Why Russia Is Illegally in the UN and What’s Needed to End the War: Volodymyr Yelchenko’s Prague Speech

During the conference, Volodymyr Yelchenko — head of international policy research at the Pylyp Orlyk Foundation, Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the UN in 1997–2001, Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the UN Security Council in 2000–2001 and 2016–2018, and Ambassador of Ukraine to the United States, Russia, and Austria — delivered a speech on today’s challenges to European security, the need to strengthen support for Ukraine, and the strategic decisions European partners must make to deter Russian aggression.

At the same event, Roman Kulchynskyi, editor-in-chief of “Texty.org.ua,” presented a study on Russian propaganda in Czechia.

We are publishing the text of Volodymyr Yelchenko’s speech:

Gratitude to Czechia for Supporting Ukraine

It is extremely important to have the opportunity to address a broad audience in Czechia and beyond, and to share Ukraine’s perspective on the situation and events currently unfolding in Ukraine.

I also want to sincerely thank the Czech people and the Government of the Czech Republic for their invaluable support of Ukraine during these extraordinarily difficult years. We are well aware that without the help of our partners and friends from Europe, Ukraine would not have been able to withstand the first months of the full-scale war. We deeply value this support and are convinced it will remain extremely important going forward.

The Real Situation on the Front Contradicts the Kremlin’s Rhetoric

For more than four years now, the Kremlin has claimed that Russia’s victory over Ukraine is inevitable. However, the actual situation on the battlefield tells a completely different story. Since the start of the year, Ukraine has liberated more of its territory than Russia has managed to seize.

At the same time, according to available data, Moscow loses up to 35,000 servicemen every month, which exceeds its capacity for recruitment and mobilization of new forces. As the cost of the war for Putin’s regime grows, more and more representatives of the Kremlin leader’s inner circle are pushing him toward ending this destructive war.

Ukraine Seizes the Initiative and Blocks Crimea

Meanwhile, Ukraine is gradually seizing the initiative. Our advantage in the use of unmanned systems is restraining further advances by Russian forces, while long-range strikes on Russian oil refineries and military facilities in Crimea are weakening Moscow’s war economy.

At the same time, Ukraine is effectively destroying the logistics supplying Russian forces both on the front and in temporarily occupied Crimea. The situation in Crimea has changed significantly in recent times. In fact, the peninsula is now under an almost complete military blockade by Ukraine. The only relatively safe route in and out remains the bridge built by Russia after the occupation of Crimea. However, its capacity is now severely limited due to constant strikes by Ukrainian naval drones and UAVs. In addition, the bridge has suffered partial destruction in recent years and still has not restored its full functionality. Ukraine is also able to strike the other overland route connecting Russia to Crimea along the coast of the Sea of Azov, using drones, artillery, and missile systems. All the other bridges have already been destroyed, so Crimea has effectively become an island. Although it remains a peninsula geographically, in military-logistical terms it is today almost completely isolated.

Why Holding Crimea Has Always Been a Difficult Task

History has repeatedly shown that controlling Crimea has always been an extremely difficult task. The Russian and Ottoman empires fought over it, and during World War II the peninsula became the scene of fierce fighting. For virtually every state that tried to fully seize and hold Crimea, it ultimately ended in failure.

The reason is that, from a military and geographical standpoint, it is impossible to effectively hold and defend this territory without reliable and uninterrupted supply routes. It is precisely these logistical routes that Ukraine is systematically focused on destroying today.

The West Is Revising Its Assessment of Russia’s Chances of Winning

In my view, it is extremely important that the events currently unfolding around Crimea and along the entire front line are gradually changing perceptions of the situation among our Western partners — both in Europe and in North America.

I am convinced that in the West, there is growing recognition that Russia cannot win this war. Even two or three years ago, and even last year, the situation was assessed quite differently. Frankly speaking, after Donald Trump’s election as President of the United States, his assessments were also less optimistic than many of us had expected. This affected the overall outlook on how events would unfold to some extent.

But today this perception is gradually changing, and that is certainly a positive sign.

Conditions for Realistic Negotiations with Russia

I do not believe realistic, practical, and productive negotiations with Russia are possible until it begins to feel that it is losing this war.

I am not saying that we need to wait for Ukraine’s complete victory. It’s quite possible this will take longer than all of us would like. But given the current circumstances and the position of the current Russian leadership, it is unrealistic to expect that one can simply sit down at the negotiating table and reach any compromises. The current Russian leadership will not agree to any concessions until it realizes that continuing this war no longer serves its own interests.

First Line of Pressure: An Economic Blockade of Russia

That is precisely why, in my view, pressure on Russia must not only be maintained but intensified. By pressure, I don’t just mean European Union or United States sanctions packages. I mean a genuine economic and financial blockade of Russia — similar to the policy once launched by US President Ronald Reagan against the Soviet Union. That policy ultimately became one of the key factors in the economic exhaustion and subsequent collapse of the USSR. This means a complete trade blockade of Russia: banning any trade with it, closing borders to Russian citizens, and, of course, a full halt to imports of Russian energy resources. This is the first line.

Second Line: A Closed Sky over Ukraine

The second line is military. This is exactly what Ukraine’s leadership has been asking our Western partners for since the first day of the full-scale invasion in February 2022: “Close the sky over Ukraine.”

Today, the Russian army is no longer capable of conducting an effective offensive along the entire front line. In fact, this resembles the model of World War I, but with fundamentally new technologies and modern high-precision weapons.

Any advance comes at colossal cost. This is exactly what is happening to Russian forces today. They are losing up to 1,500 servicemen a day even without large-scale frontal battles. Most of these losses are caused by unmanned systems, missile strikes, and other modern means of destruction. So in fact the only way that allows Russia to continue this destructive war is through daily and nightly missile and drone strikes on Ukrainian territory. This is the reality we Ukrainians live in almost every night.

When I talk about a “closed sky” or a no-fly zone over Ukraine, I don’t mean the model NATO once applied in Kosovo, Libya, or Iraq. I mean a different approach. Our Western partners could help Ukraine not only by supplying air defense and missile defense systems and the necessary ammunition, but also by joining in the defense of Ukrainian airspace.

And for this, it is not at all necessary for NATO aviation to carry out such a mission. This could be implemented, for example, by creating a powerful air defense system near Ukraine’s borders with Romania, Poland, Slovakia, and other neighboring states.

Third Line: Offensive Weapons for Ukraine

The third line, which I believe is extremely important today, is providing Ukraine with more offensive weapons, not just defensive means. Above all, I mean long-range missile systems that would further worsen Russia’s position on the front and make its military situation irreversibly difficult.

First a Ceasefire, Then Dayton-Style Negotiations

I am convinced that genuine negotiations can only begin once a ceasefire regime has been achieved. I do not believe in the effectiveness of negotiations conducted in parallel with active combat operations. A ceasefire would, of course, mean fixing the current situation on the front. Only after that could a full-fledged negotiation process begin.

Drawing on diplomatic experience, I believe the best approach would be to convene a large international conference dedicated to settling the war in Ukraine. The international conference on Bosnia and Herzegovina, which concluded with the signing of the Dayton peace accords, could serve as a model.

I am convinced that genuine negotiations with the current Russian leadership are practically impossible. We can only hope that in the near future, people ready for a real negotiation process will emerge in the Kremlin.

The Problem of Russia’s Veto Power in the UN Security Council

This brings us to the key issue we are working on at the Pylyp Orlyk Foundation. I want to emphasize: whatever the outcome of a future international conference on Ukraine, it will inevitably be brought before the United Nations and will require approval by the UN Security Council. We face a fundamental problem: the Russian Federation is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and holds veto power.

I find it hard to imagine any Russian leadership — even if it is no longer headed by Vladimir Putin — voluntarily giving up the use of its veto on decisions it considers contrary to Russia’s interests. This, in my view, is one of the fundamental problems of any future peace settlement.

The unrussiaUN Initiative and Russia’s UN Membership

The Pylyp Orlyk Foundation, which effectively grew out of the “unrussiaUN” civic initiative, pays particular attention to this issue. The main goal of this international initiative is to secure recognition of Russia’s unlawful presence in the United Nations and to strip it of its status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Let me give one personal example. In December 1991, I was a young diplomat at the Permanent Mission of Ukraine to the United Nations in New York. And I witnessed with my own eyes the moment when the then-Permanent Representative of the USSR, Yuli Vorontsov, simply replaced the nameplate reading “USSR” with one reading “Russian Federation.” It was from that moment that Russia began to consider itself the continuator state and legal successor of the Soviet Union at the United Nations.

The Legal Status of Russia’s UN Membership

I think many people remember how the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic joined the UN. States that emerged after the breakup of Yugoslavia, as well as many other new independent countries, went through an analogous procedure.

The Russian Federation, however, never went through such a procedure — it is the only one of the 193 member states of the United Nations whose parliament has never ratified the UN Charter.

And right now we are not even talking about terminating Russia’s membership in the United Nations over its violation of the UN Charter or its aggression against Ukraine. We are talking exclusively about the legal aspect of this problem. In our view, the Russian Federation is present at the United Nations without proper legal formalization of its membership. That is why we launched this international campaign, and our international petition has already been signed by more than 390,000 people. Today the number of its supporters is approaching 400,000 from various countries around the world.

Plans for the September Session of the UN General Assembly

The main idea is that at the beginning of September, when the next session of the UN General Assembly opens, the credentials of the Russian Federation’s delegation should not be recognized.

Similar precedents already exist in the history of the United Nations. This was the case, in particular, with South Africa. A similar case occurred after the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. Not everyone remembers this today, but from 1956 to 1958 the credentials of the Hungarian delegation were not recognized by the United Nations because of the events of that time.

I am convinced that this work must continue and will ultimately lead to the restoration of justice and the removal of the Russian Federation from the United Nations in accordance with the norms of international law.