International Programs No Longer Work by Old Rules
Over the past two decades, international activities of universities have expanded significantly. Academic mobility programmes, joint degrees, international partnerships and global research collaborations have become common.
However, in many universities international activities still develop in a fragmented way. Different initiatives appear across departments but do not form a coherent institutional system.
However, in many universities international activities still develop in a fragmented way. Different initiatives appear across departments but do not form a coherent institutional system.
International Programs as a Symbol of the Era
For a long time, a university's international activity was seen as proof of its inclusion in the global academic market. The more exchanges, agreements, foreign students, and joint programs, the more convincing the university appeared to applicants, partners, and the state. International programs were not just educational practice but a key part of the university's image.
This logic worked while the global academic environment seemed relatively stable and predictable. But universities got too used to living in a world where internationality seemed to exist by itself. Now this backdrop has disappeared. International activity no longer runs on inertia. It needs to be constantly rebuilt from scratch, and that's a completely different level of complexity.
Universities No Longer Live Outside Politics
One of the main reasons for the crisis of international programs is their growing connection with geopolitics. Universities long loved to see themselves as a space where science and education stand above political conflicts. In practice, this proved an illusion. As soon as international relations deteriorate, academic ties are the first to suffer.
Joint projects stop, visa procedures become more complicated, restrictions emerge on travel, equipment supplies, access to digital services and databases. Even where there are no formal bans, the effect of distrust kicks in. Partnerships become less predictable, and international cooperation more costly and risky.
As a result, university international programs lose one of their key qualities — stability. That's why international programs today are no longer about "academic exchange freedom." They're about constant maneuvering in an unstable environment.
The Old Model Has Exhausted Itself
The crisis of international programs stems not only from external circumstances but also from internal fatigue of the model itself. In many universities, internationalization was measured too long by quantitative indicators: number of agreements, number of foreign students, volume of exchanges, presence of English-language pages and presentation materials. But all this doesn't answer the main question: does cooperation actually work?
You can have dozens of agreements and almost no real collaboration. You can launch "international" programs without creating proper administrative, language, and academic support. You can talk about globalization but actually remain in local mode — just in prettier packaging. That's why international programs break so easily: they were too often built as a showcase, not as a system.
Money Is Needed More Than People Think
International activity requires stable funding, which becomes a problem during crises. Resources are needed for scholarships, mobility, support for foreign students, translation, marketing, international offices, legal assistance, and digital infrastructure. When universities cut expenses, these areas often prove most vulnerable.
Moreover, international programs depend on countless organizational details that go unnoticed while the system works: from visa support speed to English website quality, from document recognition to partner communication convenience. If even one element fails, the entire international circuit starts to stall.
The Russian Case — Not an Exception but an Amplifier of the Problem
For Russian universities, this breakdown is especially painful. Until recently, international programs were often built around one clear model — the "Bologna" one. But when that model started to collapse, an unpleasant truth emerged: many universities had embedded it too deeply in their identity and developed their own alternatives too weakly.
Hence the confusion. Formally, you can change program structures, rewrite documents, replace degree level names. But without new logic, new partnerships, and new management culture behind it, all changes remain cosmetic.
In this sense, the Russian situation merely highlighted what was already a problem in many countries: internationality was too often seen as an add-on, not part of the university's core.
The World Isn't Closing — It's Fragmenting
Talking about the "death" of international programs would be wrong. The world hasn't stopped being international. Students still want to study abroad, universities still seek partners, science still requires knowledge exchange. But the global academic market no longer resembles what it was ten years ago.
It has become fragmented. Countries and universities now choose not just the best partnerships, but safe, predictable, politically acceptable, and financially sustainable ones. The universal logic "if you're a good university, they'll come to you" works less and less. The filter logic works more: who you can work with, who you can collaborate with, through what channels, under what conditions.
This changes the very nature of international programs. They cease to be a natural extension of the educational environment and become a separate management task — complex, costly, and not always rewarding.
What Will Replace It
The future of international programs isn't about returning to the old model but rebuilding it. The old model of internationality won't disappear overnight, but it can no longer be a universal standard. The new internationality will be less decorative, more substantive, and more locally anchored: fewer formal agreements, but stronger educational and scientific ties.
At the center of this new model will be not pretty numbers, but the ability to build trust, ensure digital compatibility, support real mobility, and create partnerships that withstand crises.The internationality of the future is not a showcase of globality, but hard work to maintain connections in a world that looks less and less like a single space.
Instead of a Conclusion
International programs break not because universities suddenly stopped being global in ambition. They break because the environment in which those ambitions once seemed natural has changed. Openness no longer comes by default. Trust has become scarce. And the universal model of academic internationality is a luxury that now needs to be earned anew.
In this new reality, universities will have to choose: either build a sustainable international strategy or continue reproducing its external forms without real substance.
For a long time, a university's international activity was seen as proof of its inclusion in the global academic market. The more exchanges, agreements, foreign students, and joint programs, the more convincing the university appeared to applicants, partners, and the state. International programs were not just educational practice but a key part of the university's image.
This logic worked while the global academic environment seemed relatively stable and predictable. But universities got too used to living in a world where internationality seemed to exist by itself. Now this backdrop has disappeared. International activity no longer runs on inertia. It needs to be constantly rebuilt from scratch, and that's a completely different level of complexity.
Universities No Longer Live Outside Politics
One of the main reasons for the crisis of international programs is their growing connection with geopolitics. Universities long loved to see themselves as a space where science and education stand above political conflicts. In practice, this proved an illusion. As soon as international relations deteriorate, academic ties are the first to suffer.
Joint projects stop, visa procedures become more complicated, restrictions emerge on travel, equipment supplies, access to digital services and databases. Even where there are no formal bans, the effect of distrust kicks in. Partnerships become less predictable, and international cooperation more costly and risky.
As a result, university international programs lose one of their key qualities — stability. That's why international programs today are no longer about "academic exchange freedom." They're about constant maneuvering in an unstable environment.
The Old Model Has Exhausted Itself
The crisis of international programs stems not only from external circumstances but also from internal fatigue of the model itself. In many universities, internationalization was measured too long by quantitative indicators: number of agreements, number of foreign students, volume of exchanges, presence of English-language pages and presentation materials. But all this doesn't answer the main question: does cooperation actually work?
You can have dozens of agreements and almost no real collaboration. You can launch "international" programs without creating proper administrative, language, and academic support. You can talk about globalization but actually remain in local mode — just in prettier packaging. That's why international programs break so easily: they were too often built as a showcase, not as a system.
Money Is Needed More Than People Think
International activity requires stable funding, which becomes a problem during crises. Resources are needed for scholarships, mobility, support for foreign students, translation, marketing, international offices, legal assistance, and digital infrastructure. When universities cut expenses, these areas often prove most vulnerable.
Moreover, international programs depend on countless organizational details that go unnoticed while the system works: from visa support speed to English website quality, from document recognition to partner communication convenience. If even one element fails, the entire international circuit starts to stall.
The Russian Case — Not an Exception but an Amplifier of the Problem
For Russian universities, this breakdown is especially painful. Until recently, international programs were often built around one clear model — the "Bologna" one. But when that model started to collapse, an unpleasant truth emerged: many universities had embedded it too deeply in their identity and developed their own alternatives too weakly.
Hence the confusion. Formally, you can change program structures, rewrite documents, replace degree level names. But without new logic, new partnerships, and new management culture behind it, all changes remain cosmetic.
In this sense, the Russian situation merely highlighted what was already a problem in many countries: internationality was too often seen as an add-on, not part of the university's core.
The World Isn't Closing — It's Fragmenting
Talking about the "death" of international programs would be wrong. The world hasn't stopped being international. Students still want to study abroad, universities still seek partners, science still requires knowledge exchange. But the global academic market no longer resembles what it was ten years ago.
It has become fragmented. Countries and universities now choose not just the best partnerships, but safe, predictable, politically acceptable, and financially sustainable ones. The universal logic "if you're a good university, they'll come to you" works less and less. The filter logic works more: who you can work with, who you can collaborate with, through what channels, under what conditions.
This changes the very nature of international programs. They cease to be a natural extension of the educational environment and become a separate management task — complex, costly, and not always rewarding.
What Will Replace It
The future of international programs isn't about returning to the old model but rebuilding it. The old model of internationality won't disappear overnight, but it can no longer be a universal standard. The new internationality will be less decorative, more substantive, and more locally anchored: fewer formal agreements, but stronger educational and scientific ties.
At the center of this new model will be not pretty numbers, but the ability to build trust, ensure digital compatibility, support real mobility, and create partnerships that withstand crises.The internationality of the future is not a showcase of globality, but hard work to maintain connections in a world that looks less and less like a single space.
Instead of a Conclusion
International programs break not because universities suddenly stopped being global in ambition. They break because the environment in which those ambitions once seemed natural has changed. Openness no longer comes by default. Trust has become scarce. And the universal model of academic internationality is a luxury that now needs to be earned anew.
In this new reality, universities will have to choose: either build a sustainable international strategy or continue reproducing its external forms without real substance.
23 APRIL 2026
Author: Olga Maslennikova
