The article deals with the problems of joint actions of Russia, India, and China to mitigate the terrorist threat from Islamist terrorists in the Central part of Eurasia. The author comes to the conclusion that, from an objective point of view, the three giants have completely uniform approaches to terrorism, separatism, and extremism. Moreover, along with the refusal to accept the monopolar structure of the world system, it is the fight against such radicalism that is the main parameter contributing to the real existence of the triangle. However, the concrete actions of the three powers do not indicate any established cooperation. The analysis shows that the main reason is the policy of China, which is extremely wary of India and prefers Russia to stand alone against terrorist activity in the region. Joint public statements remain pure declarations, not supported by real steps. In the fight against Islamist terrorism in the PRC itself, Beijing does not take action to limit external support for Uighur radicals (and doesn't, for example, exert any pressure on Islamabad, dependent on China, to limit the activities of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, which has close contacts with the main Islamist organizations of South and South-East Asia, Central Asia, Afghanistan, and China itself), preferring independent actions. Russia has gone to fairly broad cooperation with different countries, as well as with regional and global organizations in the fi ght against international terrorism. Particular importance is attached to the development of contacts on this issue with key strategic partners (China, India, Kazakhstan) and the work of organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Collective Security Treaty Organization. Anti-terrorist operations are constantly carried out, however, outside the Russian Federation they are carried out only in very rare cases. On the formal side, Russia is taking certain steps to limit the spread of radical Islamic ideas in the region. The counter-terrorism centers and anti-terrorism programs created within the framework of the SCO and the CSTO have been widely advertised. However, there is essentially no practical impact from them, and many structures simply duplicate each other (including in terms of lack of efficiency). Therefore, it is imperative to establish a significant rapprochement between the three giants on the issue of countering the terrorist threat, although neither the scope nor the framework of interaction has been clearly defined yet.
The article addresses the problem of the expansion of terrorism in Northeast and East Africa. The author points to the rapid internationalization of terrorist organizations on the continent since the early 1990s. Despite the prevalence of the phenomenon of domestic terrorism, which has traditionally been accompanying intra-state conflicts on the continent, in the 21st century the threat from Islamic terrorist networks in Africa has come to the fore. The article looks at the prerequisites for the further expansion of Islamist influence on the continent and concludes that most countries of the region are not capable of countering this threat without external support, whether regional or international.
A joint research project carried out by an interdisciplinary group of Russian and Swedish linguists, sociologists and educators-psychologists (the Swedish Institute grant), besides solving pragmatic tasks of finding out relative quantitative-qualitative specificity of national cognitive representations of values, first of all, had methodological goals. They were to check the efficiency of the linguistic methods developed in this study (and, thus, to prove the theoretical ideas that served the basis for it) of getting factual data that allow reconstructing and comparing of the corresponding areas of cognitive representations.
The results of cross-cultural research of implicit theories of innovativeness among students and teachers, representatives of three ethnocultural groups: Russians, the people of the North Caucasus (Chechens and Ingushs) and Tuvinians (N=804) are presented. Intergroup differences in implicit theories of innovativeness are revealed: the ‘individual’ theories of innovativeness prevail among Russians and among the students, the ‘social’ theories of innovativeness are more expressed among respondents from the North Caucasus, Tuva and among the teachers. Using the structural equations modeling the universal model of values impact on implicit theories of innovativeness and attitudes towards innovations is constructed. Values of the Openness to changes and individual theories of innovativeness promote the positive relation to innovations. Results of research have shown that implicit theories of innovativeness differ in different cultures, and values make different impact on the attitudes towards innovations and innovative experience in different cultures.