It's too late to send peacekeepers to Ukraine, World War III has already started, - ex-ambassador to the UN

In the last few days, the Ukrainians and the rest of the world became aware of the atrocities committed by Russian military in the occupied small towns near Kyiv. Commentators in Ukraine and in the West compare those to the Srebrenica massacre (killing of more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Bosniak town of Srebrenica by Bosnian Serb Army in summer 1995).

Volodymyr Yelchenko, the former permanent representative of Ukraine to the UN, and Ukraine's ex-ambassador to the US, says there are more similarities than differences. The diplomat recalls Srebrenica events. Telegraf asked him to share the memories of past events, actions required from the UN right now and why the UN peacekeepers are not yet deployed to Ukraine.

Read the interview in Russian

Read the interview in Ukrainian

- What are similarities between genocide in Srebrenica and Ukraine, since the tragedies in Mariupol, Bucha and Hostomel can also be called genocide or ethnic cleansing.

- I agree. There are more similarities than differences. Srebrenica happened long time ago. Because of that massacre, the term "ethnic cleansing" came to use for the first time in the history of UN. The term was not used before, even for the events happening in Ruanda or between Armenia and Turkey. The difference between the terms "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" is purely theoretical, in fact, there is no difference. What happened in Srebrenica and what happens now in Ukraine is the same thing.

We have seen the images from Bucha, but we do not have the final figures to estimate the scale of tragedy. Same goes for cities in similar situation: Mariupol, Kherson, Izium. But what we have seen in Bucha is more than enough to draw attention [of the international community]. But I don't want this to become another point of discussion. I wish there was a quick response action: immediate calling of the UN Security Council. This is needed to document all evidence. I wonder to see the response from Vasily Nebenzya (Russian ambassador to the UN), what would be his reaction to images and videos of the results of Russian military stay in Bucha. The last few sessions of the Council he was sitting with a pocker face, not showing any reaction to statements about Russia.

Today, Carla Del Ponte, the former prosecutor of the UN International Criminal Tribunals of Yugoslavia, said that Putin is a war criminal, shall be subject to international arrest warrant and prosecution.

I am sure that Ukrainian delegation already is working in New York on preparation of the session of the UN Security Council. Ideally, international tribunal for Russia should follow. Of course, this will be difficult to implement given Russia's veto right, but there are other ways. UN Human Rights Council recently established Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine with a group of independent experts working to investigate violations during Russia’s military attack. This was done even prior to Bucha events. Ukraine's General Prosecutor's office and Human Rights Watch are now documenting the evidence which should be available in coming days for examination by experts. This may take some time, but this is a necessary step.

- Going back to history, the UN once declared Srebrenica a "safe zone" under UN supervision and Dutch peacekeepers have been deployed there, while Ukrainian peacekeepers were deployed to Žepa. This did not help Srebrenica. Is it necessary, in your opinion, to deploy peacekeepers in Ukraine and how this can be formalized from legal point of view, taking into account Russia's veto right at Security Council?

- This is a tough question. Indeed, in 1995 UN forces were deployed to Bosnia and Herzegovina. But we have different situation and I am not sure that we need to link issues of genocide and peacekeepers. UN peacekeeping mission in Ukraine is not discussed right now, but can be considered later. My personal view, it is too late for it. It could be worth doing back in 2014, and Ukraine tried this.

In 2014 there was a view that UN peacekeeping mission was not possible due to possible Russia's veto, but that is only half of the picture. I was personally working on this matter during my mission in New York. Neither Germany, nor France were happy about the idea. Germany was not part of the Security Council at that time, but both France and Germany had view that as long as there are Normandy Format talks, it is necessary to be cautions and avoid steps which could be blocked by Russia. They said: let's wait, let's see how negations work out. This is how we ended up in situation that we have today.

But there were other difficulties. The US were generally in favor of peacekeepers but considered such mission to be too expensive and technically complicated. The figures discussed were 20,000 peacekeepers at Donbass and billions of USD in costs.

Now this is water under the bridge. This is no longer a conflict but an open extinction war. There will not be many countries eager to send their soldiers to the occupied territories of Ukraine, even if peacekeeping mission is implemented. There is an "unwritten rule": peacekeepers are deployed only after the parties to the conflict agreed on peace or armistice. We are far from that now. So, we need to concentrate on collection of facts and evidence to bring Putin and his circle to court in Hague.

- Regarding NATO. For Srebrenica, both the Dutch and Ukrainian peacekeepers asked for NATO to close the sky, but that did not happen. Allegedly, the danger for civilians was underestimated. NATO intervened one month later. In your view, does NATO have to intervene and close the sky over Ukraine?

- I hope that the decision makers at NATO will have the images from Bucha and other towns. It may shift the views. All those afraid of Russia, WWIII, nuclear arms need to think if the old mistakes should be repeate. NATO indeed intervened into Bosnia and other conflicts when it was too late. And then people start writing #NeverAgain on social media while sitting on comfortable sofa with no practical result.

Actions are needed. If "no-flight zone" is a no-go, then delivery of weapons necessary to prevent shelling as the ones seen in Bucha or Mariupol. If they do nothing, situation will repeat in other towns. Air Defence Systems is the priority but this is not enough. Odessa was shelled heavily in the morning and more tragedies may come in the South of Ukraine. This can be stopped only if military supplies increase.

Further, we wait that on Monday the West will come back from weekend (Ukraine does not have the privilege of weekends now) and will see all the terrifying images and videos and there will be a shift in thinking and they will pass the decision which we wait for.

- I can't but ask about your view on the reform of international institutions? The existing mechanisms and approached do not work properly if we have tragedies like in Ukraine?

- Radical reform on the UN requires WWIII, which has already started, albeit it's a hybrid war. We imagine it similar WWII but with nuclear arms, although the latter is not necessary. Right now we have the final stage before WWIII. That's why the reform of the UN should have started long ago.

There is a brilliant initiative, coming from NGOs, that is to exclude Russia from the UN Human Rights Council. Well, even for this idea which is easier to implement then expelling Russia from the UN there is resistance. The spokesperson for the UN Secretary General issued a statement that such expulsion could be a "dangerous precedent". So, even this initiative is blocked by the proposals "to think more about it".

That's why I am not on optimist to believe that tomorrow the UN will be reformed and we have something better instead. But it is obvious that the existing system for international security is toothless and protects no one. Perhaps only those countries, who are permanent members of the Security Council and proud of their veto right. And this comment is not only about Russia. I think that this country does not deserve to be a member of the council and have the veto rights.