Interview with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov for the documentary, MGIMO 80, Moscow, October 20, 2024

Question: What does MGIMO mean to you?

Sergey Lavrov: I can talk endlessly about it. It is my alma mater, and a home on the Moscow River bank. Back then, MGIMO was housed in a building that now the Diplomatic Academy.

It was a cozy, warm home where we not only studied, but also put on amazing student skits and held music nights, since the students I studied with and some other students had our own music bands. This is how we met our professors, many of whom became our good friends, even though some have since passed away, including my Sinhalese language professor Alexander Belkovich. He did more than just teach us; after classes, we would head to a nearby courtyard with a hockey rink on Prechistenka Street, and play football with him and his friends.

I have countless unforgettable memories from that time, which included the formative years of my fellow students and me as individuals who were already familiar with many (though by far not all) secrets of international life and diplomacy, and MGIMO as a place we gravitated towards like a warm hearth that radiated comforting vibes.

Question: What challenges is MGIMO facing today?

Sergey Lavrov: Challenges are always there, regardless of the international situation. When it was calmer, the challenge was to strengthen our specialisations and ensure that the undergraduate and graduate programmes met the highest recognised international standards. MGIMO succeeded in this absolutely. But at the same time, it didn’t just aim to align with the then popular Bologna process. All of that is being seriously revised.

We are returning to Russian education, which will preserve and restore the best aspects of education in imperial Russia and the Soviet Union.

Back in the day when we interacted with the West, MGIMO always sought to identify unique solutions, and propose new areas of focus that reflected our national historical specifics. With the international tensions ramping up, we know the situation calls for more serious action. After the special military operation started, and after we spent ten years trying in vain to convince the Westerners of the unacceptability of dragging Ukraine into NATO and fostering a regime that came to power on the heels of a coup and prioritised the destruction of the Russian language, culture, and education, all means were exhausted, and we realised that the Minsk agreements (as openly admitted by the leaders of France, Germany, and Ukraine) were never intended to be acted upon. Their only purpose was to buy time and to arm Ukraine against Russia. You are aware of this.

To reiterate, we exhausted all available means to persuade the West to act reasonably and to rein in their Ukrainian clients, we launched the special military operation. The West, realising that its plan to turn Ukraine into an anti-Russia had failed, retaliated by cutting off all contacts, including educational ones, between our countries (Russia and the EU, Russia and NATO, Russia and the United States). They severed these ties overnight.

Sure enough, the main thrust of our work shifted to the East. We did not reject the West; the West rejected cooperation, sacrificing even spheres such as education and culture, which always united people and never served as sanction tools. If the West thought this could undermine the foundations of our education system, it was gravely mistaken. On the contrary, this stimulated a careful and deliberate reform of our education system, which is aimed at preserving everything useful gained in the post-Soviet years, while restoring the invaluable experience of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union.

MGIMO places great emphasis on the study of Eastern languages, which I find gratifying. I studied a rare language –Sinhalese - myself and used it while working in Sri Lanka for four years after graduation. But it’s not just languages. It also includes regional studies and the studies of the economies of Asian, African, and Latin American countries.

Notably, MGIMO has retained undergraduate and graduate programmes in English. Almost all foreign language teachers who are foreign nationals have stayed here and continue to fulfill their contractual obligations. They do this voluntarily and, I daresay, with pleasure. They enjoy living in Russia and working at one of our country’s best universities.

We are increasingly drawing on the experience of the Russian Empire, which had a specialisation called “dragoman.” That’s when a person received a university training to work in a specific, often narrow, geographical area, sometimes just one country, which dragomans knew like the back of their hands.

It’s a challenge to fully resume training such specialists, but our tradition has always emphasised training experts with deep knowledge of a particular region. That’s a fact. Our system is unlike the American or the Western European systems, which tend to send diplomats to a country that they never studied for a two to three-year stint and then to another country in a completely different region. While we also use rotation, it is not our primary goal. Specialisation is key.

I believe that in today’s circumstances, MGIMO is placing more emphasis on the Russia-ASEAN Centre. The number of Southeast Asian students is up, and the number of study hours has expanded as well. Similar processes are underway for students from Africa. MGIMO actively participates in youth and educational events within BRICS, giving us the opportunity to engage students from Latin America and exchange experiences with leading universities on that continent. I see a revitalising effect of what I just mentioned on the training of specialists for all areas of public life within our institute.

Question: How do you envisage the future of the University in the next 10 to 15 years?

Sergey Lavrov: Bright. The outlook is unequivocally promising. MGIMO has consistently demonstrated its capacity to not only adapt to emerging conditions but also to lead in various domains.

Presently, digital technologies and the digitalisation of educational and research processes form the foundation that will further enhance the University's ability to cultivate top-tier experts. Significantly, it will bolster analytical efforts in collaboration with other academic institutions and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, facilitating a profound analysis of complex, protracted trends in the international arena. Here, there is a direct confrontation with the West, which, unabashed and overt in its dictatorial ambitions, seeks to impose its will universally, having set aside diplomatic methods in favour of sanctions, blackmail, threats, direct provocations, use of military force for regime change, and acts of terrorism to undermine competitors in the global economy. The recent notorious terrorist attack on the Nord Stream pipelines, which Europe accepted in silence, is a case in point. This incident has not only compromised Germany's developmental prospects but also those of other European nations to a significant extent, rendering them subservient to the United States in economic, financial, and energy matters. In these times, there is a prevailing deference to the hegemon, with the expectation of protection, yet this often results in exploitation, even of allies, who are eventually discarded when deemed no longer useful. It is increasingly apparent that this system of international relations, characterised by an adverse trajectory led by the Anglo-Saxons, has reached its twilight. Nevertheless, it resists its demise.

The West is reluctant to embrace equitable relationships. After five centuries of dominance through the conquest of foreign territories and the decimation of indigenous populations across North America, Africa, and other regions, the West remains entrenched in its colonial mindset. It now seeks to perpetuate this through neo-colonial methods, which, while less reliant on direct extermination of whole nations, continue to exploit subtly. The essence remains unchanged: the West aspires to thrive at the expense of others, reaping colonial benefits while stalling the technological advancement of the rest of the world. This protracted phase of decline is confronted by an unequivocal historical movement towards a multipolar world order, where the fundamental principles of the UN Charter – sovereign equality of states and non-interference in internal affairs – will be implemented in practice, ensuring a fair process that balances interests rather than imposing external will. This is a lengthy and arduous process, but the momentum of history favours our cause. No force can impede these objective trends.

MGIMO, by elevating its analytical endeavours, plays an instrumental role in comprehending these dynamics and formulating recommendations for government agencies, primarily the Foreign Ministry, and subsequently for the national leadership, on how best to advance and support the establishment of a multipolar world order.

Question: Could you share a memorable story from your time at the university?

Sergey Lavrov: I have stories that could fill hours of conversation. Institute was my happy place. We spent much time studying, although it was not always possible when we were young. We did well as students. Probably, we could have done even better, but we have no regrets. We are thankful to our professors.

Once every semester, our department of international relations, class of 1972, regularly put on student skits. The three of us wrote the scripts. G.V.Zelenin (he worked for a long time at the UNESCO Secretariat) wrote most of them. A.L.Fedotov (he was an ambassador to the Czech Republic and Slovakia, now retired) and I wrote the scripts as well. The scripts were rhymed. Our skits occasionally covered hot-button issues, which was a big deal in late 1960s-early 1970s, which is why we would take them to the trade union committee, and it reviewed them in a quite liberal manner. They knew that the humour we engaged in (as well as everything else we did) was part of what is now called “team building.” We weren’t just part of the learning process where you come in the morning and go to a library or back home four sessions later. We formed a genuine circle of friends.

It may be just me (alumni of other years, please be lenient on me), but our class was among the most close-knit ones. Until recently, we have had alumni get-togethers (usually at the Foreign Ministry) and reminisce about bygone days. We even put on skits a couple of times. AnatolyTorkunov always takes part in these shows, and his best roles include Famusov in a spoof on Griboedov’s  Woe from Wit and a cardinal in a number of episodes from the television series The Three Musketeers. We knew we had each other’s support and we didn’t feel like going home after the academic hours. Sitting in a cafeteria on the fourth floor, we chatted, made things up, and planned new things to do, including the student construction team projects.

All four years as a student, I went to Khakassia, Tuva, Yakutia, and Russia’s Far East as part of MGIMO construction teams. These were unforgettable months of our lives that hardened us even more and made us feel like real men. It was about hard physical labour  that included digging canals, installing concrete structures as part of the irrigation regeneration programme, and building special facilities.

I worked as a team leader in Yakutia. We worked at a base operated by the Interior Ministry of the republic. We built warehouses for storing construction materials, among other projects. We travelled to a prison building under construction outside Yakutsk and carried heavy radiators up its floors, dug trenches for cables and did many other things. Another team built a winery in Yakutsk. All the buildings there stand on stilts. They poured concrete on the ground under one such building. In the evenings, we had an orchestra playing, sang songs, and had dancing parties once a week with the participation of the locals. We used this time to share impressions of the past workday as well. Those who worked on the construction of the winery always noted the specifics of that project.

Several years ago, a friend of mine brought back from Yakutsk a photo of a plaque on that building which says, “Yakutsk Winery. Commissioned in 1976” with the following line below, “Sergey Lavrov, now the Minister of Foreign Affairs, took part in the construction.” This is not so, of course, but I am proud that they have kept the memory of me working in Yakutsk as a member of the construction team.   Surprisingly, our construction team worked there in 1970, and the building of the winery where the concrete work was done was already in place whereas this plaque says that it was put into operation six years later. Long construction periods were a bane of the Soviet economy. It’s all in the past now.

There were many other humorous episodes, especially our getting ready for the exams. Occasionally, we spent two or three days between the exams doing things other than studying. At some point, my friend and I discovered that our knowledge of international law was insufficient, and the exam was the next day. We went to his home (he lived alone, as his parents were stationed abroad) and he read a textbook of public international law, and I read a textbook of private international law. It took us four hours to go through them, and after that we told each other what we had memorised from the reading. We passed the exam. I don’t want to diminish the quality of the exam process, but this method, at least at that moment and for the two of us, was quite successful.

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

Sergey Lavrov: Primarily, to uphold traditions and build upon the achievements of our forebears. We must remain true to our roots, striving to advance our traditions and civilisational objectives in a manner that fosters friendships, yet without compromising our fundamental national interests.

Since the era of Ivan the Terrible's diplomacy and the Ambassadorial Department, we have been steadfast in pursuing foreign policy across diverse avenues – what is contemporarily referred to as a multi-vector approach. We have consistently engaged in negotiations in good faith, seeking a balance of interests. Regrettably, this has not always yielded success. Throughout European history, there have been numerous attempts to isolate, deceive, and make empty promises to Russia, culminating in the formation of coalitions against us. This has occurred on multiple occasions. Those who have shaped European history have later admitted in their memoirs that there was never an intention for Russia to be an equal participant in the so-called European Concert.

Nonetheless, Russia, even when faced with setbacks, has invariably regrouped – “concentrated,” as Alexander Gorchakov once remarked – and reclaimed its rightful position, as dictated by history and the conquests we have inherited.

We find ourselves in a period where a warfare has been declared against us. I perceive little difference from the conflict initiated by Adolf Hitler. While he attacked without a formal declaration of war, at least he was more forthright in his intentions. He sought the destruction of the Soviet Union and the conquest of our territories, mobilising over half of Europe in service of his ambitions. Declaring the Germans as “superhumans,” he waged war against the Soviet Union. Similarly, Napoleon rallied nearly all of Europe under his banners to wage war on Russia.

Today, a similar coalition of countries, with few exceptions, surpassing even the number in Hitler's alliance, is providing financial and military support to Kiev. They have openly declared their aim of inflicting a “strategic defeat”" upon Russia. Yet, despite being mature statesmen – I even feel shame for them – they claim it is not Russia they are opposing. They lack the honesty exhibited by Napoleon and Hitler. The modern leaders lack the stomach, although their objectives remain unchanged. In Hitler's time, the goal was Russia's “strategic defeat” by “superhumans”, whereas now it is pursued by “exceptional nations”. American leaders, irrespective of their Democratic or Republican party affiliation, have consistently referred to their nation as an “exceptional nation”. I think they have not truly forgotten the lessons of history. Frankly, I am uncertain of their expectations.

Returning to the traditions and principles of our diplomacy, Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that we never shy away from negotiations.

Ukraine stands as a testament to this commitment. In February 2014, we endorsed the agreement reached between President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition, under the guarantees of France, Germany, and Poland, to conduct early elections. Observers of these events were convinced that the opposition would have prevailed. It was merely a matter of waiting a few months, conducting early elections, and legitimately assuming power in Ukraine.

This course of action proved insufficient for the opposition. They were unwilling to wait and exhibited impatience. Rather than adhering to the agreements that Russia supported, they orchestrated a state coup, large-scale provocations, and the violent events on the Maidan. Agreements were signed one evening, only for a massacre to unfold the following morning. Had these events not transpired, Ukraine would have retained its 1991 borders, encompassing both Donbass and Crimea. However, the initial actions of the putschists included announcing the revocation of the Russian language's status in Ukraine and the expulsion of Russians from Crimea. Armed militants were dispatched, and they commenced an assault on the building of Crimea's Supreme Council. Naturally, the peninsula rose in defiance. Our military bases in Sevastopol supported the Crimeans, thereby averting bloodshed. Likewise, Donbass, unwilling to accept the new government, also rose up.

However, my point is somewhat different. If the agreements, which Russia endorsed due to our consistent advocacy for compromise, had been implemented, Ukraine would have maintained its territorial integrity, including Crimea. This outcome, unfortunately, did not materialise and Crimea “departed”.

To settle the Donbass  issue, Russia once again showed its willingness to sit down and talk when the Minsk Agreements were agreed upon in February 2015.We found out later that no one planned to act on them, neither France or Germany, nor, and even less so, Ukraine. All these years, in violation of the ceasefire principle, the Kiev regime was launching attacks on Donbass. It all ended as it did in February 2022. However, had the Minsk Agreements been implemented, Ukraine would have kept its territory whole, without Crimea, though, but all of Donbass  and Novorossiya would have still remained part of Ukraine. Ukraine’s inability to reach and honour agreements backfired the second time.

The third opportunity for Ukraine to maintain some semblance of statehood arose in April 2022. After several rounds of talks between Russian and Ukrainian representatives, the Istanbul Agreements were reached, which kept Ukraine intact, less Crimea and a significant portion of Donbass, non-accession to NATO, and security guarantees outside of military blocs. You know what happened next. The head of the Ukrainian delegation, David Arakhamiya, admitted that then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson arrived in Ukraine and said Ukrainians should not sign the already initialed document.

This was the third time Russia acted in good faith and agreed to hold talks. The opposing side, or as I might say, the opposite side, was unwilling to talk. Every time the Ukrainians and their backers destroyed the agreements, Ukraine lost more territory.

The latest proposal was made by President Putin on June 14 during his speech at the Foreign Ministry when he said we were ready for talks based on recognition of realities, including amendments to the Russian Constitution, under which not only the Republic of Crimea, but also the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR), Zaporozhye, and Kherson regions were now and forever an integral part of the Russian Federation, as well as the situation on the ground, which all our Western partners and some countries from other regions, which come up with various initiatives, keep ignoring.

The thing is that the rights of the Russian-speaking people in Ukraine have been trampled upon. Laws have been passed which ban education in the Russian language and Russian-based media outlets operating in Ukraine, as well as even the Ukrainian ones that are in Russian. Russian culture has been banned. Separate legislative acts were issued in Kiev, which outlaw cultural activities in Russian. This is an unacceptable reality that exists on the ground. Another unacceptable reality is Kiev and the West’s stated intention to make Ukraine a NATO member. All these issues must be recognised and put out of the way.

Everything it says about Ukraine has the West consistently accusing us of an aggression, completely ignoring what it had done to the Kiev regime over the past ten years. The West demands that Russia withdraw its troops, citing the UN Charter as the only basis for settlement, which calls for respect for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. This is another nasty habit of the West where it picks only what suits its interests.

By the same token, Western countries are erasing history. They act as if nothing happened, and before February 2022 everything in Ukraine was “perfect” until Russia suddenly “invaded it.” Examples like this one abound. The West is trying to apply its methods and its interpretation of international law, cancelling inconvenient periods of history and culture.

As for the UN Charter, we fully support it being the foundation for the settlement. But in Ukraine, it all began with the rise to power of a Nazi regime that banned the Russian language and declared war on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is a canonical sister of the Russian Orthodox Church. The first chapter of the UN Charter (long before the mention of territorial integrity) states that everyone must respect and uphold human rights, regardless of race, gender, language, or religion. It clearly says: do not touch language and religion. This principle was violated long before Ukraine’s actions and inability to honour agreements led to its territorial losses.

The second “issue” lies in another principle of the UN Charter: the right of nations to self-determination which is also mentioned in this document long before territorial integrity. There have been debates at the UN General Assembly regarding the interpretation of the right to self-determination and territorial integrity. In 1970, the UN General Assembly unanimously declared in the Declaration on Principles of International Law that all states must respect the territorial integrity of those states whose governments uphold the principle of self-determination and represent the entire population living within a particular territory.

Did the Nazis who came to power after the coup and cancelled the Russian language in Ukraine represent the people of Crimea, Donbass, or Novorossiya? The West tends to twist and to dastardly manipulate everything to its advantage.

We insist that any eventual political settlement (which we remain open to) must be based on the UN Charter. Not just the articles the West selectively applies to suit its interests, but all the goals and principles of the UN Charter, in their entirety and interconnectedness. When the referendum took place in Crimea, the West said it violated the principle of territorial integrity. When Kosovo declared independence without a referendum, the West said it was an exercise of the right to self-determination. As with many other Western approaches in the past centuries and present, this is a vile and dishonest approach.

I went into detail covering this issue, because you asked an important question about what lies at the basis of Russian diplomacy. It’s hard to explain why Russia is turning down claims to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty under the UN Charter without showing examples of how deeply we value honesty and respect for international law in its entirety. They are crooks. Our position is not flawless. Nobody’s perfect, as a character in a Hollywood movie famously said. But at least we are ready to defend and uphold it.

I’ve cited an example of what the UN Charter is and how some countries apply its articles and principles while others do not. We are open to an honest discussion, while the West is not. It lacks arguments. Even when Soviet representatives at the UN were accused of reading from Pravda editorials, they were much more sophisticated and creative in presenting a well-established position. The West - whether you’re reading the New York Times or listening to a US representative at the UN - offers nothing but slogans and demands, without showing any effort to back their untenable approaches with facts.

To reiterate, (I may be accused of putting in a plug for Russian diplomacy), we are ready for a candid discussion of these issues.

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

Sergey Lavrov: Proficiency in foreign languages is indispensable for a diplomat. During the Soviet era, it was mandatory to pass an examination in one foreign language, followed by the study of a second or third language whilst serving in the Foreign Ministry. Currently, we recruit only those candidates who successfully pass interviews in two foreign languages. The range of foreign languages taught has broadened, and we are beginning to see the results. We are now welcoming individuals with expertise in Oriental and less commonly taught languages. They are actively engaged in our work and show promising potential. I am confident that the significance of Oriental languages will continue to grow.

A diplomat must be adept in a foreign language. While negotiations with translation facilities remain important, direct one-on-one meetings, without intermediaries, often prove crucial in resolving major crises. For instance, during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin held a private meeting with Robert Kennedy, brother of then-US President John Kennedy, where significant developments occurred. In practice, a diplomat's language skills must be impeccable.

We employ individuals proficient in two foreign languages and encourage new recruits to either enhance their language skills or acquire a new one, or pursue both avenues at our Higher Courses of Foreign Languages, the oldest educational institution of its kind with a rich tradition we hold in high esteem. It provides an opportunity to refine one's expertise and enhance language proficiency.

I mentioned translators. While diplomats are required to possess foreign language skills, translators remain vital and indispensable.

In the contemporary global landscape, diplomacy extends beyond the traditional confines of war and peace, which characterised the Middle Ages and much of the 19th century. Presently, if we consider the Organisation's executive structure, it encompasses a wide array of issues, including political and military matters, the economy, culture and social concerns, refugees, and healthcare. Cybersecurity has become a significant item on the agenda of the World Organisation, alongside intellectual property, which is addressed by a dedicated agency, as well as sustainable development and its related aspects. The "climate process" has been established under the auspices of the United Nations, and there are ongoing discussions regarding the establishment of a governing authority to address artificial intelligence. Every facet of human existence is intertwined with diplomacy, and diplomats are actively engaged in each of these areas. In many instances, our leading economic, technological, military, and health agencies, among others, assume a pivotal role as chief experts, with diplomats providing essential support.

This underscores the expansion of the academic programme at MGIMO. Rosneft and Transneft have instituted their own departments, and a medical course is now available at MGIMO. Such developments were initially met with scepticism. However, one must recall the evolution of the coronavirus pandemic, the ensuing political tensions surrounding the WHO, the European Commission's attempts to negotiate preferential terms for Western vaccines from Pfizer and AstraZeneca using fraudulent means, and their collaboration with the WHO to undermine the standing of the Russian Sputnik V and other vaccines. There is no sphere untouched by political contention. Consequently, it is imperative, as in all domains, to cultivate expertise in modern methodologies for managing and regulating international cooperation and healthcare.

For many years, the International Telecommunication Union has engaged in discussions regarding the governance and management of the internet. The Americans, understandably, are reluctant to relinquish their near-monopolistic position. The remainder of the global community seeks greater equity in this domain. Consequently, it is imperative for MGIMO, as an institution that trains personnel for international activities, to duly consider these dynamics. Where feasible, it should integrate pertinent programmes into its curriculum.

Interpreters fulfil a crucial role in this context. There have been instances (including during Soviet times) where the head of a delegation at various levels has not articulated his position effectively. Naturally, a memo is provided. A proficient interpreter will invariably make subtle and discreet corrections to convey the intended nuances. Conversely, there are situations where the head of the delegation possesses command of the foreign language, yet the negotiations are conducted in Russian and the language of the counterpart. Occasionally, the head of the delegation (as has occurred) may correct the interpreter, which is rather embarrassing. However, such occurrences are part of life and underscore the importance of focusing on the training of interpreters.

MGIMO offers both bachelor's and master's degree programmes, alongside regular internships for interpreters who are trained for international activities in translation and simultaneous interpretation. They undertake internships at the United Nations, where strong contacts have been established. Traditionally, Moscow State Linguistic University has fulfilled this role. We hold MSLU in high regard and maintain a close friendship with the institution.

It is essential to incentivise those proficient in multiple languages. During the Soviet era, a 5 percent bonus was awarded for proficiency in a Western language and a 10 percent bonus for an Oriental language, with a cap of 20 percent. I believe this policy requires revision. We must encourage students to acquire proficiency in additional languages.

When Alexander Griboyedov joined the Collegium of Foreign Affairs in 1817, he was appointed to the post of gubernial (provincial) secretary. It soon became apparent that he was conversant in nine foreign languages, resulting in an immediate promotion to a position significantly higher, with a sevenfold increase in earnings. There remains room for improvement. We must draw upon both the experience of Soviet diplomacy and the insights gained as the Russian Federation in recent decades.