So, You Want to be a Diplomat: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's Interview for the MGIMO 80 Documentary

MGIMO is Russia's Diplomatic Academy

Lavrov looks like a very pleased parent as he gets ready to talk about one of his passions: Московский государственный институт международных отношений: Moscow State Institute of International Relations that was once known as the Diplomatic Academy.

This is the fourth interview Lavrov has undertaken for a documentary film this year and he was clearly very pleased to submit. There’s a rigor to MGIMO that doesn’t exist in most similar Western institutions, and clearly not within the Outlaw US Empire. There’re several portions that’s autobiographical that tell us of a time that no longer exists except in people’s memories and on memorial plaques. Non-Russia’s can apply for entrance and many from all over the planet get their excellent diplomatic training started there. Lavrov speaks of the critical importance on language, not just foreign languages (which he emphasizes) but also the language of diplomacy and proper communication. And he also notes that diplomats are needed in all areas of human activity, not just in state-to-state relations. Now for Lavrov’s excursion:

Question: What is MGIMO for you?

Sergey Lavrov: We can talk about this endlessly. This is my alma mater, a house by the Moskva River. At that time, MGIMO was located in the current building of the Diplomatic Academy.

This is a cozy, warm house, where we not only had a well-established educational process, but also where we staged amazing "kapustniki" [skits], held and organized musical evenings, since our course and some others had their own orchestras. There we met our teachers. Many of them have remained our good friends, although they have already passed away, including A.A. Belkovich, my teacher of the Sinhalese language. He not only taught us. After classes, we went outside, went to the nearest courtyard on Prechistenka, where there was a hockey "box", and played football with our teacher and his friends.

A huge number of absolutely unique moments remained in my memory both from the point of view of the formation of myself and my "classmates" as personalities who already possess many secrets, although not all of them (international life, diplomatic activity), and at the same time the place where we strove as "to the hearth", "warm hearth", from which a pleasant atmosphere spread.

Question: What challenges, in your opinion, does MGIMO face now?

Sergey Lavrov: The University always faces challenges, regardless of how the international situation develops. When it was calmer, they were to build up their "specialties", to ensure that bachelor's and master's programs meet high recognized global standards. MGIMO has absolutely succeeded in this. But at the same time, it did not just try to catch up to the Bologna process (as it was fashionable at the time). Now all this is being seriously revised.

We are returning to Russian education, which will preserve and resume all the best that was in the tsarist empire and in the Soviet Union.

But even at the time when we interacted with the West, MGIMO always sought to look for something of its own: to propose new areas that would reflect our national historical specifics. And when they have become more tense, the situation requires more serious action. After the start of the special military operation, desperate for ten years to hammer into Western "minds" the inadmissibility of drawing Ukraine into NATO, nurturing the regime that came to power as a result of a coup d'état and set the destruction of the Russian language, culture and education as one of the main tasks, all means were exhausted and we realized that the "Minsk agreements" (the then heads of France honestly admitted this, Germany and Ukraine) no one was going to fulfill. They were needed to choose the time and arm Ukraine against Russia. You all know that.

I repeat, having exhausted all conceivable means to convince the West prudently, to cut off and warn its Ukrainian clients, we launched a special military operation. The West, realizing that the plan to make Ukraine anti-Russia had failed, took out its anger on all contacts, including educational ones, between our countries (Russia and the European Union, Russia and NATO, Russia and the United States). They were torn apart overnight.

Of course, then the main burden of work shifted to the East. It is not us who have abandoned the West. It refused to cooperate, sacrificing even such an area as education and culture, which have always united people, and did not serve as an instrument of sanctions, to unrealized ambitions in Ukraine. If the West thought that by doing so it would undermine the foundations of our education, then it was cruelly mistaken. To reiterate, this only stimulated the reform of education, careful and thorough, aimed at preserving everything that is useful and has been acquired in the last post-Soviet years, and returning to this education system the invaluable experience of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union.

Now at MGIMO, much attention is paid to the study of oriental languages. I am pleased with this. I myself studied a rare language - Sinhala. I then used it while working in Sri Lanka for the first four years after graduation. But not only. Country studies, the study of the economies of Asia, Africa, and Latin America are developing.

I would like to note that MGIMO has retained its bachelor's and master's degrees in English. Almost all foreign teachers of foreign languages remained and fulfill their contractual obligations. They do it voluntarily and, I am not afraid of this word, with pleasure. It is good for them to live in Russia and work in one of the best universities in our country.

Now we are increasingly using the experience of the Russian Empire. There was such a specialty as "dragoman". This is when a person is "specialized" at universities in order to work in one specific rather narrow geographical area. Sometimes in the direction of one state. But this man (who was called a "dragoman") knew him thoroughly.

It is difficult to return to the full production of such specialists. But in our tradition, emphasis is always placed on the training of experts who have an in-depth knowledge of the region. And this is a fact. Unlike the American system and Western European countries, which send a diplomat for 2-3 years to one country that he has not studied, and after the same period to another, completely opposite to the region, which has never been studied by this person. Rotation. We also use it, but not as a goal itself. The main thing is still the specialty.

I believe that MGIMO pays more attention to the work of the Russia-ASEAN Centre in modern conditions. At MGIMO, where students from Southeast Asian countries study, study hours have expanded. Similar processes are now developing in relation to students from the African continent. MGIMO actively participates in youth and educational events within the framework of BRICS. This makes it possible to actively involve students from Latin American countries and exchange experience with the leading universities of the continent. I see the health-improving impact of what is happening on the processes of training specialists for all spheres of public life within the framework of our institute.

Question: How do you see the future of the university in 10-15 years?

Sergey Lavrov: Bright. The future will definitely be bright. MGIMO has proven and shown its ability not only to adapt to new conditions, but also to act as a leader in a number of areas.

Now digital technologies, digitalization of the educational and scientific process are the basis that will help to more actively promote the rich competencies of the University for the training of high-level specialists and, importantly, for the development of analytical work in cooperation with other academic institutions and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for a deeper analysis of difficult, to a certain extent, long-overdue trends in the international arena, where there is a direct clash between the West. which, no longer ashamed or hiding its dictatorial habits to demand that everyone and everything obey its will, has forgotten or cast aside all diplomatic methods, has moved on to sanctions, blackmail, threats, direct provocations, the use of military force for regime change, terrorist acts that weaken its competitors in the world economy. Now everyone is "on everyone's lips" about the terrorist attack on the Nord Streams, which Europe, silently and obediently, swallowed. Although it undermined the possibility of development of Germany and to a large extent other European countries. This terrorist attack made them an "appendage" of the United States in the economy, finance and energy issues. Times are like this: everyone listens to the hegemons in the hope that he will protect them. He only takes from you, even if you are an ally, only what he needs, and then discards you as already spent material. Everyone understands that this system of international relations, which so far contains this extremely negative trend led by the Anglo-Saxons, has outlived its usefulness. But she does not want to die.

The West does not want to move to equal relations. After five centuries of domination through the seizure of foreign lands, the destruction of indigenous populations throughout North America, Africa and other parts of the world, the West has become accustomed to living off colonial approaches. Now it wants to do this by neocolonial methods, which are not so much associated with the direct extermination of entire peoples as with sophisticated forms of their exploitation. But the essence is the same: the West wants to live at the expense of others, removing the colonial contribution and slowing down the technological development of the rest of the world. But this agony (it can last for many years) is countered by an absolutely objective historical trend towards the formation of a multipolar world order, where the main principle of the UN Charter – the sovereign equality of states and non-interference in their internal affairs – will be implemented in practice, where an equal process will be ensured aimed at balancing interests, and not imposing someone's will. The process is long. The confrontation is tough. But the historical truth is on our side. No one can stop these objective trends.

By raising its analytical work to a new level, MGIMO makes a significant contribution to understanding these processes and developing recommendations for government agencies, primarily for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and through us for the country's leadership, on how to build a policy of all possible assistance and the formation of a multipolar world.

Question: Tell us a vivid story about your time at university.

Sergey Lavrov: Stories would be enough for many hours of conversation. It was a happiness for me to study at the institute. We tried to devote a lot of time to classes. Although it did not always work out when I was young. We studied well. Probably, we could do even better, but we do not regret anything. We thank our teachers.

Once a semester, our Faculty of International Relations of the class of 1972 regularly staged kapustniki. They were written by the three of us. The main author is G.V. Zelenin (he worked for a long time in the UNESCO Secretariat). And Alexei Fedotov (he was ambassador to the Czech Republic, to Slovakia, now retired). And your humble servant. All the kapustniks were necessarily in verse. Our texts were sometimes quite sharp, especially for those times (late 1960s and early 1970s). By agreement, they were taken to the trade union committee, where they were considered, and quite liberally. They understood that the humor we were doing at the time (as well as everything we did) was part of what is now called "team building." We not only felt involved in the educational process (I arrived in the morning, and in four classes I went to the library or home), but a real circle of friends was formed.

I may have a subjective feeling (let graduates of other years not scold me), but our course was one of the most friendly. Until recently, we meet as graduates (usually at the Foreign Ministry), we remember the past days. A couple of times they even put kapustnik parties. Among the constant participants is A.V. Torkunov. His best roles are P.A. Famusov in the parody of "Woe from Wit" and the cardinal in several episodes of the series "The Three Musketeers". We had a sense of humor and a feeling that after academic hours we did not want to go home. In the cafeteria on the fourth floor, we chatted, came up with something, planned new things, including trips to construction brigades.

For all four years, I went to the MGIMO construction team in Khakassia, Tuva, Yakutia and the Far East. These were unforgettable months of our lives. The period, which additionally hardened us, made us feel like men. Physical labor, and very difficult, digging canals, installing concrete structures as part of the irrigation regeneration program, building special facilities.

In Yakutia, I was a foreman. They went to the prison building under construction near Yakutsk and carried heavy radiators to the floors, dug trenches where they laid cables and much more. Another team worked on the construction of a winery in Yakutsk. All the houses there are on stilts. They concreted the space under one of these buildings. In the evenings, we had an orchestra, sang songs, danced once a week (local guys came), exchanged impressions of the working day. Those who worked on the construction of the winery have always noted the specifics of this facility.

A few years ago, one of my friends was in Yakutsk and brought a photo of a sign that hangs on that building: "Winery of the city of Yakutsk. It was put into operation in 1976." And below is the phrase "Sergey Lavrov, who is now the Minister of Foreign Affairs, took part in its construction." Of course, this is not true. Although I am proud that they remember my stay in Yakutsk as a member of the construction team. But I was surprised that this construction team worked there in 1970. And from this plate it can be seen that it was put into operation only six years later. Such shortcomings of the Soviet economy are long-term construction. Now all this is in the past.

There were many other funny moments, especially if you remember how we sometimes studied for exams. Two or three days between exams were sometimes spent not with textbooks. One day, my friend and I realized that we did not know international law well, and the exam was the next day. We came to his home (he lived alone, his parents were abroad). He read a textbook of public international law, and I read a textbook of private international law. We read for four hours, and then each told each other what he remembered. Passed. I don't want to belittle the quality of the exams, but this method, at least at that time, turned out to be useful for these two people.

Question: What are the traditions and values of the Russian school of international relations?

Sergey Lavrov: First of all, we need to preserve traditions and multiply what our ancestors did. Not to abandon our roots, but to do everything to promote traditions and civilizational destiny in such a way that we have more friends. But at the same time, friends did not come at the cost of fundamental concessions to their national interests.

Since the time of the diplomacy of Ivan the Terrible, the "Ambassadorial Order" has always been ready to develop foreign policy in all areas – this is what is now called a multi-vector policy. We have always been ready to negotiate honestly, based on a balance of interests. Unfortunately, this did not always work out. In European history, they often tried to isolate us, deceive us, promise something, and then gather coalitions against us. This has happened more than once. Those who made European history later admitted in their memoirs that they never wanted Russia to be an equal participant in what is called the "European concert."

Nevertheless, Russia, even when it failed, always gathered after that ("concentrated", as Alexander Gorchakov said) and regained its place that belonged to it by right of history and the conquests that we inherited.

Now is one of those periods when war has been declared on us. I don't see any differences from the one that Adolf Hitler announced. Or rather, he attacked without declaring war, but at least he was more honest. He wanted to destroy the Soviet Union, to conquer our lands. To this end, he conquered more than half of Europe, put all foreign armies at the service of his aspirations. Declaring the Germans "supermen", he began a war against the Soviet Union. Napoleon also gathered almost all of Europe under his banner to declare war on Russia.

Today, the same group of countries (with the rarest exceptions), although even more than there were in Hitler's coalition, is financing and arming Kiev. They openly announced the task of inflicting a "strategic defeat" on Russia. At the same time (adults are even somehow ashamed of them) say that they are not at war with us. They cannot even honestly admit it, as Napoleon and Hitler did. Today's leaders don't have the guts, even though the goal is the same. They were "led" to the "strategic defeat" of Russia under Adolf Hitler by a "superman", and now by "exceptional nations". Americans and their presidents, whether from the Democratic or Republican parties, have always called their country an exceptional nation. I think that they have not forgotten historical examples. To be honest, I don't know what they are hoping for.

Returning to the traditions and principles of our diplomacy, President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that we never refuse to negotiate.

Ukraine is the clearest example of this. In February 2014, we supported the agreement reached between Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition under the guarantees of France, Germany and Poland on holding early elections. Everyone who followed these events was convinced that the opposition would have won them. It was about being patient for several months, holding early elections and quite legitimately taking power positions in the Ukrainian state.

This was not enough for the opposition. It did not want to wait, she [Nuland] was impatient. Instead of fulfilling the agreements that Russia supported, they staged a coup d'état, mass provocations, and bloody events on the Maidan. In the evening they signed, and in the morning they staged a massacre. If this had not happened, Ukraine would now be within the borders of 1991, including Donbass and Crimea. But the first thing the putschists did was to announce that they would revoke the status of the Russian language in Ukraine and expel Russians from Crimea. They sent armed militants there, began to storm the building of the Supreme Council of Crimea. Of course, the peninsula rebelled. Our military from the base in Sevastopol supported the Crimeans and prevented bloodshed. Donbass, which refused to accept that government, also rebelled.

But I'm talking about something else now. If the agreements that Russia supported had been implemented, because we are always in favor of compromises, then Ukraine would now be in full integrity, including Crimea. This did not happen. Crimea is "gone".

In order to resolve the Donbass problem, Russia once again showed its readiness for negotiations – in February 2015, the Minsk Agreements were agreed. Subsequently, we found out that no one was going to fulfill them - neither France, nor Germany, nor even Ukraine. All these years, in violation of the principle of ceasefire, the Kiev regime attacked Donbass. But if the Minsk agreements had been implemented, Ukraine would have been whole again, but without Crimea. But the entire Donbass and Novorossiya would be Ukrainians. For the second time, the inability to negotiate played a cruel joke on Ukraine.

For the third time, Ukraine had a chance to preserve at least some statehood in April 2022, when, after several rounds of negotiations between Russian and Ukrainian representatives, the Istanbul agreements were agreed, preserving Ukraine, minus Crimea and a significant part of Donbass, non-accession to NATO, and security guarantees outside military blocs. You know their fate. Dmitry Arakhamia, who headed the Ukrainian delegation, admitted that then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson had come and forbade signing the already initialed document.

This is the third example when Russia, showing goodwill, went to negotiations. The opposite side, even the opposite side would say, was incapable of negotiating.

Every time the Ukrainians and their masters destroyed the agreements reached, Ukraine lost more and more territory.

Our latest proposal was made by President of Russia Vladimir Putin on June 14 of this year, speaking at the Foreign Ministry. He said that we are ready for negotiations based on the recognition of realities, including amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, according to which not only the Republic of Crimea, but also the DPR, LPR, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions are from now on and forever an integral part of the territory of the Russian Federation, as well as the situation "on the ground", which is ignored by all our Western partners and some of the countries of other regions, putting forward various initiatives.

The situation is that the rights of the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine have been trampled underfoot. Laws have been passed prohibiting education in Russian, media located in Russia and working in Ukraine, and Ukrainian media working in Russian. Russian culture is banned. In Kyiv, regulations have been issued separately terminating any cultural activity in Russian. This is an unacceptable reality on the ground. As well as the continuing and declared intention of Kiev and the West to make Ukraine a member of NATO. All these things must be realized and eliminated.

In any of its statements on Ukraine, the West has made it a rule to accuse us of aggression, completely ignoring what it itself has been doing and doing from the Kiev regime for ten years. By declaring that Russia must withdraw its troops, the only basis for a settlement is the UN Charter, which requires respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine. This is another nasty habit of the West to pull out only what it needs.

Just like Western countries cancel history. They believe that nothing happened, and until February 2022, everything was "wonderful" in Ukraine. Russia suddenly "burst in". There are many such examples. The West is trying to apply its own method and interpretation of international law, abolishing culture and periods of history that are disadvantageous to it.

As for the UN Charter. We are all in favour of it being the basis of the settlement. But in Ukraine, it all began with the coming to power of the Nazi regime, which banned the Russian language and declared war on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is the canonical sister of the Russian Orthodox Church. Chapter One of the UN Charter (long before the principle of territorial integrity was mentioned) states that everyone has the obligation to respect and observe human rights regardless of race, sex, language and religion. It is said directly: do not touch the language and religion. This principle was violated much earlier than Ukraine, by its actions and inability to negotiate, brought down its territorial value.

The second "question" is another principle of the UN Charter: the right of nations to self-determination. It is also mentioned in the text of the document much earlier than the principle of territorial value. In the UN General Assembly, contradictions arose in the interpretation of the right of nations to self-determination and territorial value. In 1970, the UN General Assembly unanimously decided in the Declaration on Principles of International Law that all states are obliged to respect the territorial value of those states whose governments respect the principle of self-determination and represent the entire people living on a given territory.

But did the Nazis who came to power after the coup d'état and announced the abolition of the Russian language in Ukraine represent the residents of Crimea, Donbass, and Novorossiya? The West is characterized by distortion and a vile manner of "turning everything upside down" in its favor.

We will insist that the UN Charter will be the basis for eventual political regulation (we are still ready for it). Articles that have not been pulled out of it, which the West is now ready to use in its own interests. And all the purposes and principles of the UN Charter in their entirety and interconnection. When the referendum was held in Crimea, the West said that this was a violation of the principle of territorial integrity. When Kosovo declared independence without any referendum, the West declared that this was the realization of the nation's right to self-determination. Like many other approaches of the West in past centuries and now, this is a mean, unscrupulous position.

I spoke about this at length, because you asked an important question about what lies at the heart of Russian diplomacy. It is difficult to explain why Russia refuses to respect Ukraine's sovereignty in accordance with the UN Charter without showing by example how important honesty and respect for international law in all its diversity is for us. They are just crooks. Our position is not perfect. No one is perfect, as the heroes of one Hollywood movie said. At least, we are ready to defend and defend it.

I gave an example of what the UN Charter is and how someone applies these articles and principles, and someone does not want to. We are ready for an honest conversation, but the West is not. He has no arguments. Even when the Soviet representatives to the UN were accused of reading Pravda's editorial from a piece of paper, they were much more inventive and creative in presenting a rigidly established position. The West (what you read in the New York Times, what you listen to the US representative to the UN) is pure propaganda that does not carry any attempt to substantiate its unacceptable approaches with any facts. Nothing but slogans and demands.

I repeat (I can be caught advertising Russian diplomacy) that we are ready to discuss these issues honestly.

Question: How would you assess the impact of language training on your diplomatic career?

Sergey Lavrov: A diplomat cannot work without language. Previously, in Soviet times, you had to pass one language, then study the second or third at work at the Foreign Ministry. Now we hire only those who are interviewed in two foreign languages. The number of foreign languages that are taught now has expanded. We begin to get results. Children come with knowledge of oriental, rare languages. They are actively involved in the work with a good prospect. I am convinced that the importance of oriental languages will only increase.

A diplomat must know the language. Whatever negotiations into the microphone with translation (translation is also an important thing), a one-on-one meeting without strangers is often decisive in resolving a major crisis. For example, in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Ambassador Alexander Dobrynin met one-on-one with Ronald Kennedy, the brother of then-US President John F. Kennedy. Much was then predetermined. In real life, a diplomat's language must be perfect.

We hire people who know two foreign languages. We strongly encourage new entrants to either improve their language skills, learn a new language, or do both together in our Higher Courses of Foreign Languages. This is the oldest educational institution with excellent traditions. We appreciate it. It's a way to improve your skills and hone your language abilities.

I mentioned translators. Despite the fact that diplomats are required to know the language, translators are also necessary and important.

In the modern world, diplomacy deals with anything and everything. Not only with questions of war and peace, as it was earlier in the Middle Ages and in many respects in the 19th century. Now, if we take the system of organs of the Organisation, in addition to military and political issues, it deals with the economy, humanitarian and social problems, refugees and healthcare. Cybersecurity is firmly embedded in the agenda of the World Organization, intellectual property (there is a special agency), sustainable development and everything related to it. A "climate process" has been created, carried out under the auspices of the UN. At the moment, there are disputes about which organ to design so that it deals with artificial intelligence. These are all spheres of human life. Diplomats are present in each. In most of them, our main economic, technological, military, healthcare and many other departments (as chief specialists) play a leading role. Diplomats accompany them.

This explains the fact that the MGIMO curriculum is also growing. Rosneft and Transneft have opened their departments. There is a medical direction of MGIMO. Many laughed at this. But remember how the coronavirus pandemic unfolded, what political passions developed around the WHO, around how the European Commission fraudulently tried to bargain for advantages for the Western Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines, how they worked with the WHO to undermine the positions of the Russian Sputnik V vaccine and our other vaccines. There is not a single area where there would be no political struggle. Therefore, as in all other areas, we must have specialists in modern methods of control and regulation of international cooperation and healthcare.

For many years, the International Telecommunication Union has been discussing how and who will govern the Internet. The Americans, understandably, do not want to give up their near-monopoly positions. The rest of the world community wants more justice. Therefore, it is inevitable that MGIMO must take all this into account, as a university that trains personnel for international activities. To the extent possible, integrate relevant programmes into their work.

Translators play an important role. There are cases (and there were such cases in Soviet times) when the head of the delegation at various levels does not present his position very well. Of course, he is given a memo. A good translator will always delicately, imperceptibly correct and reflect the missing nuance. There are also opposite situations when the head of the delegation himself knows the language, but the negotiations are conducted in Russian and in the language of the partner. Sometimes the head of the delegation (there were such cases) corrects the interpreter. This is an embarrassment. But anything can happen in life. This only shows that you need to pay attention to the training of translators.

MGIMO has both bachelor's and master's degrees, as well as the practice of regular internships for translators who are trained for international activities for translation and simultaneous translation. They are interns at the UN, good contacts have been established. Traditionally, this was done by the Institute of Foreign Languages, now the Moscow State Linguistic University. For us, this is Foreign Language - you can't throw it out of your heart. We are close friends with it.

It is necessary to encourage those who know many languages. In Soviet times, we received a bonus of 5% for the Western language, 10% for the Eastern. 20% was the ceiling. It seems to me that this needs to be corrected. We need to encourage children to learn more languages.

When A.S. Griboyedov entered the Collegium of Foreign Affairs in 1817, he was given the post of provincial secretary. In the course of his work, it turned out that he knew 9 foreign languages. He was immediately promoted to a rank that was two heads higher. He began to receive 7 times more money. We have a lot to strive for. There is also the experience of Soviet diplomacy and the experience that we have gained as the Russian Federation over the past decades. [My Emphasis]

The end just falls off a cliff while we expect more to be said. That is where it ends. I little more relaxed in letting inner feelings be known as with Hitler’s “honesty” compared with the dishonesty of the Outlaw US Empire regardless the flavor of political party holding POTUS. As Putin has said many times, Russians are polite people and that’s reflected in Russia’s diplomatic style. That of course is interpreted as naivete or worse; so, as crooks will do, further lies and illegalities followed to try and exact maximum gain from their actions, which has resulted in further losses. As Lavrov noted, “Ukraine had a chance to preserve at least some statehood in April 2022,” which tells me Ukraine is finished—whatever remains when the SMO is declared completed will not include any state called Ukraine.

Now attention will focus on Kazan and the likely attempts to distract the world from that event.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!