The International Affairs Journal: Karin Kneissl: young people in Russia have good prospects to achieve their full potential as professionals in their country

Dr Kneissl, first of all, I would like to thank you for taking the time for this interview despite your extremely busy schedule. You have been travelling extensively across Russia. Could you please share your impressions of the Russian regions? 

Indeed, since my moving to Russia, I have been frequently invited to give lectures and conduct seminars at universities in different regions of the Russian Federation. Over the last six months, I have been to the Khabarovsk Krai, the Sverdlovsk and Omsk regions, Kuzbass, and the Altai region. Travelling to the regions gives me a special pleasure, particularly because I meet truly interesting people there. I notice that many people in major Russian cities live as if they were in the European Union. They think in the categories of the European Union. There is a completely different feeling when I am in Kemerovo or other cities in the Russian regions. And of course, I am pleased that my lectures and keynote addresses attract public interest across Russia. 

You are heading a unique organisation, the Geopolitical Observatory for Russia’s Key Issues — the G.O.R.K.I. Centre at St Petersburg University. Could you please tell us how the concept of the G.O.R.K.I. Centre, which combines a research and analytical approach with expert advice and practical recommendations, came about? 

The idea originally stemmed from my belief that academic and scholarly approach should somehow be connected with practice and reality, with what people experience in everyday life. The Centre was to become a link between academics and the stark reality around us. We started from this idea. Unfortunately, not everything has been implemented yet. 

In recent months, I have been thinking about this a great deal. Having analysed the facts, I came to the conclusion that we are focus on developing three main areas of activity. Our main priority now is holding negotiation simulation training seminars, i.e. game-based learning. We conduct such seminars for students from different programmes and with different interests. 

We model games simulating negotiations held in various international organisations and bodies, such as: OPEC; the UN Security Council; the Arctic Council; and others. We teach students how to negotiate and how to write a resolution based on the results of the negotiations. Actually, I am going to offer such training seminars in the regions as well. 

In addition to providing practical training for students, we do other things. The second area we focus on is organising roundtable discussions on various topics. The topics have different qualitative values and properties. We organise debates to explore one of the topical issues, for instance, artificial intelligence. Some of the discussions were quite successful, others perhaps less so. We do our best to discuss these topics in clear, concrete terms so that we could develop recommendations for the decision makers and leaders. In particular, we have held discussions on hot topics in oil and gas sector. Most importantly, we do offer solutions and we try to present them in such a way so as to attract the interest of policymakers. 

Publications are not our priority, because there are quite a lot of publications on these topics. As a matter of fact, many roundtable discussions and debates of various kinds are held nowadays as well. Regrettably, not all of them are well-moderated; and people do not always come prepared. We do our best to make sure that the participants in our roundtables are really well-prepared. Each of them needs to be capable of developing concrete proposals that we could pass on to the people who make serious decisions on the issues we address in our discussions. 

The Centre’s third focus area is organising educational and awareness-raising events. Over recent months, about once a fortnight, I have been giving keynote speeches on topical issues. For instance, about what is happening right now in Southwest Asia: in Israel, Iran, and the Gaza Strip. I deliver these speeches in English; hence, these events are attended by people who speak English. I have also made presentations in German — for students who speak German. 

I have to say that these kinds of events are some of my additional initiatives. We have wonderful premises here in the Kelch mansion and I would like to give them what they deserve. Next time, I would like to change the format of the event slightly. It will not be a public lecture, but a "fireside chat" in the form of a question-and-answer session. We will all sit down together and discuss some topics of common interest, for example, the development of modern diplomacy or the pension system. As part of this approach, I am going to propose to the participants some rather general questions. 

Do you like working with students? 

I find it really inspiring. I regard our interaction with students as a meaningful cooperation. 

I have quite extensive teaching experience — about 23 years. I taught different students and in different countries — in Angola, Lebanon, and Algeria. There are always different students wherever you go. In fact, every student is different. I like working with them because I can learn so much from them, including from the questions they ask. 

There is only one phenomenon that I find deeply regrettable. I regularly observe it among today’s students. Their attention span is decreasing, that is they are becoming less receptive to incoming information. Also, I have noticed that the modern generation is less curios. I would not say this about everyone, but about many of them. They are lacking inquisitiveness, a desire to learn. Nevertheless, in every group, there are people eagerly asking questions and demonstrating genuine interest. This is noticeable everywhere, whatever country you are in: it was the same in France and in Lebanon. 

I do not allow mobile phones during my seminars, classes, lectures or presentations. I want to keep the audience fully focused on the work at hand. 

Your website lists several areas of research specialisations and several areas of expert assessment. The site also mentions the principle of interdisciplinarity and the fundamental nature of your research. Does such an approach have a synergistic effect? How does it work? 

The question of interdisciplinarity is raised almost everywhere nowadays. Everyone claims that their approach is interdisciplinary, while in fact it is not always the case. Let me illustrate my point. I have visited a number of education organisations implementing academic programmes in International Relations. And I have noticed the following discrepancies in the studied subject areas. In some cases, students study both Arabic and Chinese; yet, they do not get enough knowledge from other areas in which they should become experts. I am talking about the need to acquire a fundamental set of knowledge in: politics; economics; history; and geography. Without all this, you cannot be a qualified expert in international relations. It is not infrequent that the curriculum is lopsided. For example, students are specialising in the Asian region, but they do not learn its languages, or they do study the languages, but they do not study economics, politics, and history of these countries. In my opinion, this creates a knowledge gap. 

It is difficult for me to suggest what kind of reforms should be made in this respect. In fact, this applies not only to education in Russia. The current education system in England and the United States also raise questions. In these countries, much depends on the sponsors of college or university. Basically, whatever the sponsor requests, they are willing to oblige. Still, reforms in education are not my task. It is beyond our reach. We therefore try to cover small areas and transfer knowledge in an integrated way. In other words, we take an interdisciplinary approach, bringing different areas of expertise together. 

We started by identifying key areas of interest, such as: energy; artificial intelligence; insurance; demographics; and migration. Yet, it is clear that with our current team — we have a small team, just a few employees — we are unlikely to be able to cover the whole range of topical issues. Also, there have been difficulties in finding experts. 

Could you please tell us what the G.O.R.K.I. Centre has achieved so far? What are you most proud of? What are the development plans? 

We started developing our projects in late September 2023 practically from scratch. I believe that the training seminars with negotiation games have been particularly successful. We were able to inspire many students. They have expressed their appreciation many times. 

Actually, we can be proud of many accomplishments. We have received positive feedback from those who were invited to our events as speakers. As a matter of fact, they are the ones who make decisions. They spoke at our seminars and participated in roundtable discussions on insurance, trade, and artificial intelligence. We are especially proud of the fact that the events we organise are always well-prepared. One of the students once told me that our events compare favourably with similar events, meaning they are much better. We are often invited as speakers, and we, in turn, invite experts to participate and speak at our events. I receive many phone calls asking if I could take part in an event next week. 

Over this short period of time, I believe, we have achieved a lot. People usually write reports on the work done over a year, while we have yet to complete our first year. 

As I said, the Centre’s activities are focused on finding solutions to real problems. We take pride in being able to develop really practical solutions and we have already done so in three or four thematic areas discussed at our events. 

Massive international migration is changing the global ethno-cultural, social, religious, and economic landscapes. Many countries have already had to deal with this phenomenon, including the USA, the EU, and Russia. Thus, in the USA, migration policy has become one of the major topics of the election race, while the EU has been overwhelmed by a wave of illegal migration. Can this be regarded as the onset of the global migration crisis? What are your projections for migration issues? 

It depends on the country. For example, in France, about 80-90 per cent of migrants who move to the country from Africa speak French. So, the language is not a problem for them, even though there are other issues. If we talk about Austria, Germany, or Sweden, we will have to add a language barrier to the mix. Indeed, the migration problem is also exacerbated by religious, social and other issues. Hence, there is no point in giving a general answer to this question, because the answer depends on many different circumstances. 

I published a book titled "Requiem for Europe". A whole chapter in this book is devoted to migration issues. The crucial factor, however, is how well or badly migration is controlled or uncontrolled. If we talk about Canada, for instance, migration there is fairly well-controlled and regulated. The same is true for Israel, which is impossible to imagine without migrants. In Europe, on the other hand, everything depends on the country in question. Not everywhere in Europe is migration well-controlled — far from it. 

I remember the debates we had in 1995. At that time, France, Italy and Spain were trying to do something to stop immigration from North Africa. In the 1990s, some political decisions were taken to address the problem. However, the root causes of this issue lie buried in the past — around half a century earlier. 

In Russia, many people of the older generations still remember and love the "old" Europe of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and partly of the beginning of this century. They are saddened to see the moral and intellectual decline that is taking place there. Where are political figures of the level of Margaret Thatcher? I am not talking about her political views, but about her professionalism. What, do you think, will happen to Europe in future? 

We are noticing these dismaying trends above all in politics. This is true not only for Europe, but for the whole world — Latin America and North America included. The field of politics today is a playground, or some kind of reality show. The players are only concerned with how they present themselves. In the 1980s, this could never have happened. It would have been unthinkable in Europe at that time to regard the press secretary and not the head of the cabinet the most important member of the cabinet. 

Both in 1990, when I was a junior diplomat, and 30 years later, when I became a minister, my attention was focused on the substance of my work, not on PR. There was no such active interaction with the media back then. It was not that our work was shrouded in secrecy — we just were not working for the media. You have mentioned Margaret Thatcher; I can also add Charles de Gaulle, Winston Churchill, and Konrad Adenauer. They probably wouldn’t have survived a week in the environment that politics has now become. 

The research activity of the G.O.R.K.I. Centre is focused on geopolitical, foreign economic and socio-economic issues affecting the development of Russia, Greater Middle East and India. Would it be correct to say that in any case you are working in the global context and take into account the positions and interests of the world’s leading powers? 

Certainly, we discuss this kind of topics. It is no accident that our Centre is called a Geopolitical Observatory. Nonetheless, we address issues that are in the interests of the Russian Federation and we will never discuss the relationship between the EU and Canada or anyone else. Our priorities are focused on Russia. 

Does the G.O.R.K.I. Centre collaborate with international organisations in which Russia is a member (CIS, EAEU, BRICS and SCO)? 

This is difficult to implement because we are not an intergovernmental organisation. Indeed, we are looking for partners in this area. When I came here and began working, in the very first week I contacted organisations with whom we could collaborate. One of the examples is the Valdai Discussion Club. 

Do you think, BRICS, SCO, and EAEU have future, given the developing confrontation between Russia and the West? 

In 2017, when I became Federal Minister of European and International Affairs for the Republic of Austria, I requested to be provided with documents reflecting our stance on these organisations. The reply was, "This is outside the scope of our interests." I was dismayed by the complete lack of interest regarding these organisations on the part of the Austrian government. 

In my opinion, these organisations — and there are quite a few of them already — will play an increasingly important role because the world is rapidly changing; and the future is more likely to belong to Asia than to Europe. I do not mean that Europe is going to die out. Nonetheless, Europe should no longer position itself as the centre of the world, because such a position is hopeless. Stewing in one’s own juice is not an option. Europe must take into consideration the fact that the world is changing, and these organisations are evidence of that. 

The Greater Eurasia project, or a Greater Eurasian Partnership, has been talked about for some time now. In addition to Russia, the project is supported by China, India and other countries. Such important international organisations as the SCO and ASEAN are also showing interest in it. Obviously, in the current situation, we cannot talk about cooperation with the EU in this area. Still, the project is not possible without the Greater Middle East. President Vladimir Putin has stated the need to develop a comprehensive strategy for this project. What do you think about the feasibility and significance of this project? Does it fall within the scope of your research and analytical interests? 

Let me answer this question as a researcher. The British geographer Halford Mackinder, in his 1904 paper for the British Geographical Journal, argued that whoever controls "the core of Eurasia" controls the whole world. Mackinder spoke about the leading strategic role of Eurasia, above all, in geopolitical terms. I would say that these days, there is also an economic dimension to it: Eurasia is a key market for commodities, i.e. traded goods. I therefore think that Vladimir Putin’s statement regarding the need to expand the Greater Eurasian Partnership and devise a comprehensive strategy for its economic development is undeniably timely. I wrote more about the Eurasian issue in my aforementioned book "Requiem for Europe". 

In the year of the 300th anniversary of the oldest university in Russia — St Petersburg University — what would you like to wish to its academics, students, alumni and everyone whose destiny is linked with it? 

I wish for every student to be more engaged in self-development. I do realise that at the moment your prospects may not appear bright. Nonetheless, I think that young people in Russia have more opportunities to contribute to the development of their country than young people in the EU. Students in Russia have good prospects, even though not everyone sees and understands this. I believe that they should strive to link their future with Russia and work for the benefit of their country. In my opinion, they have many chances to prove themselves and to achieve their full potential as professionals.