing that they hadn't done theirjob properly because he had more scoops...

you think what a lot of these people that i just quoted who did fall out with him and said he was impossible to work with were justjealous? well, there is a competition problem, especially at the time the legacy media had problems with their funding models, and they were coming onto the internet, and so on. and here came wikileaks, this huge impact of wikileaks. and, of course, it led to friction. but so what, you know? julian is a very committed individual. he's a strong character, and he wouldn't have achieved what he's achieved if he wasn't. let's end where we began, with the decision facing the home secretary, priti patel. over the next few days, if it goes againstjulian assange and the decision is that he should indeed be extradited to the united states — what next for you, as his wife and his long—time legal supporter? well, i'll keep fighting untiljulian is free. the uk is currently considering whether to extradite him

to the country that plotted to murder him. and obviously, it should block this extradition, and has to block it now. but i will fight until he is free. stella moris, thank you very much forjoining me on hardtalk. thank you. hello. the weather's been all over the place in the last few days. yes, we've had some sunshine, some warmth, too, but also big thundery downpours, particularly in northwestern england and in northern ireland recently. now, on the satellite picture, you can see the motion

of the cloud — it's mostly coming in out of the south and the south—west. so that's where the warm weather is coming from, too. and here are the thunderstorms we've recently had — now most of them have died away, we still have a little bit of rain here and there, but i think through the early hours of tuesday morning, it is a mostly dry picture out there with clear spells, a bit of residual cloud, that's pretty much it. oh, and mistand murk forming in the countryside, too. now, the temperatures early on tuesday will range from around eight celsius in aberdeen to 12 in norwich, london, and along the south coast of england. now there is rain in the forecast for tuesday, but it'll be mostly affecting western areas of the uk. so, here it is, this weather front — in the morning, maybe just about fringing cornwall into western parts of wales, and spreading northwards. but notice how this area of rain expands during the course of the day, progressively getting wetter around these western areas. but further towards the east, the weather will be dry, hazy sunshine at the very

least, and sunny closer to the north sea, and look at the temperatures — 26 in london, and easily into the low—to—mid—20s in yorkshire, as well. and then, tuesday evening, that rain will reach wales, the north—west of england, and move further north into scotland, as well, and there could be some thunderstorms returning to southern parts of the uk, as well, tuesday evening. here's a look at wednesday's weather map — still dominated by an area of low pressure and these south—westerly winds pushing in very volatile weather systems, difficult to predict, really. but the thinking is that on wednesday, we'll see a return of thundery showers quite probably to south—western parts of the uk, whereas further east and north, it should be sunnier. but look at that, northern ireland closer to the weather front — so there's likely to be some rain, too. and here's the outlook from tuesday onwards, just about into the weekend — it will be changeable, staying on the warm side with sunny spells, but always

a risk of showers with thunderstorms.

this is bbc news with the latest headlines, for viewers in the uk and around the world. wounded ukrainian soldiers are taken out of the azovstal steel plant after months under russian siege. ukraine's president says he hopes they will now be saved. translation: i want to underline, ukraine needs its ukrainian heroes alive. this is our principles. police in the us say a gunman who killed ten people at a supermarket in buffalo in new york state, planned further attacks after the mass shooting. and getting south africa's youth back on track — we've a special report from johannesburg on attempts to tackle some of the world's highest levels of unemployment.