Yesterday at his annual big press conference, Vladimir Putin voiced his version of the origin of Daesh, calling the group a “secondary thing.” “Iraq had been invaded previously, the country was destroyed and a vacuum emerged. Later, elements who were connected with oil trading appeared. And this situation has been developing for years. There is business, contraband on huge industrial scales. To protect the contraband and illegal exports military force was needed. And it was great to use the Islamic factor, attract cannon fodder with Islamic slogans, who were actually puppets in a game connected with economic interests. They were called for there. That’s how ISIS appeared, to my mind.”
Some experts think that the Arab Spring led to the establishment of Daesh. However, according to Andrei Chuprygin, Senior Lecturer at the School of Oriental Studies of the HSE, “the roads that the Arab East has chosen over the last five years are unclear to the understanding of a Western person. As a result of the events that began five years ago, the Middle East has almost arrived at a state of severe catastrophe. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, civil war, ruins. Egypt, apparently as a result of the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood, is now in an even worse state than it was at the end of the reign of Hosni Mubarak. The Emirate-kingdoms of the Persian Gulf, for example, seem to have remained more or less stable, untouched to a great extent by these developments. It must be admitted that the leaders or rulers of these countries are mainly looking in the rearview mirror. They surely do not see the threat that may be waiting for them around the next corner of this story.”
At the same time, Chuprygin cannot agree with the fact that there was a revolution in the Arab countries of the Middle East: “There was a spontaneous rebellion, which was the trigger, and there were internal objective components and external subjective components as well. The ‘revolution’ did not give birth to a single charismatic, strong leader. As a result of the lack of leadership in a particular country or a particular region, or within the framework of a single uprising in the game, the usual modus operandi of the Middle East began to operate – tribal, sectarian groups with interests, petty leaders who began to gather a group of interests around them and fight for their happy future. There are no leaders of the transitional period, either.”
Chuprygin admits that he doesn’t like the term 'Arab Spring': “If it was an Arab Spring, then what was before? An Arab Winter or something like that? Were they sleeping? I do not think so. Of course they were not sleeping. But it's a good marketing ploy invented by the press. An ‘Arab Spring' is something blossoming, flourishing, it is within the framework of the policy of the ‘color revolutions’, when a bouquet of roses was brought along with a gun, and all at once they said, "Oh, it's a Rose Revolution". And if daisies were brought, they would call it a ‘Daisy Revolution’.”
The expert also points out a lack of specific institutions: “In fact, they got what they fought for. That is, as a result of these acts, riots, huge events, avoiding the authorities, or withdrawal from the power of traditional leaders of a strong dictatorial nature, but the institutions have remained, that is, a powerful machine of entrenched bureaucrats has remained in its place for a long time. And despite the fact that it was discredited, at least for the simple reason that it was unable to resist the trend of the change of the government, nevertheless it has remained in power and continues its steadfast policy to date.”
