«Исламское государство 2.0»: нарастающая угроза на евразийском пространстве

Abstract

The article is devoted to the study of the new situation in the framework of the problem-historical approach after the defeat of the terrorist group “Islamic State” (December 2017) in Syria, the essence of which is the formation of a new model of religious extremism, called “IG 2.0” experts. The basis of this model is the use of pendulum migration of radical Islamists to the countries of Central Asia and Russia, which become the nucleus of various kinds of extremist organizations.Formed in 2006, the radical terrorist group “Islamic State” (banned in Russia and other CIS countries) proclaimed the idea of forming a united front of the “global jihad” in the interests of armed opposition to “the main enemies of Islam”, among which were the United States, the countries of Western Europe , Russia and Muslim states with a secular form of government. The maximum influence of the “Islamic state” was in 2014, when the caliphate was declared on the territory of Iraq and Syria under its control. In the summer of 2014, the Khorasan grouping of the IG was formed, which includes the territory of five Central Asian states. In November 2014, the number of IG militants exceeded 200,000. Given the ineffectiveness of the actions of the in-ternational anti-terrorist coalition under the auspices of the United States, Russia embarked on its own anti-terrorist operation, which resulted in the defeat of terrorists in Syria in December 2017, the remnants of which moved to Afghanistan. This was followed by the migration of the defeated radical Islamists to Syria and Iraq to the countries of Central Asia and Russia. It is shown that currently the main complex threat to the national security of Russia and the Central Asian states is the formation on the territory of Afghanistan of “IG 2.0”, which openly proclaims its goal to overthrow the legitimate authorities of the Central Asian states, as well as spread its influence throughout the Eurasian space. The author justifies the conclusion that it is necessary to increase Eurasian integration in all possible directions as a condition for effective opposition to this radical grouping.