Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a meeting with recent university graduates entering the diplomatic service, Moscow, November 12, 2024

Colleagues,

Friends,

You are going on the third month of employment with the Ministry. Congratulations on joining the Foreign Ministry team and starting your professional career.

This year marks a seven-year record high of 104 newly hired university graduates. As is customary, students from MGIMO and the Foreign Ministry Diplomatic Academy form the bulk of the newly hired personnel.

MGIMO marked its 80th anniversary and the Diplomatic Academy its 90th anniversary. We are always delighted to see graduates of these educational institutions among us. But we are also pleased to welcome graduates of the Moscow State University, the St Petersburg State University, and Moscow State Linguistic University (in my time it was called Institute of Foreign Languages, but it is now a University), and RANEPA. Congratulations and welcome.

I understand you have passed serious tests in addition to state exams and an interview. I was told this is quite a challenging procedure. The fact that you are here means you are driven and willing to work on the foreign policy front in the best interests of our country, which is gratifying to know. I heard many among you are fluent in rare languages, including Eastern languages, which is what we need in our work. I believe many languages should not have the status of a rare language, as they are state languages of our neighbours in Central Asia and South Caucasus.

You have come aboard at a critical juncture. I have no doubt that you are familiar in detail with President Vladimir Putin’s speech at a recent meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. I would describe it as an interim result of our efforts to achieve the goals that Russia has been working on over the past two to three years. The President spoke at the Foreign Ministry on June 14 and articulated the goal of developing approaches to the creation of a Eurasian security architecture that would not be off-limits to anyone and not directed against anyone, and the countries of Eurasia should own it.

Up until now, every security entity which our country has been part of - at least the main ones, I’m not talking about the Collective Security Treaty Organisation now which is all about the post-Soviet CIS space, I mean security associations that were open to other countries - have been based on the Euro-Atlantic concept meaning that the United States had to be present in Europe and look after everything that was going on there. This gave rise to NATO, which later brought the European Union to heel (everyone is clear about it), even though it was created by Europeans for Europeans, but this is a thing of the past now.

The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which the West has effectively "privatised" along with the secretariats of numerous other international organisations, was constructed upon a Euro-Atlantic framework. Rather than facilitating equal forms of reciprocal cooperation through these structures, as stipulated in their charters and other documents, the secretariat has openly aligned itself with the objectives delineated by the West. The aim is straightforward: to obstruct the rise of any potential competitors. The West can seize upon any pretext for its aggressive actions and sanction wars, be it the special military operation or the manoeuvres conducted by China in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. The West employs any justification to attempt to penalise a nation that emerges as a genuine competitor. China has indeed become such a competitor in the economic sphere, surpassing the United States in the efficiency of its foreign economic activities. Moreover, it is excelling on the "pitch" that the United States itself established under the banner of globalisation, where American-set rules are still in play. However, these rules are increasingly being altered retroactively by the United States. They have obstructed the functioning of the WTO because should the plethora of disputes raised by China be adjudicated, the outcomes would unequivocally favour China. The United States has also stalled the IMF reform and continues to deny the BRICS nations and other countries of the Global South and East a greater voting power that reflects their true economic weight on the global stage. Instead, the Americans unjustly retain their 17.4 percent quota, thereby preserving their veto power.

In essence, China and Russia are both competitors. While economically we may not be as robust as the People's Republic of China, our economy is steadily growing. According to the IMF, we recently became the world's fourth largest economy, despite the unprecedented sanctions that continue to be imposed against us.

In other domains, such as security and nuclear deterrence, Russia stands as a formidable competitor to the United States on the international stage. Moreover, it is a competitor to Washington in matters of justice and adherence to international law. We advocate strict compliance with the UN Charter, whereas the United States insists that everyone adhere to a "rules-based world order."

Consider a simple example: in 2008, the Americans sought to sever Kosovo from Serbia. They orchestrated a unilateral declaration of independence, proclaiming it as an exercise of the people's right to self-determination. Even the International Court of Justice delivered a judgement, as President Vladimir Putin frequently notes, which concluded that, based on the Kosovo case, a declaration of unilateral independence by any region does not require the consent of central authorities.

However, when Crimea opposed the Nazis who seized power through an illegal coup, and Donbass refused to comply with them, the Americans suddenly invoked another principle from the UN Charter – territorial integrity.

Allow me to remind you that the General Assembly has addressed this issue. The Declaration was adopted by consensus, stating that all are obliged to respect the territorial integrity of states whose governments uphold the principle of self-determination and, by extension, represent the entire population residing within the relevant territory.

Following the state coup, did those who initially assaulted the Russian language and expelled Russians from Crimea represent the populace of Donbass and Novorossiya? Certainly not. This is why we advocate for the UN Charter to be respected and implemented in its entirety, rather than selectively applied like a "menu" from which principles can be cherry-picked to suit the situation or disregarded when inconvenient.

This position commands respect, even concerning Ukraine. Increasingly, our partners from Asia, Africa, and Latin America are beginning to understand, when told that "Russia must be condemned for its attack," that these events did not transpire in isolation. When the United States attacked Iraq, a nation 10,000 miles from its shores, it did not even attempt to comprehend the situation.

We’ve been driving this point home and trying to clarify the existing state of affairs for ten long years now. The very first article of the UN Charter addresses human rights and clearly states that everyone must respect everyone’s human rights regardless of race, gender, language, or religion. We reached out to UNESCO and the OSCE. All these long years, the Russian language has been systematically and legislatively eradicated from education, media, and culture in Ukraine. Not long ago, the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church was outlawed. Neither UNESCO, nor the OSCE, nor other human rights organisations have even lifted a finger to address this.

This injustice, the West’s obsession with keeping its slipping dominance intact by any means while turning a blind eye to the unconscionable crimes committed by the Kiev regime, is becoming increasingly clear. The Global Majority sympathises with justice and international law.

Against the backdrop of what I just said, and the way the Kiev regime is systematically trying to wipe out Russian culture and the Russian World, various figures, such as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell, and the like are claiming that they will stand with Ukraine “for as long as it takes,” because it is supposedly defending “European values.” We certainly have no need for such values.

We will work side by side. You won’t be bored, I promise.

We are pursuing a multitude of initiatives, including in Africa. The first ministerial conference of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum concluded the other day. Extensive work is underway to support United Russia’s initiative to oppose modern neocolonial practices, which abound. Furthermore, several UN General Assembly resolutions on granting independence to former colonies remain unfulfilled. The French and the British still possess colonial holdings, 17 in all, despite resolutions calling for these islands to be returned to the respective countries.

During the ministerial meeting held as part of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum, many of my dialogue partners voiced more strongly than ever the idea that Africa wants to secure its rightful and equal place in the international division of labour. Africa is no longer content with the role of a supplier of raw materials that are bought up and exported mostly to the West. This setup keeps the bulk of the added value and revenue out of Africa’s reach.

When Africa was awakening from colonial oppression, it was a powerful movement. I sense that now we are witnessing a second "awakening" of Africa, this time from neo-colonial oppression and practices that impede its progress. This occurs when advanced technological processes are retained outside the continent, consigning Africa to a subordinate status. In Western countries, far more jobs are generated from the processing of African raw materials – an endeavour Africa itself requires. We are truly observing this second "awakening."

There are numerous other areas of focus. While I will not enumerate all our initiatives, I would like to emphasise that it is never too late to learn. This is a well-known principle, and for those who wish to embrace it, we offer numerous opportunities, including specialised advanced training courses at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Currently, we are working towards closer collaboration between the Diplomatic Academy and MGIMO, adopting an integrated approach to our educational establishments. Additionally, we offer the Higher Foreign Language Courses, our oldest institution. Last year, these courses celebrated their 95th anniversary, although the origins of our language training service trace back to a decree by Alexander I on May 29, 1823. The 200th anniversary was celebrated in 2023. The institution boasts highly qualified instructors and offers instruction in 70 languages – exceeding even MGIMO in this regard.

Furthermore, we are supported by experienced colleagues and senior mentors within the Council of Veterans of the Russian Foreign Ministry. We also have a Council of Young Diplomats, who contribute with great enthusiasm. Significant efforts have been made to foster international relations among young diplomats, culminating in the creation of an international structure and active participation in the World Youth Festival.