A controversy unnecessarily arose over the March 7 warning from the US Embassy in Moscow that “extremists have imminent plans to attack large gatherings in Moscow, including concerts” warning US citizens to “avoid large gatherings”. It took the form of a diplomatic spat, and at least for a moment the Americans claimed they shared “the information” with the Russians and suggested that the security agencies in Moscow were inept, while the latter hit back, saying there was nothing specific or anything that could trigger action in what the Americans conveyed.
It is clear that Washington was in possession of information that was at least credible enough in terms of its source, but not specific enough to Moscow. Interestingly, the British Embassy in Moscow also issued a similar advisory warning British nationals against visiting shopping centres. The American and British intelligence agencies work closely together.
But in a strange preemptive move, so to speak, the State Department in Washington stepped out just two hours after the horrific attack on Moscow’s Crocus City Hall mall on March 22 with a statement declaring that Ukraine was not responsible for the attack. America’s European allies also began aping the same verse line. As might be expected, the Americans gained a head start in the propaganda war, which in turn enabled them to craft a narrative – including in real time – that singled out the Islamic State as the perpetrator of the heinous crime.
Yet, the very next day, President Vladimir Putin went on to reveal in his address to the nation that what happened was “a premeditated and organized mass murder of peaceful, defenseless people”, referring to the Nazis for “staging a demonstrative execution, a bloody act of intimidation”.
It is important that Putin revealed that the perpetrators “tried to escape and were heading towards Ukraine, where, according to preliminary information, a window was created for them on the Ukrainian side to cross the state border”. But he refrained from pointing out anyone guilty as the investigation is ongoing.
That is, from Putin’s disclosure, it appears that the perpetrators’ mentors/handlers gave them instructions to leave Russian territory after the mission using a specific route to cross the border into Ukraine where they would be awaited by people on the Ukrainian side of the border . What now remains in the “known unknown” is really about the chain of command. This is the first point.
Second, a story has been floated by Washington that this was an ISIS attack. This story has actually been propagated by Western media and was meant as a red herring to confuse stupid people abroad.
But in reality, the perpetrators were not behaving like ISIS killers on a suicide mission who would have sought martyrdom, but in this case they were behaving like refugees on the run. Nor did they respond to the call for ‘jihad’. They were allegedly ethnic Tajiks who admitted they were assassins lured by money.
The experts’ opinion of the published videos is also that their movements inside the mall did not show combat skills attributed to well-trained fighters and they had “poor fire discipline”, meaning they had only minimal rifle training. In sum, their actions were marked by motiveless malice – that is, apart from the money.
That said, the US military has been “rehabilitating” former ISIS fighters lately. Russia’s foreign intelligence service (SVR) alleged in a statement on February 13 that the United States recruited the jihadist fighters to carry out terrorist attacks on the territory of Russia and in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).
The statement said: “Sixty such terrorists with combat experience in the Middle East were selected this year in January … they undergo a crash course at the US base in Syria’s Al-Tanf, where they are taught how to make and use improvised explosive devices, as well as subversive methods (that is, methods suitable for overthrowing a government, etc.). Special emphasis is placed on planning attacks on heavily guarded facilities, including foreign diplomatic missions … In the near future, there are plans to deploy militants in small groups to the territory of Russia and the SUS countries”.
The SVR also noted that “special attention was given to the involvement of natives of the Russian North Caucasus and Central Asia”.
Significantly, Alexander Bortnikov, director of the Federal Security Service (FSB), said in an interview with Rossiya TV channel on March 26 that from the interrogation of the detainees so far, there is a political background to the incident. He said that radical Islamists alone could not prepare such an action on their own, they had help from outside.
Bortnikov stated: “The first information we received from the arrested confirms this. Therefore, we will continue to refine the information that will show us whether the participation from the Ukrainian side is real or not. But in any case, there is so far every reason to say that this is exactly the case. Since the bandits themselves intended to go abroad, it was to the territory of Ukraine, according to our preliminary operational information, and that they were expected there”.
Bortnikov added that the terrorist attack had the support of not only the special services of Ukraine, but countries such as Great Britain and the United States are also behind the massacre. According to him, the main engine behind the incident has not yet been identified, and the threat of a terrorist act in Russia still persists.
Bortnikov’s comments suggest a classic predicament: Russia has evidence of Ukrainian involvement, but no “evidence” is yet sufficient. This is a difficult situation that countries often face when it comes to combating cross-border terrorism, especially when it happens to be state-sponsored terrorism. Of course, no amount of evidence will ultimately be accepted as proof by the adversary – while in Ukraine’s case there is often an eagerness to claim credit for bleeding Russia by conducting operations on Russian soil, such as assassinations.
As for the US or UK, the Russians consider that without intelligence information, satellite images and even logistical support from Western powers, Ukraine does not have the capacity to conduct operations deep inside Russia or the kind of complex attacks targeting Russian warships in the Black Sea Fleet. But the Western powers are always in denial mode when confronted with such accusations from Russia.
There is no doubt that the Crocus City Hall attack will have profound geopolitical consequences and will affect the course of the Ukraine war. The incident has massively increased the world’s sympathy for Russia. It is now a huge statecraft challenge for Putin to act decisively, as the Russian public will expect, to fully uproot the dark forces entrenched in the neighborhood.
It could conceivably imply that Moscow is shaking up the very foundations of the house that Washington built in Kiev after the coup in 2014. New York Times recently revealed that the CIA has a number of intelligence posts along the border areas between Ukraine and Russia.
Make no mistake about it, the US is determined to maintain the extensive infrastructure it created in Ukraine to launch covert operations and destabilize Russia, no matter what it takes. The main point of the Western strategy is to weaken Russia and prevent it from playing a role as an adversary on the global stage.
TS Eliot’s lines from the play Murder in the Cathedral comes to mind:
'Hvilken fred kan man finne / som kan vokse mellom hammeren og ambolten?'
The war is set to escalate dramatically, and it is only a matter of time before Western combat deployment takes place in Ukraine to save the country’s remaining potential as a frontline NATO state in the proxy war against Russia. For its part, Russia may have no alternative but to seek total military victory. The multi-layered Russian response will unfold depending on the outcome of the ongoing investigation.
This article was published on the blog of MK Bhadrakumar.
