IS absorbs "sympathizers" of extremist views from everywhere

Results of the work of the XII session of the International Discussion Club 'Valdai', held in Sochi from October 19 to 22, are being discussed even now. The three-hour speech by Russian President Vladimir Putin was dismantled into quotations and analysts are trying to build predictions about the prospects of Russian foreign policy based on them. Meanwhile, the theme of the forum was more global. 'War and Peace: the man, the state and the threat of large conflict in the XXI century.' Within the framework of the club, experts and political scientists from 30 countries at separate sessions examined various aspects of the perception of the issues of war and peace both in the public mind and in the sphere of international relations, religion and economic cooperation between the states. The work of the club was divided into sessions – the economy, diplomacy, politics, and a separate session was devoted to the most pressing global issue – the situation in the Middle East.

As the chairman of the 'Valdai' club, political scientist Fyodor Lukyanov, told Vestnik Kavkaza, "it is natural that, during discussion of war and peace, various conflicts are emerging, including those that are related to the South Caucasus, and especially how this area relates to the main area of ​​today's conflicts, the Middle East. It is obvious that there is a connection, a fact which has been repeatedly discussed at the highest level and at expert level, ISIS absorbs like a sponge for sympathizers of extremist views from everywhere, including from the territory of the former Soviet Union and the South Caucasus, too, it is certainly mentioned. In fact, this is a factor that encourages all countries that are concerned, at least, to share experiences and information."

As for the central event of the forum – Vladimir Putin's speech – some experts viewed it as "a session of Russian psychotherapy for the West" or "an example of applied Slavophilism." But in fact it was very informative. Putin said that during the formation of the EAEU, Moscow is trying to build a collaboration, including in the framework of the initiative of the Chinese 'Silk Road', and we are working within the BRICS and the APEC twenty on an equal basis.

Regarding the main theme of the forum, Putin said: "Unfortunately, the words ‘war’ and ‘conflict’ are used more often, when we are talking about the relationships between people of different cultures, religions and nationalities. Today, hundreds of thousands of migrants are trying to integrate into a different society, not having professions, not knowing the language, traditions and the culture of the countries to which they move. But for the indigenous people, of course, and we should just talk about it, it is not necessary to varnish everything, natives say that they are exasperated by foreign dominance, the deterioration of the crime situation, the money spent on refugees from the budgets of the respective countries.

"Of course, there are many people who sympathize with the refugees and want to help them. The question is how to do it without infringing the interests of the indigenous inhabitants of the countries in which the refugees are resettled. And such a shock, massive, uncontrolled collision of different lifestyles can lead and has led to the growth of nationalism and intolerance, to the emergence of permanent conflict in society," Putin stated.

According to him, "the terrorist organization, the so-called Islamic State, has gained control over large areas. How has it managed to do it? Just think about it: in the event of the seizure of Damascus or Baghdad, terrorist gangs can get the status of almost official authorities, there would be a platform for global expansion. It is time for the entire international community to finally understand what we are dealing with. In fact, with the enemy of civilization, humanity and world culture, which carries an ideology of hatred and barbarism, violates the morals and values of the world religions, including Islam, compromising it.

And we should not play with words, dividing terrorists into moderate and immoderate. I would like to understand the difference. Perhaps, according to some experts, it is in the fact that moderate bandits decapitate people, as they say, in moderate amounts, or in a gentle way.

In fact, now we see a real tangle of terrorist groups. Yes, at times militants of the Islamic State, Dzhabhat al-Nusra and other different kinds of successors and parts of Al-Qaeda are even fight against each other, but they are fighting for money, for the division of money, sources of income, for territory for feeding, that's what they are fighting for. They fight not for ideological considerations, but they have one essence and method: terror, killings, the transformation of people into a downtrodden, intimidated, docile mass.

In recent years, the situation has increasingly been deteriorating, the terrorist infrastructure grew, the number of militants increased, and weapons, which were transferred to the so-called "moderate opposition", "moderate oppositionists", inevitably fell into the hands of terrorist organizations. Moreover, sometimes whole gangs went to its side, as they say, "with music and an orchestra."

Why did the efforts of, for example, our US partners and their allies in the fight against Islamic State not give any clear results? It is obvious that it is not because of a shortage of military equipment or capacity. Of course, the United States has an enormous, the world's largest military potential, it's just that it is always hard to play a double game. To declare a fight against terrorists and at the same time try to use some of them in order to arrange the pieces on the board of the Middle East, as it seems, in their own interests. It is impossible to achieve success against terrorism in general, if some of the terrorists are being used as a battering ram to overthrow undesirable regimes."