live from london, this is bbc news. days after allowing ukraine — to use long—range us missiles — president biden agrees to send anti—personnel landmines. we will talk live to the former ukraine foreign minister. in other news — more pressure on donald trump's pick for attorney general. a congressional committee considers releasing a report into allegations of sexual misconduct by matt gaetz. iam gary i am gary o'donoghue on capitol hill where we are waiting to see whether the controversial report will be published in a couple of hours�* time. ford announces plans to cut 4000 jobs across europe dash part of a major cost—cutting programme. and, rafa nadal — one

of tennis�*s greatest champions — brings an end to his glittering career. ijust want i just want to be remembered ijust want to be remembered as a good person and i kid that followed their dreams. welcome to bbc news. the united states is to provide ukraine with anti—personnel landmines to try to slow the advance of russian troops — particularly in the east of the country. us officials said, they were for use, on ukrainian territory and that kyiv had committed not to use them in populated areas, to limit the risk to civilians. but a nobel prize—winning network of groups — campaigning against landmines has condemned the decision. while human rights watch described the move as shocking and devastating. it comes a day after ukraine launched its first attack on russian territory — using us—made ballistic missiles,

known as atacms. meanwhile, the us and several other western countries, have temporarily closed their embassies in kyiv, with the american mission warning, of a potential imminent air attack. let�*s speak to dmytro kuleba, ukraine�*s former foreign minister. thank you forjoining us on bbc news. your reaction first of all about this decision from the americans to supply ukraine with land mines.— with land mines. ukraine is not -a to with land mines. ukraine is not party to the — with land mines. ukraine is not party to the convention - with land mines. ukraine is not party to the convention for- party to the convention for these type of landmine so it is within international law. there are moral ramifications for human rights defenders and i totally get them. but we are fighting a war against a vicious enemy and we must have the right to use everything we need within the round of international law to defend ourselves. international law to defend ourselves-_ international law to defend ourselves. ., .,, ourselves. together with those

atacms i was — ourselves. together with those atacms i was talking _ ourselves. together with those atacms i was talking about, . ourselves. together with those | atacms i was talking about, are there ways of changing the path of the wall or is it simply slowing russian advances? i would say it is the second because no single weapon can actually become a game changer. to win the war you need a strong system that consists of all necessary elements and weapons is one of them. i was lookin: weapons is one of them. i was looking at _ weapons is one of them. i was looking at a — weapons is one of them. i was looking at a piece _ weapons is one of them. i was looking at a piece by _ weapons is one of them. i was looking at a piece by bbc- looking at a piece by bbc verify early in the day and it was charting that ukraine is lost six times the amount of territory this year compared to last year. simple question, are you losing this war now? ila. last year. simple question, are you losing this war now? no, we are not. because _ you losing this war now? no, we are not. because we _ you losing this war now? no, we are not. because we still- you losing this war now? no, we are not. because we still have i are not. because we still have the capacity to stop the russians and eventually expeued russians and eventually expelled them from our territory. but to achieve that you need everything in place and most importantly weapons and most importantly weapons and an army. it is unfortunate

the decisions on atacms and landmines and the provision of other types of weapons became so late, by the end of the year. if those decisions had been taken earlier we wouldn�*t have lost all this territory and he wouldn�*t be asking this question. it and he wouldn't be asking this cuestion. , , , ., question. it is interesting you sa that question. it is interesting you say that because _ question. it is interesting you say that because i _ question. it is interesting you say that because i had - question. it is interesting you say that because i had jotted| say that because i had jotted down as my next question, because you were one of the voices in those first two years who were calling for the americans to perhaps agree to the abrams tanks, the f—16s and now of course most recently atacms. at every stage there was delay before the final decision, how much has that hampered ukraine in this war? i can tell you more, every conversation on every single weapon started with the word no from partners. then it was, we will think about it and then it was a belated decision. this is the pattern that was repeated

again and again throughout this two and a half years. of course, it had consequences on the situation on the ground. b5 the situation on the ground. as a foreign minister, how frustrating was it to be in those meetings and then hearing the first answer always being no? i the first answer always being no? ., ., , ., , no? i had no luxury of being frustrated, _ no? i had no luxury of being frustrated, i— no? i had no luxury of being frustrated, i had _ no? i had no luxury of being frustrated, i had to - no? i had no luxury of being frustrated, i had to keep - frustrated, i had to keep moving and pushing to get yes in the end. in the end, we got it. �* , , ., in the end. in the end, we got it. �* , , . ., , it. at every stage there was wor it it. at every stage there was worry it would _ it. at every stage there was worry it would be _ it. at every stage there was worry it would be seen - it. at every stage there was worry it would be seen by i worry it would be seen by moscow as an escalation. you would have seen what has come out of moscow since this atacms decision was made, that change to the nuclear protocol should the west be concerned about the potential here of what president putin could do? the west should _ president putin could do? the west should be _ president putin could do? iie: west should be concerned president putin could do? "iie: west should be concerned about ukraine losing the war. if it happens the check for the west to fix of the conflicts will break out across the globe and it will be much higher.

everyone who wants to follow input in�*s footprint in asia, africa and invade neighbours and impose their will by force on their neighbours will get a clear message that it works and the west is not capable of keeping the world in order. so this is what i think the west should be concerned about, this should be concerned about, this should be concerned about, this should be the motivation for them to continue supporting ukraine in their struggle. irate ukraine in their struggle. we saw those — ukraine in their struggle. we saw those attacks on the infrastructure again and greenpeace was warning about ukraine�*s network being at heightened risk of catastrophic failure and the risk it would have the nuclear power stations, how worried are you about all of that?— stations, how worried are you about all of that? yes, russia ist in: about all of that? yes, russia is trying to — about all of that? yes, russia is trying to destroy _ about all of that? yes, russia is trying to destroy our - about all of that? yes, russia| is trying to destroy our energy infrastructure, to throw ukrainian people into the cold and darkness of winter. and this is a big concern. we can avoid this scenario by building

our own energy capacity but this situation, this risk should not be seen through the prism of the non—escalation. putin doesn�*t need a reason to escalate. a week ago he destroyed an essential part of our energy system and it had no connection whatsoever to is using atacms.— using atacms. two quick questions. _ using atacms. two quick questions, how- using atacms. two quickl questions, how important using atacms. two quick. questions, how important is using atacms. two quick- questions, how important is it to make progress on the ground in the next few weeks, before the hard winter sets in, before donald trump sets into the white house. how critical are these next two months? it is essential _ these next two months? it is essential and _ these next two months? it is essential and both _ these next two months? it 3 essential and both sides, russia and ukraine will do their best to improve their positions on the battleground in the months ahead. that will look on the surface as an escalation on both sides, but this is the logic of the war.

for us, the success will be to slow down and stop the advancement of russian forces. for russia, it would be to grab more of our land. [30 for russia, it would be to grab more of our land.— more of our land. do you fear bein: more of our land. do you fear being forced _ more of our land. do you fear being forced to _ more of our land. do you fear being forced to negotiate,. i being forced to negotiate,. give away some of your territory?— give away some of your territo ? , ., territory? this conversation should start _ territory? this conversation should start the _ territory? this conversation should start the questions | should start the questions posed to putin, not ukraine. between 2014 and 2022, everyone was asking of the question, what are you ready to concede to keep peace so this address should be said to moscow first. we are 1001 days into this conflict, give me a final thought on the human level what it is like in ukraine to cope with that on a daily battle? it is exhausting, but we know if we lose it will be much, much worse. it is matter how weary we are, we have to keep fighting. we are, we have to keep fighting-— we are, we have to keep fiuuhtin.~ ., ., ., fighting. we have to leave it there, fighting. we have to leave it there. but — fighting. we have to leave it there, but we _ fighting. we have to leave it there, but we are _ fighting. we have to leave it there, but we are grateful . fighting. we have to leave it | there, but we are grateful for

your time here on the programme. thanks for speaking to verified live. anti—landmine campaigners have condemned washington�*s decision to provide antipersonnel mine to ukraine. let�*s speak to josephine dresner —from the mines advisory group , which is a part of the international campaign to ban landmines. thank you forjoining us, what is your reaction to the news we�*ve heard? is your reaction to the news we've heard?— is your reaction to the news we've heard? thank you. it was dismay and _ we've heard? thank you. it was dismay and a — we've heard? thank you. it was dismay and a bit _ we've heard? thank you. it was dismay and a bit of _ dismay and a bit of disappointment. has come at a time when we have a major review conference just starting next week. we look at the progress that has been made and what will happen next with the

treaty. of course, this is quite a blow to those discussions. fundamentally, from the humanitarian perspective, these are indiscriminate weapons and we are very, very concerned about the impact, whenever they are used in any context. you the impact, whenever they are used in any context.— used in any context. you will have seen — used in any context. you will have seen what _ used in any context. you will have seen what has - used in any context. you will have seen what has been - used in any context. you willj have seen what has been put out, thejustification, this would slow down russia�*s advance and it would only be used in ukrainian territory. it would therefore not be close to civilians. does any of that make an alternative to your basic calculation?— make an alternative to your basic calculation? one part of this picture — basic calculation? one part of this picture is _ basic calculation? one part of this picture is ukraine - basic calculation? one part of this picture is ukraine is - basic calculation? one part of this picture is ukraine is a - this picture is ukraine is a signatory to the antipersonnel mine ban convention, so this is for them. mine ban convention, so this is forthem. —— mine ban. the mines that are used, whatever they are nature, whether they

are nonpersistent or the older typer are nonpersistent or the older type, they still fall within the scope of the treaty, it is still a breach of the treaty to use them and i think it is also important to bear in mind that even when areas is populated all seem to be unpopulated, people are extremely mobile, particularly during conflict. there has been an enormous amount of land in ukraine with massive impact for the population and food security. people are quite desperate to use land. regardless of the expiry date of these landmines but also they are there, it will have a psychological impact for people who are already suffering greatly, as we know from so many reports and from your previous guest. there is also the aspect that

organisations like ours, we work with the ukrainian government who have done an enormous amount to clear the landline contamination that is on their territory. this will add to that and regardless of the nature of the device it still has explosives in it and you have to treat it as a threat when you are undertaking clearance. at this will add to the timetable and the cost, so this is just an addition to the large—scale contamination that is already affecting ukraine, regardless of its location and regardless of its location and regardless of its location and regardless of the nature of the device. 50 regardless of the nature of the device. . regardless of the nature of the device, ., ., regardless of the nature of the device. ., ., . ~ ., device. so a real backward ste -. device. so a real backward step. thank _ device. so a real backward step. thank you _ device. so a real backward step. thank you for - device. so a real backwardj step. thank you forjoining device. so a real backward i step. thank you forjoining us on bbc news, thank you for your time. around the world and across the uk. this is bbc news.

to the us, where the house ethics committee is due to meet and perhaps vote on releasing a report examining allegations of sexual misconduct against former republican representative matt gaetz. gaetz is donald trimp�*s pick to be attorney general. he�*s been at the centre of allegations involving sex trafficking and drugs. joining me now is our senior north america correspondent, gary 0�*donoghue, who�*s at the white house. the question everyone is asking is will this ethics report be published?— is will this ethics report be published? is will this ethics report be ublished? , ., published? indeed it is and we should know _ published? indeed it is and we should know the _ published? indeed it is and we should know the answer - published? indeed it is and we should know the answer to - published? indeed it is and we | should know the answer to that probably in should kn