Exclusive interview of Matthias Schmale, Assistant Secretary-General, Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in Ukraine, to Interfax-Ukraine News Agency

Text: Valerie Proshchenko

 

The third anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine is approaching. What has the UN done to help Ukrainians suffering from the war?

There has been a significant scale-up of the humanitarian response since February 2022, consisting of several elements. A big focus has been supporting people along the front line, with numerous so-called interagency convoys bringing life-saving assistance: non-food items, shelter kits and food. The UN has over 600 partners doing this work. More than 400 are Ukrainian organizations, some of which are local volunteer groups helping people along the front line, and slightly larger organizations helping people move.

In 2022, more than US$4 billion came into the country for humanitarian response, in 2023, it was $2.6 billion, and last year $2.2 billion. And a big part, especially in the first year, has gone into a front-line response.

A second element is helping people who have left the front line, supporting evacuations, and accompanying especially vulnerable people on the move.

This has included helping people in transit centers, and there has been considerable support also in what we call collective centers. In 2024, 32 partners provided support in 1032 collective sites. I should also mention cash assistance that has been provided to people. Often in the transit and collective centers, there is a three-month multi-purpose cash payment, so people can support themselves.

 A third area has been the response to attacks. I've seen many impacted sites myself, mostly along the front line. Again, a fantastic network of local organizations that do what we call the first response (helping people cope with the first shock by providing them with clothes, food, moving to a safer place).

Another significant component that we've provided for the third winter in a row is what we call winterization assistance. For example, many times convoys have brought solid fuel to vulnerable communities, especially in rural areas close to the front line.

A huge part of the response to the war in Ukraine is helping to protect vulnerable people, and specific examples of that are those people who have experienced violence, including sexual violence, and need safe spaces. Some of our colleagues and organizations involved in the humanitarian response have helped to create safe spaces. There are qualified social workers and psychologists who help people deal with traumas that have been caused by the war.

I've also been to some of these collective sites where legal advice is being given. Of course, when you flee after a strike or hostilities, sometimes papers get lost, especially in destroyed houses. That’s another example of an important humanitarian response.  Water has been another key component of the response, involving both trucking water and physically delivering it to people as well as repairing water purification and distribution installations.

What is more difficult to talk about in very concrete terms is the mental health crisis that this war is causing. We're trying with the government and partners to do what we can. But Ukrainians are constantly attacked, and a lot of anxieties are caused. We're struggling to identify a response at scale to that “hidden” mental health crisis.

 

Looking back at February 2022, we remember a profoundly tragic year marked by immense humanitarian needs. What are the key priorities and focus areas for 2025

In my opinion, the humanitarian response priorities have not essentially changed. We still have very vulnerable people along the front line, especially older people and people with limited mobility. That remains a priority. Our second priority is evacuation. The front line is changing so a lot of people over the last few months were forced to move. And of course, the response to Russian military strikes across the country continues.

What is changing a little bit is two things, as we sadly approach the three-year mark and go into the fourth year. The first is the mental health crisis. The longer the war lasts, the greater the mental stress it causes in the population. People are tired of the war,  and this is a new dimension we need to address. We need to think about it and how we can help people. No one's giving up, but it’s important to deal with this increasing fatigue and mental stress. That's one.

The other one is IDPs - internally displaced people. There are now more than three million people who are not going anywhere soon. For example, there are almost half a million IDPs in the Kharkiv Region. People cannot return to their homes because of the war and the heavily mined areas. And they don't want to go further west, where it may be safer - they want to stay close to their homes. So, the governor said that we need durable solution for these people, such as social housing. It means moving from collective sites to more decent places to live because they might be here for months if not years. I remember an old woman that I met in Kharkiv in one of these collective sites who had already been there for two years. People want to go back home. But because that may take time, can we find a better place for them to live, and can we help with jobs?

So, there are at least 3 million people who don't fit into the categories I've mentioned (frontline response, evacuations or response to strikes) that are stuck in a situation that may continue for months. And as the UN, we talk about durable solutions for IDPs, and I believe that’s an evolving priority as we tragically move into the next year.

But again, as long as the war continues, I think the first 3 priorities will remain.

Despite this, we must think about the future. Ukraine is willing to end the war, the President has said it many times. I sense that we may see this year the war stopping. Not peace, but a ceasefire. No one knows what is the deal that comes with a ceasefire. Humanitarian needs will likely not disappear the day the guns fall silent, especially if there is no just peace. For me, peace means justice. If the war stops now, but there are still occupied territories, what does justice mean for people who are still there and need help?  It's very clear in my mind there will be continued humanitarian needs. And many of the IDPs will also not be able to return home immediately even if the war stops.

We also have to think through the humanitarian contribution to demining. Ukraine is one of the most heavily mined countries in the world. Humanitarian demining support has already started, but it will take a very long time.

On the other hand, we have war veterans and people with disabilities caused by the war. They are learning to adapt to new lives, and this requires our support. I’m convinced that humanitarian needs will continue - people needing support with livelihoods, mental health and social inclusion.   

 

You mentioned so-called war fatigue. Do you feel it in your communication with partners and donors abroad?

I hear a couple of things. One is that, sadly, we live in a world where there is not only a Russian war against Ukraine, but also other crises, for example in the Middle East, Sudan, Myanmar. I hear a lot of concerns from international partners about the lack of resources to deal with all these crises. So, partners must prioritize their resources.

And we all understand that there's always more attention to the most recent crisis. The longer the war lasts, the higher the risk that it gets forgotten and causes donor fatigue. Nevertheless, I do not feel that there is solidarity fatigue. Everyone understands that Ukraine cannot be left alone, and we need to continue the international solidarity for Ukraine and its people. But the longer the war lasts, the more difficult it is to maintain the required allocation of resources. 

The second thing is political shifts and, of course, the obvious one is Washington. I think there is a bit of a trend around the globe to say we need to prioritize our people in our own country and cope with unemployment and local problems, and unwillingness to continue helping people in other countries. In my opinion, that's a clear trend and it makes it more difficult for the UN and the government here to keep the attention focused on Ukraine.

 

Washington's policies on international aid have changed. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Ukraine was ordered to suspend all projects and probably it will have significant negative consequences for Ukraine. What about the UN? Do you see the risks of operating in Ukraine without the US’s funding?

If the donors from Washington reduce or even stop their help to Ukraine, there will certainly be huge challenges. Like everyone else, we are still trying to understand exactly how big the impact would be. It's clear to me that there will be an impact. I know from several of our humanitarian partners who get direct funding from the U.S. for their humanitarian work that they've had to stop activities.

As you know, there is a 90-day period for people administering the USAID to assess and justify previously agreed aid. At the same time, the U.S. government has said they will continue life-saving humanitarian work. So, I remain relatively optimistic that some of the work we do here will be continued. I think there are two question marks which make it uncertain.

One is the U.S. government under President Trump is also saying very clearly, that humanitarian and international aid needs to be linked to their interest as a country. So it’s a question if supporting Ukraine is in their interest. We hope that the U.S., which is such an important partner for humanitarian work around the world, will continue its life-saving work, including here in Ukraine.

What is also clear is that they are very strong in terms of saying so-called DEI (diversity, equality, and inclusion work) must stop.  I don't yet know what that means for Ukraine.

I’ve visited recently a center in Dnipro city that is run by an NGO. It’s a safe space for children, mainly of IDPs, a lot of them come from the front line. There are also children from the local community. And that's inclusion work.  Around 1,000 children have benefited from support, including psychological and social support, and gained inclusion with the local community where they live now. The organization that runs this center has been told to stop it. They have found a way of continuing for now. But if the funding doesn't resume, the work could stop. The NGO also runs two other centers in other cities along the front line, so a total of 3,000 children are provided with support.

Another example is centers that support GBV (gender-based violence) survivors. I visited some of them. They assist mostly women, but also men, girls, and boys who have experienced gender-based violence in the war. And those kinds of centers are at risk of not continuing. It links to the point I made earlier -  there is a hidden crisis, a mental health crisis, a crisis linked to the violence people have experienced. The important work to address this crisis is at risk, and I don't know if the US will resume their funding for this. If they don't, I am not sure if we can find alternative sources. We all understand that the government doesn't have enough resources to run these kinds of services now.

The impact of the US funding decisions could be quite dramatic. We don't know for sure, but it could be.

 

Is it possible to share some numbers? What part of the US donors in overall support? I mean the dimension.

Last year, the US funding [for humanitarian response] was 30%. That's huge. It's very clear if 30% is gone you will feel it. The majority of the 30% is life-saving interventions, for example, food, and non-food items, I hope that they will decide to continue funding. The smaller part of it is what I described in terms of activities to support diversity, equality, and inclusion. A lot of our support is multi-cash, and it's not clear whether the US government sees cash as life-saving or not. They haven't made up their mind. Cash has been a very big part of the response here over the last three years, so it would be a very serious problem for us if cash is excluded from life-saving assistance. So, almost a third of our work is at risk if we don’t find alternatives and if the exemption in terms of life-saving including cash does not come.

 

Were there any new requests by our government, as we could face a new humanitarian budget crisis?

Of course, the government has reached out, I had a very good meeting with Iryna Vereshchuk in the Office of the President and also with Deputy Foreign Minister Mariana Betsa. I think we are in the same boat. The government is trying to understand what exactly it means to Ukraine, as are we.

The hope they expressed to me is that if the funding doesn't resume, we can help mobilize the international community to compensate for resources. And then secondly, when you get less funding, because, as I described earlier, of donor fatigue, you also have to prioritize. So we are in dialogue with the government on what the priorities are. The government understandably and rightly hopes that we can continue addressing the most urgent needs.

Some parts of the UN system, our colleagues in UNDP, for example, have done a lot in energy, recovery of the energy sector. A lot of work has been done by the Ukrainian authorities with the support of the UN, with the support of the US, and a huge support has come from USAID for energy recovery. A big worry, I think, is if the Russian armed forces continue to attack the energy sector and the winter gets more severe, then we will have a serious problem there.

I believe that the Ukrainian government, the UN, and the humanitarian community, have a joint interest. We want to minimize the impact of some US decisions, we want to advocate for the continuation of their funding and. at the same time, look for alternatives and prioritize needs.

 

How many people require humanitarian aid exactly in Ukraine as of now?

We launched in January our so-called HNRP (Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan for 2025). The analysis shows that more than 12 million people need humanitarian assistance in Ukraine. Like the first three years, we are prioritizing 6 million, who are the most vulnerable. And we are asking for $2.6 billion to meet those priority needs.

 

If I may, I would like to clarify about cash assistance. Did I understand right that if the US decides not to continue its work with the UN, cash aid can be stopped?

The challenge would be because the US donor play a significant role in it. Many people say that the Ukraine humanitarian operation has been better than in many other places because of the cash component.

Because if you give people cash, it's more dignified because they can choose what's important and where to buy it. 

Some 24% of our overall operation is in the form of cash. I hope that the cash support will not be excluded because that will make it more difficult for vulnerable people.

 

Let’s return to the frontline. It is not so far from the Dnipro Region. We all do hope that it’s not going to happen, but are you ready to do an immediate response to the people in this area?

When we launched the HNRP, the humanitarian needs and response plan for 2025, we said we need to stay as flexible and as agile as possible to adjust to evolving needs. The needs are changing, the geography is changing all the time. The people are evacuating, it's different places all the time, so we need to be flexible.

That's one reason why such a big part of the response is Ukrainian organizations. More than 400 of the 600 involved are Ukrainian organizations. For me, the strategy to adjust to changing needs, including for Dnipro, is to work with all these local partners, because they have their ears and eyes on the ground. They can quickly let us know where the changes are and where we need to adjust. That's one big part, of what we call localization, working with local actors.

And then the second bit is to advocate, not just with the US, but with all our donors, for flexibility and funding. If certain funding is limited to a certain geography, let's say Kharkiv, as an example, or Kherson, and then suddenly there are new needs in Dnipro, we need the donors to allow us to be flexible. If the needs are bigger in Dnipro than they are somewhere else, because of the frontline changing and people moving, then I hope donors will agree. Some do, but not all of them.

So part of what I do is advocate to say, please let us use the humanitarian aid we get as flexibly as possible.

 

How many times do you and your team usually visit frontline areas? As aid needs to be systematically provided.

Last year we did 50 interagency convoys to the front, close to the front line. At the places where the actual fighting is happening, we cannot go, but close, within 10-20 kilometers.

Some of the recent convoys went to the Donetsk, Kharkiv and Kherson regions delivering aid to residents of communities that have been living without water, electricity and other basic services due to continued hostilities.

 

Last time here, I talked to your predecessor Denise Brown, and I asked about the UN’s critics in Ukraine. Do you feel this kind of criticism pressure? And what are the main challenges in your work today?

I came in August last year, and I had the privilege of one week overlap with Denise. We went to the South together, and I could see already how much she is respected and visible, people know her indeed. I am trying to continue that. I think the UN needs to be seen, and I want to see what we're doing. My sense is that most Ukrainians appreciate the humanitarian work we do. I know there have been periods where there was a feeling we didn't do enough. But my impression over these first six months is that the Ukrainian authorities and the Ukrainian people value our work because they can see that we help people with many things, like fuel and home repairs.

We have over 3,000 staff in Ukraine, the majority of them are Ukrainians. Around 500 are international, like myself. I think we do fantastic humanitarian work, and we do great recovery and development work. I should mention here in Ukraine we have a human rights team of 70 staff members. They collect evidence of war crimes. And I think that's very important, because one day hopefully it will be possible to take the perpetrators to justice, and you need the evidence for that.

I know some people are unhappy that we don't present more evidence, but that's part of the problem in war. Some areas are not accessible, we cannot go to the temporarily occupied territories directly ourselves, of course for obvious reasons. And we want to be very sure that we really have the facts because judges will look at the facts.

So that's an important part that we can contribute also as the UN.

 

It’s impossible not to ask you about the Kursk Region. There was information from Ukrainian authorities about the possibility of doing a humanitarian corridor. Do you know something about that and if yes, are you ready to do humanitarian work there?

We are an organization that is owned by member states, including Ukraine. Any member state has the right to ask the UN for assistance. There has been a request from the Ukrainian authorities to help address humanitarian needs in the Kursk Region. And we have responded and said yes, in principle, we can look into what support we can provide.

Next, two things need to happen. Number one, we must assess the needs. Number two, we need both sides to agree. As it is Russian territory, we need the Russian government to agree that we will come and provide humanitarian support.

So far, there is no agreement that we can do humanitarian aid. But we are ready to provide aid in the Kursk Region.

 

Russians just keep silent?

Yes.

 

There was information that about ten humanitarian workers were killed, unfortunately, during Russian war.  How many of your workers were injured, and what are you doing to protect your team?

Last year, it was 51 in total. Ten were killed and 41 were injured, unfortunately.These are humanitarian workers working as part of the humanitarian response of the UN. But there are also 600 national and international NGOs.

That’s just the terrible thing that the Russian military forces do, a double tap attacks. When they send a missile, first responders come and then they send another missile.

These are just the numbers of people who work as part of the humanitarian response that I coordinate, but I think more people were killed who are government workers or organizations that are not part of this response that I'm responsible for. It's just the numbers we know of organizations that are part of the response I coordinate.

What do we do to protect? One is protective equipment. Secondly, linked to that is advocacy.

I'm trying to explain to my colleagues-donors that it's not just money for food or winter clothing. Sometimes humanitarian response in a situation of war means you have to take risks. The people taking the risks by for example giving winter clothing need also to be protected. So please, when you give money, also give it for the protection of the workers that are doing this work.

War has rules. International humanitarian law is about the rules of war. You need to protect civilians. You need to protect humanitarian workers. You cannot fire on a hospital, for example, and humanitarian institutions. That’s why we have to constantly remind Russian armed forces, don't attack humanitarian convoys, don't attack humanitarian workers, don't attack civilian infrastructure, including energy. The Russian Federation doesn't respect the rules of war sufficiently.

 

Given this difficult situation with money, could there be new projects?

Probably it's too early to say whether we will be able to do more. But I am very convinced that if the war stops, the international community will help. The humanitarian help will not stop. And it's not just humanitarian, it's recovery and development funding. And my feeling is, because of the solidarity that has been expressed so far, we will see resources for that kind of work.

One of the things that has impressed me very much is that Ukrainians don't wait for the war to end to start recovery work. I've not seen that anywhere else to this level. They start immediately when there are opportunities to do recovery. But the scale that is needed, given the level of destruction, is massive, and the huge investments needed to repair and recover. And some of them will only happen when the war stops.

We’ve just been for two days in Lviv with the UN country team. The 24 UN agencies gathered together, about 10 are humanitarian. We discussed what we do to help recovery now. And what can we do when the guns fall silent, hopefully, to help intensify the recovery work and do development work? We must plan and be ready.