Ассоциация выпускников МГИМО

Billionaire entrepreneur Andrey Melnichenko: The New World will be defined by sovereignty

Andrey Matuzov — Sat, 26 Sep 2026 19:23:21 +0000

Dimitri Simes: This is a special analytical edition of “The Great Game.” We will talk with Andrey Igorevich Melnichenko – a very successful entrepreneur. Like every successful entrepreneur of a large scale, he is under Western sanctions, the grounds for which I long ago stopped trying to understand. Recently, a major piece was devoted to him in the English magazine The Economist – a publication that is not known for its sympathies toward Russia. The article acknowledges that Andrey Igorevich is not an opponent of the Russian authorities and does not try to present himself as an opponent of the war. At the same time, he is spoken of with great respect – as a serious, thoughtful person and, as I want to add, a true patriot of Russia. In your interview and the article published in The Economist, you expressed, from my point of view, a whole series of reasonable thoughts about why the West should not try to inflict a defeat on Russia and how such attempts could harm the West itself. But we are primarily interested in the extent to which the West is capable of listening to reasonable arguments. What is required for your voice to be heard there and, more broadly, the voice of Russia? So far, I – as, it seems to me, both the Russian authorities and analysts like me – have the impression that we are heard, but at the same time they think only about how to refute and ignore our arguments. What is your impression?

Andrey Melnichenko: There is probably no simple answer here. Indeed, today Western elites in general treat Russia, to put it mildly, in an unfriendly manner. This, of course, imposes certain constraints. But should we try to change such an attitude? Are there any chances of changing it? I think the question should be posed differently. To force oneself to be understood or liked is not quite the right task. It is far more correct to change the balance of risks and interests that has developed between us and the West. It is precisely work on changing this balance that should be the goal of continuing dialogue through all available channels of communication.

Dimitri Simes: It seems to me that for a person like you, it is rather difficult to conduct a dialogue with European elites. You are a physicist, in your early youth you became a successful entrepreneur, an international businessman. You think logically and systematically, you analyze risks and opportunities. But a whole series of analysts, including me, have the impression that European elites easily depart from logic and even forget about their own interests. Russophobia prevents them from thinking rationally. What is your impression? Are these elites with whom it is even possible to conduct a real dialogue?

Andrey Melnichenko: I think that the notion of a “united West” does not exist. The West, like any complex society and any complex structure, is fragmented. It is divided in terms of various political and economic interests. It is a conglomeration of interests. The task is to understand these interests. To understand does not mean to conform to them. One must always proceed from one’s own interests. But by understanding the language of the interlocutor, one can, as I already said, change the balance of risks and interests. That is probably what one should be doing.

Dimitri Simes: From my point of view, this is a very rational thought. But you also noted in your interview and article for The Economist that in order for your arguments to be heard, it is necessary to convince the interlocutor of the ability to defend one’s own positions and of readiness to show firmness. On the other hand, you expressed concern that further escalation could lead to an expansion of the conflict and to the most unpleasant – possibly catastrophic – consequences. Yesterday I read a speech by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He essentially repeats your thoughts: there is a real danger of escalation that probably no one wants and that no one needs. But such a danger exists, and it must be reckoned with. How, in your view, can one simultaneously demonstrate resolve and avoid dangerous escalation?

Andrey Melnichenko: If there were a simple answer, it would probably already have been found. But there is no simple answer here. It seems to me that the very structure of negotiations and dialogue must to a certain extent be changed. It should be looked at somewhat differently. What are classical structures of negotiations like? There is a deal, when the parties try to find benefit for each of them. There are negotiations in the course of which the parties seek compromises, the possibility of avoiding something or, on the contrary, finding something in common. But there also exists such a structure of conversation as a project. How does a project differ from the previous two types? In this case, the initial conditions – where you are – and the final goal are more or less clear. And the goal in this case is obvious: to find the possibility of coexistence in a new world that is becoming increasingly unsafe. It is precisely the word “project” that probably describes the method that should be used here. Negotiations are when you sit on opposite sides of the table and resolve your issues by comparing positions. And a project is when you sit on one side of the table, and on the other side is the problem. The solution to the problem may be unknown, but if it is formulated what exactly needs to be solved, and the two sides work together on this task, a solution, as a rule, is found. Sometimes it turns out to be the most unexpected.

Dimitri Simes: Provided that both sides are interested in finding a solution. When I read about you, familiarized myself with what you wrote, and listen to you now, I imagine that you could be very effective in a conversation with Henry Kissinger or Richard Nixon. But when I think about the current European elites, I am not sure about that. I never personally met Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin, but I know that he was a man of great intellect and a true professional. Not only Kissinger, but also Nixon, as president, regularly met with him. I am trying to imagine Dobrynin talking with President Biden. And even more so Dobrynin in a conversation with Chancellor Merz. These are people of completely different intellect and completely different type. How does one deal with those who are not ready to seek constructive solutions, even if such a solution serves their interests?

Andrey Melnichenko: There are two formulas here. The first is to change the balance of risks and opportunities.

Dimitri Simes: But then the danger of escalation appears.

Andrey Melnichenko: The key word is “balance.” To go only in one direction, without taking the other into account, means destroying the balance. To seek balance is something else: to find certain solutions. You have just focused attention on the role of leaders — Biden, Nixon, and others. In the Russian and Western traditions there is a tendency to personify the activity of such large political subjects as the state, linking it to the actions of leaders. But that is not quite so. Society is far more complex. A leader far from always determines the course of history. To a certain extent, the archetype of a leader corresponds to the state of society at a particular moment. For example, in the Russian — or, more precisely, civilizational — tradition, the concept of a leader is connected with the concept of mission. There is a historical mission, and the leader must correspond to it. Therefore, in the Russian consciousness, the view of a leader is at the same time a view of mission. We reason within this system of coordinates. In the democratic societies of the West it may be somewhat different. Personification there is less pronounced, and society is more fragmented. If you see that your interlocutor does not hear you, two questions arise here. Of course, there is a question for the interlocutor: it is more pleasant to deal with someone who understands you, shares your values and views. It is far more difficult to find solutions in a world that has become fragmented, where various interests, civilizational codes, and perceptions exist. But this is precisely the work that must be done.

Dimitri Simes: I can imagine your conversation with President Trump. He is, of course, a special person: self-absorbed, sometimes capricious, he likes to be unpredictable. But, like you, he has extensive experience in business. He understands: if a deal serves your interests, you need to seek creative solutions and a balance of interests. Therefore I can see how Trump often makes broad statements, sometimes issues threats in caricatured form. But in the end he understands that certain things cannot be done, and certain things must be done. This has led to a situation where, despite the fundamental and enduring contradictions between Moscow and Washington, the presidents of the two countries conduct a serious dialogue. It seems to me that Trump treats Vladimir Putin with respect. And I am sure that Putin treats Trump with respect and understanding — with open eyes regarding whose interests Trump represents and what can be expected from him. Putin behaves like a rational leader. But when I look at European leaders, I am not sure how far one can rely on them following Karl Marx’s formula: being determines consciousness. It seems to me that their consciousness is often disconnected from being. You rightly said that one should not focus too much on leaders: the real decision-making mechanisms in European countries are significantly more complex. But how does one understand the colossal sanctions imposed against Russia, especially in the energy sphere and, in particular, against Russian gas? It would seem that both for the population of Germany and for German business circles, Russia was a quite reliable partner. I, at least, have not seen complaints from German businessmen or consumers about how Russia acted as an economic partner of Germany. And all of this was so easily cast aside. Why?

Andrey Melnichenko: Because the world is more complex. Everything does not come down to a deal and economic benefit. If we speak about political processes in Europe as I understand them, society there is changing very quickly. Technologies are changing, the speed of information dissemination, the nature of challenges. All of this is happening extremely quickly. When changes happen quickly, uncertainty, fragmentation, and nervousness arise in society. A need appears to simplify what is happening, to find some explanation for it. One of the simplest ways is to find an image of an enemy, an external enemy. Such an image allows society to be consolidated and internal contradictions to be held in check. Unfortunately, in the perception of a number of European countries, we have become such an enemy. Russia has turned into a convenient enemy for the elites of these societies — into an instrument for consolidating political unity. In my view, this is precisely what happened. This is a big problem, because in such a situation emotions defeat rationality. If we speak about the logic of President Trump, you indeed described him as a businessman. But there exist different ways of doing business. There is a method that Trump himself described in detail in the 1980s: creating imbalance. You create uncertainty in your opponent, demonstrate that he does not know what to expect from you, and thanks to this you extract benefit from the deal. This is not the only possible method of doing business, but it is a possible one. I am far more impressed by the approach that, for example, the Russian Federation adheres to. In my view, it corresponds more to an attempt to speak in the language of a project: to seek a solution to the problem and propose a structure that could answer the questions that arise. These are simply different approaches. We live in a world where economic globalization will not end. It is beneficial, and the economy continues to develop. The International Monetary Fund speaks of three percent growth of the world economy this year. Economic globalization continues. Goods still move along supply chains, perhaps more complex ones. But at the same time, political fragmentation has occurred. The existence of economic globalism does not mean the existence of a single political system. This is precisely what we today call a multipolar world. If the world is multipolar, one should not expect that others will be the same as we are. They will think and act in their own interests, proceeding from their own system of priorities. We must think about our interests and our system of priorities, and find a model of survival in this new, unsafe world. Moreover, what is at issue should be not simply survival, but development and movement forward. One should not force anyone to love you or understand you. One must clearly follow one’s own interests, understand them, and see further than one’s counterparts see. If there is an understanding of the goal and confidence in it, the road will lead to that goal one way or another.

Dimitri Simes: There is an English expression: “A tongue without arms — how dare you speak?” In other words, if you have no power or weapons, why do you even allow yourself to speak out? [Translator’s note: the Russian “язык без рук” is literally “a tongue without arms” — a voice with no force behind it; the host presents it as an English expression, though it is not idiomatic English.] It seems to me that this is precisely the dilemma of Russian foreign policy. If we create the impression that we genuinely threaten the United States, Europe, and the West, that impression is exploited to the maximum: they stir up their own populations, militarize their economies, and take various actions against Russia. But if we say, “Let’s return to international law. We live on one planet and face common threats. There was COVID, now artificial intelligence may spiral out of control, there are climate threats. Let’s tackle these problems together,” then I get the feeling that they hear us in a completely different way from what we mean. They hear that we are weak and indecisive. And that, in their view, contradicts their interests. You used the key word “balance.” As you know, that was Kissinger’s favorite word. But the Kissinger era in America is over. How does one seek balance in such a situation?

Andrey Melnichenko: Indeed, I would like to know. One needs to think about what the world will look like some time from now. It is on the threshold of great changes and is already going through them. We are moving toward a world in which political systems will be fragmented. Different systems will develop in accordance with their own codes and principles. In this world, one should not set as a goal to be fully understood. Nor should one deceive oneself with the illusion that one can precisely understand and account for the interests of all others. It seems to me that in the world we are entering—not because we want it, but because it is objectively becoming so—the key concept will be sovereignty. What does that mean? Above all, the ability to make decisions in one’s own interests. Russia has withstood. You mentioned sanctions and other measures of pressure. We have demonstrated the resilience of our political and economic systems despite everything that has come down on us. In that sense, security was ensured. But the next question is how to ensure security of development. How to make it so that we develop, so that the word “sovereignty” is filled with concrete content? Sovereignty is the ability to act in one’s own interests, to make decisions in the way that benefits you. What does “you” mean? It means giving citizens a planning horizon and a certain predictability. Secondly, ensuring the ability to develop technology, means of production, industry, and the education system. It is into domestic matters that sovereignty must be transformed. If you mind your own business and are interested in your own development, then everything else, including foreign policy, comes down to one question: how to ensure the conditions that allow you to pursue that development. That is the main goal of foreign policy.

Dimitri Simes: French President Emmanuel Macron recently said something that alarmed me greatly. He said that Russia represents an existential threat to Europe and, more specifically, to France. When people speak of existential threats, it is implied that even military action may be permitted to counter them—including preemptive action. If Macron really meant what he said, do you think that he and other European leaders are preparing for war with Russia? Not a war that Russia might start against them, but a war that they intend to start against Russia?

Andrey Melnichenko: Europe is militarizing—that is a fact. Military spending is growing, rhetoric is intensifying. This has become an important instrument for mobilizing Western European societies. The question is whether this fact will be transformed into a reality that in fact is needed neither by us nor by them. Preventing a negative scenario is our task.

Dimitri Simes: I very much like your manner of thinking—the constant search for balance. I want to ask another question. Under sanctions, Russia has found ways to uphold its sovereignty through self-sufficiency. It is impressive how our country manages this. But if one thinks about the long term, do you not fear that we will be able to solve specific tasks, especially in the area of weapons development, but that this will hinder development overall—not only in comparison with the United States, but also with China and India?

Andrey Melnichenko: Of course I fear it. It seems to me that total self-sufficiency and a fully autonomous system are not the solution. Here again one must seek balance. On the one hand, there is a bloc of critically important technologies and basic means of production. It is also important to control one’s own national payment system. There are areas in which you must be fully protected from any external influence. Either you need to have your own solutions, or several reliable suppliers. There must be several of them. That is one bloc. On the other hand, full self-sufficiency is not the solution. To be economically efficient and competitive, one must participate in the exchange of goods, technology, and knowledge. But at the same time, one must not create new dependencies. Thus, on the one hand, a balance of security in critically important areas is necessary, and on the other, sustainable development that does not create new dependencies. If this balance is maintained, that is the right path. If it is disrupted, problems arise: either risks grow, or development slows, which ultimately leads to falling behind developing countries.

Dimitri Simes: Under sanctions, it is especially important to preserve the right dynamics of economic growth, and this largely depends on investment. Investment, in turn, depends on the key rate. I don’t need to tell you this—you know it far better than I do: there is a direct link between economic growth rates and the preservation of fiscal stability. On this matter, opinions in Russia, including within the government, differ. What is your approach?

Andrey Melnichenko: What are we observing now? The global economy has not been destroyed by the two ongoing wars. The conflict in the Middle East has led to rising risks and costs in energy, maritime logistics, and insurance. The events related to the conflict in Ukraine launched a different phase—processes of fragmentation caused by sanctions and technological restrictions. The world economy has adapted to these changes, but it does so at the cost of rising expenses. Goods continue to move, but if previously a company needed only one supplier, now it needs three. Previously one could operate with minimal inventories on a just in time basis, but today one has to accumulate excess reserves. States also have to bear additional expenses and create backup systems to perform certain functions. In other words, costs are rising in the world economy, and the consequence of this is rising costs in national economies and inflation. This is cost-push inflation. When we begin to fight inflation without affecting production costs and expenses on the supply side, but instead use methods that were correct in a different economic situation, we encounter a problem. This is about a world that was open and fully global, without significant restrictions. Back then, fighting inflation by reducing demand could be effective. Changing the key rate does affect demand: investment and consumer demand decline. It seems to me that these methods are meant for another world—one that is gradually becoming smaller and smaller.

Dimitri Simes: And the last question—precisely about the world that perhaps still exists. We continue to think in the categories of the current world. It is well known that generals always prepare for the previous war. The conflict that everyone was preparing for in Ukraine differs substantially from what is actually happening. It seems to me that political scientists, statesmen, and society as a whole think as if what is happening today represents a long-term and most probable trend. But that is not always the case. This brings me to the thought of artificial intelligence. As you probably know, the physicist Stephen Hawking in the last year of his life warned that compared with the threats associated with artificial intelligence, all existing dangers may seem insignificant. You are a physicist and possess very disciplined thinking. Are we underestimating the danger of artificial intelligence?

Andrey Melnichenko: We do not know. Let us say it plainly: we do not know. But here is what seems to me. In moments of great uncertainty, when information flows and moods in society change rapidly, fear indeed becomes one of the instruments of consolidation. It makes it possible to ensure control over society, its stability, and its manageability. In my view, it would be far better to fear climate change. In the early 1990s, after the end of the Cold War, this process, launched by Margaret Thatcher, developed actively, rather than continuing to fear the Cold War and nuclear annihilation.

Dimitri Simes: But that was ignored.

Andrey Melnichenko: Why? For a time this direction developed actively—for roughly twenty years. Whether there is real substance behind it is another question. But the threat of annihilation as a result of a major nuclear war was replaced by another problem around which humanity tried to consolidate. It seems to me this is a positive process. Humanity needs a common enemy. One was found, but it turned out to be far safer.

Dimitri Simes: Maybe we should focus on artificial intelligence?

Andrey Melnichenko: After that we tried to focus on fighting diseases. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a lot that was unpleasant about it, but everyone was concerned and fighting a common threat. Then for a while people talked about aliens: we need to consolidate because we will be attacked from space. If society really must be consolidated, let humanity focus on some other danger, rather than on destroying Russians on the pretext that they will attack Europe, or on destroying someone else on the pretext of a possible attack on China. Let us focus on the problem of artificial intelligence. I like that much more than concentrating on the threat emanating from some state or person against whom some action must be taken because of a misunderstanding.

Dimitri Simes: I completely agree. I am not a physicist and I cannot judge what opportunities and, even more so, what dangers artificial intelligence presents. But I believe that this is an area where we have no right to underestimate either the opportunities or the risks. Thank you very much for this conversation. It was very interesting. Your position gives grounds for optimism: there are people with such an approach, and they are ready to listen to you even in godforsaken London. Thank you very much. We are going to a commercial break.

https://www.europeaninterest.eu/billionaire-entrepreneur-andrey-melnichenko-the-new-world-will-be-defined-by-sovereignty/

МГИМО-ретро

Alumni MGIMO — Wed, 9 Sep 2026 12:50:27 +0000

1987 год. МГИМО. На центре.

Хотя этому фото уже почти 40 лет, знакомый ритуал узнаётся сразу. Разве что флаги тогда ещё не успели поставить.

А какие фотографии МГИМО сохранились у вас? Делитесь архивными кадрами в соцсетях, присылайте на почту alumni@inno.mgimo.ru — будем вместе собирать историю университета.

Осенний набор MBA 2026: трансформируйте свою карьеру в Школе бизнеса МГИМО

Alumni MGIMO — Fri, 4 Sep 2026 09:16:55 +0000

Этой осенью запускаем отраслевые программы MBA, спроектированные под актуальные запросы российского бизнеса. Программа MBA в МГИМО — это не просто апгрейд навыков, а полная пересборка управленческой практики под реалии новой экономики. Выберите свой трек для масштабирования экспертизы:

Перенимайте опыт у лидеров рынка и академического сообщества. Среди наших преподавателей - профессора МГИМО, эксперты ведущих российских вузов, руководители российских компаний, представители органов власти, действующие предприниматели и бизнес-консультанты.

Эксклюзивный формат погружения. Бесшовная модель обучения соединяет академический фундамент (макроэкономика, геополитика новых рынков, стратегический маркетинг, финансовое моделирование) и передовую бизнес-практику российских компаний (отраслевые кейсы, управление проектами, обзор стратегий компаний по отраслям, ИИ в бизнесе). Вас ждут закрытые стратегические сессии с разбором антикризисного управления, встречи с капитанами индустрии, персональные консультации с наставниками из числа действующих руководителей компаний, а также трекинг-сессии с executive-коучами для настройки персональной стратегии роста.

MBA без паузы в карьере. Интенсивный модульный график обучения в формате уик-энд спринтов (18 месяцев, 3 дня в месяц). Офлайн-модули в кампусе МГИМО и межмодульное онлайн-сопровождение кураторами и наставниками программ МВА позволяют совмещать учебу с управлением бизнесом.

Комьюнити как главный капитал. Вашими одногруппниками станут руководители департаментов, собственники бизнеса и серийные предприниматели. По окончании программы вы становитесь членами закрытого клуба лидеров - Ассоциации выпускников МГИМО, где связи конвертируются в совместные стартапы быстрее, чем в классических бизнес-клубах.

Диплом как прикладной проект для бизнеса. Дипломный проект пишется на базе реального запроса вашей компании. За отведенный срок под менторством наших профессоров-практиков вы успеваете пройти полный цикл трансформации — от стратегического аудита до внедрения изменений. Такой формат превращает образование из статьи расходов в инвестицию с мгновенным ROI.

Хотите узнать больше о программах и обучении? Ждем Вас на Дне открытых дверей программ MBA – руководители программ ответят на все ваши вопросы. Он пройдет 23 сентября в 19:00 в очном формате в кампусе МГИМО на пр-те Вернадского. Участие по предварительной регистрации.

Международный бизнес, цифровая экономика, энергетика и минерально-сырьевые рынки, маркетинг, туризм, агробизнеса и азиатские рынки – выберите свое направление для того, чтобы выйти на новый уровень в профессии и бизнесе!

Школа бизнеса МГИМО – признанный лидер российского бизнес-образования – топ-5 лучших бизнес школ России (Народный рейтинг), топ-16 ведущих бизнес-школ России по версии Forbes Education, топ-70 в региональном рейтинге QS Global MBА, международная аккредитация (АМВА) и национальная аккредитация НАСДОБР.

WHO OWNS THE PAST?

Alex Schlesinger — Sun, 23 Aug 2026 20:27:21 +0000

Shared Heritage as an Instrument of Diplomacy Rather Than Geopolitical Competition

DIPLOMATIC STUDIES — BACKGROUNDER No. 001
History, Civilizations & Shared Heritage

INTRODUCTION

The past has become an increasingly active field of international competition. States seek recognition for historical figures, archaeological sites, religious traditions, languages, inventions and cultural practices as elements of national heritage. Museums face demands for restitution. Governments dispute the origins of cultural symbols. Archaeological discoveries become matters of national prestige. Historical narratives are incorporated into territorial claims, foreign-policy arguments and competing concepts of civilizational identity. None of this is inherently illegitimate. Communities have a right to preserve their memory, protect their heritage and maintain continuity with previous generations. The problem begins when historical association is transformed into exclusive historical ownership.

Human civilization did not develop within the political borders that exist today. Trade routes crossed continents, empires incorporated multiple peoples, religions migrated between languages and cultures, technologies travelled, populations mixed, stories were borrowed and retold, and political institutions were copied and transformed. Even apparently distinctive national traditions frequently contain layers inherited from much older systems of cultural exchange. Modern states therefore face a paradox: they may be legitimate custodians of particular historical traditions without necessarily being their exclusive historical owners. The distinction matters because disputes about the past increasingly influence relations in the present. Shared heritage should therefore be understood not as another territory to be divided, but as a potential infrastructure of international cooperation.

THE NEW COMPETITION FOR THE PAST

Geopolitical competition is usually understood as competition for territory, resources, technology, markets and military power. Yet another field of competition has become increasingly important: historical legitimacy. Control over historical narratives can provide states and political movements with symbolic authority. A claim to antiquity can reinforce territorial claims. Association with an ancient civilization can strengthen national identity. Religious heritage can establish symbolic continuity between contemporary political communities and sacred history. This creates powerful incentives to nationalize the past.

The resulting argument often follows a deceptively simple formula: it existed here, therefore it belongs to us, therefore we are its historical successors. History rarely follows such clean lines. The same city may have belonged to several civilizations. The same religious tradition may have passed through several languages and societies. The same technological practice may have emerged through exchanges among distant populations. The same epic narrative may contain motifs much older than the civilization that eventually recorded it. The further back we travel historically, the less useful modern political borders become. Attempts to impose contemporary national categories upon ancient history therefore risk creating an illusion of continuity where the historical reality was far more complex.

Cultural heritage is frequently described as something that naturally brings people together. It can, but it can also do precisely the opposite. Monuments become territorial markers. Archaeology is mobilized to validate political claims. Museums become arenas of diplomatic conflict. Historical anniversaries reopen unresolved disputes. Competing narratives of victimhood reproduce conflicts among generations that never experienced the original events. In extreme cases, destroying another community’s heritage becomes a way of denying that community’s historical legitimacy. Heritage policy should therefore no longer be regarded as a marginal cultural matter. It increasingly belongs to diplomacy, peacebuilding and international security.

SHARED DOES NOT MEAN OWNERLESS

One possible response is to declare all important heritage simply “the heritage of humanity.” The proposition is attractive but insufficient. Universalizing heritage can itself erase legitimate historical relationships. The Parthenon forms part of humanity’s heritage, but it is also specifically Greek. Angkor belongs to world civilization, but it cannot be separated from Cambodia. Indigenous traditions may possess universal significance while remaining inseparable from the communities that preserved them. Shared heritage therefore does not mean ownerless heritage, nor does it require cultures to abandon their distinctive identities.

A more useful principle is that heritage can possess several layers of belonging simultaneously. A historical object, tradition, person or site may belong to a local community, a religious or linguistic tradition, a nation, several nations connected through history, a wider civilization and, ultimately, humanity. These identities need not contradict one another. Conflict begins when one layer attempts to invalidate all the others.

This distinction allows us to move beyond the false choice between national ownership and abstract universalism. A society does not lose its relationship with its past simply because another society also has a legitimate relationship with the same historical phenomenon. Recognition does not have to operate as a zero-sum game. Indeed, the attempt to establish exclusive ownership over historical phenomena that emerged through centuries of migration, exchange and cultural borrowing often tells us more about contemporary politics than about the historical processes themselves.

FROM OWNERSHIP TO STEWARDSHIP

The vocabulary of heritage should consequently expand. International discussions remain dominated by concepts such as ownership, possession, origin and restitution. These are necessary legal categories, but another concept should stand beside them: stewardship. Ownership asks who something belongs to. Stewardship asks who has responsibility for preserving it, studying it, interpreting it and transmitting it to future generations. The second question frequently creates possibilities for cooperation that the first cannot provide.

Two states disputing the historical ownership of a tradition may nevertheless document it jointly. Museums disputing an artefact may conduct shared provenance research. Countries connected by an ancient trade route can construct a common digital archive. Communities with conflicting interpretations of the same historical event can preserve parallel narratives rather than forcing an artificial consensus. The objective should not always be to produce one agreed history. In many cases that is neither possible nor desirable. The objective should be to create an institutional framework within which different historical memories can coexist without becoming instruments of contemporary conflict.

This requires several principles. Historical connection should be distinguished from exclusive ownership. Multiple layers of belonging should be recognized rather than artificially reduced to a single national attribution. Archaeological, linguistic, genetic, archival and historical evidence should be clearly separated from later political narratives constructed around that evidence. Where exclusive ownership cannot resolve a dispute, shared stewardship should be considered through joint archives, common research programmes, travelling collections, digital repatriation and multinational heritage projects. Finally, heritage disputes should increasingly be treated as a field of preventive diplomacy because apparently symbolic historical controversies can become early indicators of much deeper identity, territorial and political conflicts.

A NEW ROLE FOR DIPLOMACY

Traditional diplomacy usually enters heritage disputes late. A museum receives a restitution claim. A monument becomes politically contested. An archaeological site is damaged during conflict. A government protests another country’s historical interpretation. Diplomacy then attempts to manage the consequences. The sequence should be reversed. Shared heritage can itself become a diplomatic instrument.

Countries with difficult political relationships may still cooperate around archaeology, archives, conservation, language, museums and historical research. Such cooperation can create relationships among historians, universities, museums, municipalities, religious communities and professional associations before governments are capable of resolving larger political disputes. Heritage diplomacy can therefore operate below the threshold of formal political agreement. It provides a comparatively low-risk environment in which societies can acknowledge connections without first resolving every political disagreement between them.

This changes the meaning of heritage diplomacy. Heritage is not merely something diplomacy should protect after conflict has begun. It can become an instrument through which relationships are built before conflict occurs. A shared archaeological mission, jointly curated exhibition, common historical archive or multinational research programme may appear insignificant compared with formal negotiations between governments. Yet such projects create networks of trust, professional familiarity and shared responsibility that conventional diplomacy often struggles to produce.

THE DIGITAL OPPORTUNITY

Digital technologies make a further step possible. For most of history, knowledge was organized according to institutions that possessed physical objects: archives, museums, libraries and universities. Digital environments do not require the same architecture. A single historical object can simultaneously be connected to several countries, civilizations, languages, communities, archaeological sites, academic interpretations and competing historical narratives. Instead of forcing the user to choose one category, a digital knowledge system can preserve the relationships among all of them.

This creates the possibility of moving from national collections toward connected histories. A shared-heritage environment could connect objects, places, people, historical events, archival documents, archaeological evidence, oral traditions, academic interpretations, communities and contemporary disputes. It would not need to become another universal encyclopedia presenting one supposedly authoritative account of the past. It could instead become a map of relationships among different interpretations of human history, clearly distinguishing documented evidence from hypothesis, scholarly disagreement and contemporary political narrative.

Such an architecture is particularly important because the digital organization of knowledge is never neutral. If every historical phenomenon must be assigned to one country, one culture or one civilization, the database itself reproduces the logic of exclusive ownership. If the same phenomenon can belong simultaneously to multiple historical relationships, digital infrastructure can represent the complexity that conventional political categories often conceal.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE

Governments, universities, museums and international institutions should begin experimenting with practical mechanisms of shared heritage. Multinational research groups should be created for contested historical subjects, not as commissions designed to manufacture political consensus but as professional environments capable of documenting areas of agreement, disagreement and different levels of evidence. Important historical objects, traditions and phenomena could receive Shared Heritage Passports, digital records identifying all communities, territories and civilizations with documented relationships to them. Museums and archives could develop interoperable provenance databases capable of reconstructing the historical movement of important objects across institutional and national boundaries.

Heritage-dialogue mechanisms should also be established before disputes become political crises. Universities, museums and professional associations can provide neutral environments for conversations governments may find politically difficult. Competing interpretations should remain visible rather than being artificially reconciled. A mature knowledge system should distinguish established evidence, plausible interpretation, disputed interpretation and political narrative. Shared archaeological missions, archives, exhibitions and research programmes should also be treated as potential confidence-building measures between societies with difficult political relations.

The purpose of such mechanisms is not to depoliticize history. History will always have political consequences. The objective is instead to make the relationship between evidence, interpretation, identity and political use more transparent. A society should be able to say, “this is part of our history,” without requiring another society to accept the proposition that it therefore cannot also be part of theirs.

CONCLUSION

Human beings inherited the past long before they divided the contemporary world into its present states. This does not make nations irrelevant. It makes history larger than nations. The task is therefore not to erase national heritage or dissolve cultural identities into an abstract universal culture. It is to recognize a more complex reality: what is ours can also be shared.

A civilization becomes no less important when we discover that it borrowed from another civilization. A national tradition becomes no less meaningful when its deeper origins cross modern borders. A religious story does not lose its significance because related narratives existed elsewhere. Quite the opposite. Connected histories reveal the extraordinary process through which human civilization was actually constructed: through migration, exchange, borrowing, adaptation, conflict, memory and continuous reinterpretation.

The international system has spent centuries developing mechanisms for dividing territory. It now needs better mechanisms for sharing memory. The question “Who owns the past?” may therefore have no single answer. A better question is: who is prepared to take responsibility for preserving it, understanding it and allowing others to recognize themselves within it?

That question changes the nature of the problem. Heritage ceases to be merely another object of geopolitical competition and can become an infrastructure of cooperation.

DIPLOMATIC STUDIES
The Living Journal of International Affairs

Backgrounder No. 001 | History, Civilizations & Shared Heritage

This paper is intended to initiate professional discussion. Its propositions are open to evidence, critique and revision through the Diplomatic Studies working-group process.

DISCUSS · CONTRIBUTE EVIDENCE · JOIN THE WORKING GROUP

Новый выпуск MGIMO Journal

Alumni MGIMO — Mon, 15 Jun 2026 10:14:54 +0000

Дорогие выпускники, вышел свежий номер MGIMO Journal.

В номере вы узнаете об агродипломатах.

Мы снова возвращаемся к нашим казахстанским выпускникам.

Рассказываем об интересных людях, в том числе о тех, кто рядом с нами. Анна Шпынова — одна из многих представительниц долгих мгимовских династий.

В номере мы напоминаем о состоявшемся Наблюдательном совете МГИМО и его решениях.

И конечно номер содержит калейдоскоп событий, встреч, конференций, жизни большого Университета.

Читать (PDF, 16 мб)

MGIMO Journal издается при поддержке Эндаумента МГИМО.

🇷🇺 Президент России объявил благодарность коллективу ИМИ МГИМО

Alumni MGIMO — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 11:42:13 +0000

Президент Российской Федерации В.В.Путин объявил благодарность коллективу Института международных исследований МГИМО.

Коллектив ИМИ отмечен за заслуги в сфере экспертно-аналитического обеспечения федеральных органов исполнительной власти и многолетнюю плодотворную деятельность. Поздравляем коллег с высокой оценкой их труда и заслуженной наградой!

💛 ПМЭФ-2026: Встреча выпускников МГИМО

Alumni MGIMO — Thu, 4 Jun 2026 13:43:41 +0000

На полях ПМЭФ состоялась традиционная встреча выпускников и друзей МГИМО, приехавших на Форум и работающих в Санкт-Петербурге.

Мероприятие, организованное Ассоциацией выпускников и Эндаументом МГИМО, уже стало неотъемлемой частью программы первого дня ПМЭФ для многих мгимовцев.

Встреча вновь объединила представителей разных поколений выпускников, работающих в сфере государственного управления, дипломатии, бизнеса, науки, образования и медиа. В неформальной обстановке участники смогли пообщаться с коллегами и друзьями, обменяться мнениями по актуальным вопросам международной и деловой повестки, обсудить участие представителей Университета в мероприятиях Форума.

В этом году встреча вновь собрала большое число выпускников и друзей Университета, подтвердив, что мгимовское братство остается одной из главных ценностей МГИМО.

Встреча прошла при поддержке Всероссийской культурно-общественной театральной ассоциации и Департамента внешнеэкономических и международных связей города Москвы.

#ПМЭФ2026

Новый выпуск MJ

Alumni MGIMO — Thu, 4 Jun 2026 11:55:21 +0000

Рады представить вашему вниманию новый выпуск англоязычного дайджеста MGIMO Journal.

Новый дайджест объединяет главные сюжеты университетской жизни: от технологического лидерства и международных визитов до исторической памяти, спортивной дипломатии, регионального развития и личных историй выпускников.

Среди основных материалов выпуска:

Интервью ректора МГИМО,

академика А.В. Торкунова.

Центральный материал номера — интервью ректора МГИМО А.В. Торкунова «Our Goal is Technological Leadership». В нем Анатолий Васильевич говорит о новом этапе развития Университета, роли искусственного интеллекта, цифровой трансформации и переходе от академического лидерства к технологическому.

Международная повестка МГИМО.

В выпуск вошел материал о визите в Университет Премьер-министра Малайзии Анвара Ибрагима, в ходе которого состоялись торжественная церемония вручения премьер-министру диплома Почетного доктора МГИМО, выступление перед студентами, преподавателями и приглашенными гостями с лекцией на тему «Bridging Worlds in a Fractured Age» и встреча с руководством вуза. Отдельный материал посвящен визиту известного экономиста, специалиста по устойчивому развитию профессора Джеффри Сакса в Россию. В интервью он говорит о глобальной повестке, целях устойчивого развития и роли университетов в поиске решений для современного мира.

Новые этапы развития Университета.

В дайджесте представлены материалы о ключевых направлениях развития МГИМО: открытии филиала МГИМО-Астана, цифровой трансформации Университета, спортивной дипломатии, участии МГИМО в Петербургском международном экономическом форуме и новых международных инициативах. Отдельное внимание уделено реорганизации Дипломатической академии в форме присоединения к МГИМО — одному из значимых институциональных событий нового этапа развития Университета.

Историческая память МГИМО.

Особое место занимают исторические материалы, посвященные фигурам, без которых невозможно представить историю отечественной международной школы и приуроченные к важным юбилейным датам 150-летия со дня рождения Е.В. Тарле и 140-летия со дня рождения И.Д. Удальцова. Очерки продолжают линию сохранения историко-дипломатического наследия Университета и показывают преемственность мгимовской школы — от ее основателей до современных исследовательских и образовательных проектов.

Вьетнамское направление.

Большой тематический блок посвящен вьетнамскому направлению МГИМО. Выпускники и преподаватели рассказывают о выборе вьетнамского языка, дипломатической службе, профессиональном пути и роли Университета в развитии российско-вьетнамских связей. Этот раздел особенно символичен на фоне расширения сотрудничества МГИМО с Вьетнамом и развития новых образовательных инициатив.

МГИМО в регионах.

Раздел MGIMO Regions посвящен Нижнему Новгороду — региону, который сегодня открывает новые профессиональные возможности для выпускников Университета. Среди героев блока — выпускник МГИМО Дмитрий Старостин, заместитель председателя Правительства Нижегородской области по международным и внешнеэкономическим связям.

Выпускники, партнеры и друзья Университета.

В дайджест также вошли материалы о выпускниках и друзьях МГИМО, чьи профессиональные траектории отражают широту университетского сообщества. Среди них — предприниматель и меценат, выпускник МГИМО Ф.К. Шодиев, а также выпускница Университета Анна Чернова, ставшая одной из заметных русскоязычных стендап-комиков в Дубае. Отдельный репортаж посвящен Кубку ректора МГИМО по гольфу в Завидово, который собрал более 250 выпускников и друзей Университета. Англоязычный дайджест MGIMO Journal показывает МГИМО как живое международное сообщество, где академическая традиция соединяется с технологической повесткой, историческая память — с новыми проектами, а выпускники продолжают укреплять репутацию Университета в России и за рубежом.

Полная версия англоязычного выпуска MGIMO Journal доступна по ссылке.

MGIMO Journal издается при поддержке Эндаумента МГИМО.

Выпускники МГИМО – победители рейтинга Forbes «30 до 30»

Alumni MGIMO — Wed, 3 Jun 2026 09:35:11 +0000

Российский Forbes опубликовал результаты ежегодного рейтинга Forbes «30 до 30» – в список победителей вошли мгимовцы Тимофей Черкасов (ФинЭк’17) и Дарья Тёркина (магистратура «Россия и Китай: экономические и политические тренды в Евразии»’21). Рейтинг «30 до 30» каждый год отмечает молодых профессионалов, предпринимателей, ученых, управленцев, деятелей культуры и представителей других сфер, которые уже сегодня оказывают заметное влияние на развитие своих отраслей как на всероссийском, так и на глобальном уровне.

Сооснователь технологического стартапа Traсe Inc Тимофей Черкасов одержал победу в номинации «Предприниматели». Проект, созданный вместе с партнером Артуром Романовым, получил международное признание благодаря инновационным решениям по использованию ИИ-агентов в бизнес-процессах.

Директор направления малого и среднего бизнеса в Восточной Европе компании Mastercard Дарья Тёркина стала победителем в номинации «Финансы и инвестиции». Помимо развития экосистемы компании в регионе, Теркина занимается поддержкой женского предпринимательства – ее программа стала платформой для обучения и обмена опытом для более чем 3000 участниц. Победа выпускников МГИМО в рейтинге Forbes «30 до 30» – еще одно свидетельство того, что мгимовцы востребованы в самых разных профессиональных направлениях и способны добиваться выдающихся результатов и в России, и за рубежом. Эндаумент МГИМО поздравляет победителей и желает новых профессиональных достижений, амбициозных проектов и дальнейших успехов!

Эндаумент МГИМО — Растем вместе 🌱

🏛️МГИМО на ПМЭФ-2026

Alumni MGIMO — Wed, 3 Jun 2026 07:57:48 +0000

#ПМЭФ2026

МГИМО на ПМЭФ-2026

С 3 по 6 июня в Санкт-Петербурге пройдет XXIX Петербургский международный экономический форум.

Экспертные дискуссии, новые партнерства, встречи с друзьями и выпускниками Университета – МГИМО традиционно примет активное участие в работе одной из крупнейших деловых площадок России.

В программе Университета – участие в деловых сессиях форума,

подписание соглашений о сотрудничестве, встречи с партнерами,

а также обсуждение актуальных вопросов международного сотрудничества,

мировой экономики и устойчивого развития.

Собрали в карточках основные мероприятия с участием МГИМО.

#анонсы_мгимо