to the united nations discussed the worn ukraine, the international response and prospects for peace. ambassador, welcome to washington post live. thank you so much for joining us. we always want to hear from you, our audience. you can share your thoughts and questions for our guest. ambassador let's dive in. is a lot to discuss. i wanted to start with the biden administration's decision to provide medium-range rocket systems to ukraine. it is a new step that is been taken before. i would like to ask you what significance do you see in this provision of the system, a new system to ukraine and what do you think it says about the you've all -- about the overall western response to the conflict. amb. kyslytsya: i think it has a very fundamental impact and importance, what we currently observe and our colleague to washington dc said in one of the public statements, these particular artillery do well in the eastern front. there are some very limited -- that have no military --. what happens basically the russians kill ukrainians at a rate of 60 to 100 soldiers per day. add to that hundreds of wounded. while we do our best to stop the offensive. if we do not receive in the near future necessary weaponry, weapons and arms and munitions, they may -- we may last for quite a long time. missy: do you think this signifies the west coming to terms with the stakes of the ukrainian conflict? there is been a disconnect since the beginning of the conflict between what ukraine says it needs to fight off not just for its own sake but for the sake of all western democracies in the european system and what the west has been willing to provide. how do you see this step playing into the overall equation there? amb. kyslytsya: i think the u.s. administration, unlike many, the u.k. was also part of these long-term visions, was very well informed about the state of the preparations on the russian side so they were already signaling importantly behind those, of their concerns about the preparations. at least starting from the last year. it was not a surprise to this administration. you may recall how many times a press person of the white house or state department said imminent until it caused confusion that the white house had to throw the use of the word imminent. unlike the americans and perhaps the british, some europeans are now sure pruden would launch an assault. some are so badly informed that they believe ukraine will surrender into or three days so they were not even planning midterm or long-term plans how to assist ukraine. only the result of the rope fight of the ukrainians made them change their opinion and their military planning. missy: i would like to ask you about oil. i think our viewers know russia's status is a major energy exporter in europe and to much of the world has been an important impediment to more deep cutting economic effects from the already significant sanctions that are out there. we have now seen after negotiations, the european union countries agreed, although pipeline deliveries will continue to flow. what do you think the impact of these measures will be on russia's economy and more importantly probably for ukraine , pollutants calculations when it comes to the war? amb. kyslytsya: we are living with a kind of war that cannot be stopped militarily including the objective reality where neither nato nor individual countries will be nato members are not are not willing to engage next to the ukrainians fighting in the battlefield. so we cannot have this military process of ukraine and allies on the battlefield to achieve a breakthrough at the moment. hence the application of other tools to stop the aggression are essential and among our most important tools is the economic and -- pressure and trade embargoes. as a matter of fact i think all of your listeners should really acknowledge it. trading with russia is -- everyone who buys russian goods or services finances the war. that's a matter of fact. here in new york when i speak to the u.n. secretary continues to procure goods and services from the russian federation. i tell them it's the most absurd situation that the united nations, or the general assembly declare the russian federation and aggressor continues to buy goods and services, continues to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the russian economy through the pension fund. when it comes to the energy supplies from the russian federation. we sincerely no doubt receive all financial assistance, be it money or loans, but it's also the matter of fact that europe until very recently during the first months of the war was paying the most one billion euros to the russian federation daily, buying energy, buying gas and oil. so that is the absurdity. this is also the result of irresponsible policies of many european leaders until very recently who made their countries and economies so dependent on energy supply from the russian federation. missy: i hear you when you're saying energy purchases are essentially financing the war and died have also heard several european leaders openly question or criticize the policies their predecessors including germany's new government, criticized its reliance on russian energy. at the same time there is an expectation that there could be increasing economic hardship in western europe, places like germany as they try to wean themselves off of these russian energy supplies. you would all concerned that the potential for recessionary economic hardship among europeans will erode the support that's really allowed ukraine to have this incredibly strong response to the russian invasion? amb. kyslytsya: well to say that iron my government is not concerned would not be true and we should always factor in this reality in our analysis and are planning. but to say we should follow the narrative and by this narrative is a responsible. it's a responsible not only for us, but also for the european leaders. i'd like to underline this once again, it's their duty to explain the whole range of the most negative consequences of not facing the necessary although painful measures to liberate europe from this -- it's dependency on russian gas and oil. if some politicians are driven by populist sentiments than they have no courage to abstain to their contest explained their constituents the venture. that will backfire and if europe does not take measures than when russia hits again they will all pay triple price. >> i would like to talk about the prospect for peace in ukraine. obviously there's us on and off discussion since the beginning of the war between the ukrainian and russian governments and a variety of different interlocutors including turkey and france trying to get peace talks going and more recently we've seen some suggestions in the european leaders and people including the former american secretary of state suggest that ukraine make certain concessions in order to secure a peace deal to end the war. concessions including acknowledging or accepting russian control of crimea, which as our audience knows was annexed by russia in 2014 and areas of the donbass with a separatist conflict is taken place. what is your response to that? amb. kyslytsya: i will not dignify kissinger by responding in detail to his mostly a responsible drivel about the ukrainian making concessions, territorial concessions of the russian federation. i was a was amazed even being a student 30 years ago in this country how that person could maintain his position of respectability and the american political elite after what he said in 1973. let me remind all of you what he said. he said while discussing then president nixon's situation with the soviet jews, he s aiif the soviets put them in gas chambers that is not a concern to the american. it's disgusting. we've a person who is a jew himself to say that about jews, how can i respect him? the whole range of his deals with the soviets starting with the times of --. anyway. it's a matter of principle that the ukrainians are so determined that no deals that involve territorial concessions. any politician that would try to breaker -- broker such a deal with the russians has no political future i believe and it's very dangerous. the ukrainians have already sacrificed so many lives that it's totally impossible to make them give up the territories for nothing. missy: just to confirm that, you're saying the ukrainian government would categorically not accept any territorial concessions and would only sign off on a peace deal that would involve a full withdrawal of russian forces basically going back to pre-2014 situation. amb. kyslytsya: i think that's exactly what my president has said. you have to make a distinction and they do that when it comes to temporarily occupied crimea. it's a separate case, but when it comes up to the approval of the russians of the result of the recent invasion, his lawyers say i don't really see any chance for any peace deal that would let the russians stay where they are right now. politically it is impossible. missy: you are saying crimea peninsula is a separate case, does that mean the ukrainian government could potentially accept a peace deal that would allow russia to retain some level of control over crimea? i just want to make sure. amb. kyslytsya: from a legal point of view the situation is clear. the ukrainian government and the united nations general assembly and international law all recognize the presence of the russian authorities in crimea is the presence of an occupational authority. there is no need end this won't be changed until the full d'este full the occupation of crimea. it is already an acknowledgment established fact not only by the government of ukraine but the united nations. the process of the occupation of crimea might be longer than the process of a full military defeat of the russian federation and the mainland of ukraine. missy: i'd like to ask you about the morale of ukrainian forces and the psychological state if we can make any sweeping statements about the ukrainian people, contemplate what you're saying and many ukrainian leaders have said could be a protracted conflict in their country. can you talk about the state of readiness for that extended war in ukraine. amb. kyslytsya: ukrainians are resilient. and it's not just a lofty statement, it's a matter of fact. how many times ukraine was devastated, invaded, made to flee from their country. i don't see any other nation in europe who's been to warsaw many times, devastated. from what i see and from what i hear, talking to my friends and colleagues, i don't see her register any sort of frustration or despair. people are unhappy but they are also realistic. most of the citizens of my country understand we are in a situation where the consequences of war will be there for generations. so i do not think people have strong expectations and the level of support for the government or president of ukraine are --. missy: let's talk about the united nations. you are sitting there in new york and there have been these series of dramatic moments at the u.n. since the beginning of the conflict. and we discussed that a little bit when i interviewed you in new york. some of that involving you and the russian ambassador to the united nations. i would like you to talk to our listeners a little bit about the role of the united nations and the war so far. how do you see the u.n. having advanced the cause of peace and having failed to advance the cause of peace in europe. amb. kyslytsya: i told you perhaps when we met in new york city, it's important to understand and unfortunately some people do not really acknowledge it. the united nations is not a complete -- structure. the united nations needs the assembly of nations, of leadership of those nations. so when we criticize the united nations or criticize in action -- inaction, we criticize ourselves and our inability to respond to crises in an adequate manner. the united nations is not perfect. the united nations is a product of the last century. the united nations, there should be reforms. that is a matter of fact. whether the united nations can be reformed is still an open question. even now i do not register any genuine desire from the permanent members of the united nations to launch reform. in the u.n. charter -- and the u.n. charter which was approved and guided by the wishes of three nations. the united states, the u.k. and the soviet union who did their best to protect their powers. nothing can be changed in the charter. so when it comes to the conflict as we all see now basically the u.n. and in particular the security council are immobilized because the interests of one of the members are at stake. missy: just to clarify your eye getting at the fact that russia as a permanent member of the security council has been able to exercise its veto to shut down would would be any sort of legally binding or notionally legally binding move to compel it to withdraw forces from ukraine or have a cease fire or something like that. amb. kyslytsya: first of all, i never say russia is a permanent member. i say they occupy the seat of the soviet union in the security council, who is according to the current text of the charter is still a permanent member of the security council. secondly, the russian federation is rather allowed to fly its veto right by other permanent members. with the recent developments, the liechtenstein initiatives by the overwhelmingly consensus so far from the general assembly on the veto. there was recently a double veto by china and russia and we will now see whether the new resolution for applying veto right will work. the matter-of-fact is all of us have made so many mistakes including letting russia occupy the seat of the soviet union in a manner that was inconsistent with the u.n. charter. so we will face the consequences. missy: just to provide more context for our audience, you're against the fact russia inherited the soviet union seat as a permanent member on the council after the dissolution of the soviet union and countries such as ukraine say that that hasn't been properly, i've heard american officials knowledge the same thing. but to your point about other major powers, of the u.n. not being willing to address that there doesn't seem to be any willingness i've heard on the part of the united states to do anything about it. amb. kyslytsya: the only reason, i think the only reason why russia still occupies the seat from the soviet union is the possession of nuclear arsenals by moscow. so should russia be nuclear free, no one would care. economically russia is us are -- a charade. it is economically weak. although the territory is huge, of the russian federation is probably less of california or -- then california or texas. those in london are so cautious about the soviet union was replaced by russia is the nuclear arsenals. missy: i want to ask you one more question on the u.n. before moving on to a couple of questions about president putin. where do you see the u.n. having played an active and positive role in the war so far. we talked of -- in our discussion about its humanitarian efforts and the secretary general's trips to kyiv. what other parts of the system do you think have been valuable? amb. kyslytsya: we see both you and me, what we would be memos of the general public. the security council is the most politically exposed, a controversial -- exposed, controversial part. the security council although a very important part of the united nations system, it is just one of many. there's another important part of the united nations and that is the general assembly. representative from 193 countries where every country has the same rights as any other country. it doesn't matter if you're the marshall islands or united states. the general assembly is the most, credit platform and the united nations. when it comes to the response of the military invasion by russia of ukraine, the general assembly in 2022 has been doing quite well. let us be reminded on the second of march in the general assembly , by 141 votes, approved a resolution on aggression to establish the fact russia was committing an act of aggression and in march, the general assembly approved a resolution for humanitarian situation. and i was pretty sure we would have even more goals set up, the very unfriendly aggressive faction that put -- the tried to put in an alternative draft. the general assembly is important. the general assembly got this particular right to consider the veto applications in the security council. there's also the secretary general. the secretary-general is more secretary than general. in the whole history of the united nations, neither of the permanent members so far have wanted the secretary-general to play an important political role. so the entire history of the united nations, the only super active and super principled secretary-general, we all know how he ended. he was killed in an accident that has not been fully investigated. he said if you are on your job for two weeks. when it comes to the current secretary-general, i think as a human being he has very high moral standards. so i always trust what he said. it's another thing he may not say what we like to hear because he is trained once again as a civil servant. he is a civil servant. he is strained by the position of the permanent members. we all remember until the 23rd of february he was still hoping no aggression would take place. but then when it happened he took a very principled position. the last thing i would like to mention is a whole family of agencies and of the united nations including agencies like unicef, hcr that provide so valuable assistance in times of conflict. also whether the efficiency is adequate when it comes to circumstances in ukraine. we should not be in this -- missy: i have a long list of questions i would love to ask you to keep the conversation going. we have hit the 30 minute mark so we will have to leave it there. ambassador, thank you for joining washington post live. amb. kyslytsya: thank you. missy: thank you for joining us here at washington post live for information on our upcoming program. you can announcer: c-span's washington journal, every day we are taking your calls on the air, on the news of the day, and we will discuss policy issues that involve you. on sunday, we discussed the latest developments in russia's invasion of ukraine. then the ninth amendment institute's scott wilkins will talk about the supreme court's decision to block a lot in texas, and in the future of free speech in the digital age. watch live at 7:00 a.m., sunday morning on c-span, or on c-span now, our free mobile app. during the discussion with your text messages, calls, facebook messages and tweets. sunday on q&a, an iraq war veteran, author of uncertain ground, discusses the impacts of the wars in afghanistan and iraq on society. >> one of the things that marines used to say was, america is at the mall, we are at war, which is a way of putting down civilians. i thought about that, and i thought to myself, ok, america is at war, i'm at the mall. maybe this is where i'm supposed to be. i'm getting baby clothes for my son. and the contempt i saw for a certain degree of civilian life, and anyway it is crazy because the whole point of joining the military is because you think this normal civilian life is worth defending. >> phil klay with his book, uncertain ground, on c-span's q& a. listen to all of our podcasts on our free c-span now app. announcer: congress is back next week, and will take up gun legislation in response to the texas school shooting. the house returns on tuesday and will vote on a package of gun safety measures later in the week, among them increasing the each inmate -- limit to 20 want to buy semi automatic rifles. a bipartisan group of senators also plan to continue their talks on gun proposals. the senate returns on monday at 3:00 p.m., and will join -- spend most of the week working on legislation to expand benefits for veterans exposed to toxic chemicals. watch live coverage of the house. on c-span the senate on c-span2. online at c-span.org or with our free video app, c-span now. announcer: after months of investigations, the house january 6 committee is set to go public. tune in as members question key witnesses about what transpired and why, during the assault on the u.s. capitol. watch our live coverage beginning thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. up next, remarks from former ambassador to ukraine william taylor. he talks about russia's invasion of the country and the potential for trying president putin for