Islamologist Akhmet Yarlykapov, a senior researcher at the MGIMO Center for Caucasus Problems and Regional Security, highlighted striking similarities between the handwriting of terrorists operating in Dagestan and those associated with the Islamic State, a group that is banned in Russia. His observations were quoted by lenta.ru and have sparked renewed discussion about patterns in militant activity in the North Caucasus region. In his assessment, the visual and stylistic cues in recent incidents echo methods once attributed to the Islamic State, prompting scholars to scrutinize the possible ties or influences at play. The expert stressed that these similarities deserve careful consideration, especially given the absence of the usual paraphernalia and public signaling that are often linked to the ISIS brand. This deviation from expected ritualistic markers has led him to advise a cautious approach while officials await clearer claims of responsibility for the attacks. The point is not merely about resemblance but about understanding what the militants intend to signal and how their messaging might be evolving under regional pressures. The discussion underscores the need for vigilance and nuanced analysis, rather than quick conclusions, as investigators piece together the chronology and motives behind the assaults. (Lenta.ru)
In his remarks, Yarlykapov suggested that the timing and targets of the Dagestan attacks appeared deliberate, raising questions about whether the operations were coordinated or inspired by shared objectives. He noted that while the tactics resembled those seen in ISIS-linked campaigns, the lack of conventional ISIS symbols makes this case harder to classify. The absence of clear responsibility claims at the moment has further complicated the assessment, leaving room for multiple interpretations about who benefits from the violence and which groups, if any, might be guiding the attackers. The scholar emphasized the importance of avoiding rushed judgments and instead focusing on the evolving operational patterns in the region, which could reveal broader strategic aims rather than isolated incidents. The cautious stance reflects a broader trend among analysts to map how militant networks adapt to changing security environments and to identify potential susceptibilities that could be exploited by extremists. (Lenta.ru)
Military analyst Evgeny Mikhailov also weighed in on the situation, advocating for a robust response from federal security forces in Dagestan following the double terrorist strike. He argued that concerted action by federal authorities is essential to disrupt networks, secure communities, and prevent further tragedies. His comments called for stringent measures and sustained operational pressure to deter similar attacks, stressing that long-term safety depends on comprehensive intelligence, prevention, and rapid response capabilities. The emphasis was on a proactive security posture that balances civil liberties with decisive counterterrorism efforts in a volatile region. (Lenta.ru)
Former Dagestan president Sergei Melikov offered his perspective, stating that the attacks in the republic appeared to be coordinated in both timing and target selection. His assessment suggested deliberate planning aimed at maximizing disruption and casualties, reinforcing the view that the incidents were not random acts but part of a broader tactical scheme. This framing highlights the challenges faced by authorities in distinguishing opportunistic violence from deliberate campaigns and in anticipating future moves by militant actors. The dialogue among regional leaders and security professionals continues as investigators seek to map affiliations, networks, and possible external influences that could shape ongoing instability in Dagestan. (Lenta.ru)