This article provides an analysis of MGIMO as a unique phenomenon in the realm of diplomatic education and international relations research. The author identifies the key factors that have shaped the university’s distinctive status, spanning from its historical founding to the modern challenges it faces. Emphasizing its roots in the traditions of the Lazarev Institute of Oriental Languages, the article demonstrates how MGIMO successfully integrates fundamental humanities disciplines, intensive foreign language instruction, and the practical skills essential for real-world diplomacy.
Particular attention is given to the institutional mechanisms that have enabled the university not only to survive but also to flourish in spite of ideological constraints and political upheavals. The study examines the factors contributing to MGIMO’s academic environment and intellectual capital, including a systemic approach to research, the use of comparative analysis methods, and a comprehensive training program for specialists adept at working in diverse settings – from traditional bilateral negotiations to complex multilateral diplomacy in an era of global turbulence.
The article also highlights MGIMO’s role in shaping Russia’s schools of international studies. The university emerges as a laboratory that synthesizes cutting-edge scholarly approaches with the practical needs of the state. It concludes that, owing to its institutional flexibility, close cooperation with government bodies, a broad range of research schools, and a steady expansion of international partnerships, MGIMO continues to serve as a national leader in preparing diplomats and advancing international research.

This article examines the contributions of Ivan G. Tyulin as a key organizer of scientific research at MGIMO, focusing on theoretical and methodological issues in international relations (IR), as well as his studies on French political thought and the development of IR as a discipline in the Soviet Union and later in Russia. The study highlights the initially limited attention to theoretical inquiries in the USSR and the subsequent recognition of the necessity to develop theoretical knowledge, a shift facilitated by research conducted at the institutes of the USSR Academy of Sciences and MGIMO. By the late 1970s and 1980s, Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials began demonstrating interest in conceptual approaches to international relations. Against this backdrop, the Problematic Scientific Research Laboratory for the System Analysis of International Relations was established at MGIMO in 1976, with Ivan G. Tyulin soon assuming its leadership. As head of this laboratory and later as MGIMO’s ViceRector for Science, Tyulin emerged as one of the most influential figures in organizing IR research in the USSR and Russia. The article identifies and analyzes five key interrelated areas in which Tyulin made significant contributions both as a scientific organizer and as a scholar: (1) system analysis in international relations and interdisciplinary research, (2) methodologies for studying international relations, (3) the development of international studies in the USSR and Russia, (4) French theoretical thought, and (5) conflicts and negotiations in international relations. The study concludes that Tyulin laid the foundation for several important directions in domestic—and, to some extent, global—international studies. In the late 1980s, he pioneered research on the systematic analysis of international relations, interdisciplinarity, research methodologies, and the study of international conflicts and negotiations using quantitative methods and modeling. Simultaneously, he remained committed to advancing applied research grounded in rigorous qualitative methodological principles. These research directions continue to evolve at MGIMO and within the broader Russian academic landscape. The conceptual and theoretical foundations of international relations and foreign policy in Russia and other states remain a crucial area for further scholarly inquiry.

This article provides a detailed analytical commentary on the key concepts, ideas, and theoretical constructs developed by I.G. Tyulin in his doctoral dissertation, which examined the formation and evolution of French theories of international relations and foreign policy thought as of the late 1980s. The central research question is whether the issues and arguments presented in his work regarding the evolution of French foreign policy thought remain relevant in the fundamentally transformed conditions of the present day. To address this question, the study employs textual and comparative historical methods.
The first section, dedicated to methodology, focuses on Tyulin’s demonstration of the extent to which French foreign policy thought is shaped by national cultural traditions and its analysis as an integrated ideological and theoretical system. The second section explores the role of theories and concepts within the structure of French foreign policy thought and the institutional mechanisms that shaped its formation and evolution as of the late 1980s. The third section offers a concise overview of subsequent developments in the institutional and theoretical-conceptual landscape of contemporary French foreign policy thought.
An analysis of these transformations, viewed through the lens of Tyulin’s work, reveals that the ideological and theoretical production processes he identified continue to manifest in modern France. Core characteristics—such as sociologism, a strong emphasis on identity positioning, statism, internal contradictions, and the predominance of political realism—persist, albeit within a new, ultra-liberal context. This shift influences the content of theories, conceptual frameworks, socio-political debates, and the ways in which participants articulate their perspectives.
The study ultimately concludes that Tyulin’s dissertation presents a nuanced yet coherent portrait of French foreign policy thought. His analysis provides essential insights into the formation and evolution of this intellectual tradition, without which it is difficult to fully grasp the contemporary dynamics of France’s foreign policy trajectory.

This article examines the intellectual foundations, rationale, and evolution of the systemic approach in Soviet international relations (IR) theory throughout the 1970s and 1980s. This topic has gained increasing relevance in contemporary debates on the theoretical foundations of Russian international political thought. The study demonstrates that the emergence of the systemic approach was a response to the theoretical anomalies encountered by Marxism-Leninism in explaining global developments following the Second World War. The weakening of inter-imperialist struggles, the persistence of capitalism, and the growing contradictions within the socialist bloc posed significant challenges to Marxist-Leninist explanatory frameworks. The transformation of the dominant paradigm into an ideological dogma did not prevent a scientific revolution; however, this transformation occurred covertly, with radical revisions masked as superficial reinterpretations of doctrine.
The systemic approach in Soviet IR rested on three principal intellectual foundations: the reinterpretation of Marxist-Leninist tenets, engagement with Western—primarily Realist—theories, and the incorporation of terminology from general systems theory. Elgiz Pozdnyakov and Mark Khrustalev played a central role in its development. To navigate ideological constraints, these theorists maintained a high level of abstraction in their analytical framework, thereby avoiding explicit accusations of ideological deviation. Despite these constraints, they developed an original theoretical model that, in some respects, anticipated later insights in Western scholarship. However, its limited influence on applied policy analysis and official Soviet discourse in the 1980s suggests that the systemic approach produced non-trivial conclusions that were politically inconvenient.

This article explores the approaches to decarbonizing heat supply in the residential sectors of three Southern EU countries: Portugal, Spain, and Greece. Unlike Northern European countries, where heat supply decarbonization strategies predominantly rely on the promotion of fourth-generation district heating systems that integrate renewable heat sources, the adoption of this ‘Scandinavian model’ has been largely ineffective in the Southern European context. Among the countries analyzed, Spain is the only one that has made notable progress in developing decarbonized district heating solutions. However, the broader implementation of these systems is constrained by the low energy efficiency of residential building stocks in Southern Europe, which leads to high heat losses and discourages investment in district heating infrastructure.
A critical issue exacerbating this challenge is the widespread problem of low energy performance in residential buildings, which not only reduces the feasibility of district heating but also contributes significantly to energy poverty. Higher heating costs place a disproportionate burden on low-income households, further underscoring the urgency of effective decarbonization strategies. In response, the primary approach pursued in Portugal, Spain, and Greece focuses on large-scale building renovations aimed at improving energy efficiency while modernizing individual heating systems. Supported by EU funding, these initiatives include targeted subsidies for economically disadvantaged households, ensuring that the transition to sustainable heating does not exacerbate existing inequalities.
Building renovation as a decarbonization strategy is viewed as a comprehensive solution that simultaneously reduces CO₂ emissions, enhances energy efficiency, and mitigates some of the most pressing socio-economic challenges linked to energy poverty. However, the effectiveness of this approach remains contingent on sustained financial support, technological advancements, and the ability to integrate energy-efficient heating technologies at scale. The article highlights the need for policy coordination between national governments and EU institutions to create a cohesive framework that accelerates the decarbonization of the heat supply sector in Southern Europe while ensuring social equity and economic feasibility.

Book review: Okunev I.Yu. 2024. Electoral Geography. Moscow: Aspect-Press. 312 p.

Book review: Stahn C. Confronting Colonial Objects. History, Legality and Access to Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023. 592 p.