This publication is the record of a conversation in the editorial office of the International Analytics Journal about the peculiarities of the diplomatic service in various states, due to the historical traditions of the state service as a whole; about the training of diplomats in Russia in the past and present, and about the requirements for young diplomats. Among the most important requirements: learning how to formulate analytical texts, participating in the drafting of diplomatic documents; the ability to speak and conduct public polemics in English and in the language of the host country; constantly broadening cultural horizons, being an interesting conversationalist; observing the everyday and behavioural restrictions imposed by the diplomatic service; assuming all the nuances of diplomacy. The publication also analyses the main problem of diplomatic training at MGIMO – the need to maintain a university level of education while spending a significant part of the study time on language training.

This article analyzes the relationship between diplomatic training and the international positioning of countries, using the example of the Asian macro-region. The paper is a case study focusing on the experiences of China, Vietnam, the Republic of Korea, Indonesia, and India. Through detailed country analyses, the paper aims to examine how the quality of diplomatic training correlates with states’ aspirations for autonomy and sovereignty in the emerging polycentric world order. The methodological framework of the study incorporates a multi-paradigm approach, integrating a neorealist perspective of the state as the central actor in international relations and a constructivist analysis of the impact of social practices on diplomatic strategy. An examination of the diplomatic training systems of the countries reveals a complex relationship with their foreign policy and personnel policies. The study finds a non-causal correlation between the foreign policy positioning of countries and their diplomatic training models. A state’s desire to increase its autonomy depends to a greater extent on its role and position in world politics in the space-time continuum. Thus, based on historical experience, among the cases studied, the desire for autonomy is stronger in those states where the colonial trauma is more acute. “Sovereignty” can take different forms depending on the resources available to a state. At the same time, quality diplomatic training ensures the possibility of implementing the sovereign line and provides the necessary human and ideological tools for this purpose.

The paper examines how the sovereignty of national diplomatic training schools in the Global South influences their standing within the regional subsystems. The study is relevant in light of the growing clout of non-Western countries in global politics and economy, as well as their ever-increasing significance for Russia. We focus on countries that seek to pursue especially proactive foreign policies: Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey in the Middle East; Nigeria, Ethiopia, and South Africa in Sub-Saharan Africa; Brazil, Cuba, and Mexico in Latin America. The authors employ a cross- regional comparative analysis of diplomatic training there, supplemented by a biographical method that traces the career trajectories of prominent foreign ministry officials. Our research rests on selected post-structuralist, post-colonial, neo-Marxist, and post-critical approaches to sovereignty in states deemed peripheral or semi-peripheral. Additionally, we take stock of various approaches to diplomacy as an institution and further conceptualize how the indigenous diplomatic practices of individual states shape their role in the region. Our findings partly support the hypothesis that higher levels of sovereignty (sophistication) in national diplomatic training schools help these states to set the (sub)regional agenda. However, high levels of sovereignty in diplomatic training, as opposed to sophistication, do not necessarily translate into a country’s ability to set the regional agenda.

The article examines the specific features of diplomatic training in Western countries in the context of shifting foreign policy approaches. The analysis focuses on the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Hungary, and Poland, which were selected for their distinct historical and geographical characteristics. The cases are grouped into dyads to facilitate comparisons both between pairs and within each dyad. The comparative framework is based on specific criteria, including the existence of specialized diplomatic training institutions, the range of international relations programs offered, the working language of foreign ministries, the depth and quality of foreign language education at relevant universities, the recruitment of foreign nationals into diplomatic services, the inclusion of international relations history in curricula, the availability of nationally tailored textbooks, and opportunities for professional retraining. The study draws on the conception of elitism reflecting a tetanizing discrepancy between meritocratic discourse and insidious practices devised to restrict access to the diplomatic profession, favoring candidates from elite backgrounds. This trend has reinforced the dominance of political elites in shaping foreign policy, often sidelining the broader public interest. The findings suggest that diplomatic training in these countries is primarily aimed at cultivating a skilled bureaucratic class drawn from privileged social groups to the detriment of meritocratic zeal. However, the increasing standardization of educational models and the prevalence of political appointments to senior diplomatic positions introduce a degree of flexibility into traditional training pathways. The development of diplomatic schools in Western countries highlights their growing dependence on domestic political elites. Not only do these specialized institutions provide professional education, but also act as gatekeepers, screening out candidates deemed unsuitable for diplomatic careers. This exclusivity reinforces the closed nature of diplomatic communities, diminishes incentives to pursue deeper professional expertise, and contributes to a decline in the quality of foreign policy analysis and decision-making.

The article is devoted to the transformation of both the ruling elite and the Official Opposition in the United Kingdom in the period 2015–2022 and its reflection in Britain’s diplomatic practices. During this period, the British political system faced many different challenges, including the referendum on the country’s membership of the EU, the subsequent difficult process of the country‘s withdrawal from the integration association, various internal party splits on key issues of British political life. All these issues not only influenced the formation of the new British political elite, but also shaped its diplomatic agenda. The study of the generation of ideas in the British elite, as well as the study of its composition, makes it possible to determine the value of its influence on foreign policy decisions, as well as the influence of its composition on Britain’s activities in the international arena. It also analyzes the impact of these events on the structure and dynamics of power relations, as well as on the strategic priorities and ideological attitudes of both Britain’s ruling elite and its opposition. The article examines changes in key characteristics of the elite, such as the gender, age, ethnicity and educational attainment of politicians, and assesses new trends in their political views and behaviour. Attention is also given to the implications of elite change for the British political system.

Since gaining its independence in 1991, Armenia has faced the complex task of building a professional diplomatic service to support its statehood and navigate a challenging geopolitical landscape. This study examines the evolution of Armenia’s diplomatic service, focusing on critical milestones such as the adoption of the Law on Diplomatic Service (2001) and the establishment of the Diplomatic School of Armenia (2009). Using a mixed-methods approach, including primary source research and interviews with former diplomats and scholars, the study examines how institutional frameworks, political leadership, and external pressures have shaped the country’s foreign service. The findings reveal that Armenia’s diplomatic service was initially influenced by Soviet-era bureaucratic structures, supplemented by contributions from the Armenian diaspora and local graduates of specialized academic programs. Over time, successive administrations sought to professionalize the service through institutional reforms. However, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) has frequently struggled with challenges such as centralization and politicization of decision-making. Recent developments under Nikol Pashinyan’s 'revolutionary' government highlight the erosion of institutionalized practices, including the weakening of the Diplomatic School’s role and the prioritization of political loyalty over merit-based appointments. This paper contributes to the understanding of state-building in post-Soviet contexts by analyzing the interplay between institutional development, bureaucratic politics, and sovereignty in Armenia’s diplomacy. The study concludes that while Armenia has made significant progress in institutionalizing its diplomatic service, sustaining these achievements requires addressing current trends that undermine its effectiveness.

In the article the authors analyze the process of training specialists in the field of international relations on the basis of the history of the formation and development of the diplomatic service of the Kazakh SSR and the Republic of Kazakhstan. At the initial stage, this training was fully subject to the logic and relevance of the problems that the Soviet diplomatic service was solving in the international arena in the 1940s. As the world situation changed and new trends in the internal development of the Soviet Union emerged, the attitude towards the training of national personnel in the field of diplomacy, including for the MFA of the Kazakh SSR, changed in a positive direction. After gaining independence, the Republic of Kazakhstan, setting the course for a multi-vector foreign policy, began a complex process of independent training of specialists in the field of international relations, drawing on the traditions of the Soviet-Russian school of diplomacy. In today’s conditions of a rapidly changing balance of power in the international arena, the collapse of the unipolar world, the Republic of Kazakhstan faces new problems that require solutions. Based on this, the authors conclude that it is necessary to make some adjustments in the system of professional training of diplomatic personnel, who will have to further protect the interests of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which is striving to promote its position in the international arena.

The article is devoted to the issues of training International Relations (IR) students in the Republic of Belarus. It analyzes the process of training future diplomats, reflects the features of language training, gives an insight into the history of training, and describes the main areas of cooperation between Belarusian universities and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus. The training of diplomats is characterized by interdisciplinarity, the use of advanced technologies, and a high degree of motivation for continuous learning. Modern programmes for training international relations specialists include not only traditional disciplines, but also practical skills and tools (including soft skills) that allow them to effectively cope with the variety of challenges facing the international community. In the context of globalization and digitalization, fundamental knowledge remains an important aspect of diplomatic training. Since the early 1990s, Belarus has been actively developing its own system of training diplomatic personnel, based on universities and the special role of a centralized system of selection and language retraining of future diplomats.