allies, russian losses mounting, a punishing sanctions regime on moscow and more nato expansion in the offing. well, my guest, in an exclusive interview is russia's ambassador to the united nations vassily nebenzia. where does russia go from here? ambassador vassily nebenzia at un headquarters in new york, welcome to hardtalk. good afternoon, london time, mr sackur. it's a pleasure to have you on the show, mr ambassador. let me ask you this,

after more than 100 days, it's a pleasure to have you on the show, ambassador. let me ask you this, after more than 100 days, would you say that russia's invasion of ukraine is going to plan? well, i think it is progressing. nobody promise to deliver it in three or seven days as some pundits are saying now, that the russian special military operation has stalled and is not progressing at the pace that was initially envisaged. but the progress is being made, that's clear. one of their reasons for the so—called slow pace is that we are not targeting civilian infrastructure and there is deliberately we are only hitting military targets and it takes time, we are not doing carpet bombing or anything else. but the progress is there, that's for sure. ambassador, i have to say,

you are the most senior russian official whom i've heard say that the initial operation stalled, that the operation is going slow. is that your recognition that the initial plan to seize kyiv and to install a new pro— moscow government, that entirely failed. i'm not aware of these plans. the progress or the lack of progress that you are referring to is in the eye of the beholder. i think that according to what our military are saying, the plan is developing according to the military plans that were initially envisaged. of course with minor technical changes because you cannot predict whatever happens on the front line. but the plan is moving. i don't think that anybody in the russian leadership was ever announcing the plans to take kyiv and install what you call a puppet government.

why can't you level with the russian people about the scale of russia's military losses? what do you mean, i can't level with the russian people? well, i don't mean you personally, but the russian government as a whole, they haven't issued any officialfigure for the number of russian soldiers killed since the middle of march, when the figure was something over 1300 men. neither have the ukrainian side, has the ukrainian side, it's customary in the time of a conflict not to disclose military losses. of course ukrainian side is trying to portray as heavy losses by the russian side try to diminish them. for a long time they were able to hide the west from their own public heavy losses that the ukrainian side is suffering.

recently zelensky admitted that the losses are heavy on the situation and they donbas... that's the point, ambassador. president zelensky very recently said the ukrainians are losing up to 100 men a day in the very brutal fight in and around severodonetsk and the donbas. you, according to the ukrainian figures have lost 30,000 or more personnel in this war, we can't verify that figure. the us, using all of its different intelligence sources believe you have lost more than 15,000 men. and i don't need to remind you, that in the entire decade of your war in afghanistan, you lostjust under 15,000 men. so, i put it to you, the scale of your losses in the last 100 days has been staggering and would shock the russian people if they knew.

neither can i verify those figures as i said, they are not being disclosed and there is clear during the time of the conflict to exaggerate the opponents losses. i cannot tell you the numbers and i cannot verify what the ukrainians of the us is saying or not. you talk of military progress, it is clear that after more than 100 days your forces are essentially locked in a stalemate war of attrition in the donbas. you haven't yet taken —— . you're unable to take the whole of lujan sc let alone the whole of donbas and if that represents progress, i'm just wondering what the plan is. give it time, you will see,

you will see the liberation of all the dog donetsk and that will hopefully take place soon. you asked me what the plan is. the initial plan were announced publicly that was neutrality of the ukraine demilitarisation of the country. and the liberation of donbas was the primary goal, which is being implemented at the moment. is russia going to stop using conscripts in this war? vladimir putin promised back in march it wasn't happening, a day later the russian defence ministry admitted it was happening. and the bbcjust last month spoke to a mother of two young sons, both of them conscripts who ended up fighting in ukraine. is that going to stop or not? there were reports in the beginning of the conflict or the special military operation that indeed there were a few conscripts

that were in the army, not the people who serve for that was immediately rectified. i do not know about any new cases of conscripts being sent to ukraine. but i note that zelensky has now declared the complete and total mobilisation of the country and i know he's sending young boys without any military experience to the front line. it seems a month or two ago you and other russian diplomats were very keen to tell the united states and europe not to send heavy weaponry to ukraine, in the words of sergei lavrov, if they did so they would be very serious consequences and he said indeed, it might raise the possibility of escalation to the point of nuclear confrontation. those heavy weapons are now being sent, including

multiple rocket launch systems from the united states and from the uk, even heavy artillery now being sent by the german government. it is happening. so where are these consequences? i read a quotation recently of an assistant defence secretary of the us who said that the us does not want to escalate the conflict but russia has no say in what us can or cannot supply to ukraine. i would agree with the latter part of the sentence but he should have dropped the former one then. this is a clear escalation of the conflict. we said that if these weapons are there a ready supply being continued to supplied and it will make us to adopt a decision to move ukrainian forces as far from where they cannot reach territory either russia or donbas. this is a clear escalation,

we know that these weapons, arms being supplied and are being used against donbas, residential areas with no military objects there. so you know, this only testifies. this is not a war with ukraine, ukraine isjust a poor ——pawn in a bigger geopolitical game. this is a proxy war of the west with russia. but when you talk of severe consequences and escalation you are bluffing, mr ambassador, are you? because what we see on the ground is a russian military force in ukraine that is struggling to take any new territory at all. so, these threats of yours, they are empty. let's compare notes in about a week or two and we will see how much we are struggling and what progress will be achieved by then. international law is at the very centre of what you do day on day inside the united nations. how does it feel to be the representative of a country that is judged by the international

community to be conducting an illegal war? who are you calling in the international community? european union and us? no, i'm looking at the international court ofjustice, the un body, which is ordered russia to end the invasion of ukraine. well, the west today is in a clear fit of delirium over what is happening in ukraine. it does not analyse what led to the situation that you are witnessing now. and the decision by the international court ofjustice on temporary measures was definitely decided by political considerations, not by the... so you dismiss multilateral institutions like the international court of justice

as biased against you. ijust wonder, whether it makes any difference to you when for example, the un high commissioner for human rights, who is actually chilean, michelle bachelet, she's not from the west, as you would call it. she has issued a statement saying russian armed forces have indescrimanatly at lee sheldon bombed populated areas killing civilians, wrecking hospitals and schools and other civilian infrastructure, actions which she says may amount to war crimes. we hear a lot of reports on the atrocities in ukraine which are not very — not independently verified but nobody, you speak about atrocities that ukrainian of course as nationalists make in ukraine. with respect, you probably know that i interviewed ukrainian officials and i challenge them rigorously. i am here today to challenge you rigorously.

and you say that these, as you put it, accusations in allegations cannot be verified. in fact, they have been verified, the un, which has people on the ground says hundreds of children have already been killed inside ukraine. save the children, an independent ngos says more than 1,800 ukrainian schools have been damaged and destroyed. we know, factually, that nearly 400 ukrainian health care facilities have been damaged or destroyed by shells and bombs. these are not accusations and allegations, ambassador. these are facts which are the direct result of russia's military operation in ukraine. i have a question to you, perhaps a rhetorical one, you don't have a single doubt that this is not being done by russian forces only. you do not assume that that could've been by ukrainian

forces who from day one deployed units, including heavy armour and artillery around residential areas and buildings like schools, kindergartens, medical facilities, they continue to do it for they shell their own residential areas and their are evidence and testimony of prisoners of warfor ukraine... yeah. you've been saying for many weeks now that the devastations of cities like mariupol is the result of ukraine shelling its own people at its own buildings and its own cities. i will leave our audience to judge for themselves whether that claim has any credibility. i just wonder whether you believe that the ukrainians

are raping their own women and children as well? because the un has now catalogued at least a dozen cases where russian forces and their associates have committed an egregious sexual crimes against ukrainian civilians. first, on residential areas in mariupol, what ukrainian armed forces national batallions were doing, and that's their habitual tactics, they send people to the basements, residents of those areas, they take their apartments and turn them into firing positions, from where they fire at the russian troops. and calling for the return fire. now, on the sexual violence, wejust had a meeting on monday on the 6th ofjune on ukraine and sexual violence in conflict and trafficking person, this was a because no one who spoke, not a single delegation as well as the chair of the european council

who came specifically to attend that meeting could cite a single proper example of sexual violence committed by the russian army. we were the only ones who cited and quoted and gave an example of those sexual crimes that the ukrainian forces have committed. i could repeat it today, if you are eager to hear. i'll tell you what, i can put the faqs on the ground as reported by independent un investigators to you, you can deny them and say that the un is biased, we could spend the rest of the into view doing that. i would like to make a slightly different point which is one about truth telling and credibility, ambassador. we know that you have said untruths even at the un, you held up for example, pictures of women after

the attack on the maternity hospital in mariupol, you claim that the two pictures you had with the same woman and she was a fake, she was an actress, it wasn't true. investigation show that these were two different woman, one died after the attack, the other was actually sent in the end by russian forces to donbas. what you did was entirely untrue. you also claim that you had evidence of leaks showing a bio weapons facility in ukraine, even one of russia's respected scientist said the evidence you presented was absurd, nonsensical and absurd. so you don't tell the truth, ambassador. first we have to finish on sexual violence, you said we didn't cite a single example, we did. no, i didn't say that it all. i never said you didn't cite in the example of sexual violence. i said could trade discussion on these particular accusations all day. ijust wanted to put

to you cases where you have been exposed for simply, i'll put it bluntly, not telling the truth. before i am exposed as you say, let me finish with the sexual violence. one of the briefer on the security council was a representative of security counsel on sexual violence and conflict who said that she had reports obviously from the training side, of 124 cases of alleged sexual violence committed by the russian troops, which were not verified, cannot be verified at the moment. that's point one. secondly, do you know the story the ukrainian fired by ukrainian parliament? the lies that she was spreading... ambassador, ambassador, you don't accept the veracity of the allegations about sexual

violence for the organ have to move the interview on roles within it run out of time to get to some very important matters. i want to finish what i'm saying. she was fired because she was spreading lies which was recognised by the ukrainian parliament. it was more than enough even for them. as recent as yesterday, she gave an interview where she said what she spoken with the italians on the issue, she said she overdid herjob because she wanted to attract attention to ukraine. that's confirmed that she was lying and that's it. we are going to move on. why have hundreds of thousands of ukrainians from occupied areas, now occupied by russian forces, why have they been sent to filtration camps then either into the previously occupied parts of the donbas or into russia itself, why is that happening? including hundreds of thousands of children. the hundreds of thousands of children, they are not

being forcefully sent to russia, that's the choice of their own for when people want to be evacuated from areas of fighting and provided humanitarian corridors, we never told those people which way to go, west or east. those people who are in russia today, which amounts to 1.6 million people roughly, they made their free choice. they were not forced to russia. how did you feel when your diplomatic colleague, when he said, as he quit his post, he said, never have i been so ashamed of my country. it's all about thejob, being a diplomat for russia right now is all about warmongering, lies and hatred. when you see your country doing

the worst things that must be your decision to terminate your connection with that government. we all have to take responsibility. are you prepared to take responsibility? are you calling on me to do the same thing? i'm wondering whether that struck a chord with you, ambassador. well, we're a free country and every person has the right to express his position on one of the other issue. if i am ashamed of something it's arm ashamed of the authorities, kyiv authorities lied to the world what's happening in ukraine and what's happening in donbas and the free world was happily buying the lies from the ukrainian regime. if i regret about something i do regret that the kyiv authorities have not opted to the minsk agreements which would be a minor for them compared to what they're experiencing now. i wonder whether the bankrupt ukrainian regime —— they could have avoided what is happening today.

did you also regret as a senior russian diplomat that the international community now sees russia using food to quote the president of the eu council at the un, using food as " a stealth" weapon by refusing to export much of your grain into the world market and by certainly stopping and thwarting ukraine's efforts to export its grain supplies, millions and millions of tonnes of wheat? we are not using to exploit our grain to the world market put up there are obstacles that should be overcome to do it. indeed grain and fertilisers are not under sanctions. there finance operations to pay for the grain are. first before we export anything, those things have to be lifted and arrangements made. then on the ukrainian

grain, we said long—time that it is not our fault that the coastal waters near 0desa and other ports in the south of ukraine were mined by the ukrainians. if they do, we are ready to provide safe passage for them and go in export there grain. as recent as today, minister at lavrov who was in turkey for the talks with the turkish officials in particular on that issue said that we are ready to lift whatever obstacles for the export of ukrainian grain and that will not use it as a means to... sorry to interrupt. were almost out of time. an important final question for you as the ambassador for russia. do you worry about russia's diplomatic isolation and economic isolation right now? if we look at what is happened, you only have the active

support for your military invasion of ukraine from belarus, north korea, syria and every trailer, for dictatorships, even china which is supposed to be your friend says that ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty must be respected. you are out of friends. i do not think the assessment is right. i'm not sure that your attempts to isolate russia have succeeded. i think that the west have perhaps made some technical gains but it is losing strategically. one thing that is clear outcome of those sections one thing that is clear outcome of those sections ——sanctions that the west interviews is that the was practically any literature on russia at all. even before this conflict, he said once that let wes introduce all the sanctions they can, we have no illusions before and we will not have an allusions then.

sorry, we have to end there. i thank you very much forjoining me from new york. it went too fast, i couldn't make many points that i want to do. we appreciate your time. thank you.

welcome to this bbc news special coverage of the us capitol attack hearings. in just a few minutes the congressional committee investigating the january 6th attack will begin laying out its findings to the american public, and to the world. in his opening remarks, committee chairman bennie thompson is due to say "we can't sweep what happened under the rug. the american people deserve answers." the seven democrats

and two republicans on the committee say the evidence will show that mr trump was at the center of a coordinated effort to overturn the result of the 202o election. they've promised to show never—before—seen footage from the day itself, plus testimony from members or mr trump's family and inner circle. and there will be live witnesses tonight. the committee is aiming for must—see tv, top house republicans say tonight is a partisan witchunt. let's go straight to our correspondent on capitol hill, nomia iqbal, for the latest. so many americans think that they know what happened on january the 6th, we all saw it on tv. how is the committee going to add to our knowledge about that day? to going to add to our knowledge about that day?— about that day? to quote the chair man — about that day? to quote the chair man you _ about that day? to quote the chair man you mentioned - about that day? to quote the i chair man you mentioned there, they want to remind americans that the reality of what happened that day as you say, tell them things they didn't know, they think they might know, they think they might know what happened and they are promising this unseen footage which if you think about it, is

quite extraordinary given how we start ourselves, we watched it play out in real time, there's so much that has been covered byjanuary there's so much that has been covered by january six of a sense. this is the culmination of 11 months of work by the committee. they are basically going to show us what evidence they have. they want to prove to americans, notches using evidence but also live testimonyjust how evidence but also live testimony just how close america came to losing its democracy and how to prevent these events from ever happening again. we these events from ever happening again. we can see that peeple _ happening again. we can see that people are _ happening again. we can see that people are gathering - that people are gathering inside this canon caucus room, actually an historic room. this is where the house committee on un—american activities held its hearings. tell us about the live witnesses that those people inside the committee room are going to hearfrom tonight. room are going to hear from toniaht. ~ ., ., tonight. we will hear from caital tonight. we will hear from capital officer _ tonight. we will hear from capital officer caroline - capital officer caroline edwards, she was the first law enforcement officer that was injured in the riot, she fell

injured in the riot, she fell in the capitol steps, she suffered a concussion and she has spoken ever sense about she still suffers fainting spells which impacts our ability to do herjob. 0ne which impacts our ability to do herjob. one of her alleged attackers is awaiting trial at the moment. we will also then hearfrom a british the moment. we will also then hear from a british film—maker who was embedded with a far right militia group called the proud boys, police believed that the proud boys were the leaders, were involved in the early clashes with police which then led to the chaos that we saw. this is going to be very key for the committee because they want to prove with their evidence that this wasn'tjust some random riot that occurred, this was a highly coordinated attack on america's democracy. more from you later tonight, with our special coverage. before we go much further, just a quick word about the content of the hearings themselves. the bbc�*s understands the committee's main video presentation will contain some violence and profanity. the committee has decided it's in the public interest

to show these scenes, and we plan to air the hearings without editing, in the same spirit of full public disclosure. so please be warned that some viewers may find the content distressing and offensive. throughout the evening, we'll be joined by three experts and friends of the bbc. ron christie is a former advisor to president george w bush. amanda renteria is a democratic strategist. and joe moreno is a former federal prosecutor and constitutional expert. welcome to all of you. ron, when you see those live pictures of that committee room, the canada caucus room, can you feel the tension rising? can you feel the tension risin: ? ,., ., ., , rising? good evening. certainly ou can. rising? good evening. certainly you can- the — rising? good evening. certainly you can. the canada _ rising? good evening. certainly you can. the canada caucus - rising? good evening. certainly. you can. the canada caucus room is one of the biggest hearing rooms and capital hill. —— canon. it's reserved for special events, for special hearings. tonight select hearings. tonight select hearing on what happened on january six is certainly no exception. i imagine that there will be dozens of members of

the democratic party in that room listening to the testimony of an office those on the committee and i further anticipate that republicans other than the two on the committee will boycott this event. the question remains, this is the opening statement, this is the opening statement, this is the opening statement, this is the opening of 12 months of research to the american people of, can they make a direct causal link between what happened on the day and the 44th president of the united states. i anticipate millions of people will be tuning in and a lot of questions out there and people are looking for many answers amanda, we're hearing that the committee chair, bennie thompson said on his way into the hearing that we will be hearing from the donald trump children tonight, excerpts from their deposition that they gave. do you really think the trump children will say anything meaningful about their father's role in the january six attack? i

father's role in the january six attack?— six attack? i think it'll be important _