The Delegates Lounge

Reflections on Diplomatic Frontlines: Ukraine's Ambassador to the UN Speaks Out

• The Delegates Lounge LLC • Season 2 • Episode 1

Share episode

We’re beginning our second season in conversation with Ukraine’s ambassador to the United Nations, Sergiy Kyslytsya. As listeners will recall, he challenged Russia’s representative to the United Nations during a late-night emergency session of the UN Security Council three years ago, when Russia launched a predawn invasion of his country during the meeting. We sat down with the Distinguished Representative of Ukraine earlier this month at his country’s mission to the United Nations for an exclusive exit interview, as his dramatic tenure at the United Nations is drawing to a close. 

Speakers:

J. Alex Tarquinio (host). @alextarquinio of @delegateslounge on X.

H.E. Sergiy Kyslytsya, Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the United Nations (guest). @SergiyKyslytsya of @UKRinUN on X.

References:

The music from this social event that you hear briefly in the podcast was performed by the Ukrainian Chorus Dumka of New York.
https://dumkachorus.org/about

The Ukrainian ambassador challenged the Russian representative when Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began during an emergency session of the UN Security Council.
https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1j/k1j8unn1me

During the U.S. Senate confirmation hearing of the UN ambassador designate of the United States, the nominee was asked about the following presidential executive order.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/reevaluating-and-realigning-united-states-foreign-aid/

The exchange can be heard here at the 2:10-minute mark. The hearing discussed humanitarian aid for Ukrainian war refugees at the 2:24-minute mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeL1yQpGidg

The United States is the largest contributor to the UN budget overall and to various UN programs and agencies, which is further explained in this Foreign Policy article by our podcast host.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/01/17/un-ambassador-elise-stefanik-hearing-confirmation-trump/

The ambassador gave a lecture at the Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics organized by the Center for Russian, East European, & Eurasian Studies.
https://www.kansan.com/news/ku-alum-and-ukraine-u-n-ambassador-returns-to-ku/article_69e0ae9a-a29c-11ef-a028-bbad4cd36edd.html

Some related links to the farewell party for Ukraine’s UN ambassador at the Ukrainian Institute of America.
http://bit.ly/4gcUp3F
https://ukrainianinstitute.org/
https://veselka.com/pages/veselka-the-movie


J. Alex Tarquinio:

Welcome to the Delegates Lounge. Pull up a chair. I'm Alex Tarquinio, a journalist based at the United Nations here in New York City and your emcee for this podcast featuring some of the most influential minds in the world today. Settle in for some riveting tete-a-tete, available wherever you listen to podcasts. Welcome back.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

We're beginning our second season in conversation with Ukraine's ambassador to the United Nations, sergei Kislytsya. As I'm certain listeners will recall, russian President Vladimir Putin announced what he called a special military operation during a late night emergency session of the UN Security Council to discuss the threat of Russia's full scale invasion of Ukraine. Scale invasion of Ukraine. When it came time for Ambassador Kostlitsya's remarks around 1040 on the evening of February 23rd in New York, he told the council members that most of his prepared statement was useless because about 48 minutes previously, putin had declared war on his country and launched a pre-dawn offensive. It's too late, dear colleagues, to speak about de-escalation, he told the council. He directly addressed the Russian representative who was presiding over the meeting, because Russia held the rotating monthly council presidency. Ambassador Kislitsia argued that the Russian representative ought to relinquish the responsibilities of the president and pass them to a legitimate member of the Security Council who is respectful of the UN Charter. Needless to say, russia, as you know, did not pass the gavel. Three years on, ambassador Kostlitsy's dramatic tenure as Ukraine's representative to the United Nations is drawing to a close. The bureaucratic wheels have been set in motion for his return to Kiev for a role in the foreign ministry. You've just heard a soundbite from his going-away party at the Ukrainian Institute of America, which is headquartered in a historic Fifth Avenue mansion, across the street from New York City's Metropolitan Museum of Art. The ambassador gave a warm farewell speech to a room packed with UN diplomats, ukrainian-americans and frontline soldiers with traumatic wounds who were here for rehabilitation. The event was catered naturally by Veselka, the Ukrainian restaurant in New York's East Village neighborhood featured in a popular documentary. Sharp-eared listeners will recognize the melodic tune of the Ukrainian chorus Dumka of New York, which performed a cold open on Saturday Night Live right after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine three years ago.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

The Delegates' Lounge podcast recently sat down with Ambassador Kislytsia for an exclusive interview at his country's mission to the United Nations. We spoke before a backdrop of mannequins clothed in Ukrainian folk dress, including Vyshivankas, the embroidered shirts worn by both men and women. You can spot them in our social media. You'll find our conversation is something of an exit interview because the ambassador reflects on his personal impressions after five years in Turtle Bay, a Manhattan neighborhood with the UN headquarters.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

Despite the low marks the United Nations typically gets worldwide, ambassador Kislitsia forcefully makes the case in favor of the global institution. On the one hand, he speaks about the challenges of the UN budget, the veto power of the five permanent Security Council members and peacekeeping operations, often referred to by the acronym PKO. On the other hand, he says his country's enemies would love it if the Ukrainian ambassador would no longer challenge their representatives in televised Security Council meetings. He points out that these are not closed-door meetings and so can be used as evidence in future tribunals, like the Nuremberg trials after the Second World War, where Nazi Germany's foreign minister was convicted. He also draws attention to the billions of dollars the various UNN humanitarian aid agencies spend on supporting Ukrainians. Our conversation took place on January 8th, almost two weeks before the inauguration of President Donald Trump. Since then, the US president has signed a raft of executive orders, including one putting a 90-day pause on US foreign aid. That's raised uncertainty over if and when this might impact Ukraine, which receives both direct US aid and support from UN aid agencies, where the US is the largest donor. The executive order does grant the US Secretary of State the authority to waive the pause in foreign aid for specific programs.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

Much of Ambassador Kislytsky's three-decade diplomatic career has focused on the United States or on multilateral institutions, principally the United Nations. He served five years in Ukraine's embassy in Washington, becoming the deputy chief of mission for political affairs. His time at the embassy began in 2001, when there was some tension between Washington and Kiev over reports, some still unconfirmed, that Ukraine had sold the Kolchuga aircraft detection system to various countries. His time in Washington ended with the Orange Revolution, a series of peaceful protests in 2005 that brought about a new election, which was widely viewed as being free and fair. Then he spent 14 years at the foreign ministry in Kiev, eventually becoming the Deputy Foreign Minister, with a focus on international organizations like the United Nations. That set the stage for his return to the United States as his country's. Here's our conversation, mr Ambassador, thank you for making time for us today here in your lovely mission to the United Nations.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

Good morning and welcome to the mission of Ukraine, as always.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

Thank you for joining us on the Delegates' Lounge. We have met once before in this room. This time it is a little bit more like an exit interview, because you're nearing your end of your tenure here. And, by the way, do we have a date? Do we know how much longer you have with us?

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

First of all, I continue to be Ukraine's permanent representative to the United Nations. It's a process that may take some while, but it's already launched. The nomination is made for my successor. Now the bureaucracy is working and as soon as the process is over, my successor will arrive and present his credentials and then he will formally replace me, and I think that five years, in these particular circumstances of Russian aggression against Ukraine, makes it especially long period of time. So I think that is a very right moment to Ukraine from Washington DC in 2006 and my deployment in New York in 2020.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

Being for 14 long years in Ukraine is against all the rules, because we have quite strict rules about how long foreign officers can stay in the capital. I was very happy professionally and privately in Ukraine. I realized when I was in Ukraine in August last year at the annual conference of ambassadors. I really felt, both emotionally and physically, how much I like being in Ukraine, how much I like being in the capital, how much I belong in Kyiv. So that is a desire that coincided with my capital to offer me a new job in Ukraine and my desire to go back, which does not mean that I'm not happy professionally in New York. It doesn't mean that I'm tired of New York. It doesn't mean that I'm disappointed with what's going on in the United Nations overall.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

I have a job offer from the foreign minister and it's in the process of bureaucratic clearance.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

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

J. Alex Tarquinio:

Right, and I don't mean to make it about just your successor, but you are at a point where you need to start passing on advice. Your background, beginning with the fact that you studied here as a student all those years ago in Kansas, really in the heart of America, and that you've spent so long as an ambassador here as a student all those years ago in Kansas, really in the heart of America, and that you've spent so long as an ambassador here, particularly at the United Nations, at this difficult time, that's obviously very valuable to your capital. I mean, no one who follows this can forget the moment that you were in the Security Council meeting when it was announced that the full-scale invasion had begun. That's the sort of experience that you will be bringing back to keep.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

I mean in theory, yes, but I need to share with you one particular personal feature. I never look back Like, for example, I served in Brussels in the middle of the 90s. I left Brussels and I never looked back. I was not jealous or critical of what my successes were doing in Brussels, after serving for five years in Washington DC. Now, when I travel to Washington DC, I'm always happy to go back to New York and when I enter Manhattan, either by one of the bridges or through the tunnel, I'm so happy when I enter the city and I truly love it.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

I'm sure when I leave New York I will have the whole spectrum of memories and impressions, but I'm the kind of person, by my education and by my upbringing, that looks forward. And, of course, if there is a chance or if it is required, I will deal with the UN business, share my experience, my knowledge, but I don't believe that we should be really concentrated on one thing in our life. There are so many wonderful things we can do. When you say Kansas, kansas is also one of the examples that I don't look back. It took me how many 31 years to go back to Kansas.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

That was my first trip in 31 years since I left Kansas. That was quite an experience. I'm very grateful to all people at the university who were in charge of my program, and I was very happy when I went to speak at the Bob Dole Institute in Lawrence, kansas. How many people showed up People standing by the wall because there were not enough chairs in the auditorium.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

I always make that point that if you really want to know what this country is no prejudice to the hype and glamour and other things in New York City you really need to go to Heartland, you really need to go to Midwest. And, by the way, when we had a group of Ukrainian journalists a couple of days before the elections in November and they asked me what do people in this country think about the elections, I told them don't speak to the New Yorkers and go to Midwest. Speak to people in the Midwest because by the end of the day and you can clearly see that on the election results map it is the heartland that elects the leadership, the political leadership of this country.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

Unquestionably. We just saw that in November. But another city that does represent a cross-section of America is the capital, washington DC. Obviously it was different times because you were here for the full-scale invasion, but how did those compare? What were the key differences between representing your country?

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

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

J. Alex Tarquinio:

As a deputy chief of mission.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

Deputy chief of mission, I should say for our listeners. And no, that was an exceptional time because I arrived in Washington DC in 2001. And I left Washington DC exactly five years after 2006. And those were times of many dramatic events. We begin with things like the Kalchuga scandal, where Ukraine was accused of selling sensitive weapons to some regimes, and with the Orange Revolution.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

I remember very well how, as a DCM, I would go to the NSC or to the State Department, how I would come back to the office and I would send classified secret cables to the Capitol. And when you send a classified secret cable and you indicate that this cable is exclusively for the eyes of the president or his chief of staff, no one can divert your cable, no one can edit your cable. So I'm kind of professionally proud that on the eve of the revolution and during the Orange Revolution, I was sending the cables that, in my opinion, were absolutely true when it comes to the signals and the position of the then US administration on what was about to happen or what was expected to happen in Ukraine. And I think that was one of the drops in the ocean that prevented bloodshed, because in my cables I was telling exactly what I heard at the NSC or at the State Department about the American position.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

And, to be clear, diplomatic cables. I understand they're usually fairly brief and to the point right, Because there's something that's going directly for the eyes of the president Information you might have gotten in a meeting, or could you also have picked it up informally, For example, at a diplomatic dinner. You may have picked up some information that you feel could influence your government's position.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

There are all kinds of means of communication and types of communication, and in fact that's a particularly good question when it comes to post-Soviet countries, and I'm pretty much sure that for the Russian diplomats it's quite a challenge how to report to their superiors back in their capitals. In our case it was also an issue, and especially before the Orange Revolution. In our case it was also an issue, and especially before the Orange Revolution to be able to report to your capital that no, people do not buy your lies, people do not buy your narratives. No, it's not true that the Russian position is so widely supported. So that's why I said that when working in Washington DC, when I would come back from the NSC and I would write a one-page top secret. For the eyes of the president or for the eyes of the chief of staff only, that was a unique situation where we had the chance to say what the American position was at that moment.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

To be clear when you say that in dictatorial regimes and you're speaking principally here, I understand about the Russian Federation, but also more broadly but Russian Federation ambassadors or high-level diplomats, as you were as DCM when they're sending a cable, you said they have to consider their professional and personal situation. Professional, that's obvious. It could affect your professional advancement. Personal are you saying that because they have families, for example, in Moscow, that they might suffer some consequences if a diplomat this is your belief if a diplomat were to send something unfavorable in a cable? Is that what you mean?

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

Yes, exactly, among other things. So if you are coming from a country that is not free I mean, if we use a kind of an example to describe that it's like you are in a submarine you can't really come to a shore unless your submarine is taken to your port. So they are quite constrained. They have families. That's why, in spite of all the ugliness of what the Russian Federation has done, we only know about one or two examples of defectors from the Russian Foreign Service, and it's another element of that is that we know what happens to the Russian defectors, how they are killed and eliminated, either by drinking tea or just shot down at gunpoint. And then also, if we go back to the events of January February of 2022, and how the Russian ambassador, in that Security Council meeting of the night of February 23, reacted to the news that the invasion had started, we would really see that he was out of the loop.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

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

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

Unless you really come to a conclusion that they are a golden standard of flying. Because if you remember, I'm sure you remember that the Russian Federation was in the chair of the President's Security Council that month and they had one of the deputy ministers, vashinyan, in New York who would preside in the meetings. And if you look at what he was saying, he was saying stop this hysteria when he talked to Western delegations, stop telling that the invasion is imminent. And that he was saying that days, if not hours, before the invasion. So I think that, coming back to reporting, back to your capital, I have doubts, in spite of all, that the Russian ambassadors around the world do have access to their leadership, as we have the Ukrainian ambassadors, and that's quite an advantage, and it was not always the case, by the way.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

Well, it sounds like when you said you were reporting back to your capital before the Orange Revolution. It sounds like you felt personally in that moment that it took some degree of courage to report the things that you were reporting to your capital from Washington and that you don't believe your counterparts now in Russia have that.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

Look, I've been in, uh, in Washington DC for five years and there were two ambassadors during my tenure in in Washington DC and I do remember how my first ambassador in Washington even I would be back from the State Department to have my cable he would say why do you write such a banal thing? And I would say you know well, the Americans are banal, and I meant that in a positive connotation. You know because, unlike Europeans, in my you can correct me if you like.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

The Americans are more direct culture and until recently it was more the case that they would say what they mean and they would mean what they say and in many cases, especially 20 years ago when I was in Washington DC you wouldn't really need to read between the lines or identify a shade of the statement. I mean that's why I would come back and I would write cable this was years before the Orange Revolution since I spent five years in Washington DC and the ambassador would say no, no no, no, you have to write something very round that would, like you know, roll and sound nice and digestible for the capital.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

So I would go back and I would rewrite my reporting, make it more European, more Ukrainian, which would be more pleasant for the eyes or ears of the superiors in the capital. And that was 20 years ago, I mean. Today we don't really need to do that. Today we have conversations and communication with the capital that is often very unpleasant, but much more truthful and efficient. You know, I'm not saying that our communication is perfect. There are no perfect foreign services around the world, I can assure you. Neither the American Foreign Service is perfect, and we do remember very well the times when the NSC would not listen to the State Department or State Department would do other things. The world is not perfect, but it is one of the primary duties of any foreign service officer to report things as they are, you know, and not to be misled by expectations. And oftentimes it's quite a challenge, also for democratic countries, because in democratic countries, including in Ukraine these days, one of the challenges is to do your job under lots of pressure of public scrutiny.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

In Ukraine, when it comes to the United Nations in particular, has a very simplified view of the United Nations, which in many cases is very toxic, which in many cases is formed by years, if not decades, of receiving information through Russian language media. It's, in many cases, the view of the United Nations that has 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 these things, then they are very disappointed. And I can give you an example, and that is peacekeeping operations. And the trick is, believe it or not, that in all languages, languages, in all official languages but russian, those operations are called peace keeping operations, while in russian, in official russian translations, those operations are called peace making operations.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

And you, as an educated person, you see immediately the difference between keeping peace and making peace. So when, for 70 years, you read UN information, be it official documents in Russian or be it journalism, you read peacemaking, peacemaking, peacemaking, then your country is under aggression. And then you say immediately where the hell are those peacemakers, why the UN does not deploy peacemakers, why the UN does not make peace in Ukraine. And then you have to go to your members of the government not only to public, to some members of the government to your MPs, to your public, and you say wait a second, the UN doesn't make peace, UN keeps peace. You have to achieve sustainable ceasefire or sustainable peace agreement. Then there is a mandate by the Security Council to deploy peacekeeping operation that basically helps to ensure that the ceasefire arrangement or peace arrangement is sustainable. And then they say what the hell? And the disappointment with the UN is even deeper because they say, yeah, it's true, the UN is useless.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

Well, in fact, they have had many disappointments and I imagine that in recent years you have had to send many difficult cables without any round tones to your capital. You did have some early successes after the full scale invasion Obviously the big votes in the General Assembly, where you rounded up a lot of support. However, it didn't, of course, lead to any outcomes. I understand the difference between peacekeepers and peacemakers, but what could the UN do to get to that point where you have a peace to keep?

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

Well, the thing is that that is a kind of question that is very difficult to approach unless you look at the UN holistically. And I need to say that my impression is that in the overwhelming majority of member states, population has a very simplified version about what UN is. Those versions are different. I mean Europeans may have one version, americans another, africans another. So for every ambassador, not only for a Ukrainian ambassador but also for European ambassadors, even for American ambassador, I'm sure it's quite a challenge how to explain to their constituents and their members of the parliament who approve budgets and contributions and everything, and to their public why the hell the UN is important.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

It also requires. The success also depends on whether the EU or not ambassador has a direct access to the political leadership of the country. I'm blessed because I enjoyed direct access to foreign minister, to the president, and there were many instances, for example during the Security Council, where I would need to verify something almost immediately and I would write to my foreign minister or to someone in the office of the president and I would. In most cases I would get an immediate answer.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

So I wish and I hope my successor will also enjoy that kind of direct access to the political leadership of my country. Because when you go to the Security Council and you speak at an open televised meeting on the record, it's not like you speak behind the closed doors in other international institutions. And in fact one of the added values of even impotent Security Council when it comes to the Ukrainian issue, is that it is open and you don't have open meetings of North Atlantic Council, of NATO in Brussels they're all behind the closed doors. You don't have open meetings of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe they're all behind closed doors. You don't have open meetings of European Council in Brussels they're all behind closed doors. You don't have open meetings of European Council in Brussels they're all behind closed doors.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

Here in New York, in the Security Council, when you take the floor, when you say something, you must be absolutely sure that what goes on the record is true, because what is kept on the record has a very high chance to be used many years after a given meeting, even including in the course of law, and it can be used both by the defendants and by the plaintiffs. So it is very important, in spite of all the hype, when we use very eloquent and sometimes provocative language, to stick to the truth. That is why I am amazed by the way that the Russians are so blatantly able to lie to the truth. That is why I'm amazed by the way that the Russians are so blatantly able to lie on the record, because by the end of the day and I'm a deep believer that by the end of the day all they have said so far in the Security Council about the invasion and before the invasion will be used in international tribunals to bring them to account, the same way like the Nazi Foreign service leadership was taken to account in Nuremberg.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

One of the great errors it seems to me that Russia had made in this war was to walk away from the Black Sea Green Deal. Secretary General Guterres had at the time championed that as one of the UN's diplomatic successes, perhaps the only success in Ukraine. But Russia walked away from it and I mean I think arguably they have lost the most from that.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

Yes, at that particular time it was quite a success for the UN system. I have to praise, and I said many times sincerely that I'm thankful to the Secretary General for his personal engagement and it's true From what I know, he personally was making so many calls and he was calling directly so many people in Russia, in Turkey, in Ukraine, to make that deal possible, so he didn't delegate it to some people in his office or in his entourage, he was personally engaged and that was quite a success. Russia acts like they have either a bad or worse choice and oftentimes they decide to go with the worst choice.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

Yes, it's a clear lost battle for the Russians. And they lost it on all accounts because they lost control of the Black Sea. There is no appetite today to go back to the parameters of the then deal. We don't really need the Russians to control the flow of the Black Sea of Ukraine via the corridor in the Black Sea. What we need? We need the security of that corridor. In spite of all the difficulties and challenges and constant missile attacks on the infrastructure, we reached the pre-war levels of exports floating through the Black Sea.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

We see that very often. We see very often, be it a Security Council meeting, be it a General Assembly, that they really shoot in their feet. Even they know that they cause damage to their image and their standing, like one of the latest examples for the adoption of the Pact for the Future. I mean, who in their right state of mind would ask that vote? And then you have Africa against you, you know, and both the African PGA and the African ambassador.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

So that was quite a the side of the global south and not these baddies, you know, in Europe and in Washington. And then they went against something that was extremely popular with the global south.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

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

J. Alex Tarquinio:

And that's actually very important for listeners who aren't diplomats to understand you are a representative of your government. Often, ambassadors and diplomats at the UN have to represent policies that they personally disagree with, or is it fair to say that that's often the case in general?

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

They have a structural problem.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

Let's put Russia aside for a moment.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

One of the challenges that I have, and my fellow ambassadors from other countries, democratic countries have, is not only the fact that the UN is not enjoying very high reputation and standing back in their capitals.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

It's also the fact that, structurally, the multilateral diplomacy is one of the pillars of every foreign service, while there are other important pillars like bilateral diplomacy or economic diplomacy or human rights or other issues. And you may receive your instructions from the Assistant Secretary of State or Deputy Foreign Minister who is in charge of multilateral diplomacy, while there is another assistant secretary of state and another deputy minister who is dealing with trade issues or with bilateral relationship, and his or her agenda is not always compatible because his or her success is measured by other indicators than your business in the United Nations. That is why there may be lack of consistency or your opinion as ambassador to the United Nations may be all disregarded. So someone who is in charge of bilateral relationship with this or another country has other set of arguments and they do not really go along with your considerations, because the success is measured differently. So that's quite a challenge.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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 have your own track. You're pursuing with your your peace plan summit in in switzerland, for example, but the un is still the biggest forum. So do you plan to uh do a similar anniversary event february? That's a huge thing to pull together.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

You're going to have officials as always, um, which is unfortunately tragic tradition. Now we will have, uh, most likely a special session of the general assembly and probably we may have a special meeting of the security council by the end of the day, and we remember that very well. The aggression started in the middle of the security council and technically, that's the primary responsibility of the security council according to the charter of the united nations international security. And I don't know if president zelens will come. He may have other plans, but we will certainly, together with other nations, work on reminding everyone around the world, including in New York, that unfortunately the war lasts too long.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

Well, the General Assembly is not controlled by.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

I've spoken with the PGA and I'm very thankful to PGA that he, as his predecessors, is very serious, very no-nonsense president of the General Assembly.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

In fact, you know, when I spoke to many candidates and then appointed PJs, I always told them that we don't really need a pro-Ukrainian PJ, we need a PJ who is pro-UN, pro-un charter, pro-procedural rules, because we sincerely believe that if the UN charter is observed, if the rules of procedure are observed, then our case is very strong. I said that to the Hungarian president, I said that to Denis Francis from Trinidad and Tobago. We say that the current PJ, we don't really need a pro-Ukrainian PJ, we need a pro-UN PJ. We need a pro-Ukrainian PJ, we need a pro-UN PJ. I think that at least these three PJs were very successful in terms of how they manage the General Assembly. When it comes to China, we are in constant contact with the Chinese mission. We will discuss, of course, with them plans for the month of February and I think that China will be very much balanced and impartial when it comes to the rules of procedure of the Security Council.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

Yeah, I should. First of all, I should mention, Mr Sousa I think you said there was a Hungarian President General Assembly for the first anniversary, Trinidad and Tobago, the second and this year's, Cameroon. That's why we mentioned that related to Russia, the Security Council. When they ended the nuclear inspections for North Korea, this was not that long before they began to rely more heavily on North Korea for both weapons and now, of course, soldiers. Obviously, with that big a fly on the wall, you don't really know what discussions were had, but is there a risk of Security Council resolutions being used as sort of bargaining chips?

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

It's very easy to be trapped in the standard way of thinking about the Security Council and about what Security Council can do. But let me begin with replying with a question to you. Do you really believe that if Russia is removed from Security Council which is probably the right thing to do, in the opinion of my government or at least is stripped of the right to veto, do you really believe that if there is a draft resolution that clearly reads stop the war, withdraw Russian troops, the draft is put to a vote carried by the Security Council because Russia is either not there or is stripped of their right to veto? Approved, sent to Moscow, lands on Putin's desk. Putin reads the text. He reads the Security Council unanimously decided that Russia must stop the war and withdraw its troops. Do you really believe that he immediately picks up his phone, calls his defense minister and gives orders to withdraw or to stop?

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

Do not put extra premium on the Security Council, because the Security Council is not the world's government that can enforce its decisions if any of the permanent members is against it, if any of nuclear states is against it, because we are speaking about a system where all presidents or prime ministers are almost like knights that follow the code of behavior, you know, and they would commit a suicide if they commit, uh, if they violate this code of behavior. You know, and they would commit a suicide if they violate this code of behavior. No, we are living in the age where all international treaties are totally discounted, if not devalued, you know. And the Security Council and the United Nations? They have no real enforcement mechanisms, unless you really deal with a democratic nation where everything is so you know, traditionally, observed and respected. So it's not about, by the end of the day, I mean Russia should be removed from Security Council because Russia violated all the principles, all the rules.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

Well, in fact, you've made the argument repeatedly that the transition from the Soviet Union is actually mentioned in the charter.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

I'm very careful when I draft my speeches. I am very careful what kind of language I use. I never say that the Russian Federation is a permanent member. I say the Russian Federation is in the seat of a permanent member. Or I say the representative who occupies the seat of a permanent member or the representative blah, blah, blah and so forth.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

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

J. Alex Tarquinio:

Well, indeed, in your hypothetical question, that was a multi-layered hypothetical question and I have to say that if you take it back a layer, one is your ultimate question was would Putin act? Of course there's no enforcement mechanism. If you take it back a layer, I'm not so certain that you would have a unanimous vote of 14. If, for some magical reason, the Russian representative had to leave, there was some rule that they had to leave the room and there was a vote of the 14 because they were, you know, abstaining. That's not going to happen, I should make that clear. But if we're in hypothetical land, I'm not so certain that the 14 would vote unanimously because of those considerations that it might open up other files.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

Well, I mean, if we have nine or 10 votes, I mean, by the end of the day it doesn't really matter, because if we believe that the organization should follow strictly the rules of procedure, by the end of the day it doesn't really matter whether the US Congress approved it by unanimous vote or by the majority, whether Ukrainian parliament approved this or another law. So I mean it's. I mean sociologically and from the point of view of perception, it is of course important that we have unanimity. But stepping back from that situation, I need to tell you that I'm traditionally very against the notion of reaching consensus in the United Nations, because the consensual decisions of the General Assembly are often the least powerful and the least impactful and you can see, very often after a consensual approval of these are not the decisions. We would spend another 40 minutes at least, or one hour, listening to the statements by delegations who would say we dissociate from this consensus. But we didn't want to.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

As we saw in the PAC for the future.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

Exactly.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

In my opinion, consensual decisions very often are the least impactful decisions because they do not feed practically anyone. It's like you know you have size 10 shoes and you are offered size 13, or you have you know, know so then you get the statements of people disagree, which you know you well, absolutely so. It's not about. It's not about how many votes you have, although it's very important that we got 141 143 the two big General Assembly votes in favor of Ukraine.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

That was very important because it undermined the narrative of our opponents. It was particularly important, by the way, in February 23, 23, when we put to a vote draft resolution on just on the underlying principles of the UN Charter for just, sustainable peace in Ukraine. And we have to remember that on the eve of that vote, we were all sitting here in New York waiting for what allegedly had to be a Chinese peace plan and by the end of the day, it became known to all of us several hours before the vote that that was not a plan, but rather a set of principles. There were members of the General Assembly who were like why do we need to vote for the Ukrainian draft if there is already something alternative coming up, and things like that? And next morning we put it to a vote and we got 141 votes, the same number of votes as we got on the 2nd of March 2022. So the feng shui of that vote was brilliant.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

China has an interesting role in this. We talked about China presiding over the Security Council next month, but of course NATO has called it a decisive enabler because of its support of the Russian economy. It buys oil and gas, provides certain components.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

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

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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 said at 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.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

But I will say that China is a very important member of the United Nations. China is a founding member of the United Nations. China is a permanent member of the United.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

Nations, and it's not only privilege, it's also lots of responsibility, because permanent members I mean ideally they have to play the key role, not even a key role, but the key role when it comes to the security issues in the Security Council. So for China, it is important to make its position clear. You can't be a permanent member without a clear position on any issue on the Security Council's agenda. So I think that I can only speculate. I cannot speak on behalf of the Chinese government. I think that I can only speculate, I cannot speak on behalf of the Chinese government. I think that it was quite logical that on the eve of the vote, of that important vote, beijing decided to make their position clear. And we appreciate I mean in fact, in small deeds and in important deeds, I mean I always appreciate ability to know someone's position.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

China is very consistent in what they say. You may like it or you may not like it, but consistency is clearly there. I don't like when we are misled. I don't like when someone is telling you something to make you happy and then, by the end of the day, it's not true. And I'm very happy when it comes to permanent members except Russia, that we don't believe is a legitimate member. Their position is very clear. It's another thing whether you like it or not.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

Well, you talked about how obviously the Security Council has no real enforcement. I mean they could order things like sanctions, but they have no real enforcement, even if in this hypothetical world, they did vote to call on Putin to end the war. I do want to get back to you. You mentioned the peace plan and your President Zelensky's 10-point peace plan, and he does talk about enforcement. I want to make sure I'm quoting it accurately, so let me look at that. His plan calls for the quote proper and effective security guarantees for Ukraine, as well as renewed post-war security architecture in the Euro-Atlantic space that will include Ukraine, and in that same paragraph he says that the Budapest memorandum has not ensured security.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

Feels like the diplomatic understatement of the decade. At least, that's very diplomatic. What does this mean in plain language? Does the United Nations have a role in the post-war security architecture? Is that code for the United States needs to take a more active role than it did before the war to prevent a recurrence? We're talking about the post-war environment now. What does that statement mean in his 10-point plan?

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

I mean. I think that the statement is very clear. What I can add, however, is several absolutely banal things, and one of the banal things is that the system doesn't work. It's acknowledged by the Secretary General himself. He opened his statement in February last year at Munich Security Conference with the lines that the system doesn't work for many, and then he corrected himself and he said the system doesn't work for anyone. So it's a statement. It's a very important statement. By the way, it's another thing that then it's very difficult to sell the united nations to your constituents if you have the chief executive officer of a structure who tells you that this system doesn't work.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

But we have to look back and we have to say another banal thing, and that is that the major security-related undertakings took place after major wars.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

After the First World War, there was the League of Nations project. After World War II, there was the United Nations project. We now live in Europe where there is a major war after World War II that has its impact well beyond the European continent. So if there is no major peace conference after this war, then there will be a recurrence of a similar tragedy quite soon, and the question is whether the assembly of political leaders at such a meeting will be brave enough to take decisions that will upgrade the existing system that doesn't work for anyone, according to the Secretary General, or they will sleep almost immediately to business as usual after the termination of warfare in this conflict, and that will be a huge mistake. It's another thing, however, that any system you design will be imperfect as long as we have countries, members, who cannot care less about any arrangement, like we have right now. So I'm not very optimistic on that and I don't think that the world is ready to have a system with enforcement of the decisions that may go against nuclear states.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

In fact there's been a lot of talk of courseing the un. It's a big, big section in the back to the future. But people have commented it'll be almost impossible to do because the state I mean the states would have to agree to it. In the us you'd have to get congressional approval if we were to. It sounds like what you're saying is almost wipe the slate clean and try and come up with a better system. Number one do you have confidence that if they were to do that now, the tendency seemed to be more towards great powers wanting to increase their power and get rid of any impediment to their expansionist ideas? How would you remake a new United Nations League of Nations 3.0, if you could?

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

The League of Nations was doomed from the very beginning and the League of Nations was doomed because the United States was not its member from the very beginning. Whether we like it or not, whether we believe in egalitarian nature of international relations, so far the global things are back to decided by global powers and if you set up a structure like a league 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 you know it very well, that they would not allow woodrow wilson to join the league of nations because the us would not have control of the decision-making process in the league of nations. The only real reason why the UN was successful in terms of getting that decision to set up the UN was because they agreed in Yalta that three countries later on five countries would have full control of the decision-making process. If there is no Vita right, I doubt it very much that the US Congress would agree to stay in this organization, let alone to pay 22-27% to different budgets.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

The Vita right is terrible, but the Vita right is not intrinsically as bad as it's seen by many, because there are bad decisions and there were instances where this or another country. Basically, the United States would exercise a Vita right to stop some bad decisions, and there were instances where these are another country. Basically, the United States would exercise their veto right to stop some bad decisions Not always, but some bad decisions. I mean, many would say, but the UK and France, they do not exercise their veto right. Yes, it's true, the UK and France do not exercise their veto right since December 1989. But do they really need to do that if they have the United States to stop?

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

So we should be realistic about that. I'm against canceling the United Nations. In fact, turning your back on the UN is exactly what your enemies and opponents want from you. Imagine how happy the enemies of Ukraine would be if there is no Ukrainian ambassador in Security Council who raises the issue almost every week. Imagine how happy they would be if there are no decisions in the General Assembly about the war on Ukraine.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

So it is the most unwise and the most primitive forms of reactions to turn your back on the United Nations. And of course we have to work on the reform of the United Nations. But there is no chance to achieve a breakthrough in the reform of the United Nations as long as permanent members would stick to Yalta decisions. And I say Yalta specifically because, of course, after Yalta we all flocked to San Francisco in May, june 1945 to write a very nice UN charter text. But the nucleus, the fundamentals, were already decided.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

Permanent members have exclusive control of practically everything, be it security council decisions, be it administration or HR decisions, the way how they are interdependent in appointments of senior staff members or heads of missions, where they would not block you because they don't want you to block them. So the system is ugly, but that is the only system that is there, and to cancel it is to find yourself in the world where the same permanent members will continue to control global affairs and you would not have even a platform or even a chance to call a Security Council meeting where, by virtue of their membership, they must reply to your questions, they must take the floor, they must make their position known, and there are members of the Security Council, including some permanent members, who hate to be put in that position under the spotlight, who hate to be in the Security Council every other week and to say what is their government position on Ukraine, because it makes them very uncomfortable. So to lose this platform, how then you would make the Russians sit in the same room with you?

J. Alex Tarquinio:

Well, in fact, it's often a place where they have conversations that they don't have elsewhere. It sounds like you have some concern about the continued appetite of some large countries to fund the United Nations. Of course, the United States funds 22% of the general budget for the big building near where we're sitting now, where we have the Security Council and General Assembly, but during the first Trump presidential administration they did make many cuts to Human Rights Council, unesco many cuts to Human Rights Council, unesco, population Fund, unrwa. Of course there's some concern that some of those cuts will happen again during Trump's second administration. Is there any concern, though, that cuts might run deeper to the budget?

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

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

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

I think that there are many, many, many situations here in the UN where funds are not used efficiently or properly. Therefore, I think that it is a very legitimate issue of the financial discipline and how the money is used, and the issue is being under constant examination, not only by the United States.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

The other large donors as well. Contributors and contributors.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

So I think that any US government has its duty to examine very carefully how the money is used, and indeed there are many primitive statements or comments made about what the next US administration will identify as priority or how they will treat the United Nations.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

Who am I to speak on their behalf? I will not speak as Nibinza did once in the Security Council meeting when he was interpreting some of the statements by nominees of Trump, but I would say that the United States, in my opinion, will continue to be very strong in the United Nations. The United States will continue to use very aggressively the 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 on all global issues known. And I'm far from thinking that the US will cancel the United Nations. No, the US may probably review the level of their engagement or probably decide on total disengagement with some of the UN agencies or institutions. It's up to the American government to decide. If you ask me, I think that in some cases it's better to be inside some of the agencies or structures and to try to enforce your vision rather than to abandon it and to be outside.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

And in particular, because the cuts in the first Trump administration, many of them were largely political. They're around the Palestinian issue or with the population fund, the abortion issue but there were more political causes rather than just. We think these agencies or programs are economically inefficient. It sounds like what you're talking about is them and they were targeted on those programs, and I'm not suggesting for listeners that these were UN-wide cuts, but it sounds like what you're saying is they should look more at the UN's broader budget, at inefficiencies is what you're saying here. That's a different exercise. Are there improvements in the way that the UN could handle its finances?

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

I think so. The UN is not perfect, not only in terms of political process, but also in terms of how the UN spends money, and it requires continued engagement. Some of the benchmarks that were set by the Trump administration during the first presidency of Trump haven't been reached, like, for example, he spoke at the General Assembly in 2019, and he spoke about the need to lower the US contribution to the PKO budget to 25%. The US still pays 26.9%. It's a lot of money. When one country out of 193 pays 27% to budget, it's a lot of money.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

So I'm sure that the US taxpayers have the legitimate right to raise a question, and we know where PQO is at the moment. So I don't want to prejudge or endorse the American decisions, but I totally with the American taxpayers and the American government, and if you fund a quarter of a business, then you have the legitimate right to see. I mean, I'm against the theory that the more you pay, the more rights you have, you know, because then we have to exclude 95% of the countries from the business, you know, but it's a very important question and the United States, by the way, and Trump administration, will be the one who will elect de facto, the new secretary general.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

They find unacceptable power could veto any candidate they find unacceptable. So it's going to be Trump and his administration who will decide what kind of chief executive officer of this organization we will have.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

Well, there is a process because of course, the other permanent members would also have a veto. So there would be some, presumably some. I don't really see how, you don't see how.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

I don't really see how, by the end of the day, I don't want to undermine the I mean, of course they would need to reach an agreement among permanent members.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

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

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

Well, before I speak about Ukraine, I need to say that I don't really see how the world can cope with so many issues and tragedies and humanitarian crises around the world without the United Nations. There is no other global player who, if the UN is cancelled, can in foreseeable future replace the United Nations. Of course, for the Ukrainians, the most difficult question is what's going on in Ukraine. But we also have to remember and I'm happy that an increasing number of Ukrainian politicians will realize that there are people dying in Africa, that there are people dying in other parts of the world and that we cannot be a single-issue country. The UN has one of the largest operations in Ukraine if we compare to other operations of UN around the world. There are more than 3,000 employees of UN permanently deployed in Ukraine. We have to appreciate the important contribution of various agencies of the United Nations, including UNDP, ocha, unicef, unfpa.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

Right, and I can tell you that in 2022, the humanitarian response of the United Nations was almost $4 billion.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

Within Ukraine.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

Within Ukraine.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

and other agencies are also engaging with the governments of receiving 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.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

It does. But it took me quite a while during these five years to make the UN communication more efficient and I'm happy that lately if you follow the UN communication more efficient, and I'm happy that lately if you follow the UN communication from Ukraine, if you're on Twitter or on Facebook, now they use it in a way that they showcase simple, regular Ukrainians as recipients of their assistance or humanitarian response.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

So they would make a tweet with a short video with average Ukrainians receiving windows or generators or food assistance or cash assistance. So people in Ukraine are very sensitive to that kind of issue. So that toxic image of the UN security council is gradually ironically eroded by the image of the UN system reaching out to average people in Ukraine and helping them with their daily needs. With the UN after a missile strike missile strike.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

So, even though it's not part of the coverage of the missile strike, you are making sure that that message is getting communicated within Ukraine, that the UN is there for them, absolutely, because I think that the UN deserves acknowledgement of what the UN system does. And it's a very eclectic kind of situation where you have the ugliness of Paralyzed Security Council and the dedication of people who work for the UN system in the field in Ukraine, which is also not perfect. But who is perfect? I'm not perfect, you are not perfect, so we are too fast to judge people for what they do while we need to look at ourselves.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

I want to go back to Kyiv because I like being there and, if you speak professionally, I that no ukrainian ambassador can be truly representing his country if he is, or she is, detached every day like so you need to get back on a on a professional level, but on a personal level, well, I'm very happy in kiev, believe me when I was in Kiev, and even every night we had this missile and other drone attacks, I slept better in Kiev than I sleep in New York, because you're home, because I'm home and because Kiev, of course, is very provincial in terms of if you compare it to New York, but it's so quiet even when there are, you know, strikes.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

Yeah, I mean, it's not provincial in terms of Europe or in terms of Ukraine, but it's not that inhumane as New York City is, in spite of our admiration of New York City. You know. But this city is cruel, this city is inhumane, city is wonderful at the same time. But you know, human beings are not made to live in mega-policies like New York, I'm sorry to say.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

And, of course, Kiev is your home.

Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya:

Absolutely.

J. Alex Tarquinio:

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

Frank Radford:

And that's it from the Delegates Lounge. We'd like to thank our esteemed guests, who've graciously allowed us to share their hard-earned insights into what really matters. And then there's you, our listeners, who we hope are sufficiently edified to clamour for more of the same. Do drop in for a weekly episode on Thursday, or, from time to time if we're on the road, for special events, in which case there'll be a bonus episode. Subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts and, if you like what you've heard, please take a moment to rate or review the show, as it helps others who share your abiding interest in world affairs to find their way to the Delegates Lounge. You can connect with us on many popular social media platforms or reach out to us directly at infothedelicateloungecom. We're a small team so we can't respond to every message, but we will read them. Our show this week was written and produced by the host and by yours truly executive producer, frank Radford. Until next time, keep calm and curious.