Ukraine's UN Ambassador Reflects on Diplomatic Frontlines

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
J. Alex Tarquinio (00:08):
Welcome to the Delegates Lounge.
Pull up a chair.
I'm Alex Tarquinio, ajournalist based at the United
Nations here in New York Cityand your emcee for this podcast
featuring some of the mostinfluential minds in the world
today.
Settle in for some rivetingtete-a-tete, available wherever
you listen to podcasts.
Welcome back.

(01:00):
We're beginning our secondseason in conversation with
Ukraine's ambassador to theUnited Nations, sergei Kislytsya
.
As I'm certain listeners willrecall, russian President
Vladimir Putin announced what hecalled a special military
operation during a late nightemergency session of the UN
Security Council to discuss thethreat of Russia's full scale
invasion of Ukraine.

(01:21):
Scale invasion of Ukraine.
When it came time forAmbassador Kostlitsya's remarks
around 1040 on the evening ofFebruary 23rd in New York, he
told the council members thatmost of his prepared statement
was useless because about 48minutes previously, putin had
declared war on his country andlaunched a pre-dawn offensive.
It's too late, dear colleagues,to speak about de-escalation,

(01:43):
he told the council.
He directly addressed theRussian representative who was
presiding over the meeting,because Russia held the rotating
monthly council presidency.
Ambassador Kislitsia arguedthat the Russian representative
ought to relinquish theresponsibilities of the
president and pass them to alegitimate member of the
Security Council who isrespectful of the UN Charter.

(02:05):
Needless to say, russia, as youknow, did not pass the gavel.
Three years on, ambassadorKostlitsy's dramatic tenure as
Ukraine's representative to theUnited Nations is drawing to a
close.
The bureaucratic wheels havebeen set in motion for his
return to Kiev for a role in theforeign ministry.
You've just heard a soundbitefrom his going-away party at the

(02:26):
Ukrainian Institute of America,which is headquartered in a
historic Fifth Avenue mansion,across the street from New York
City's Metropolitan Museum ofArt.
The ambassador gave a warmfarewell speech to a room packed
with UN diplomats,ukrainian-americans and
frontline soldiers withtraumatic wounds who were here
for rehabilitation.
The event was catered naturallyby Veselka, the Ukrainian

(02:50):
restaurant in New York's EastVillage neighborhood featured in
a popular documentary.
Sharp-eared listeners willrecognize the melodic tune of
the Ukrainian chorus Dumka ofNew York, which performed a cold
open on Saturday Night Liveright after Russia's full-scale
invasion of Ukraine three yearsago.
The Delegates' Lounge podcastrecently sat down with
Ambassador Kislytsia for anexclusive interview at his

(03:13):
country's mission to the UnitedNations.
We spoke before a backdrop ofmannequins clothed in Ukrainian
folk dress, includingVyshivankas, the embroidered
shirts worn by both men andwomen.
You can spot them in our socialmedia.
You'll find our conversation issomething of an exit interview
because the ambassador reflectson his personal impressions
after five years in Turtle Bay,a Manhattan neighborhood with

(03:35):
the UN headquarters.
Despite the low marks the UnitedNations typically gets
worldwide, ambassador Kislitsiaforcefully makes the case in
favor of the global institution.
On the one hand, he speaksabout the challenges of the UN
budget, the veto power of thefive permanent Security Council
members and peacekeepingoperations, often referred to by

(03:55):
the acronym PKO.
On the other hand, he says hiscountry's enemies would love it
if the Ukrainian ambassadorwould no longer challenge their
representatives in televisedSecurity Council meetings.
He points out that these arenot closed-door meetings and so
can be used as evidence infuture tribunals, like the
Nuremberg trials after theSecond World War, where Nazi

(04:17):
Germany's foreign minister wasconvicted.
He also draws attention to thebillions of dollars the various
UNN humanitarian aid agenciesspend on supporting Ukrainians.
Our conversation took place onJanuary 8th, almost two weeks
before the inauguration ofPresident Donald Trump.
Since then, the US presidenthas signed a raft of executive
orders, including one putting a90-day pause on US foreign aid.

(04:40):
That's raised uncertainty overif and when this might impact
Ukraine, which receives bothdirect US aid and support from
UN aid agencies, where the US isthe largest donor.
The executive order does grantthe US Secretary of State the
authority to waive the pause inforeign aid for specific
programs.
Much of Ambassador Kislytsky'sthree-decade diplomatic career

(05:03):
has focused on the United Statesor on multilateral institutions
, principally the United Nations.
He served five years inUkraine's embassy in Washington,
becoming the deputy chief ofmission for political affairs.
His time at the embassy beganin 2001, when there was some
tension between Washington andKiev over reports, some still

(05:24):
unconfirmed, that Ukraine hadsold the Kolchuga aircraft
detection system to variouscountries.
His time in Washington endedwith the Orange Revolution, a
series of peaceful protests in2005 that brought about a new
election, which was widelyviewed as being free and fair.
Then he spent 14 years at theforeign ministry in Kiev,

(05:45):
eventually becoming the DeputyForeign Minister, with a focus
on international organizationslike the United Nations.
That set the stage for hisreturn to the United States as
his country's.
Here's our conversation, mrAmbassador, thank you for making

(06:13):
time for us today here in yourlovely mission to the United
Nations.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsy (06:17):
Good morning and welcome to the
mission of Ukraine, as always.

Thank you for joining us on the Delegates'
Lounge.
We have met once before in thisroom.
This time it is a little bitmore like an exit interview,
because you're nearing your endof your tenure here.
And, by the way, do we have adate?
Do we know how much longer youhave with us?

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslyts (06:36):
First of all, I continue to be
Ukraine's permanentrepresentative to the United
Nations.
It's a process that may takesome while, but it's already
launched.
The nomination is made for mysuccessor.
Now the bureaucracy is workingand as soon as the process is
over, my successor will arriveand present his credentials and

(06:58):
then he will formally replace me, and I think that five years,
in these particularcircumstances of Russian
aggression against Ukraine,makes it especially long period
of time.
So I think that is a very rightmoment to Ukraine from

(07:26):
Washington DC in 2006 and mydeployment in New York in 2020.
Being for 14 long years inUkraine is against all the rules
, because we have quite strictrules about how long foreign
officers can stay in the capital.
I was very happy professionallyand privately in Ukraine.
I realized when I was inUkraine in August last year at

(07:51):
the annual conference ofambassadors.
I really felt, both emotionallyand physically, how much I like
being in Ukraine, how much Ilike being in the capital, how
much I belong in Kyiv.
So that is a desire thatcoincided with my capital to
offer me a new job in Ukraineand my desire to go back, which

(08:12):
does not mean that I'm not happyprofessionally in New York.
It doesn't mean that I'm tiredof New York.
It doesn't mean that I'mdisappointed with what's going
on in the United Nations overall.

Have you announced what your role will be
when you return to Kyiv?

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya (08:36):
I have a job offer from the
foreign minister and it's in theprocess of bureaucratic
clearance.

So when it's over he will hear it again.
Do you have any advice for yoursuccessor?

First of all, we need to wait for the
moment when he's formallyappointed.

Right, and I don't mean to make it about just
your successor, but you are ata point where you need to start
passing on advice.
Your background, beginning withthe fact that you studied here
as a student all those years agoin Kansas, really in the heart
of America, and that you'vespent so long as an ambassador
here as a student all thoseyears ago in Kansas, really in
the heart of America, and thatyou've spent so long as an
ambassador here, particularly atthe United Nations, at this

(09:10):
difficult time, that's obviouslyvery valuable to your capital.
I mean, no one who follows thiscan forget the moment that you
were in the Security Councilmeeting when it was announced
that the full-scale invasion hadbegun.
That's the sort of experiencethat you will be bringing back
to keep.

I mean in theory, yes, but I need
to share with you one particularpersonal feature.
I never look back Like, forexample, I served in Brussels in
the middle of the 90s.
I left Brussels and I neverlooked back.
I was not jealous or criticalof what my successes were doing
in Brussels, after serving forfive years in Washington DC.

(09:51):
Now, when I travel toWashington DC, I'm always happy
to go back to New York and whenI enter Manhattan, either by one
of the bridges or through thetunnel, I'm so happy when I
enter the city and I truly loveit.
I'm sure when I leave New York Iwill have the whole spectrum of
memories and impressions, butI'm the kind of person, by my

(10:14):
education and by my upbringing,that looks forward.
And, of course, if there is achance or if it is required, I
will deal with the UN business,share my experience, my
knowledge, but I don't believethat we should be really
concentrated on one thing in ourlife.
There are so many wonderfulthings we can do.

(10:35):
When you say Kansas, kansas isalso one of the examples that I
don't look back.
It took me how many 31 years togo back to Kansas.

I was about to say you actually made a trip
there recently.
So I don't know how Took me howmany 31 years to go back to
Kansas.
I was about to say you actuallymade a trip there recently.
So I don't know how that fitswith looking back.

That was my first trip in 31 years
since I left Kansas.
That was quite an experience.
I'm very grateful to all peopleat the university who were in
charge of my program, and I wasvery happy when I went to speak
at the Bob Dole Institute inLawrence, kansas.
How many people showed upPeople standing by the wall

(11:14):
because there were not enoughchairs in the auditorium.
I always make that point that ifyou really want to know what
this country is no prejudice tothe hype and glamour and other
things in New York City youreally need to go to Heartland,
you really need to go to Midwest.
And, by the way, when we had agroup of Ukrainian journalists a

(11:35):
couple of days before theelections in November and they
asked me what do people in thiscountry think about the
elections, I told them don'tspeak to the New Yorkers and go
to Midwest.
Speak to people in the Midwestbecause by the end of the day
and you can clearly see that onthe election results map it is
the heartland that elects theleadership, the political

(11:57):
leadership of this country.

J. Alex Tarquini (11:58):
Unquestionably .
We just saw that in November.
But another city that doesrepresent a cross-section of
America is the capital,washington DC.
Obviously it was differenttimes because you were here for
the full-scale invasion, but howdid those compare?
What were the key differencesbetween representing your
country?

at the embassy.
I was not ambassador to the US,it was the DCM for political
issues.

As a deputy chief of mission.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslyt (12:26):
Deputy chief of mission, I should say
for our listeners.
And no, that was an exceptionaltime because I arrived in
Washington DC in 2001.
And I left Washington DCexactly five years after 2006.
And those were times of manydramatic events.

(12:46):
We begin with things like theKalchuga scandal, where Ukraine
was accused of selling sensitiveweapons to some regimes, and
with the Orange Revolution.
I remember very well how, as aDCM, I would go to the NSC or to
the State Department, how Iwould come back to the office

(13:07):
and I would send classifiedsecret cables to the Capitol.
And when you send a classifiedsecret cable and you indicate
that this cable is exclusivelyfor the eyes of the president or
his chief of staff, no one candivert your cable, no one can
edit your cable.
So I'm kind of professionallyproud that on the eve of the

(13:28):
revolution and during the OrangeRevolution, I was sending the
cables that, in my opinion, wereabsolutely true when it comes
to the signals and the positionof the then US administration on
what was about to happen orwhat was expected to happen in
Ukraine.
And I think that was one of thedrops in the ocean that

(13:48):
prevented bloodshed, because inmy cables I was telling exactly
what I heard at the NSC or atthe State Department about the
American position.

And, to be clear, diplomatic cables.
I understand they're usuallyfairly brief and to the point
right, Because there's somethingthat's going directly for the
eyes of the presidentInformation you might have
gotten in a meeting, or couldyou also have picked it up
informally, For example, at adiplomatic dinner.
You may have picked up someinformation that you feel could
influence your government'sposition.

There are all kinds of means of
communication and types ofcommunication, and in fact
that's a particularly goodquestion when it comes to
post-Soviet countries, and I'mpretty much sure that for the
Russian diplomats it's quite achallenge how to report to their
superiors back in theircapitals.
In our case it was also anissue, and especially before the

(14:43):
Orange Revolution.
In our case it was also anissue, and especially before the

(15:09):
Orange Revolution to be able toreport to your capital that no,
people do not buy your lies,people do not buy your
narratives.
No, it's not true that theRussian position is so widely
supported.
So that's why I said that whenworking in Washington DC, when I
would come back from the NSCand I would write a one-page top

(15:32):
secret.
For the eyes of the presidentor for the eyes of the chief of
staff only, that was a uniquesituation where we had the
chance to say what the Americanposition was at that moment.

To be clear when you say that in dictatorial
regimes and you're speakingprincipally here, I understand
about the Russian Federation,but also more broadly but
Russian Federation ambassadorsor high-level diplomats, as you
were as DCM when they're sendinga cable, you said they have to
consider their professional andpersonal situation.
Professional, that's obvious.
It could affect yourprofessional advancement.

(16:04):
Personal are you saying thatbecause they have families, for
example, in Moscow, that theymight suffer some consequences
if a diplomat this is yourbelief if a diplomat were to
send something unfavorable in acable?
Is that what you mean?

Yes , exactly, among other things.
So if you are coming from acountry that is not free I mean,
if we use a kind of an exampleto describe that it's like you
are in a submarine you can'treally come to a shore unless
your submarine is taken to yourport.
So they are quite constrained.
They have families.
That's why, in spite of all theugliness of what the Russian

(16:45):
Federation has done, we onlyknow about one or two examples
of defectors from the RussianForeign Service, and it's
another element of that is thatwe know what happens to the
Russian defectors, how they arekilled and eliminated, either by
drinking tea or just shot downat gunpoint.

(17:06):
And then also, if we go back tothe events of January February
of 2022, and how the Russianambassador, in that Security
Council meeting of the night ofFebruary 23, reacted to the news
that the invasion had started,we would really see that he was

(17:26):
out of the loop.

Do you believe he was actually out of
the loop or that he was based onthe responses that you saw
during that meeting?

you think I think it would be very
far-fetched to say that he wastotally out of the loop.
So the invasion was underpreparation for quite a long
period of time.

But I'm sure that a very limited number of
people in the Russian Federationwho knew the exact plan so you
believe he may have beensurprised that the invasion
occurred precisely during theemergency meeting of the UN
Security Council Right.

Unless you really come to a conclusion
that they are a golden standardof flying.
Because if you remember, I'msure you remember that the
Russian Federation was in thechair of the President's
Security Council that month andthey had one of the deputy
ministers, vashinyan, in NewYork who would preside in the

(18:20):
meetings.
And if you look at what he wassaying, he was saying stop this
hysteria when he talked toWestern delegations, stop
telling that the invasion isimminent.
And that he was saying thatdays, if not hours, before the
invasion.
So I think that, coming back toreporting, back to your capital
, I have doubts, in spite of all, that the Russian ambassadors

(18:43):
around the world do have accessto their leadership, as we have
the Ukrainian ambassadors, andthat's quite an advantage, and
it was not always the case, bythe way.

Well, it sounds like when you said you
were reporting back to yourcapital before the Orange
Revolution.
It sounds like you feltpersonally in that moment that
it took some degree of courageto report the things that you
were reporting to your capitalfrom Washington and that you
don't believe your counterpartsnow in Russia have that.

Look , I've been in, uh, in
Washington DC for five years andthere were two ambassadors
during my tenure in inWashington DC and I do remember
how my first ambassador inWashington even I would be back
from the State Department tohave my cable he would say why
do you write such a banal thing?

(19:29):
And I would say you know well,the Americans are banal, and I
meant that in a positiveconnotation.
You know because, unlikeEuropeans, in my you can correct
me if you like.
The Americans are more directculture and until recently it
was more the case that theywould say what they mean and

(19:51):
they would mean what they sayand in many cases, especially 20
years ago when I was inWashington DC you wouldn't
really need to read between thelines or identify a shade of the
statement.
I mean that's why I would comeback and I would write cable
this was years before the OrangeRevolution since I spent five

(20:12):
years in Washington DC and theambassador would say no, no no,
no, you have to write somethingvery round that would, like you
know, roll and sound nice anddigestible for the capital.
So I would go back and I wouldrewrite my reporting, make it
more European, more Ukrainian,which would be more pleasant for

(20:34):
the eyes or ears of thesuperiors in the capital.
And that was 20 years ago, Imean.
Today we don't really need todo that.
Today we have conversations andcommunication with the capital
that is often very unpleasant,but much more truthful and
efficient.
You know, I'm not saying thatour communication is perfect.

(20:57):
There are no perfect foreignservices around the world, I can
assure you.
Neither the American ForeignService is perfect, and we do
remember very well the timeswhen the NSC would not listen to
the State Department or StateDepartment would do other things
.
The world is not perfect, butit is one of the primary duties
of any foreign service officerto report things as they are,

(21:21):
you know, and not to be misledby expectations.
And oftentimes it's quite achallenge, also for democratic
countries, because in democraticcountries, including in Ukraine
these days, one of thechallenges is to do your job
under lots of pressure of publicscrutiny.
In Ukraine, when it comes to theUnited Nations in particular,

(21:44):
has a very simplified view ofthe United Nations, which in
many cases is very toxic, whichin many cases is formed by years
, if not decades, of receivinginformation through Russian
language media.
It's, in many cases, the viewof the United Nations that has

(22:06):
nothing to do with reality.
And when you tell them that no,it's not the United Nations,
the UN is not meant to do thesethings, then they are very
disappointed.
And I can give you an example,and that is peacekeeping
operations.
And the trick is, believe it ornot, that in all languages,
languages, in all officiallanguages but russian, those

(22:27):
operations are called peacekeeping operations, while in
russian, in official russiantranslations, those operations
are called peace makingoperations.
And you, as an educated person,you see immediately the
difference between keeping peaceand making peace.
So when, for 70 years, you readUN information, be it official

(22:52):
documents in Russian or be itjournalism, you read peacemaking
, peacemaking, peacemaking, thenyour country is under
aggression.
And then you say immediatelywhere the hell are those
peacemakers, why the UN does notdeploy peacemakers, why the UN
does not make peace in Ukraine.
And then you have to go to yourmembers of the government not

(23:12):
only to public, to some membersof the government to your MPs,
to your public, and you say waita second, the UN doesn't make
peace, UN keeps peace.
You have to achieve sustainableceasefire or sustainable peace
agreement.
Then there is a mandate by theSecurity Council to deploy
peacekeeping operation thatbasically helps to ensure that

(23:36):
the ceasefire arrangement orpeace arrangement is sustainable
.
And then they say what the hell?
And the disappointment with theUN is even deeper because they
say, yeah, it's true, the UN isuseless.

Well, in fact , they have had many
disappointments and I imaginethat in recent years you have
had to send many difficultcables without any round tones
to your capital.
You did have some earlysuccesses after the full scale
invasion Obviously the big votesin the General Assembly, where
you rounded up a lot of support.
However, it didn't, of course,lead to any outcomes.

(24:11):
I understand the differencebetween peacekeepers and
peacemakers, but what could theUN do to get to that point where
you have a peace to keep?

Well , the thing is that that is a
kind of question that is verydifficult to approach unless you
look at the UN holistically.
And I need to say that myimpression is that in the
overwhelming majority of memberstates, population has a very

(24:43):
simplified version about what UNis.
Those versions are different.
I mean Europeans may have oneversion, americans another,
africans another.
So for every ambassador, notonly for a Ukrainian ambassador
but also for Europeanambassadors, even for American
ambassador, I'm sure it's quitea challenge how to explain to

(25:11):
their constituents and theirmembers of the parliament who
approve budgets andcontributions and everything,
and to their public why the hellthe UN is important.
It also requires.
The success also depends onwhether the EU or not ambassador
has a direct access to thepolitical leadership of the
country.
I'm blessed because I enjoyeddirect access to foreign

(25:32):
minister, to the president, andthere were many instances, for
example during the SecurityCouncil, where I would need to
verify something almostimmediately and I would write to
my foreign minister or tosomeone in the office of the
president and I would.
In most cases I would get animmediate answer.

I would actually often see you on your
phone texting Right.

So I wish and I hope my successor
will also enjoy that kind ofdirect access to the political
leadership of my country.
Because when you go to theSecurity Council and you speak
at an open televised meeting onthe record, it's not like you
speak behind the closed doors inother international

(26:18):
institutions.
And in fact one of the addedvalues of even impotent Security
Council when it comes to theUkrainian issue, is that it is
open and you don't have openmeetings of North Atlantic
Council, of NATO in Brusselsthey're all behind the closed
doors.
You don't have open meetings ofthe Committee of Ministers of
the Council of Europe they'reall behind closed doors.

(26:41):
You don't have open meetings ofEuropean Council in Brussels
they're all behind closed doors.
You don't have open meetings ofEuropean Council in Brussels
they're all behind closed doors.
Here in New York, in theSecurity Council, when you take
the floor, when you saysomething, you must be
absolutely sure that what goeson the record is true, because
what is kept on the record has avery high chance to be used

(27:03):
many years after a given meeting, even including in the course
of law, and it can be used bothby the defendants and by the
plaintiffs.
So it is very important, inspite of all the hype, when we
use very eloquent and sometimesprovocative language, to stick
to the truth.
That is why I am amazed by theway that the Russians are so

(27:23):
blatantly able to lie to thetruth.
That is why I'm amazed by theway that the Russians are so
blatantly able to lie on therecord, because by the end of
the day and I'm a deep believerthat by the end of the day all
they have said so far in theSecurity Council about the
invasion and before the invasionwill be used in international
tribunals to bring them toaccount, the same way like the
Nazi Foreign service leadershipwas taken to account in

(27:47):
Nuremberg.

One of the great errors it seems to me that
Russia had made in this war wasto walk away from the Black Sea
Green Deal.
Secretary General Guterres hadat the time championed that as
one of the UN's diplomaticsuccesses, perhaps the only
success in Ukraine.
But Russia walked away from itand I mean I think arguably they

(28:09):
have lost the most from that.

Yes , at that particular time it was
quite a success for the UNsystem.
I have to praise, and I saidmany times sincerely that I'm
thankful to the SecretaryGeneral for his personal
engagement and it's true Fromwhat I know, he personally was

(28:33):
making so many calls and he wascalling directly so many people
in Russia, in Turkey, in Ukraine, to make that deal possible, so
he didn't delegate it to somepeople in his office or in his
entourage, he was personallyengaged and that was quite a

(28:55):
success.
Russia acts like they haveeither a bad or worse choice and
oftentimes they decide to gowith the worst choice.

The Ukraine deal did allow shipments for a
while, but Russia walked awayfrom it and I mean I think
arguably they have lost the mostfrom that because you're I mean
this gets into the militaryaspect They've lost a great deal
from the sea drones and Ukrainehas arguably won the Black Sea
War and that was because Russiawalked away.

Yes , it's a clear lost battle for
the Russians.
And they lost it on allaccounts because they lost
control of the Black Sea.
There is no appetite today togo back to the parameters of the
then deal.
We don't really need theRussians to control the flow of
the Black Sea of Ukraine via thecorridor in the Black Sea.

(29:46):
What we need?
We need the security of thatcorridor.
In spite of all thedifficulties and challenges and
constant missile attacks on theinfrastructure, we reached the
pre-war levels of exportsfloating through the Black Sea.

Is this the kind of case where perhaps I
mean again we don't know whatthe cables say, but where they
weren't getting the honestinformation about what the grain
deal meant?

We see that very often.
We see very often, be it aSecurity Council meeting, be it
a General Assembly, that theyreally shoot in their feet.
Even they know that they causedamage to their image and their
standing, like one of the latestexamples for the adoption of
the Pact for the Future.
I mean, who in their rightstate of mind would ask that

(30:37):
vote?
And then you have Africaagainst you, you know, and both
the African PGA and the Africanambassador.

So that was quite a the side of the global
south and not these baddies, youknow, in Europe and in

(31:09):
Washington.
And then they went againstsomething that was extremely
popular with the global south.

I'm sure that, in this particular
case, I would like to believethat the Russian mission
probably was not happy with theinstructions they got from the
capital.

And that's actually very important for
listeners who aren't diplomatsto understand you are a
representative of yourgovernment.
Often, ambassadors anddiplomats at the UN have to
represent policies that theypersonally disagree with, or is
it fair to say that that's oftenthe case in general?

They have a structural problem.
Let's put Russia aside for amoment.
One of the challenges that Ihave, and my fellow ambassadors
from other countries, democraticcountries have, is not only the
fact that the UN is notenjoying very high reputation
and standing back in theircapitals.
It's also the fact that,structurally, the multilateral

(32:00):
diplomacy is one of the pillarsof every foreign service, while
there are other importantpillars like bilateral diplomacy
or economic diplomacy or humanrights or other issues.
And you may receive yourinstructions from the Assistant
Secretary of State or DeputyForeign Minister who is in

(32:20):
charge of multilateral diplomacy, while there is another
assistant secretary of state andanother deputy minister who is
dealing with trade issues orwith bilateral relationship, and
his or her agenda is not alwayscompatible because his or her
success is measured by otherindicators than your business in

(32:41):
the United Nations.
That is why there may be lackof consistency or your opinion
as ambassador to the UnitedNations may be all disregarded.
So someone who is in charge ofbilateral relationship with this
or another country has otherset of arguments and they do not
really go along with yourconsiderations, because the

(33:04):
success is measured differently.
So that's quite a challenge.

The main, shall I say, purpose of the UN,
though, in your country's eyes,must surely be to keep it on the
international agenda.
You have other forums, you haveyour own track.
You're pursuing with your yourpeace plan summit in in
switzerland, for example, butthe un is still the biggest
forum.
So do you plan to uh do asimilar anniversary event

(33:31):
february?
That's a huge thing to pulltogether.

You're going to have officials as
always, um, which isunfortunately tragic tradition.
Now we will have, uh, mostlikely a special session of the
general assembly and probably wemay have a special meeting of
the security council by the endof the day, and we remember that
very well.
The aggression started in themiddle of the security council

(33:54):
and technically, that's theprimary responsibility of the
security council according tothe charter of the united
nations international security.
And I don't know if presidentzelens will come.
He may have other plans, but wewill certainly, together with
other nations, work on remindingeveryone around the world,
including in New York, thatunfortunately the war lasts too

(34:19):
long.

So it is a tradition, as you say.
Unfortunately it has become atradition Now.
I assume you've somewhat begunthose plans, because it is such
a big project.
Of course, china will be thepresident of the Security
Council in February.
Have you begun speaking withChina about your plans for the
anniversary?

Well , the General Assembly is not
controlled by.

No, no, I meant obviously the General
Assembly.
I assume you've spoken with thePGA.
The president of the GeneralAssembly is not controlled by no
, no, I meant obviously theGeneral Assembly.
I assume you've spoken with thePGA, the president of the
General Assembly.

I've spoken with the PGA and I'm
very thankful to PGA that he, ashis predecessors, is very
serious, very no-nonsensepresident of the General
Assembly.
In fact, you know, when I spoketo many candidates and then
appointed PJs, I always toldthem that we don't really need a

(35:10):
pro-Ukrainian PJ, we need a PJwho is pro-UN, pro-un charter,
pro-procedural rules, because wesincerely believe that if the
UN charter is observed, if therules of procedure are observed,
then our case is very strong.
I said that to the Hungarianpresident, I said that to Denis

(35:34):
Francis from Trinidad and Tobago.
We say that the current PJ, wedon't really need a
pro-Ukrainian PJ, we need apro-UN PJ.
We need a pro-Ukrainian PJ, weneed a pro-UN PJ.
I think that at least thesethree PJs were very successful
in terms of how they manage theGeneral Assembly.
When it comes to China, we arein constant contact with the
Chinese mission.

(35:54):
We will discuss, of course,with them plans for the month of
February and I think that Chinawill be very much balanced and
impartial when it comes to therules of procedure of the
Security Council.

Yeah, I should.
First of all, I should mention,Mr Sousa I think you said there
was a Hungarian PresidentGeneral Assembly for the first
anniversary, Trinidad and Tobago, the second and this year's,
Cameroon.
That's why we mentioned thatrelated to Russia, the Security
Council.
When they ended the nuclearinspections for North Korea,
this was not that long beforethey began to rely more heavily

(36:32):
on North Korea for both weaponsand now, of course, soldiers.
Obviously, with that big a flyon the wall, you don't really
know what discussions were had,but is there a risk of Security
Council resolutions being usedas sort of bargaining chips?

It's very easy to be trapped in the
standard way of thinking aboutthe Security Council and about
what Security Council can do.
But let me begin with replyingwith a question to you.
Do you really believe that ifRussia is removed from Security
Council which is probably theright thing to do, in the
opinion of my government or atleast is stripped of the right

(37:11):
to veto, do you really believethat if there is a draft
resolution that clearly readsstop the war, withdraw Russian
troops, the draft is put to avote carried by the Security
Council because Russia is eithernot there or is stripped of
their right to veto?
Approved, sent to Moscow, landson Putin's desk.

(37:35):
Putin reads the text.
He reads the Security Councilunanimously decided that Russia
must stop the war and withdrawits troops.
Do you really believe that heimmediately picks up his phone,
calls his defense minister andgives orders to withdraw or to
stop?
Do not put extra premium on theSecurity Council, because the

(37:58):
Security Council is not theworld's government that can
enforce its decisions if any ofthe permanent members is against
it, if any of nuclear states isagainst it, because we are
speaking about a system whereall presidents or prime
ministers are almost likeknights that follow the code of

(38:22):
behavior, you know, and theywould commit a suicide if they
commit, uh, if they violate thiscode of behavior.
You know, and they would commita suicide if they violate this
code of behavior.
No, we are living in the agewhere all international treaties
are totally discounted, if notdevalued, you know.
And the Security Council andthe United Nations?
They have no real enforcementmechanisms, unless you really

(38:46):
deal with a democratic nationwhere everything is so you know,
traditionally, observed andrespected.
So it's not about, by the endof the day, I mean Russia should
be removed from SecurityCouncil because Russia violated
all the principles, all therules.

Well, in fact , you've made the argument
repeatedly that the transitionfrom the Soviet Union is
actually mentioned in thecharter.

I'm very careful when I draft my
speeches.
I am very careful what kind oflanguage I use.
I never say that the RussianFederation is a permanent member
.
I say the Russian Federation isin the seat of a permanent
member.
Or I say the representative whooccupies the seat of a
permanent member or therepresentative blah, blah, blah

(39:35):
and so forth.

Because in fact it is still.
The Soviet Union is thepermanent member in the charter.

The thing is, russia is there, and
the thing is that none of thepermanent members would like to
open this file, because theyknow very well that if they open
this file, that will probablygo as far as reviewing their own
rights.

Well, indeed, in your hypothetical question,
that was a multi-layeredhypothetical question and I have
to say that if you take it backa layer, one is your ultimate
question was would Putin act?
Of course there's noenforcement mechanism.
If you take it back a layer,I'm not so certain that you
would have a unanimous vote of14.

(40:17):
If, for some magical reason,the Russian representative had
to leave, there was some rulethat they had to leave the room
and there was a vote of the 14because they were, you know,
abstaining.
That's not going to happen, Ishould make that clear.
But if we're in hypotheticalland, I'm not so certain that
the 14 would vote unanimouslybecause of those considerations

(40:39):
that it might open up otherfiles.

Well , I mean, if we have nine or 10
votes, I mean, by the end of theday it doesn't really matter,
because if we believe that theorganization should follow
strictly the rules of procedure,by the end of the day it
doesn't really matter whetherthe US Congress approved it by
unanimous vote or by themajority, whether Ukrainian
parliament approved this oranother law.

(41:03):
So I mean it's.
I mean sociologically and fromthe point of view of perception,
it is of course important thatwe have unanimity.
But stepping back from thatsituation, I need to tell you
that I'm traditionally veryagainst the notion of reaching
consensus in the United Nations,because the consensual

(41:26):
decisions of the GeneralAssembly are often the least
powerful and the least impactfuland you can see, very often
after a consensual approval ofthese are not the decisions.
We would spend another 40minutes at least, or one hour,
listening to the statements bydelegations who would say we

(41:47):
dissociate from this consensus.
But we didn't want to.

As we saw in the PAC for the future.

Ambassador Sergiy Kysly (41:52):
Exactly .

It had.
To be a little odd for peoplewho weren't UN insiders, who may
have seen that it was unclearwhat was happening and it sort
of celebrated the fact that itpassed by consensus.
But to people who aren'tsitting in the delegates' chairs
it seems a the fact that itpassed by consensus, but to
people who aren't sitting in thedelegates' chairs it seems a
little odd that there's no vote.

In my opinion, consensual decisions
very often are the leastimpactful decisions because they
do not feed practically anyone.
It's like you know you havesize 10 shoes and you are
offered size 13, or you have youknow, know so then you get the
statements of people disagree,which you know you well,

(42:31):
absolutely so.
It's not about.
It's not about how many votesyou have, although it's very
important that we got 141 143the two big General Assembly
votes in favor of Ukraine.
That was very important becauseit undermined the narrative of

(42:51):
our opponents.
It was particularly important,by the way, in February 23, 23,
when we put to a vote draftresolution on just on the
underlying principles of the UNCharter for just, sustainable
peace in Ukraine.
And we have to remember that onthe eve of that vote, we were

(43:13):
all sitting here in New Yorkwaiting for what allegedly had
to be a Chinese peace plan andby the end of the day, it became
known to all of us severalhours before the vote that that
was not a plan, but rather a setof principles.
There were members of theGeneral Assembly who were like

(43:35):
why do we need to vote for theUkrainian draft if there is
already something alternativecoming up, and things like that?
And next morning we put it to avote and we got 141 votes, the
same number of votes as we goton the 2nd of March 2022.

(43:57):
So the feng shui of that votewas brilliant.

China has an interesting role in this.
We talked about China presidingover the Security Council next
month, but of course NATO hascalled it a decisive enabler
because of its support of theRussian economy.
It buys oil and gas, providescertain components.

Well , I will not comment on the NATO
statements.
We're not members of NATO, Ofcourse right.
Although we are a SPARC theAlliance member.

But you won't comment on any NATO statements
as long as you're not a member.
I see.
I mean, as a lot of people saidat the time, it was actually
not a plan.
It was a proposal or principles, as you said.
It was not a plan at all.
Was it meant as a distraction.

But I will say that China is a very
important member of the UnitedNations.
China is a founding member ofthe United Nations.
China is a permanent member ofthe United.
Nations, and it's not onlyprivilege, it's also lots of
responsibility, becausepermanent members I mean ideally
they have to play the key role,not even a key role, but the

(45:03):
key role when it comes to thesecurity issues in the Security
Council.
So for China, it is importantto make its position clear.
You can't be a permanent memberwithout a clear position on any
issue on the Security Council'sagenda.
So I think that I can onlyspeculate.
I cannot speak on behalf of theChinese government.
I think that I can onlyspeculate, I cannot speak on

(45:24):
behalf of the Chinese government.
I think that it was quitelogical that on the eve of the
vote, of that important vote,beijing decided to make their
position clear.
And we appreciate I mean infact, in small deeds and in
important deeds, I mean I alwaysappreciate ability to know
someone's position.

And in fact there's nothing wrong with
giving the UN a list or theGeneral Assembly a list of
principles.
It's not the same as a plan.
It lacks implementation.
A plan for implementation, butit is a list of principles.

China is very consistent in what they
say.
You may like it or you may notlike it, but consistency is
clearly there.
I don't like when we are misled.
I don't like when someone istelling you something to make
you happy and then, by the endof the day, it's not true.
And I'm very happy when itcomes to permanent members
except Russia, that we don'tbelieve is a legitimate member.

(46:22):
Their position is very clear.
It's another thing whether youlike it or not.

Well, you talked about how obviously the
Security Council has no realenforcement.
I mean they could order thingslike sanctions, but they have no
real enforcement, even if inthis hypothetical world, they
did vote to call on Putin to endthe war.
I do want to get back to you.
You mentioned the peace planand your President Zelensky's
10-point peace plan, and he doestalk about enforcement.

(46:50):
I want to make sure I'm quotingit accurately, so let me look
at that.
His plan calls for the quoteproper and effective security
guarantees for Ukraine, as wellas renewed post-war security
architecture in theEuro-Atlantic space that will
include Ukraine, and in thatsame paragraph he says that the
Budapest memorandum has notensured security.

(47:12):
Feels like the diplomaticunderstatement of the decade.
At least, that's verydiplomatic.
What does this mean in plainlanguage?
Does the United Nations have arole in the post-war security
architecture?
Is that code for the UnitedStates needs to take a more
active role than it did beforethe war to prevent a recurrence?

(47:33):
We're talking about thepost-war environment now.
What does that statement meanin his 10-point plan?

I mean.
I think that the statement isvery clear.
What I can add, however, isseveral absolutely banal things,
and one of the banal things isthat the system doesn't work.
It's acknowledged by theSecretary General himself.
He opened his statement inFebruary last year at Munich
Security Conference with thelines that the system doesn't

(48:01):
work for many, and then hecorrected himself and he said
the system doesn't work foranyone.
So it's a statement.
It's a very important statement.
By the way, it's another thingthat then it's very difficult to
sell the united nations to yourconstituents if you have the
chief executive officer of astructure who tells you that
this system doesn't work.
But we have to look back and wehave to say another banal thing,

(48:25):
and that is that the majorsecurity-related undertakings
took place after major wars.
After the First World War, therewas the League of Nations
project.
After World War II, there wasthe United Nations project.
We now live in Europe wherethere is a major war after World
War II that has its impact wellbeyond the European continent.

(48:48):
So if there is no major peaceconference after this war, then
there will be a recurrence of asimilar tragedy quite soon, and
the question is whether theassembly of political leaders at
such a meeting will be braveenough to take decisions that

(49:13):
will upgrade the existing systemthat doesn't work for anyone,
according to the SecretaryGeneral, or they will sleep
almost immediately to businessas usual after the termination
of warfare in this conflict, andthat will be a huge mistake.
It's another thing, however,that any system you design will

(49:36):
be imperfect as long as we havecountries, members, who cannot
care less about any arrangement,like we have right now.
So I'm not very optimistic onthat and I don't think that the
world is ready to have a systemwith enforcement of the

(49:56):
decisions that may go againstnuclear states.

In fact there's been a lot of talk of
courseing the un.
It's a big, big section in theback to the future.
But people have commented it'llbe almost impossible to do
because the state I mean thestates would have to agree to it
.
In the us you'd have to getcongressional approval if we
were to.
It sounds like what you'resaying is almost wipe the slate

(50:23):
clean and try and come up with abetter system.
Number one do you haveconfidence that if they were to
do that now, the tendency seemedto be more towards great powers
wanting to increase their powerand get rid of any impediment
to their expansionist ideas?
How would you remake a newUnited Nations League of Nations

(50:44):
3.0, if you could?

The League of Nations was doomed
from the very beginning and theLeague of Nations was doomed
because the United States wasnot its member from the very
beginning.
Whether we like it or not,whether we believe in
egalitarian nature ofinternational relations, so far
the global things are back todecided by global powers and if

(51:07):
you set up a structure like aleague of nations, where the
united states was not part of it, has a slim, if any, chance to
be successful.
The us congress said and youknow it very well, that they
would not allow woodrow wilsonto join the league of nations
because the us would not havecontrol of the decision-making
process in the league of nations.
The only real reason why the UNwas successful in terms of

(51:29):
getting that decision to set upthe UN was because they agreed
in Yalta that three countrieslater on five countries would
have full control of thedecision-making process.
If there is no Vita right, Idoubt it very much that the US
Congress would agree to stay inthis organization, let alone to
pay 22-27% to different budgets.

(51:51):
The Vita right is terrible, butthe Vita right is not
intrinsically as bad as it'sseen by many, because there are
bad decisions and there wereinstances where this or another
country.
Basically, the United Stateswould exercise a Vita right to
stop some bad decisions, andthere were instances where these
are another country.
Basically, the United Stateswould exercise their veto right
to stop some bad decisions Notalways, but some bad decisions.

(52:11):
I mean, many would say, but theUK and France, they do not
exercise their veto right.
Yes, it's true, the UK andFrance do not exercise their
veto right since December 1989.
But do they really need to dothat if they have the United
States to stop?

There's a coattails effect is what you're
saying.
They often abstain when the USvetoes.

So we should be realistic about
that.
I'm against canceling theUnited Nations.
In fact, turning your back onthe UN is exactly what your
enemies and opponents want fromyou.
Imagine how happy the enemiesof Ukraine would be if there is
no Ukrainian ambassador inSecurity Council who raises the
issue almost every week.

(52:53):
Imagine how happy they would beif there are no decisions in
the General Assembly about thewar on Ukraine.
So it is the most unwise and themost primitive forms of
reactions to turn your back onthe United Nations.
And of course we have to workon the reform of the United
Nations.
But there is no chance toachieve a breakthrough in the

(53:15):
reform of the United Nations aslong as permanent members would
stick to Yalta decisions.
And I say Yalta specificallybecause, of course, after Yalta
we all flocked to San Franciscoin May, june 1945 to write a
very nice UN charter text.
But the nucleus, thefundamentals, were already

(53:53):
decided.
Permanent members have exclusivecontrol of practically
everything, be it securitycouncil decisions, be it
administration or HR decisions,the way how they are
interdependent in appointmentsof senior staff members or heads
of missions, where they wouldnot block you because they don't
want you to block them.
So the system is ugly, but thatis the only system that is
there, and to cancel it is tofind yourself in the world where

(54:14):
the same permanent members willcontinue to control global
affairs and you would not haveeven a platform or even a chance
to call a Security Councilmeeting where, by virtue of
their membership, they mustreply to your questions, they
must take the floor, they mustmake their position known, and

(54:36):
there are members of theSecurity Council, including some
permanent members, who hate tobe put in that position under
the spotlight, who hate to be inthe Security Council every
other week and to say what istheir government position on
Ukraine, because it makes themvery uncomfortable.
So to lose this platform, howthen you would make the Russians
sit in the same room with you?

Well, in fact , it's often a place where they
have conversations that theydon't have elsewhere.
It sounds like you have someconcern about the continued
appetite of some large countriesto fund the United Nations.
Of course, the United Statesfunds 22% of the general budget
for the big building near wherewe're sitting now, where we have
the Security Council andGeneral Assembly, but during the

(55:17):
first Trump presidentialadministration they did make
many cuts to Human RightsCouncil, unesco many cuts to
Human Rights Council, unesco,population Fund, unrwa.
Of course there's some concernthat some of those cuts will
happen again during Trump'ssecond administration.
Is there any concern, though,that cuts might run deeper to

(55:38):
the budget?

If I were a US citizen in charge of
US budget, I would be even moreaggressive.

Where do you think they might cut in addition
to what they did before?

I think that there are many, many,
many situations here in the UNwhere funds are not used
efficiently or properly.
Therefore, I think that it is avery legitimate issue of the
financial discipline and how themoney is used, and the issue is

(56:09):
being under constantexamination, not only by the
United States.

The other large donors as well.
Contributors and contributors.

So I think that any US government
has its duty to examine verycarefully how the money is used,
and indeed there are manyprimitive statements or comments
made about what the next USadministration will identify as
priority or how they will treatthe United Nations.

(56:39):
Who am I to speak on theirbehalf?
I will not speak as Nibinza didonce in the Security Council
meeting when he was interpretingsome of the statements by
nominees of Trump, but I wouldsay that the United States, in
my opinion, will continue to bevery strong in the United
Nations.
The United States will continueto use very aggressively the

(57:00):
platform of the Security Council, where they have special rights
, where they can speak 24-7,where they can make the position
of Trump's administration onall global issues known.
And I'm far from thinking thatthe US will cancel the United
Nations.
No, the US may probably reviewthe level of their engagement or

(57:24):
probably decide on totaldisengagement with some of the
UN agencies or institutions.
It's up to the Americangovernment to decide.
If you ask me, I think that insome cases it's better to be
inside some of the agencies orstructures and to try to enforce
your vision rather than toabandon it and to be outside.

And in particular, because the cuts in
the first Trump administration,many of them were largely
political.
They're around the Palestinianissue or with the population
fund, the abortion issue butthere were more political causes
rather than just.
We think these agencies orprograms are economically
inefficient.
It sounds like what you'retalking about is them and they

(58:09):
were targeted on those programs,and I'm not suggesting for
listeners that these wereUN-wide cuts, but it sounds like
what you're saying is theyshould look more at the UN's
broader budget, atinefficiencies is what you're
saying here.
That's a different exercise.
Are there improvements in theway that the UN could handle its

(58:32):
finances?

I think so.
The UN is not perfect, not onlyin terms of political process,
but also in terms of how the UNspends money, and it requires
continued engagement.
Some of the benchmarks thatwere set by the Trump
administration during the firstpresidency of Trump haven't been
reached, like, for example, hespoke at the General Assembly in
2019, and he spoke about theneed to lower the US

(58:56):
contribution to the PKO budgetto 25%.
The US still pays 26.9%.
It's a lot of money.
When one country out of 193pays 27% to budget, it's a lot
of money.
So I'm sure that the UStaxpayers have the legitimate
right to raise a question, andwe know where PQO is at the
moment.
So I don't want to prejudge orendorse the American decisions,

(59:22):
but I totally with the Americantaxpayers and the American
government, and if you fund aquarter of a business, then you
have the legitimate right to see.
I mean, I'm against the theorythat the more you pay, the more
rights you have, you know,because then we have to exclude
95% of the countries from thebusiness, you know, but it's a

(59:43):
very important question and theUnited States, by the way, and
Trump administration, will bethe one who will elect de facto,
the new secretary general.

Let's not forget about it Because there is
the Security Council is heavilyinvolved.
They make a recommendation,Obviously a country with a veto
power could veto any candidate.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsy (01:00:02):
They find unacceptable power could
veto any candidate they findunacceptable.
So it's going to be Trump andhis administration who will
decide what kind of chiefexecutive officer of this
organization we will have.

J. Alex Tarquinio (01:00:14):
Well, there is a process because of course,
the other permanent memberswould also have a veto.
So there would be some,presumably some.
I don't really see how, youdon't see how.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya (01:00:22):
I don't really see how, by the end
of the day, I don't want toundermine the I mean, of course
they would need to reach anagreement among permanent
members.

But being, as they are, the largest funder
and a permanent member with aveto.

This organization has no future
without the United States.
That's clear.

What about this post-war world that we hope
to reach soon in Ukraine?
I mean is, obviously the UnitedStates would be part of that
security guarantee, but whatrole do you see the United
States and the United Nationsplaying in any future security
guarantee in Ukraine?

Well , before I speak about Ukraine,
I need to say that I don'treally see how the world can
cope with so many issues andtragedies and humanitarian
crises around the world withoutthe United Nations.
There is no other global playerwho, if the UN is cancelled,

(01:01:22):
can in foreseeable futurereplace the United Nations.
Of course, for the Ukrainians,the most difficult question is
what's going on in Ukraine.
But we also have to rememberand I'm happy that an increasing
number of Ukrainian politicianswill realize that there are
people dying in Africa, thatthere are people dying in other

(01:01:43):
parts of the world and that wecannot be a single-issue country
.
The UN has one of the largestoperations in Ukraine if we
compare to other operations ofUN around the world.
There are more than 3,000employees of UN permanently
deployed in Ukraine.
We have to appreciate theimportant contribution of

(01:02:06):
various agencies of the UnitedNations, including UNDP, ocha,
unicef, unfpa.

And these are primarily humanitarian arms and
they're dealing with internallydisplaced people.
It doesn't get much coverage.
I know it's a huge operation.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslyts (01:02:24):
Right , and I can tell you that in
2022, the humanitarian responseof the United Nations was almost
$4 billion.

Within Ukraine.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslyt (01:02:36):
Within Ukraine.

Do they do anything, by the way, with
Ukrainian refugees outside ofUkraine?
The UNHCR?

and other agencies are also
engaging with the governments ofreceiving countries, but 2022
was $4 billion, 2023 was under$4 billion, but still $3.5
billion.
I think this year the last year, 2024, was $2.2 billion.

Why do you think it doesn't get much notice
?
Well, certainly in the broadermedia, but even at the UN it's
not really talked about.

It does.
But it took me quite a whileduring these five years to make
the UN communication moreefficient and I'm happy that
lately if you follow the UNcommunication more efficient,
and I'm happy that lately if youfollow the UN communication
from Ukraine, if you're onTwitter or on Facebook, now they

(01:03:34):
use it in a way that theyshowcase simple, regular
Ukrainians as recipients oftheir assistance or humanitarian
response.
So they would make a tweet witha short video with average
Ukrainians receiving windows orgenerators or food assistance or

(01:03:55):
cash assistance.
So people in Ukraine are verysensitive to that kind of issue.
So that toxic image of the UNsecurity council is gradually
ironically eroded by the imageof the UN system reaching out to
average people in Ukraine andhelping them with their daily

(01:04:17):
needs.
With the UN after a missilestrike missile strike.
So, even though it's not part ofthe coverage of the missile
strike, you are making sure thatthat message is getting
communicated within Ukraine,that the UN is there for them,
absolutely, because I think thatthe UN deserves acknowledgement

(01:04:37):
of what the UN system does.
And it's a very eclectic kindof situation where you have the
ugliness of Paralyzed SecurityCouncil and the dedication of
people who work for the UNsystem in the field in Ukraine,
which is also not perfect.
But who is perfect?
I'm not perfect, you are notperfect, so we are too fast to

(01:05:00):
judge people for what they dowhile we need to look at
ourselves.

I know you're from Kyiv originally.
It's your hometown.
You're also, of course, stillgoing back while Kyiv is under
missile attacks.
What are you looking forward ona personal level, going back to
Kyiv?

I want to go back to Kyiv because
I like being there and, if youspeak professionally, I that no
ukrainian ambassador can betruly representing his country
if he is, or she is, detachedevery day like so you need to
get back on a on a professionallevel, but on a personal level,

(01:05:39):
well, I'm very happy in kiev,believe me when I was in Kiev,
and even every night we had thismissile and other drone attacks
, I slept better in Kiev than Isleep in New York, because
you're home, because I'm homeand because Kiev, of course, is
very provincial in terms of ifyou compare it to New York, but

(01:05:59):
it's so quiet even when thereare, you know, strikes.
Yeah, I mean, it's notprovincial in terms of Europe or
in terms of Ukraine, but it'snot that inhumane as New York
City is, in spite of ouradmiration of New York City.
You know.

(01:06:20):
But this city is cruel, thiscity is inhumane, city is
wonderful at the same time.
But you know, human beings arenot made to live in
mega-policies like New York, I'msorry to say.

And, of course, Kiev is your home.

Ambassador Sergiy Ky (01:06:35):
Absolutely .

Thank you for all of your thoughts on the
United Nations.

Frank Radford (01:06:46):
And that's it from the Delegates Lounge.
We'd like to thank our esteemedguests, who've graciously
allowed us to share theirhard-earned insights into what
really matters.
And then there's you, ourlisteners, who we hope are
sufficiently edified to clamourfor more of the same.
Do drop in for a weekly episodeon Thursday, or, from time to
time if we're on the road, forspecial events, in which case
there'll be a bonus episode.

(01:07:07):
Subscribe wherever you listento podcasts and, if you like
what you've heard, please take amoment to rate or review the
show, as it helps others whoshare your abiding interest in
world affairs to find their wayto the Delegates Lounge.
You can connect with us on manypopular social media platforms
or reach out to us directly atinfothedelicateloungecom.
We're a small team so we can'trespond to every message, but we

(01:07:29):
will read them.
Our show this week was writtenand produced by the host and by
yours truly executive producer,frank Radford.
Until next time, keep calm andcurious.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Ukraine's UN Ambassador Reflects on Diplomatic Frontlines

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes

Ukraine's UN Ambassador Reflects on Diplomatic Frontlines

Crime Junkie