so get allstate. breaking news as we come on the air this afternoon. any minute on the left side of the screen you see it. we are expecting to hear from the pentagon press secretary for an update on the war in ukraine with some big developments today including a new u.s. assessment that russian forces are apparently backing away from the capital of kyiv. it's coming as peace talks between these two countries are keeping up in turkey. we've got the latest just in to us in the last few minutes. how one person close to the negotiations is characterizing those talks to nbc news. and a lot more with our team in washington and around the world. we're also keeping an eye on the united nations. the security council about to start meeting any minute on the humanitarian impact of the war. that is what you're seeing now. with our reporting this hour taking you inside a mental health and housing center in poland. ukrainian refugees flooding in,

many of them kids with special needs. we've got a lot to get to this hour. i'm hallie jackson in wash war, along with keir simmons in istanbul, ali arouzi in ukraine, kelly o'donnell at the white house. and retired marine colonel -- keir, let me start with you and this new reporting on those peace talks in turkey from sources close to the ukrainian side on these negotiations. >> that's right, hallie. ukrainian official describing what happened in the building behind me here today as baby steps. now, i think if they are baby steps, and i think that gives you a picture of a small amount of trust being built, if they are baby steps, and i think as time passes it's possible that people will begin to conclude that ukrainians took more steps than the russians did. now, clearly there was this big headline that the russians would, if you like, reduce the

conflict around the capital kyiv. there's back and forth about whether or not that really is happening. but on the other side the ukrainians making a whole range of proposals from agreeing to be neutral without western bases in ukraine to a long-term plan for crimea to a new strategic plan where western countries, nato countries would guarantee, if you like, ukraine's security vis-a-vis russia. now, none of those things have been agreed by the russians at this stage, hallie. the chief negotiator for the russians saying he's going to take those proposals back to moscow,ing frankly back to president putin, because as we know ultimately it will come down to president putin to decide whether he signs off on all of this from the russian side. there are suggestions from the russians that they would agree now to a meeting face-to-face meeting between president zelenskyy and president putin. again, though, it's possible that even that meeting will be a

negotiating point for the russians with the ukrainians because i expect and suspect there will be plenty more negotiations ahead. >> ali, let me go to you because as we wait for this update from the pentagon we know that russian troops according to them seem to be moving away from kyiv, that they're drastically reducing some of this military activity near kyiv. yet you know, the sort of grain of salt gut check here is it just might be putin regrouping. nobody knows for sure because nobody knows what's in vladimir putin's head. what is the gut check on the ground? actually-i think john kirby has just walked out. ali, hold that thought. we want to listen for a second to is this pentagon briefing in case we do get an update on this very tonic. let's listen in for a sec. >> -- has attempted for going on a month to sell this war there to its domestic audience as a, quote, liberation of the donbas. however, the intensified rhetoric over the last year and in the leadup to russia's invasion demonstrated that the

kremlin's real intent was to overthrow the democratically elected government and to occupy or annex large portions of ukraine. the posture of russian forces around kyiv, around much of the black and the azov sea coast and in central and northeastern ukraine indicates the geographic scale of this ambition. they've been attacking ukraine as we have been talking about now for several weeks on multiple lines of axis. russia's intent was to replace ukrainian regional and national authorities and create so-called people's republics, as displayed recently in kherson province. the rapid advance to kyiv in the initial days of the war showed very clearly for all of us that kyiv and the capital city was a key objective for the russians. so we ought not be fooling and nobody should be fooling ourselves by the kremlin's now recent claim that it will suddenly now just reduce military attacks near kyiv or any reports that it's going to

withdraw all its forces. has there been some movement? by some russian units away from kyiv in the last day or so? yeah. we think so. small numbers. but we believe that this is a repositioning, not a real withdrawal, and that we all should be prepared to watch for a major offensive against other areas of ukraine. it does not mean that the threat to kyiv is over. russia has failed in its objective of capturing kyiv. it's failed in its objective of subjugating ukraine. but they can still inflict massive brutality on the country including on kyiv. we see that even today in continued airstrikes against the capital city. mr. putin's goals stretch far beyond the donbas. the russian ministry of defense's recent talking points may be an effort to move the goalposts, moderating russia's immediate goals and spinning its

current lack of progress as part of what would be next steps. but it's too early to judge what additional actions the kremlin may take. no amount of spin can mask what the world has witnessed over the past month, and that's the courage and the military prowess of ukraine's armed forces and its people, which are proving to be more than what russia bargained for in its unprovoked and unjustified invasion. now, that prowess is not accidental. we've talked about that a little bit. it's partly a result of the training and the support we and other allies over the last eight years have been giving to the ukrainian armed forces. the united states together with our allies and partners, we're going to continue to provide that support going forward, to meet their security needs as they bravely stand up to this russian aggression. i thought it was really important to kind of set the level straight on that because i've seen lots of reporting on the so-called withdrawals. now, in other news, belacatan 22 started this week. this is a long-standing annual

bilateral military exercise conducted between the u.s. military and the armed forces of the philippines. it's a key component of our alliance cooperation. the exercise features planning, operations, exchanges and activities that increase both our nations' military capabilities to provide for the mutual defense of the philippine archipelago. exercise activities will take place at multiple locations throughout the republic of the philippines and will consist of three primary xhoentsz -- a bilateral staff exercise, joint interoperability events and combined interoperability events as well as humanitarian and civic assistance efforts. with more than 3800 armed forces members of the philippines and 5100 u.s. service members, this will be the largest iteration of balacatan to date. we look forward to a meaningful productive exercise and we're grateful for that terrific relationship that we have with the armed forces of the philippines. and then last but not least, today the final covid-19

response teams in active duty status who are supporting 59 cities across 30 states completed their mission at the university of utah hospital in salt lake city. since the onset of the outbreak more than 24,000 military members and active duty status have provided support to the whole of government effort. the support included approximately 5,800 military medical providers that supported hospitals and other civilian medical facilities, more than 5,000 military medical personnel administering vaccines at federal community vaccination centers, as well as military personnel who assisted citizens when they were initially repatriated back to the u.s. in the very early days of the outbreak. in january of this year the department activated more than 1,000 service members in support of the president's direction to mobilize additional military medical personnel. and of those service members d.o.d. deployed nearly 700 who supported 25 hospitals in 14 states just from january to march. the rest of these military members were on standby

throughout that time period, ready to deploy at the request of fema if they were required. it's important to note that while the title 10 covid-19 response may have come to a close as of this morning there are still more than 10,800 national guard soldiers and airmen supporting covid-19 response efforts in at least 43 states, territories, and the district of columbia. and i also want to add that north com remains postured as well to deploy more personnel if requested. and of course the secretary wants to take this opportunity to pass on his personal gratitude and that of all senior leaders at the department for the extraordinary work that the men and women of this department have done throughout the pandemic. but certainly in just the last few months to work so hard in support of our -- of civilian medical practitioners. with that we'll take questions. bob. >> thank you, john. on ukraine, when you say you are seeing small numbers of russian troops moving, you say they're

repositioning, would that be by small do you mean less than a battalion tactical group? >> i would -- this is very early on, bob. so we don't have a number estimate. but it's certainly not a significant chunk of the multiple battalion tactical groups that russia has arrayed against kyiv. we can confirm that we've seen a small number start to reposition, but i'd really be reticent to get into an exact number or try to put a unit on it. it's not anywhere near a majority of what they have arrayed against kyiv. >> when you say repositioning, can you say -- i mean, are they moving like north into belarus or are they repositioning for what you described as potentially an offensive somewhere else? >> i would say at this early stage we see the movement more northward. but again, it's too early to tell, bob, what the destination is, what the final purpose is

and where exactly these troops are going to go long term. we believe, we believe, we assess that it is likely more a repositioning to be used elsewhere in ukraine. where exactly? i don't know. i would just note that the russians themselves have said in the same breath they're saying they're withdrawing, that they're reprioritizing the donbas area eastern ukraine. >> [ inaudible question ]. >> again, that's a question better put to the russian ministry of defense, if they'll ever give you a straight answer. but again, they have said themselves that they are reprioritizing that part of ukraine. >> you mentioned that if they're redeploying, have you seen any signs that russia's pulled back and are sending supplies into ukraine? are they not itting their own convoys of moving supplies, fuel, food, anything like that or have they stopped doing that as just the -- >> again, very early stages here. they've only just recently in the last few hours made this proclamation. we have seen a small number begin to move away from kyiv.

that's about the most i can give you. i don't have any information on their resupply efforts for troops that are still arrayed against kyiv. i would remind that the russians still have a significant majority of their assembled combat power to include logistics and sustainment capability available to them inside ukraine. >> just trying to understand something. if you're talking about a small number, do you think just what you're seeing now or do you think there's going to be more numbers? because you're saying they might be pulling out these forces to redeploy somewhere else. if they're small numbers are they going to make any difference if they're redeployed? is it -- >> it's a great question for minister shoigu. i don't know. all i can tell you is what we're seeing. we're seeing a small number that appears to be moving away from kyiv, this on the same day the russians say they're withdrawing. but we're not prepared to call

this a retreat or even a withdrawal. we think what they probably have in mind is a repositioning to prioritize elsewhere. >> do they still have enough forces on the ground around kyiv in case they decided to basically relaunch some kind of attack on the city? >> again, i'm not going to predict what the russian military plan is here. my answer to bob, very, very small numbers that we've seen move at this point. they still have the vast majority of the forces that they had assembled around kyiv are still there. as i've said before, we largely assess that they are in a defensive posture. they have several days ago stopped trying to advance on kyiv and sort of took up defensive positions. yeah. >> three questions, please. can you update us on -- >> let me start writing. >> can you update us on the number of missiles? i'll just ask them one at atime if that's easier. >> that's actually much easier. >> what's the amount of missiles that russia's launched into ukraine at this point? >> i don't have an update on the

missiles. we know that they have -- since the beginning of this launched more than 1,000. but i don't have an exact number. >> secondly, does the pentagon still consider russia a near peer competitor? >> i think you can take away from what we talked about yesterday when we released the budget and we talk about russia as an acute threat. and that's how we're looking at russia right now. >> but that's not the same as what you've been saying, near peer competitors russia and china and now we're hearing acute threat. so has it changed in the pentagon's -- >> we consider russia as an acute threat based upon certainly what we've seen happen over the last month. >> okay. and then my last question is about ukraine's peace proposal. it seems like they envision some sort of security guarantee like article 5 with nato with a country like poland or turkey or canada. so my question is does the pentagon think that's feasible? because these are nato countries

and establishing some sort of collective defense with a nato country would essentially bring in all of nato with this. does the pentagon find a proposal like that feasible? >> i think we're not going to get ahead of where ukraine and russia are on their discussions. this has got to be a negotiation between russia and ukraine and we're certainly not going to get in the middle of that or get ahead of where that is right now. i would just say a couple of things, carla. one, russia should negotiate in good faith. they have an opportunity here. an opportunity they have missed many, many times over the last month to end this war and to do it responsibly and to negotiate in good faith. so we hope that they'll do that. but the war could end today if mr. putin did the right thing and actually did withdraw all his forces from ukraine and respect ukrainian sovereignty. and again, as for what that settlement looks like, that's really between russia and ukraine. we wouldn't dictate the terms and we wouldn't p want to get ahead of that process.

let me go back over here. david. >> as i understand military tactics, when you retreat you leave enough forces in place to cover the retreat. so are the movements that you're seeing so far, are they consistent with what a retreat from kyiv would look like? and what would it take to convince the pentagon that russia had given up on its intent to seize kyiv? >> so too soon to tell on the first question, david. again, this is only hours old here that the russians made this announcement, and we've only seen very small numbers of troops actually just begin to move away from kyiv. so way too soon to make a judgment on, you know, covering forces and that kind of thing.

and i think what would it take for us to believe it? i think i'd go back to my answer to carla. it would be to see them take all their forces out of ukraine, move them out, get them back to home station and negotiate in good faith. it's just too soon to know based on what they've said today what their real intent here is. that said, we don't believe -- we believe, let me put it another way, that this is really more of a piece of repositioning. and again, we're basing some of that on the clear indications that they are reprioritizing in the donbas. >> i'm going to take another run at the acute threat. >> go for it. >> russia being an acute threat. does that change in the language signal a change in russia's priority level for the department? i mean, in your summary documents it's listed right

after china. does it still occupy the same priority level or has it gone up or has it gone down with this new language? >> russia and the threat posed by russia has remained a priority here at the department. you know, if you ask me to rack and stack it like a, you know -- like a baseball card collection, i'm not going to do that. but clearly we assess russia to be an acute threat. we've been pretty clear about that. you don't have to look any further than what you've seen them do over the last 30 days to see that we're justified in labeling them as such. and again, you said it yourself, it's pretty clear in the points we've delivered since delivering the budget yesterday and in our strategy that russia remains a significant issue for the department. >> if i could just follow up on the covid title 10 support and that ending, could you just talk

about the conditions that led to that decision? the general conditions that led to the decision to end that. >> to end the support? we were doing this in support of fema. and the interagency effort. so we took our guidance from the need out there by fema. >> a reduction in -- >> yeah. the conditions are better in the country and the need for -- remember, what we were doing was taking the pressure off civilian practitioners so they could do the treatment. most of our medical personnel that were operating in hospitals were not really doing covid treatment. they were taking the pressure off other burdens. and that pressure was appreciated and welcomed and has been alleviated in concert with discussions with fema and civilian health practitioners. we all deemed collectively that now was the right time to pull back that support.

but i want to say again as i said in my opening statement, northern command stands ready in case there's more need. i mean, we can flex. we didn't even deploy, as i said, all the troops that we had put on readiness to do this mission. we could flex up again if needed. this pandemic as you well know is a living thing and it changes over time. so we're grateful for the ability -- we're grateful for the chance that we had to contribute to this, and we'll stand by and stay ready. and again, at the risk of sounding redundant, i also want to point out the fact that you have more than 10,000 national guardsmen that are still at it, they're still at it in the states. nancy. >> i'd like to go back to repositioning. have you seen any territorial losses or newly contested areas around kyiv for russia since it repositioned its forces? and also have you seen any change in the amount or type of missile strikes russia has launched on kyiv in the last few days that you feel would be tied

to this repositioning? or focused toward the donbas. >> we have seen the ukrainians push back around kyiv, particularly in suburbs to the west of kyiv where the ukrainians have retaken ground. i don't have a list of the towns, but we have seen them retake some territory to the west of kyiv. and as you saw, we talked about this not about a week ago, to the east of kyiv where the russians were on the outskirts of brovari and the ukrainians pushed them back to almost more than 50 kilometers away from the city. so we have seen them do that around kyiv, again, to the west and to the east. i don't have a breakdown of the airstrikes that are happening. i couldn't give you a number over the course of tile. it's just that we do continue to see kyiv being struck from the air. so the threat to kyiv is not

over. >> the repositioning to donbas has not manifested in terms of a marked change in strikes on the capital? is that -- >> i can't quantify it, nancy, over the course of a day or two. i don't have a count of how many strikes are happening on kyiv. and we've -- actually, we've never given you that because we just don't have it. but we do continue to see strikes on kyiv. we're not convinced that the threat to the capital city has been radically diminished here by this proclamation by the russian ministry of defense. barbara, did you have one? no? tara? >> thanks. could you give us a sense of if russian forces are spread evenly throughout ukraine or how many battalion tactical groups they kind of concentrated against kyiv versus the east and how you've seen that shift? >> yeah. again, as you know, i've been very careful not to lay out russian operations.

it's not prudent for me to do it and we don't have exact details of where every battalion tactical group is. i couldn't tell you how many troops are arrayed against kyiv versus kharkiv and chernihiv and certainly in the donbas. what i can tell you is the vast majority of the assembled force that we saw against kyiv is still there. we've only seen a small number begin to move away from kyiv, mostly to the north. we'll watch this over the course of the coming days and to the degree we can describe for you what we've seen we'll do that. we have seen even before the russians said that they were going to prioritize the donbas in the east, we saw them begin to pick unthe pace there. more aggressive operations, more active campaigning against towns and villages in the donbas. that continues today. but look, i mean, the donbas has been a hot war for the last eight years. and we definitely have seen the

intensity pick up. and again, where that goes we don't know. we've also seen the ukrainians be just as active in the donbas in trying to push back on the russians there. >> can you give us a sense of did they put the bulk of their forces against kyiv or did they -- >> again, i don't want to give you a breakdown here. we have been talking now for a month about sort of three main axes of approach by the russians, right? north and northeast, kyiv, chernihiv and kharkiv, all really -- that whole northern grouping was really designed against the capital city. the effort to cut off kyiv. then the east in the donbas, which again has been in hot war now for eight years and the russians poured more resources in there. and then in the south. and in the south as we've been talking about coming out of crimea they basically split to the northwest and to the northeast. to the northeast against mariupol, which obviously there's a lot of heavy fighting still going on there.

you guys have seen that for yourselves. and then to the northwest out of crimea up to kherson and an attempt, what we saw was an attempt to take the town of mykolaiv which they have not been able to do. and as i think we've talked about in recent days you've seen that the ukrainians are actually scrapping it out for kherson as well. so those were the three main groupings and three main lines of effort. they up until recently, we had still assessed that was their -- that was their plan, was to, as i said in my opening statement, to occupy and annex ukraine using approaches on those three lines of effort. again, now we think they're going to prioritize the east. they have been stalled in the north. and the progress in the early days they had made in the south, they had made progress. now that's stalled out. and again, we see them prioritizing the east. but i couldn't quantify that for you, tara. i don't have their order of

battle on that level of detail. let me go to someone on the phone. i haven't done that yet. let's see. courtney. >> hi. thanks. can you talk a little bit about the president's comments yesterday when he said that -- that u.s. troops -- he seemed to say u.s. troops are training ukrainian military inside poland. what kind of training are they providing and how long has that been going on? >> yeah, courtney, i think general walters dealt with this pretty well at his hearing this morning in front of the senate armed services committee. there is some liaising going on as the ukrainians go into poland, for instance, and they are transposing shipments of material to them. and so there's some general

liaising going on in that regard. and that's what the president was referring to. jane. >> thank you. are you finished with the ukraine issues? >> do you want me to -- why don't i come back to you. okay? would that be fair? i promise, i'll get back to you. >> can i follow up on this question of kyiv? one more question. from a military perspective does the pentagon think that the russian forces' attempt -- russian forces were basically defeated in their attempt to take kyiv in this campaign -- >> i said as much in my opening statement. they failed to take kyiv. >> that's a defeat of their forces basically. >> they failed to take kyiv. and we believe kyiv was a key objective for them. >> [ inaudible question ]. -- in your remarks. >> yes, i did. >> you said the small numbers leaving.

did you know those small numbers leaving before the russians made public their proposal today that this was being done in good faith? so in other words, are the words following actions that you've already seen taking place? >> i couldn't give you a time, louie, exact liv, whether it was exactly the moment the russians decided to announce it, roughly same day kind of observation. but we're not taking anything they say at face value. i'm being as honest with you as i can. small number, see them starting to move. we're not prepared to buy the russian argument that it's a withdrawal. again, our assessment is that their intention is to reposition forces and bolster their efforts elsewhere. >> so in other words, it's accurate to what you're describing -- >> i'm comfortable with the way i characterized it. elaine cooper. >> hey. thanks, kirby. i want to take another whack

because i feel like you're describing -- it sounds like you are describing, it's been five weeks, almost five weeks now, and it sounds very much like you're describing a failed military campaign. would you go that far or is it too much? i mean, what we've seen -- what we're seeing now, is it a failure by -- is it a failed military campaign? >> i don't think we're prepared to slap a bumper sticker on this thing right now. i mean, there are still people dying. there's still bombs falling. there's still missiles flying. and there's still give and take on the battlefield. so i don't think we're ready to call it one way or another here. what i would tell you is, as i said in my opening statement, they failed to take kyiv, which we believe was a key objective. and again, you just have to look at what they tried to do in those early days to see that they wanted kyiv.

they didn't get it. and in the last few days they hunkered down into defensive positions, basically stopped advancing. and now they're saying and we're seeing small numbers move away. so we'll see where this goes. but step back. they also failed to take -- really take and hold any major population centers. they haven't taken kharkiv. they haven't taken chernihiv. they haven't taken mariupol. and while we assess they took kherson, that's back in play right now. so if you count maybe berdyansk on the azov coast, own that is contested. i mean, you saw the ukrainians basically sink one of their amphibious ships in the port there at berdyansk. not only did they not manage to take kyiv, they've not managed to take any population centers and the ukrainians have been fighting back very hard. so it's hard to see how they are succeeding in any one place except, except at the death and

destruction they're causing to these population centers and to the civilian population. and that's something we can't lose sight of. megan? >> so about 14,000 troops you guys have committed to sending to europe in one way or another, either for nato or individual countries, and there's a few thousand left over from who's actually been sent, who you announced you're going to send. are you still trying to get to that 14,000 number? are you looking to source units to get there? and do the peace stalks have any bearing on whether you're thinking you're going to send more people or not? >> yeah, it's not -- it's not like the 14,000 is a goal here. the secretary wanted as many options available to him and to the president, so we sent some prepared to deploy and sent some forward. it is about options. it's not about a number goal. it's about capabilities and making sure we've got the right

capabilities. we're constantly reviewing that. not that you asked this, but as a matter of fact i can let you know that you've all been tracking the marine corps exercise cold response up in norway. so i can tell you that a command and control unit from marine air control group 28, which is based at cherry point, has now been repositioned to lithuania. that's about 200 people. so they finished the exercise. they're in lithuania now. and about 10 marine corps f-18 hornets from buford, south carolina and a couple of marine corps c-130s are now going to be repositioned to eastern europe. i don't have an exact destination right now. but they're going to be repositioned. and that's another 200 personnel. we're trying to stay flexible here. just yesterday we talked about some growlers coming out of whidbey island. it's not about a number goal.

it's really about capabilities and it's based on constant conversations with our nato allies on the eastern flank. >> are those marines nato response force committed or are they just individual -- >> right now these are individual decisions based on available capability that we had and in talking to our nato allies. i don't -- as you probably saw in the nato summit, they announced another four battle groups and i think the nations are still feeling those out. i think we're leading the one in poland. other nations, you've got france i think is leading romania. so they're still filling some of these out. okay. you've been patient. we'll go -- >> pentagon press secretary john kirby there with a substantial bucket of cold water on these claims by the kremlin that they are backing off troops around kyiv. you heard the press secretary there, john kirby, acknowledge he has a small number, in his words, have backed away but they are not prepared to call this a

retreat or even a withdrawal, saying very clearly nobody should be in his words fooling ourselves about this claim of reducing attacks. right? or reducing the military presence there. he said we should be prepared to watch for a major offensive against other areas of ukraine and that this does not mean the threat to kyiv is over. concerned that russia could still inflict massive brutality. still too early to judge now what additional actions russia may take. and they're not convinced that the threat to the ukrainian capital has been radically diminished. i want to bring in now a couple of folks. ali arouzi in ukraine, kelly o'donnell outside the white house. nbc national zurt and global affairs reporter dann de luce. and retired marine colonel kearney who served as chief of staff to europe. dan, let me start with you. just about 40 minutes ago we talked about one of the big questions we'd be listening for, whether john kirby would answer it, and he did, which is real skepticism that this claim by the creme rin that they are backing troops away from the ukrainian capital is significant

in any way. i think what you heard from the press secretary there was very clear, the sense that russia could at any point change course and that the number of troops that they have moved is small, not a significant chunk, and kyiv is not in the clear just yet. >> that's right. he basically reduced the russian statement to a lot of spin, basically saying really the threat hasn't changed to kyiv and the facts on the ground really haven't changed. the vast majority of the russian forces are still there on the ground to the north and west of kyiv. but i thought it was interesting how he portrayed it really as an exercise in spin, that clearly things have gone very badly for the russians on many fronts including around the capital. so he's basically suggesting that russia's trying to find a way to put a brave face on what's been a really faltering and failing campaign so far. but also, you know, with a clear-eyed view that they're not out of this by any means.

people in kyiv are not safe. and there are shells and missiles raining down on them still as we speak. and that there are still a tremendous amount of combat power russia can bring to bear. the question is is can they fight more effectively than they have over the past month? >> colonel kearney, your takeaways. >> i tend to agree with those comments. the challenge for the russians right now is no matter how they describe it, the pentagon also describing it, is essentially what we have is a retrograde movement on the part of the russian forces. and some of that makes very much so in terms of tactical sense, a good decision. what you want to do is you want to take those forces that are no longer advancing or trying to advance and you want to move them into positions that take advantage of the terrain where you can defend and defend well. the problem is in doing that as

you start to move back, as you start to, quote unquote, withdraw, that becomes a command and control challenge and the russians have shown for a month that they're having significant problems when it comes to command and control. >> ali arouzi, let me go to you, live on the ground there in ukraine, for your perspective. >> well, as we heard from a top russian investigator, he said that a cease-fire doesn't mean a sxal back of their actions. the russians said today that they're going to dramatically reduce their military operations around kyiv, around kharkiv -- around chernihiv. and we're seeing that that's not true. we just heard from john kirby that they haven't dramatically reduced their forces around kyiv. just a small number have left. and that could be just operational. and look at chernihiv today. they are pounding chernihiv. they're employing the same tactics around chernihiv as they

did in mariupol. they've enpsychiatry v circled that city, using starvation tactics. people are out of water, gas, electricity. they're running on food. so it doesn't show a scaleback there. as secretary blinken said, what the russians say and what they do are two very different things. halle, earlier in the week we heard from a top russian general saying the first part of what they call the special military operation was completed and they're going to concentrate on the donbas area. well, since he said that they haven't just concentrated on the donbas area. they're still hitting a lot of places in the east of this country. it's probably way too early to tell that that's their move. and i think it's also far too premature to think that vladimir putin has given up his aspirations of taking kyiv, the capital city. that's the jewel in the crown for him. and we can see that. his troops haven't left the large areas around kyiv, around

irpin where there's been some very heavy fighting. there may be a change of emphasis from the russians but the plan probably remains the same. but what it does indicate is that the war plan that they had envisioned the at the beginning of this war is not going to plan. they are taking heavy troop losses, machine losses. apparently, morale with the russian troops is low. that's why maybe they may be replacing people in kyiv, taking a small number out, bringing fresh troops in. and as john kirby said, they may be preparing for a much bigger all-out offensive once they've replenished, restocked and regrouped. >> kelly, what is clear not just from the pentagon perspective but from the white house's perspective too all the way up to president biden is an unwillingness borne out by past precedent to take the kremlin at its word when it talks to troop movements, when it talks about its intentions with ukraine. and that echoes what we heard from president biden less than two hours ago. >> the president using the simple phrase "we'll see," wanting to have proof of what

the russians are doing in the theater of war before he makes any assessment. and the white house again using the phrase, just in a separate briefing that was going on while john kirby was speaking at the white house lectern, where they were talking about being clear-eyed about what the russians are actually doing versus what they are saying. so there is that healthy dose of skepticism in the white house, about trying to predict the actions of the kremlin and at the same time much more focused on how to support the ukrainians on how to keep unity among especially the allies, western partners, g7, nato, et cetera. and the president of course today had another conversation with leaders around the world in a virtual call this morning to reinforce that and makes continuing pledges to provide what ukraine needs to keep that pressure on russia as they watch the developments, which will have ebbs and flows and changes in sort of the rhythm of what is

happening. important to look for all the clues as to what that can mean but not wanting to get ahead of any predictions and not wanting to be too optimistic when russia is on the other side of the decision-making end of this war. hallie? >> kelly, thank you. colonel kearney, let me go back to you here. as we pull up the map looking at the areas russia has taken in ukraine, areas under russian control, there are areas that are contested, for example. you heard john kirby talk about that. and the idea that the ukrainian resistance is putting up a fight. they are taking back some territory. he said west of kyiv. right? which is closer to lviv, closer to the areas that you see on the left side of the screen here. but in your view we've heard from british intelligence too, that the ukrainian resistance does appear to be real in some of these areas. how much longer can it last? >> i think i -- >> colonel kearney, if you can hear me. i don't know if you can. i think he has disconnected from

the system. so dan de luce, i'll put that question to you instead. >> yeah, i mean clearly there has been very stiff resistance from the ukrainians, and it really raises -- first of all, you asked how long this can last, and i think we all have to be prepared for this lasting a long time. it could last months. >> the resistance specifically, yeah. >> the resistance has a lot of energy in it. and we are supplying them with weapons and they are not about to give up the ghost. now, whether they can push the russians back dramatically all the way back to before the invasion that's a bigger question. that's a much larger scale kind of military operation and they would actually need some new weapons to do that, different weapons. but at the moment they have definitely stymied and stifled the russian invasion, there's no question. and it's even raised questions the zwrings never anticipated, which is having to move a really large amount of weapons fast to

ukraine. i think on a scale that no russian government ever anticipated because the expectation was the russian military would prevail relatively quickly and that is not what's happened. >> dan de luce, thank you. kelly o'donnell, ali arouzi, thanks to the both of you. and our thanks too to colonel kearney, who had to diskkt. we appreciate your time. coming up we have a lot more to get to as far as news from capitol hill just this afternoon. including what we know and don't know about that hours-long gap in president trump's phone logs on january 6th and how the select committee is reportedly trying to fill it in. plus the ginni thomas text message fallout growing within just the last hour. what the top senate democrat now wants supreme court justice clarence thomas to do. we're talking about that right after the break. mission control, we are go for launch. um, she's eating the rocket. ♪♪ lunchables! built to be eaten. ♪

i may be close to retirement, but i'm as busy as ever. careful now. - thanks. -you got it. and thanks to voya, i'm confident about my future. -oh dad, the twins are now... -vegan. i know. i got 'em some of those plant burgers. -nice. -yeah. voya provides guidance for the right investments, and helps me be prepared for unexpected events. they make me feel like i've got it all under control. [crowd cheers] because i do. okay, that was awesome. voya. be confident to and through retirement. ♪ ♪ we believe there's an innovator in all of us. ♪ that's why we build technology that makes it possible for every business... and every person... to come to the table and do more incredible things. better hearing

leads to a better life. and every person... and that better life... ...starts at miracle-ear. it all begins with the most innovative technology... ...like the new miracle-earmini™. available exclusively at miracle-ear. so small, no one will see it. but you'll notice the difference. and now, miracle-ear is offering a 30-day risk-free trial. you can experience better hearing with no obligation. call 1-800-miracle right now and experience a better life. i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer, i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin ♪ ♪ yeah, that's all me ♪ ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin, that's my new plan ♪ ♪ nothing is everything ♪ achieve clearer with skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. of those, nearly 9 out 10 sustained it through 1 year. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ i see nothing in a different way ♪ ♪ it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪

♪ nothing is everything ♪ skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ♪ talk to your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save.

while we have been on the air with that pentagon briefing we're getting some news out of the white house on a different topic altogether related to something going down in the building behind me there, and that is the january 6th select committee investigation into what happened and what former president donald trump was doing in those hours as the insurrection unfolded. the white house confirming now, and i want to bring in a couple folks on this, that they will not assert executive privilege

over the expected testimony of jared kushner later this week. leigh ann caldwell is with us on capitol hill. ken dilanian, washington bureau. sahill kapur also from the hill. leigh ann, it is not unexpected the white house would make this decision but it does open the door for the testimony of mr. kushner later on this week on thursday. >> yeah, that's right. so the white house has made that decision on other people who the committee has wanted to speak to including dan scavino and pete navarro, who the committee referred to criminal contempt charges just last night. but this does set up in light of kushner coming to the committee, he's scheduled for tomorrow, we are told that he's expected to show, not physically but he's expected to virtually speak with the committee. and this comes as the committee has lots of questions, especially about this extended -- this gap that the "washington post" is reporting

on the president's phone records on january 6th. now, this is something that is not new. we reported this a couple months ago, that there was an hours-long gap in these phone records and something that now we know that it was about seven hours long. one member of the committee, pete aguilar, told reporters today that he has some concerns and so does the committee, and let's listen to what he said. >> it's a matter of concern, but it is going to be a concern taken up after the easter recess. we've been waiting a long time. the supreme court has not been cooperative. it's one of the few areas in the federal government that is not governed by an ethics code. i think that's long overdue. >> reporter: so that was not pete aguilar. that was senator dick durbin talking about a different topic. but the committee is trying to figure out why those call records were not included in their record. we know he spoke with kevin mccarthy. we know he spoke with vice

president mike pence on that day, which is also not recorded. we know he spoke with senator tommy tuberville as well. and based on our reporting from a couple months ago until today, it doesn't seem like the committee has any clear indication on why those calls are not not included in the white house daily logs. representative jamie raskin just on msnbc a little bit ago, maybe the president used a different phone. maybe it was a different office phone or burner phone or maybe they are withholding documents. the committee still doesn't seem to be any closer today than they were a couple months ago based on our reporting as to why this gap exists. >> you have to see that would be a potential line of inquiry for jared kushner. going back. >> he wasn't in town. but he, obviously, his wife ivanka trump was in the oval office that day and so the committee wants to know as much as they can and jared kushner's

post with the former president is an obvious target of who they want to talk to. >> something else, you well know this, too, whether to have conversations with ginny thomas, the wife of supreme court thomas, it was revealed between her and mark meadows, we played that sound from dick durbin mistakenly ago, but what we are talking here, you are seeing more and more questions raised from the democratic side on the ethics of justice thomas not recusing himself from matters related to the january 6th insurance and calls for him to do just that, including for the most powerful senate democrat, conduct schumer in the last hour-and-a-half or so i want to play what senator schumer ha to say. >> i do think he should recuse himself, the information we know right now raises serious questions about how close justice thomas and his wife were in the planning and execution of the insurrection. i think there should be some

kind of code of ethics for supreme court justices. >> we have our response to comment from the thomass, from meadows at this point. what are you hearing from the reporter end, how well will democrats take this? understanding they don't have the power to fet justice power to recuse on himself. >> there is a growing pressure in the campaign with multiple technicals on capitol hill to try to get justice thomas to step aside from cases involving january 6th given his wife's known role in the attemptedines. speaker pelosi talked in sharp terms earlier this morning. you played senate majority leader calling on thomas to recuse himself, there is an additional letter led by elizabeth warren turning up the heat on chief justice roberts, putting pressure on him to create a code of conduct that judges must abide by. that would be binding. to that end, there is an effort on capitol hill to pass

legislation that would force the creation of a judicial code of ethics. right now, judges have only themselves, they can decide only by themself whether to recuse themselves. there is no way to enforce that, to necessitate that they do so from the outside. that legislation is pushed by senator chris murphy and congressman hank johnson. it's called the supreme court ethics. there are obstacles to this. one of the ones we played senator dick durbin talking about how tear most important priority is to confirm supreme court justice ketanji brown jackson. they are not good at multi-tasking. they have veto power and one republican senator aide i spoke to said there is zero interest if terms of joining the pressure campaign against justice thomas. if you drill down a bit, there is interest there. i spoke to senator josh hawley earlier today. he said, it would be wrong to hold justin thomas responsible

for the text messages of his wife. i asked him, should he will ruling in cases that directly affect her. he paused and said that is a different story. if there is a lane, that is probably it. halle. >> ken, talking about a pressure campaign. there is a pressure campaign it seems on merritt garland based on the january 6th committee would like this to see, people not cooperating with the committee, despite subpoenas. >> reporter: yeah, that's right, there is a lot of frustration. the doj keeps it secret even from congress. so, that sort of adds to the frustration. but there is a long history of the justice department failing to act on congressional citations. so it's very possible, some of these people won't be prosecuted. so far, only steve bannon has been charged with the january 6th committee. that itself the first in decade. having this whole affair, the justice department will investigate donald trump. we had a federal judge say it's

more likely than not that he broke the law seeking to overturn the election. members have expressed that belief. right now, halle, there is no evidence total prosecutors are following the lead of the january 6th select committee. by that, no reports or witness interviews or steps the government take signal an investigation. and that lack of activity is so frustrating to congressional democrats. i know from my own reporting, senior doj officials are weighing officials very carefully. prosecuting a former president is typically something we don't do in this country and whether trump should be an exception to that rule is not seen inside the justice department as the needs to call. >> thanks so all of you. we are headed over to the white house, we are about to see president biden sign the emmett till anti-lynching law into act. the teen was murdered in 1955. it became a turning points in the civil rights movement.

charmaine, you had the opportunity to speak to a relative and the broad contest where we are as a country with this reckoning with racial justice. >> emmet till's family had to carry around the burden of his lynching for almost 70 years. but america has had to beer the burden of thousands of lynchings across this country. very few of them have ev seen anyone charged or justice dlimpld when i talked to emmet till's cousin with him the night he was kidnapped. he says, certainly it's a moment to clap our hands that justice and representation in terms of fair legislation is important and should be lauded. this country still has a long way to go. let's take a listen. >> when you hear of the case of tamirrice killed in ohio and automatic other cases, the young

people in particular killed by police and village lantanas, every time you hear these new stories, you think back to your cousin emmett? >> laws make you behave better, but it doesn't legislate the heart. there was reliable on lynchism under the last administration. i died on the highway, in my heart, i got to die a peso apt, in fact, so the spirit is still out there. >> legislation cannot change the heart. it makes us act better. so for emmet tell's family, they are hoping this, indeed, will be a moment where america turns the page on a pretty dark chapter in history. >> thank you for reporting with us this hour. we are looking for president biden, of course, to sign that law rather in the next couple minutes, thank you. thanks to all of you for watching this hour of msnbc. deadline white house starts

right after this break. ♪♪ i'm using xfinity xfi's powerful, reliable connection

to stream “conference calls” on every one of these devices. i'm “filing my taxes” early. “wedding planning.” we're streaming uh... “seminars.” are your vows gonna make me cry? yes! babe. (chuckles) look at that! another write off. that's a foul! what kind of call is that!? definitely “not” watching basketball. not us. i wouldn't do that.

inner voice (design studio owner): i'm over here waiting... ... looking intensely for a print that i never actually printed... ... so i don't have to deal with that terrifying pile of invoices. intuit quickbooks helps you easily send your first invoice in 3 steps. simple. . hi, everyone, it's 12:00 in, no in just a few moments, president joe biden will seen into law the emmett till anti-lynch act. his 1955 murder galvanized the civil rights movement. the bill has been a long, long time coming with more than 200 failed attempts to outlaw