MOSCOW -- Roi Medvedev, a Russian historian, was born in 1925 in Tbilisi, Georgia. After graduating from Leningrad University, he joined the Soviet Communist Party in 1956 and became a researcher at the Education Academy. In 1969 he was purged from the party following the publication of his book "Let History Judge," which criticized Stalin and Stalinism at a time when official Soviet propagandists were trying to partially rehabilitate the dictator. Later he was severely oppressed for the prodemocracy stance of an open letter he and fellow dissident Andrei Sakharov presented to the Soviet leadership in 1970.

Medvedev's reputation was restored after Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev launched his perestroika program of gradual political and economic reforms in the 1980s. He returned to the ruling party in 1989, was elected to the Soviet Union's Congress of People's Deputies and was named as member of the Supreme Soviet, the permanent working body of the Congress. Today he maintains a social-democratic political stance and is a supporter of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The following are excerpts of Kyodo News' interview with Medvedev.

How did the Sept. 11 attack in the United States affect society?

The world community realized that the threat of Islamic terrorism had become threat No. 1. This was the first time that the United States, the leader of the West, had directly encountered Islamic radicalism. Russia had come up against this threat earlier in the form of the Chechnya war, but this was nothing compared to what happened in the U.S.

But Islamic radicalism was around before this.

True. It was born in the Middle East, in countries like Algeria and Egypt and then moved across to Russia, mainly to Chechnya. However, the terrorist attack in the U.S. showed, for the first time, that Islamic terrorism had become a force to be reckoned with on a global scale. We need to be worried about the fact that the terrorists don't choose their weapons of war. In terms of war, Islamic radicalism is a weak political force. The U.S. is much more powerful as far as weapons go and no one can stand up to it right now. So there was no alternative for the radicals but to use barbaric methods in their struggle with the U.S. There was no other way.

Can you justify Islamic radicalism in choosing terrorism as its one means of attack?

Of course not. But the bombing of Palestine by the Israelis is just the same sort of barbaric act as those carried out by the Palestinian kamikaze attackers. The victims come from the population at large.

You said terrorist acts cannot be justified, yet the Soviet Union's Communist regime was responsible for terror on a large scale.

The Bolsheviks maintained that terror was unavoidable during war. Yet even after gaining power, they still used terror on a massive scale. This cannot be justified. As a historian, terrorism repulses me.

Will the 21st century be marked by conflict between the U.S. and Islamic radicalism?

Although Islamic radicalism counts the U.S. as enemy No. 1, it poses a threat to the entire civilized world. Islamic radicals make demands that cannot be fulfilled. For example, they demand that the U.S. pull out of Saudi Arabia and that the Jewish people leave Israel. In Russia, Islamic radicals made plans to take control over the entire northern Caucasus, Chechnya and other regions. So the war will likely continue. However, it's not clear if this conflict will continue for the entire 21st century. Is it possible for Islamic radicalism to have the same global effect as fascism? This depends on the actions of the whole of the civilized world. Radicals make up a comparatively small part of the Islamic world's billion people.

The main thing in the struggle with Islamic radicalism is not to overstep the boundaries of the struggle. The fight with Islamic radicalism and war with countries such as Iraq or Iran are completely different things. A war with Iraq would involve the entire Islamic world. I fear that the U.S. may provoke an escalation in the struggle with Islamic radicalism.

Can it be said the fight against Islamic radicalism involves all of civilization?

Not yet. But there is a danger that this could happen if the conflict with Islamic radicalism deepens. All available means must be used to avoid this. Islamic radicalism is an unknown threat for us. The U.S. and the Soviet Union studied each other in great detail during the Cold War. However, I cannot say Russia has ever fully studied Islam as a religion. So, it is very important to look at Islamic radicalism as an ideology.

How should the world community react to this conflict?

It must be overcome. There were a few outbreaks like this in the 20th century. There was fascism and, most frighteningly, Bolshevism. Appearing in the 19th century, the communist movement, aiming for world domination, proclaimed a world revolution in the 20th century. Thus, it became a threat to the capitalist world. This became the major reason for the start of the Cold War.

Has there ever been anything like the terrorist attack of Sept. 11 in the 20th century?

Probably the nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This was also an act of terrorism. Something that was meant to frighten Japan caused the death of several hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

This could be called an act of war, but also "war terrorism."

You mean terrorism and an act of war are the same thing?

No, not the same thing. War between governments and the fight with Islamic terrorism are different. However, there is no clear distinction between an act of war and terrorism. The United Nations and other international organizations should give clear definitions.

In your book about President Vladimir Putin, published this year, you support the war in Chechnya.

The Chechen problem is complex. It involves religion, though it is mainly concerned with independence and separatism. The war was unavoidable in preventing Chechnya from becoming independent.

If you say Bolshevism is a radical ideology, how then should Russia develop?

Russia should build a democracy of its own, not based on Western ideology. I don't think that choosing socialism was a mistake. Now, Russia has chosen capitalism. And, as a result, a large percentage of the population is in a desperate position. I hope that Russia returns to socialism in the future. I mean to a social-democratic path. But Russia is not poor right now. And in order to change over to a social-democratic lifestyle, a certain social development is necessary.

What lessons can be learned from the fight against terrorism in the 20th century?

The 20th century was a century of revolutions. At the same time, the world was much changed by technical advances. We must be patient with each other, attentive to each other's needs. We shouldn't put on airs and act high-handedly. President George W. Bush's doctrine agrees with what Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov Lenin said. It is wrong to say, "He who is not with us is against us." That is a dangerous Bolshevik thesis. I would say, "He who is not with us is not against us." Since someone not in league with our enemy may become our future partner.

Has U.S. domination of the world grown in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks?

I don't think so. Why should we automatically side with the U.S.? Bush's watchword is its own type of radicalism. It looks as if radicalism can be found among rich nations as well as poor. At the roots of this radicalism is the idea that only that which Americans hold dear should be what the whole of civilization holds dear. I don't like that sort of self-centered confidence.