Inside the Kremlin college where envoys learn to deceive the West
Its graduates, who include Sergei Lavrov, the foreign minister, are known for their encyclopaedic grasp of international treaties and polyglot language skills, allowing them to argue the Kremlin's case in any corner of the world.
Yet, as Donald Trump may be about to learn the hard way, the warmer the words from a Kremlin envoy, the colder and more cynical the purpose. That, at least, is the warning from a whistleblowing former student of the school, who claims its doctrine is to 'speak diplomacy' but to 'practice coercion'.
In a rare insight into the inner workings of Kremlin foreign policy, Inna Bondarenko used an article in last week's Moscow Times to lift the lid on her years as a trainee diplomat at the school from 2015 to 2020.
'We were taught to cite international law while violating its spirit, to defend norms while dismantling them and to speak of peace while justifying and waging wars,' she wrote. 'Georgia. Syria. Ukraine. We deployed whichever claim of 'territorial integrity' or 'self-determination' suited the day's talking point.'
Ms Bondarenko's warning comes amid growing signs that Mr Trump's much-vaunted plans for a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia – announced to great fanfare a month ago – are coming to nothing.
In a sign of Washington's mounting frustration, Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, warned on Friday that his country 'will move on' from trying to broker Ukraine peace efforts if there is no progress within the next few days.
Despite Vladimir Putin saying he wants a ceasefire, and praising Mr Trump for 'doing everything' to mend US-Russian relations, Moscow has continued to wage all-out war on Kyiv, including a missile attack on the city of Sumy last week that killed 34 civilians.
Such tactics, says Ms Bondarenko, exemplify the 'offensive realism' taught at the school – the opposite of the Western ideal of inter-state co-operation.
'Speak diplomacy, practice coercion,' she wrote. 'That isn't just hypocrisy, it's a strategy. It's the realpolitik we were trained to believe in and to carry out.'
In an interview with The Telegraph, Ms Bondarenko, 27, who is from Russia's Kursk region, said she was overjoyed when she was first accepted to study at the school, which has tough academic selection criteria.
She said, though, that as Putin's regime became increasingly hostile to the West, the school's tutors followed suit. 'The brainwashing and propaganda was very strong, and as a young student you feel so overwhelmed to be at this centre of power. A lot of the professors there have worked for maybe 50 years in Russian policy, so whatever they say, you're expected to accept.'
Among the academics' shibboleths were that Crimea belonged to Russia, and that Serbian warlords had been wrongly prosecuted at the Hague over the massacre of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica. 'We had one tutor [who] spent literally an hour defending Ratko Mladic [a convicted war criminal] and Slobodan Milosevic [who died during his war crimes trial], that blew my mind,' she said.
The faculty also had a 'cult-like' reverence for Mr Lavrov, who is known for his combative approach on the international stage.
A master of treaties, procedures and geography, he uses his knowledge to browbeat opponents, famously mansplaining to his opposite number Liz Truss over her ignorance of Russian provinces during talks in the run-up to the Ukraine war. At the same meeting, he also categorically denied that Russia was planning to invade.
Mr Lavrov, 75, still gives an annual lecture at the school, whose tutors also share his sexist attitudes, according to Ms Bondarenko. Female graduates, she said, are told from the outset that they will only ever become ambassador's wives.
'In our welcome ceremony, the dean said: 'I congratulate the boys on becoming future diplomats, and the girls on become future diplomats' wives'. This was a speech to some of Russia's smartest and most ambitious female students – you can't imagine how sexist the place was.'
Male students were also fast-tracked for service into the FSB spy service, she said, which had a secret office in the school and would groom the most promising students.
The school cultivated partnerships with campuses overseas, including Reading University, which ran a double masters on international relations and security. The course started in 2014 – the very year Russia annexed Crimea – with Reading only suspending ties with the school after the invasion in 2022.
'I am amazed that so many Western institutions kept their links up that long,' Ms Bondarenko said.
She is now studying for a masters at the European University Institute in Italy. 'Hopefully I will go back to Russia one day to work on human rights,' she said. 'I have no interest in being a diplomat – the more I learnt about our country, the more I realise that it has internal issues that need fixing first.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Tariff rebate checks in 2025? What we know about current legislation
(WJW) – It's not a pandemic stimulus check, but Congress is currently weighing the possibility of sending the American people more money. As part of the American Worker Rebate Act, introduced by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri in July, people would receive hundreds of dollars in tariff rebate checks, which work to counteract the financial burden imposed on families by the Trump administration's tariffs. As the bill stands now, a household would get $600 for every child and adult – meaning a family of four would receive $2,400. Check amounts go down for those U.S. residents who are making more than $150,000 as a family or $75,000 individually. The bill has not been passed by the Senate or the House, and it must overcome multiple obstacles before being brought to President Trump's desk to sign. However, last month, Trump did say he was 'thinking about' approving a rebate. If the revenue from the latest tariff rollout exceeds projections, the bill leaves room for a larger rebate to be sent out to the American people. So far, there has been no word from Congress or the IRS on the possibility of a fourth stimulus check, like those issued during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. A rebate is a refund of something already paid for, while a stimulus is simply money given to pump up the economy. The U.S. Senate is currently on break for the summer and will be back in action on Sept. 2.
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Watch live: Newsom outlines plan to combat Trump, GOP redistricting
California Gov. Gavin Newsom will speak to reporters Thursday afternoon as the mid-decade redistricting battle heats up across the U.S. ahead of the 2026 midterms, a day after announcing the ' Liberation Day ' event. His remarks come as Democrats push back against GOP 'gerrymandering' efforts in Texas that could give Republicans five additional seats in next year's election. Newsom sent a letter to President Trump and red state leaders earlier this week urging them to end the redistricting war. After Trump missed the deadline to respond, the governor said the Golden State would also be redrawing its House maps to counteract attempts to 'rig' the lines in the Lone Star State. The event is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. EDT. Watch the live video above.
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
How Trump's tariffs could actually work
Economists prefer free trade because it is the best policy for global welfare. But what the debate around tariffs often fails to recognize is that there is an economic rationale for U.S. tariffs of 15 to 20 percent. Large countries like the U.S. have market power, which means U.S. demand affects global prices. Tariffs depress U.S. demand, pushing global prices down. As a result of tariffs, the U.S. imports goods at lower prices and also obtains revenue in the process. Most economists estimate that the optimal tariff for the U.S. is between 15 and 20 percent but could be as high as 60 percent. The major problem with imposing high tariffs is that if our trade partners retaliate with similarly high tariffs on imports from the U.S., the U.S. will be worse off. So, the U.S. wants a tariff if it can act alone, but cooperation on low tariffs is the best policy for all — and better for the U.S. — if the alternative is a trade war. To get a sense of the magnitudes, a recent study estimates that 19 percent tariffs could expand U.S. income by roughly 2 percent and boost employment if other countries don't retaliate. However, the effects on income and employment become negative when other countries also impose tariffs. The basic intuition for the tariff is that foreign sellers want access to the huge U.S. market and are willing to pay a fee for that access. Consider a German auto firm, say BMW, that sells lots of cars in the U.S. If the U.S. places a tariff on German cars, Americans will shift to buying more GMs and fewer BMWs. But the U.S. consumer is hard to replace, so BMW will lower the pre-tariff price of its cars to maintain competitiveness. U.S. consumers face somewhat higher prices on BMWs with the tariff, but the tariff revenue that the U.S. government collects more than compensates for the consumer loss, so the U.S. as a country is better off. Put differently, because the U.S. is large, some of the tariff is paid by BMW. The ability to pressure BMW and other German producers to lower prices only works because of the extraordinary buying power of the U.S. consumer. If, for example, a small country, say Ghana, puts a tariff on BMWs, it would negligibly affect total sales, so this effect would be absent. This market power is similar to the leverage that companies like Amazon and Walmart have to push down the prices of their suppliers because they control such a large share of the market. The problem with using market size to push down import prices is that the U.S. is not the only large country. If other large markets, like the European Union and China, also raise tariffs then everyone is worse off. In a trade war, U.S. exporters will also have a hard time selling abroad, while U.S. consumers will have fewer varieties to choose from and face higher prices. The biggest risk Trump took when he reversed decades of low, predictable tariffs was starting a trade war with tariffs spiraling out of control around the world. Given the recent news of U.S. bilateral trade deals with the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Korea and the EU, as well as a preliminary accord with China, the gamble may have paid off. One after another, our most important trade partners are accepting significantly higher U.S. tariffs without raising their own tariffs on imports from the U.S. Moreover, in addition to accepting higher tariffs on their exports to the U.S., Europe, Japan and Korea are committing to increased investment in the United States. Why are countries caving? The large market is part of it, but the gaping U.S. trade deficit with these markets also matters. It gives the U.S. additional leverage since American consumers are needed to buy foreign goods to a greater extent than American businesses need foreigners to buy U.S. goods. The U.S. military might also factor in, as many of the countries making deals depend on the U.S. for security. The unpredictability introduced may already be depressing investment and hiring, as investors and firms have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Similarly, companies that rely heavily on imported parts and components may be unable to survive in the U.S., leading to job loss in import-dependent industries. Already high, U.S. inequality could get worse if care is not taken since low-income families spend more of their income on goods, making them more vulnerable to price increases. There are also major global threats. The bullying that was part of achieving these trade deals could lead to backlash against the U.S. and its brand with real consequences of sustained loss of U.S. leadership and power in all global matters. The unpredictability introduced may depress investment, as investors have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Domestic political blowback in our trade partners against the U.S. could ultimately create pressure for higher tariffs on imports from the U.S., resulting in a trade war. Variable U.S. tariffs across trade partners — already ranging from 15 to 55 percent — will create trade diversion and administrative costs. Countries could look to other markets and make deals that exclude the U.S., reducing our global leverage. And the list goes on. But if the U.S. government moves on from these trade wins, facilitating a return to predictable policy, and shows more openness to global cooperation in other critical areas, Trump's trade policy could boost U.S. income without major damage to our global standing or global investment. Perhaps this is the hope that has been driving the stock market up. The risks are many and great. But given the (surprisingly) flexible response abroad to date, the policy is not guaranteed to fail as many assumed. One big bullet may have been dodged. .
