Serhiy Kyslytsia, First Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine

The Ukrainian agenda for the high-level week of the UN General Assembly’s 80th anniversary, in addition to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s speech at the general debate, included a number of important developments, ranging from a meeting of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children to the Fifth Crimea Platform Summit. Additionally, the Ukrainian head of state held a series of bilateral meetings in New York, his talks with the US President definitely being the attention-catcher of the global media.

Ukrinform met with Serhiy Kyslytsia, First Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine to discuss the initial outcomes of the Ukrainian delegation’s visit to New York, the pause in peace talks, and NATO’s responses to fresh provocations from Russia.

MANY PEOPLE APPROACH FOREIGN POLICY LIKE WATCHING A SERIES ON NETFLIX

- Mr. Serhiy, let's start with the high-profile statement by President Trump that Ukraine is in a position to win back all its territory currently occupied by Russian invaders. It is being vigorously commented on both in Ukraine and in the West. Some are skeptical, while others regard it as a turn towards Ukraine. How do you, an experienced diplomat, feel about this?

- I understand that many people approach foreign policy like watching a series on Netflix, where a season is supposed to end somewhere – with a happy end or a seed for the next season.

What we are dealing with is not a series on Netflix, but very painstaking daily work. And you can see for yourself how Ukrainian-American relations have evolved in recent months.

I can say with all responsibility that the statements we heard yesterday from New York (this conversation was recorded on September 24, - Author) were not the result of some spontaneous emotional outburst on the part of the American leader.

They are the result of the fact that during this time the Ukrainian side, which has taken a very consistent and principled position, has done a lot at various levels, particularly at the level of President Zelensky, who had several meetings and telephone conversations with the American leader. At the level of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. At the level of Andriy Yermak, who is an important element to the network of national security advisers who consult with each other almost on a daily basis. At the level of Rustem Umerov, who also, as you can see from the news, works with his contacts. At the level of the Prime Minister, who, in her previous position, did a lot to lay down promising forms of future cooperation with the United States in the economic domain.

Therefore, what happened yesterday was not accidental. This, in my opinion, is the result of the American leader's reassessment of everything that has been achieved or has happened in recent months.

How practical will this be? For now, it would be irresponsible to say that we will achieve some ultra dramatic shifts without additional work being done, because, as you know, negotiations with both the Europeans and the United States on a package of security guarantees are still ongoing, and our economic and financial negotiations are going on continuously.

- In your opinion, how stable is President Trump's new position? Russian "political commentator" Dmitry Medvedev has already responded to it in the sense that we need to wait a little bit, and it will be the same as before.

- Do you remember the character in a literary work from the Soviet era who said: "Don't read Soviet newspapers"? Well, don't worry about what Medvedev says, but how, with your work, even if this may sound pathetic, to make Ukraine stronger in all aspects, including in a situation where you are once again sitting at the negotiating table with your partner or enemy.

- President Trump has several times compared Zelensky and Putin to "children on the playground" quarreling over a toy or something. In your opinion, has he finally understood the nature of Russia's war against Ukraine, that this is aggression on the part of Putin, and not a "mistake"?

- Do you understand the nature of conflicts in Africa?

- Well, I understand at least who attacked whom.

- And Trump too understands this well.

Of course, on his part, this is a very simplified and for many, in particular in Ukraine, an incomprehensible, and for some an offensive way of depicting what is happening as “a fighting between children,” because you can’t call a war that kills dozens of people at a time that. But such is American political culture.

It stands out from European culture in that speechwriters, political technologists who work for American politicians prepare their public appearances, draw up speeches, and organize voter communications in a way that is understandable to everyone, including teenagers.

I am not talking about this specific case. But I once read that one of the reasons why Clinton lost the election to Trump was that her speechwriters wrote speeches for, relatively speaking, more adult people, let’s say.

In fact, this does not make Americans unintellectual or uneducated people. America has the best universities in the world, there are a lot of educated people there. It's just that American politics and American culture belong to the cultures of direct action, direct culture. And until recently, it was easy to work with Americans, because they said what they thought, and vice versa.

In Europe, everything is actually more complicated. There, politicians sometimes speak so beautifully, refer to philosophers, writers and poets so much that while you listen to them, you are delighted, and then, when he or she finishes the speech, you still can't understand - what is it about, where is the answer to the questions posed?

- Isn’t it the same with Trump?

- I don't know if that's true or not. But my impressions of what I've heard from Trump in the Oval Office suggest that, despite his age, he's a physically and cognitively healthy person who can lead a dialogue in a way that steers the conversation rather than just goes with the flow. Thus, he's a very strong politician.

- We've heard quite contradictory statements from Trump; that’s why the question arises as to what should we "anchor" on - what's positive for us or the opposite?

- I'm continuing to instill in you a different paradigm and a different line of thought - focus on what will make your country stronger. Because ultimately, your success in negotiations with partners like the United States, and in particular the President, depends on how strong your positions are, not on how beautifully you speak.

And when the President of Ukraine, almost literally, reveals the war cards to his partners and shows that the narratives that Putin is imposing -- that he will seize everything he wants within a span of a few weeks or months -- are not true. The Ukrainian army is demonstrating this during the ime between Alaska summit and yesterday.

And this allows President Zelensky to sit across from Trump and say: "I told you this wouldn't happen."

That's where our strength lies! And not in the fact that we will sit and read from coffee grounds what our partners are saying.

- President Trump has again promised to impose tough sanctions on Russia if NATO member countries stop buying its energy resources. Do you think this means a desire not to do anything bad to Russia or a consolidation of American and European positions to put pressure on the Kremlin together?

- I think I can answer your question with a question: do you think it appropriate that, in fact, European countries - not all, but some - continue to buy energy resources from Russia?

- Absolutely inappropriate!

- So you agree with Trump?

- Yes. But I have heard nothing about when he is going to slap these tough sanctions. Will it happen after Europe stops buying energy resources from Russia, actually meaning not soon?

- I will not interpret Trump's words for you, which you can read for yourself.

I just want to say, and you yourself replied so, that it is inappropriate to buy Russian oil and gas, because this finances the war machine of the aggressor country, the Russian Federation.

Therefore, yesterday it was more important for me to hear from Trump that Viktor Orban, for example, will change his position, because officials in Budapest constantly state that they are not going to give up on importing Russian oil and gas.

MANY IMPORTANT THINGS CAN BE DONE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER RUSSIA IS READY FOR MEANINGFUL PEACE NEGOTIATIONS OR NOT READY

- Let's talk about the peace process. Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Rustem Umerov said that negotiations with Russia are currently going along the humanitarian track only, in particular on the release of prisoners of war. Is this a pause in the peace process, or is it a stalemate already?

- No, this is not a stalemate. This is where we are today, in conditions where the leadership of a dictatorial country shows no signs of being willing to negotiate peace, despite all the audio spam coming from [Putin’s spokesperson Dmitry] Peskov, [Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria] Zakharova, and others.

But this does not mean to say that negotiations between Ukraine and its partners on security guarantees and other important things that can be done regardless of whether Russia is currently ready and willing to engage in really meaningful peace talks have stalled or reached a dead end.

- So, the meeting between Zelensky and Putin, which we were promised after the talks in Washington with President Trump, is not on the agenda at the moment?

- No one promised anything there. This was the result of multilateral and bilateral negotiations, where the Ukrainian side confirmed what we also said to Washington: that we are ready, moreover, we consider it necessary to hold a bilateral meeting with Putin. Because Russia’s dictatorial nature does not allow his subordinates to make decisions that can actually bring this war to a stop. In a dictatorial country, only a dictator can do this, and his subordinates must follow his orders. To make these decisions, a summit between the President of Ukraine and the Kremlin dictator is needed. Therefore, after the bilateral and multilateral meetings in Washington, a conversation took place between President Trump and Putin, after which the US President said that, as he understood, Putin is basically not against working towards organizing bilateral and trilateral meetings, but this does not mean that this had been agreed upon.

Putin, true to form, believes he has deceived everyone, because we do not see any willingness to meet on his part. His suggestions to hold negotiations in Moscow, St. Petersburg or Sakhalin indicate nothing but his reluctance to negotiate.

Today, his spokesperson Peskov said that the entire geography that we offered them is categorically unacceptable. And it was as broad as possible: if you don’t like Geneva, let’s meet in the Vatican then. If you don’t like the Vatican, let’s meet in Vienna. If you don’t like Vienna, let’s meet in one of the Gulf countries. If you don’t like it, let’s meet in Kazakhstan.

But Putin rejected any of these options.

- But without this meeting, can anything be done at all?

- Of course, yes! We should not sit idly.

The process of outlining security guarantees, economic and trade negotiations is ongoing. We are working out those solutions that, albeit slowly, will make our army stronger not only potentially, but also practically.

COMPREHENSIVE SECURITY GUARANTEES DO NOT REPLACE PREVIOUSLY CONCLUDED SECURITY AGREEMENTS

- You said that Ukraine is making progress on the issue of security guarantees. But how relevant are negotiations on this now, considering that these guarantees are contingent on the conclusion of a peace agreement that is currently not in sight?

- Well, it is true and also not true. Security guarantees are profound and comprehensive - you cannot pull out any element from out there, and one element, even an essential one, by itself, will not fully neutralize the complex threat that exists.

Therefore, for example, we should not wait until peace arrives to build a mighty Ukrainian army as one of the elements of the security guarantees. The armed forces of Ukraine must be strengthened both in terms of training and in terms of armament. That is, this is the end towards which we must be heading together with our partners, regardless of whether Putin wants peace or not.

Or take weapons production, for example. We are negotiating with partners to co-produce them in Ukraine and in other countries. This too does not require the advent of a sustainable peace or truce.

Or the restoration of the economy in Ukraine. Needless to say, this would go better in peaceful conditions. But we are already working on it anyway.

Or Ukraine's membership in the European Union, for example, is not just a whim or a political desire. We are considering it as part of Ukraine's economic stability and economic strength, because the EU membership is primarily about economy and trade. That is why accession negotiations are already underway, because we view membership in the European Union as an essential element of security guarantees.

- Among the potential security guarantors are many countries with which Ukraine already has security agreements. How will the new agreements differ from the previous ones?

- First of all, no one will cancel these agreements. For example, the Verkhovna Rada ratified last week the agreement on a century-old partnership with Great Britain. Had we thought that these agreements have already outlived their usefulness, we would not have ratified them.

That is to say, comprehensive security guarantees are not substitutes for the security agreements that we have already concluded - they partly supplement them, partly strengthen them.

A very important element that made our conversations with partners more substantive was the confirmation of the United States' willingness to be part to these guarantees. The Europeans expected such a decision, but it was not until August that certainty emerged as to whether and to what extent the current administration in Washington was basically ready to be part to security guarantees.

Such assurances were provided at the highest level, which then allowed our president to hold both a bilateral dialogue with Macron in Paris and a meeting with the Coalition of the Willing, and to talk more substantively. After all, many things, including in the military and political and military domains, are impossible to do without American support. There was no point in talking about them if European countries were not sure that the Americans stood with us.

- What will these countries and the United States do before a peace deal is reached?

- They will continue to do what they are doing now, and even better. For example, purchase American weapons. There is confirmation from Trump that the Americans stand ready to sell us weapons. The question is to what extent we are prepared to buy and the Europeans to pay. This process is ongoing.

Besides, they are going to set up additional production capacities in and outside of Ukraine to enable Ukrainian weapons to be manufactured using domestic technologies to meet the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

- What will then be written in the security guarantees, given that we are already doing this now?

- Among other things, it will be specified, as President Macron said at a press conference in Paris, which of the Coalition of the Willing member countries are prepared and willing to provide for Ukraine in practical terms. That is, who is ready to provide aircraft, who, as they say, will provide boots and flags on the ground, who will provide financial support, given that their Constitution strongly prohibits military cooperation, and who will provide other components.

- The Ukrainian side is currently in contact on security issues with two special envoys of the US President - Keith Kellogg and Steve Witkoff. How do their roles differ in these negotiations? Why are we talking to one in Kyiv, and the other in Washington?

- As I said above, negotiations are being conducted at different political levels, as well as with the chiefs of staff of the army, because the comprehensive security guarantees being drafted include not only political and military-political components, but also purely military components.

That is, this is a multi-level, interdisciplinary process.

As for your question, Kellogg is the US President's special envoy for Ukraine, and Witkoff is the special envoy for Russia.

That's why we sit down opposite Witkoff in Washington, communicate our messages, and want to hear from him what stage of success or failure his negotiations with the Russians are at.

- Witkoff is now intending, as has been reported, to again visit Moscow soon. Did he accept the invitation to come to Ukraine?

- He never denied the possibility of taking up the invitation to visit Ukraine.

IDEALLY, A TRUCE SHOULD BE RECIPROCAL, BUT IT CAN ALSO BE IMPOSED ON THE ADVERSARY

- Keith Kellogg said in an interview with American media that he has differences with Donald Trump regarding the sequence of a peace settlement: the US President insists on a peace deal to be reached immediately, while Kellogg believes that a truce should come first. What is Ukraine's position on this issue?

- You are oversimplifying the words of both Kellogg and Trump. There is no matrix there that has to be "imposed".

Trump wants the killing of people to stop as soon as possible - he reiterates this at any time he speaks to the media: "Stop the killing!".

We believe that the fire should be ceased. But it doesn’t mean to say we would not hold negotiations if no ceasefire is achieved. We will continue to negotiate. But if you really want a sincere productive dialogue, you cannot hold it at the time missiles are falling on your head.

In diplomacy, there is a concept such as confidence building measures. Keep in mind that there is no trust in the Russians in principle. And if you do not have trust in your counter-party, it is then very difficult to reach agreement at all. Is it possible to trust the word of the country's leader and the dictator who has betrayed every verbal, written or ratified promise he made?

Therefore, ideally, the fire should be ceased; ideally, the ceasefire should be reciprocal. But -- and this is what our President says -- a ceasefire can as well be imposed on the adversary. That is, if Ukraine's air defense capacity evolves to the point where launching missiles on us ceases to make sense or is incapable of producing the desired result, then this will, in fact, amount to a truce in the air.

With a responsible and decisive position of Ukraine and its allies in place, this can be achieved. Yes, it is not easy, but taking measures that guarantee a higher-degree protection of our sky is basically possible. Technologically, it is possible.

- But we see some hesitation by our partners in the Coalition of the Willing – they make loud statements, and then little happens. How realistic is it that they will help us secure our skies or take some other concrete steps that will give weight to our position?

- Do they have any other choice?

- Maybe they choose to “not look up”…

- Okay, but if they bury their heads in the sand, the same thing will happen to them as did to Ukraine.

History is cyclical, Europe has come through this all in different centuries, it’s just that the level of technological sophistication of war and politics was different.

Or let’s remember the attacks on Finland, Poland, other countries, or the Soviet military invasion of Czechoslovakia [in 1968].

Therefore, if any of the hedonistically minded European citizens hopes that this will pass… If they do nothing, it will not pass. They will have to pay a double and triple price, because if they are reluctant to finance a strong Ukrainian army and help us defend them, they will have to build up their own army.

Look at the statistics, at how many countries currently mandate military training - I'm not even talking about mandatory military service. Because in the 1980s-1990s and the early 2000s, Europe plunged into deep hedonism and enjoyed the achievements of social welfare, including at the expense of an insufficiently responsible attitude to its own security.

NO POPULIST WILL HOLD ON TO POWER AT THE TIME FIGHTER AIRPLANES FLY OVERHEAD

- How do you assess the response from NATO and the countries targeted by Russian provocations in recent weeks? Can this deter Putin?

- The response from these countries is also evolutionary. After all, at first there were just one-time intrusions by Russian UAVs, then massive ones, and then followed incursions by fighter jets. That is, it is escalating, so a more structured and systematic response is inevitable.

That is why negotiations with Ukraine at the table were initiated by a number of countries to discuss how to create a wall of defense.

- The response to provocations "according to the rules", so to speak, seems to be interpreted by Putin as NATO’s weakness. In your opinion, what conclusions did he draw from these discussions?

- He concluded that, at the time of the provocation, in my opinion, the countries targeted by these provocations were unprepared to provide a decisive response. And their politicians were not even ready to talk about a decisive response.

But look at the statements made during the last hours and days, including in New York, from Poles, Swedes and others who said: "Fly in again, we will shoot it down and will not even hesitate about it." This is a no-easy step to make, neither is this an empty warning. The fate of European politicians depends on whether they keep their word, because voters in Europe have no liking for bags of wind.

Voters have liking for populists, but up to a certain point. But no populist will stay in power at the time where foreign fighter jets fly over the heads of his fellow citizens.

MOSCOW IS NOW MORE DEPENDENT ON CHINA THAN IT EVER WAS ON THE GOLDEN HORDE

- Lavrov and Rubio are set to meet on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York. Can it influence the US position?

- I am convinced that there is not a single new word in Lavrov's vocabulary nor in his folder containing theses for these negotiations.

- The media reported that Putin brought 16th-century maps and some historical reference books to his meeting with Trump in Alaska to prove that Ukraine is an "artificial entity." Will Lavrov follow this tactic?

- Let's ask Putin what happened in the 16th century? Let's recall that Muscovy paid tribute first to the Golden Horde, and later to the Crimean Khanate until the 17th century.

Overall, in the history of Muscovy (the historical name for the medieval state centered in Moscow, which later stole the name and Peter the Great renamed it Russia), there has been practically no period when they were truly independent. Their dependency has climaxed in this servitude to China they’ve found themselves in today. (In a geopolitical sense, a position of servitude refers to a state or country being dominated or controlled by a more powerful one. It is a condition of deep subordination where a country's national sovereignty is compromised, and its political, economic, or military decisions are dictated by the will of the dominant power – Author’s note).

Moscow has never been more dependent on a foreign ruler or government than it is now, since the days of paying tribute to the Golden Horde and the Crimean Khanate.

China, perhaps not trying very hard, in fact, regularly humiliates Russia. In February 2023, a year after the start of full-scale aggression against Ukraine, the Ministry of Natural Resources of the People's Republic of China issued a directive (which is posted on the Chinese government website), by which they decreed that, in order to promote sovereignty and spread the "healthy use of geographical names", what belonged to China historically should bear Chinese names. That is, Vladivostok should now be referred to, as before, Haishenwei, and, accordingly, Khabarovsk and other territories that, after the Amur annexation, are now part of the Russian Federation. The official note, that is, the appropriate message was handed over to the Russian side, if memory serves me, on February 6.

Have you heard anything from Peskov or Zakharova about this? No. But when, in May 2023, the Polish Commission on Geographical Names recommended calling Kaliningrad by its historical name Królewiec, both Peskov and Zakharova threw fits.

This is a vivid example of just how subordinate the Russian Federation has become to China.

- To what extent is it customary in diplomacy to exploit historical arguments during negotiations?

- Any arguments, if they are true, can be put to use. False arguments are also used very often.

But, in addition to lies, a special phenomenon has recently emerged in international relations, which in English is referred to as bullshitting.

Just remember how Trump said about Russians that they talk a lot, but everything they say is bullshit.

Do you know the difference between lies and bullshitting?

When you lie, you know what the truth is, but you lie to cover it up. And a bullshitter – that’s what Trump said about Putin – doesn’t even care about what the truth is. He just wants to introduce into your mind some thoughts, ideas, theories that are completely disconnected from objective reality. He doesn’t care at all what the truth is, he just tells you all sorts of nonsense.

And that’s exactly what Russian diplomats do.

PUTIN'S PHYSICAL DISAPPEARANCE WILL NOT BE THE ANSWER TO ALL OUR PROBLEMS

- On your social media, you have repeatedly advised to look at Putin's photos. Is this a hint that the "Tsar is not real"?

- I don't care whether he is "real" or "not real". The problem is that those who hope that Putin's physical disappearance is the answer to all our troubles are profoundly mistaken.

Putinism has rooted so deeply that hoping that Putin will disappear and Russia will somehow miraculously turn into a peaceful democratic country is completely irresponsible.

Moreover, there is even a certain threat in this, because there are people and even governments in the West who don’t really object dealing with a "provisional president", a "new prime minister", some Ivanov instead of Lavrov, who will come and say: "We are the new government, we represent a new Russia and have nothing to do with Putin's policy". And they will tell them: "Okay, let's cooperate".

- Apparently, this would be the case…

- No, it won’t be the case, because there is no longer that unanimous willingness in place to cooperate with anyone in Moscow, for fear that something might occur, as it did in 1991.

- However, it seems that the hope for resolving the "Russian issue" is pinned solely on Ukraine...

- You are overdramatizing…

My deep conviction is that Ukraine is going to evolve into a military and economic powerhouse.

As a German saying has it, there is no bad weather, only bad clothing. Ukraine should wear “weather appropriate clothing” all the times, needs to be armed enough to withstand both sun and rain and snowfall. It may sound very simplistic, but it is true.

There can be no situation where we hope that someone will defend us at the time we ourselves are not able to defend ourselves. It is realistic, indeed, to achieve this state of affairs in a more effective and more economical way financially through accession to NATO and the European Union.

- Do you think that we are doing enough for this to happen?

- We are doing enough within the constraints of the terrible situation we are in.

Let’s not forget that the skies over Kyiv are not always peaceful as cities and settlement in the east, north and south of Ukraine are being reduced to a lunar landscape.

I would like to reiterate it once again that everyone in their place should do their job qualitatively, and not sit on sofas and watch, as on Netflix, the "series" "Russian aggression against Ukraine" and give advice to the military, politicians, legislators and others.

Each socially active citizen of Ukraine, even a retiree, has means to strengthen our state through daily work.

Nadiya Yurchenko led this conversation

Photo: Yevhen Kotenko / Ukrinform