Fyodor Lukyanov: “ISIS made threats against the North Caucasus and the Volga Region, they have not come to the Crimean issue”

Interview by Vestnik Kavkaza Editor-in-Chief Maria Sidelnikova

 

EU Chief Diplomat Federica Mogherini said yesterday that fighting the ideology of ISIS will take years. The diplomat added that generations in Arab and European states were attracted by terrorist organizations, whose goal was to destroy individuals and societies.

According to unconfirmed information, ISIS has hundreds of militants from Crimea fighting in its ranks. The militants may destabilize the situation on the peninsula. Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of the Russia in Global Affairs journal, has described his vision of ISIS’ prospects and the situation in Southeast Asia.

 

- Has Russia’s annexation of Crimea had any effect on the actions of ISIS?

- I think that the phenomena are absolutely different, they belong to different strata. Only Barack Obama can compare Russian aggression in Ukraine, ISIS and the Ebola hemorrhagic fever. He is eager to do it again and again.

If we search for any links, there is one – the striving in the West and in the Middle East to harm Russia some way. It may be manifested in attempts at religious radicalization of the Crimean-Tatar population. As far as I understand, the religious policy pursued by Ukraine in Crimea was a lot more liberal than the Russian one. Many of the flowers they allowed to bloom in the Muslim environment were banned in Russia for a reason.

So, imagining attempts to radicalize a certain part of the Crimean Tatars is quite possible. It may happen through Turkey, through contacts with Saudi Arabia.

Our special services know it all very well. In terms of international law, Crimea is still a specific territory and will remain so in the near future. On the one hand, this is bad because Russia will have to use bypasses to do a lot of things, to avoid international mechanisms. On the other hand, restricting the Islamic elements it needs in the context of incomplete recognition is easier. ISIS has threatened the North Caucasus and the Volga Region, they have not come to the Crimean issue yet.

- There is an opinion that deepening partnership relations with economies in Southeast Asia will pull Russia out of economic depression. The U.S. and China have recently signed an agreement on non-incitement of conflicts in the region. What does this mean? How conflictive is the region?

- The region is more chaotic than conflictive. East and Southeast Asia is a very conflictive region because the Euro-Atlantic region was the center of world policy during the Cold War, and since the stakes in that space were exceptionally high, the hostile sides were very delicate. They tried not to plant mines that could trigger big problems or a full-scale conflict. The Helsinki Final Act was a product of the caution, it fixed borders. Now, it is usually recalled in the light of Crimea. Like Russia violated everything. But the Helsinki Act was a fixation of influence spheres. 20-30 years after the Second World War, the borders were finally fixed. Until that moment, the balance of power had been active.

There are very many such mines in the APR. But the APR, the Pacific Space, was not a center of attention, unlike the Atlantic, it was a periphery of the Cold War. It was quite important, but nonetheless the main events were not happening there. The conflicts “were sleeping,” they were not given such attention. This includes our Kuril Islands, China, Japan. Taiwan was somewhat more in the center, because the problem there was obvious.

But the region still had no such level of attention. We have now gotten into the opposite situation. The Atlantic, the Euro-Atlantic region, are at the periphery in the 21st century in light of all the ardour boiling around Ukraine. The European-centered world is ending, the main events are no longer there. They have moved to the Pacific Ocean. China is the main candidate for the leader-state.

Any system starts shaking and fluctuating when a clear leader encounters a clear competitor to challenge the hegemony. Russia still traditionally sees itself in that role. But Russia is not actually a competitor for the hegemony, as mentioned by President Putin many times. Objectively, we cannot generally handle it, unfortunately. China can. Because China is closer and closer to the situation, in terms of its potential, which means that all its actions will inevitably be viewed in this context. And any reason for a conflict – whether territorial disputes of China with almost all its neighbours or even territorial disputes with North Korea and Japan and internal epicenters in China, such as Xinjiang, Tibet and now Hong Kong, not to mention Taiwan – all have potential for very rapid escalation.

The U.S. is absolutely not in a condition to start an open fight with China, neither does China want it, thinking that it is just not ready for that, whether it will be ready or not is a different story, so they will certainly take some cautious measures. On the other hand, agreements, assurances and promises are worth little in such situations. Considering that the U.S. needs to demonstrate its readiness to protect allies from China in order to keep its positions, we get an endless circle. The attempt to avoid unnecessary causes of conflicts is actually commendable, but I am afraid that, God forbid, all the papers will be scrapped, just like the European documents signed in a different geopolitical situation.

The editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs speaks about the Crimean Tatars and the situation in the Asian-Pacific RegionInterview by Vestnik Kavkaza Editor-in-Chief Maria SidelnikovaEU Chief Diplomat Federica Mogherini said yesterday that fighting the ideology of ISIS will take years. The diplomat added that generations in Arab and European states were attracted by terrorist organizations, whose goal was to destroy individuals and societies.According to unconfirmed information, ISIS has hundreds of militants from Crimea fighting in its ranks. The militants may destabilize the situation on the peninsula. Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of the Russia in Global Affairs journal, has described his vision of ISIS’ prospects and the situation in Southeast Asia.- Has Russia’s annexation of Crimea had any effect on the actions of ISIS?- I think that the phenomena are absolutely different, they belong to different strata. Only Barack Obama can compare Russian aggression in Ukraine, ISIS and the Ebola hemorrhagic fever. He is eager to do it again and again.If we search for any links, there is one – the striving in the West and in the Middle East to harm Russia some way. It may be manifested in attempts at religious radicalization of the Crimean-Tatar population. As far as I understand, the religious policy pursued by Ukraine in Crimea was a lot more liberal than the Russian one. Many of the flowers they allowed to bloom in the Muslim environment were banned in Russia for a reason.So, imagining attempts to radicalize a certain part of the Crimean Tatars is quite possible. It may happen through Turkey, through contacts with Saudi Arabia.Our special services know it all very well. In terms of international law, Crimea is still a specific territory and will remain so in the near future. On the one hand, this is bad because Russia will have to use bypasses to do a lot of things, to avoid international mechanisms. On the other hand, restricting the Islamic elements it needs in the context of incomplete recognition is easier. ISIS has threatened the North Caucasus and the Volga Region, they have not come to the Crimean issue yet.- There is an opinion that deepening partnership relations with economies in Southeast Asia will pull Russia out of economic depression. The U.S. and China have recently signed an agreement on non-incitement of conflicts in the region. What does this mean? How conflictive is the region?- The region is more chaotic than conflictive. East and Southeast Asia is a very conflictive region because the Euro-Atlantic region was the center of world policy during the Cold War, and since the stakes in that space were exceptionally high, the hostile sides were very delicate. They tried not to plant mines that could trigger big problems or a full-scale conflict. The Helsinki Final Act was a product of the caution, it fixed borders. Now, it is usually recalled in the light of Crimea. Like Russia violated everything. But the Helsinki Act was a fixation of influence spheres. 20-30 years after the Second World War, the borders were finally fixed. Until that moment, the balance of power had been active.There are very many such mines in the APR. But the APR, the Pacific Space, was not a center of attention, unlike the Atlantic, it was a periphery of the Cold War. It was quite important, but nonetheless the main events were not happening there. The conflicts “were sleeping,” they were not given such attention. This includes our Kuril Islands, China, Japan. Taiwan was somewhat more in the center, because the problem there was obvious.But the region still had no such level of attention. We have now gotten into the opposite situation. The Atlantic, the Euro-Atlantic region, are at the periphery in the 21st century in light of all the ardour boiling around Ukraine. The European-centered world is ending, the main events are no longer there. They have moved to the Pacific Ocean. China is the main candidate for the leader-state.Any system starts shaking and fluctuating when a clear leader encounters a clear competitor to challenge the hegemony. Russia still traditionally sees itself in that role. But Russia is not actually a competitor for the hegemony, as mentioned by President Putin many times. Objectively, we cannot generally handle it, unfortunately. China can. Because China is closer and closer to the situation, in terms of its potential, which means that all its actions will inevitably be viewed in this context. And any reason for a conflict – whether territorial disputes of China with almost all its neighbours or even territorial disputes with North Korea and Japan and internal epicenters in China, such as Xinjiang, Tibet and now Hong Kong, not to mention Taiwan – all have potential for very rapid escalation.The U.S. is absolutely not in a condition to start an open fight with China, neither does China want it, thinking that it is just not ready for that, whether it will be ready or not is a different story, so they will certainly take some cautious measures. On the other hand, agreements, assurances and promises are worth little in such situations. Considering that the U.S. needs to demonstrate its readiness to protect allies from China in order to keep its positions, we get an endless circle. The attempt to avoid unnecessary causes of conflicts is actually commendable, but I am afraid that, God forbid, all the papers will be scrapped, just like the European documents signed in a different geopolitical situat