Political scientists considered the unrest in Makhachkala to be inconsistent with the deep essence of the country

The Expert Institute for Social Research discussed on Thursday issues of interethnic and interfaith unity of the peoples of Russia. The participants of the round table, gathered in the wake of the anti-Jewish protests in Makhachkala, agreed that the riots were inspired by ill-wishers from abroad, and there is no ground for the natural occurrence of such situations in Russia and never has been.

The reason for the expert discussion was the riots at Makhachkala airport on October 29, where hundreds of local residents broke onto the runway after a flight from Tel Aviv arrived there. The moderator of the event, political scientist Pavel Danilin, characterized these events using four “p”s: “Betrayal, complicity, crime and setup.” At the same time, in his opinion, the whole country was set up, since “the enemies were given a tool that they use, telling them that anti-Semitism is blooming in full bloom in Russia.” The expert recalled that the Russian Federation’s position on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (“two peoples – two states”) has long been known and complies with UN resolutions, and those who “went out to protest” should have understood that there was no reason for protests. “There is no point in influencing this position through any actions,” argued Mr. Danilin. “The provocation at the airport was obviously initiated by foreign intelligence services.” The ill-wishers’ goal is to undermine peace on Russian territory, the political scientist concluded.

“It was definitely an inspired provocation,” agreed political scientist Marat Bashirov (later this position was shared by all participants in the discussion). The very strength of the interethnic unity underlying Russian statehood is beyond doubt, he said. The beneficiaries of the situation in Dagestan “tried to imitate some kind of interfaith, interethnic contradictions,” which in fact do not exist, but these attempts will continue, the expert is sure: “Our culture, our foundations are against their attempts to throw money in.”

The round table participants who spoke further more than once emphasized the multinational nature of Russia as a state-civilization (the ideological message about “Russia as a civilization,” as Kommersant previously reported, may form the basis of the 2024 presidential campaign). “Unity and diversity are the essence of Russia, of Russian civilization,” noted, for example, political scientist Vladimir Shapovalov. “The factor of interfaith solidarity plays an important role in our country both from the point of view of maintaining peace and from the point of view of foreign policy relations,” political scientist Pavel Rudakov explained the advantages of this approach. “A country-civilization offers some things that form the basis of common existence,” political scientist Alexei Mukhin continued his thought. “Russia offers unity and justice.” The unity in this proposal, the expert emphasized, also guarantees equal security for everyone, while the Western “offer” promises peace of mind only to a select few. “And at someone else’s expense,” added Pavel Danilin.

Not without, however, more utilitarian specifics. Thus, Marat Bashirov, analyzing the events in Makhachkala, recalled that President Vladimir Putin instructed security forces and regional heads to be ready to respond to relevant challenges and, if necessary, preempt them: “This work should definitely be intensified in the coming months.” At the same time, the political scientist drew the attention of public opinion leaders to social networks that they have not fully mastered, where the most vulnerable group of the population—youth—spends most of their time.

Political scientist Ilya Geraskin paid even more attention to social networks, explaining that a “passive position” when working in the media space means losing: “It is necessary to act proactively, create a positive environment with loyal bloggers and manage risks on this track by monitoring the agenda and blocking unwanted resources.” Social networks are a good platform for intercultural and interethnic dialogue, the expert concluded, noting that “the opportunity to ensure this dialogue will create the opportunity to build the future on the principles of equality and harmony.”

Answering questions from Kommersant, Messrs. Bashirov and Danilin pointed to the socio-economic specifics of Dagestan, mentioning unemployment, power outages and the difficult intra-elite situation. “Plus there is a fairly high level of corruption, which has always been observed in the region,” added Pavel Danilin. “They are actively fighting this, but since the region has strong internal characteristics, this fight is very difficult.” True, the expert did not directly link the riots that broke out with these factors, noting only that the authorities, “while struggling with these issues, turned a blind eye to some others”: “And, having closed their eyes, they missed it. Obviously there was a flaw.”

Grigory Leiba