What are the Russians saying now about the organizers and implementers of the Crocus City Hall massacre?
Today’s edition of The New York Times tells us triumphantly that “President Vladimir Putin of Russia acknowledged for the first time that ‘radical Islamists’ had carried out the attack on a concert hall near Moscow…,” meaning that the Russians have accepted the American version of who was responsible. And yet, they noted, Putin was still ‘insisting that Ukraine could still have played a role,’ as if it was pure obstinacy on the part of the Russian president to justify a politically more convenient explanation leading to escalation of the war.
Meanwhile, doing its part to convey the narrative provided by Washington, The Financial Times front page tells us “How Ukraine war distracted Moscow from Isis-K threat: Russia’s security services have shifted focus away from Islamist terror.” This same line happens to be among the points made by Ukrainian president Zelensky in his first comments on the attack just hours after it occurred. Once again, I say, ‘hats off’ to the propaganda department in Washington for close coordination of what the general public reads and hears everywhere on planet Earth.
*****
Meanwhile, among Russia’s chattering classes there is a lot of speculation on who was really behind the concert hall attack and whether the terrorists were genuinely members of the Afghanistan-based Isis-K.
The premier talk show Evening with Vladimir Solovyov last night gave voice to these thoughts. Specialists on the Middle East and Islamic issues told us that the attack did not follow the usual pattern of Isis and other Muslim extremist groups. It was staged in the middle of Ramadan, which normally is not violated by the Jihadists, and also on a Friday, for a double measure of exceptionality. The attackers made no attempt to take hostages or to make political demands, which usually has been the case. They were only interested in killing as many innocent people as possible, for which they were being paid onto their bank cards. What could they do with such payments? They could send the money to their relatives in Tajikistan, where even the $5,000 ruble equivalent paid out would be useful. And they appeared not to be seeking martyrdom. The perpetrators sere keen on escaping, and the vector of their escape route was straight to Ukraine from which they were about 100 km distant when apprehended.
The assumption of the panelists speaking on the Solovyov show was that the escape path to Ukraine indicates Ukrainian involvement. What no one has said on television or elsewhere is what fate would have awaited the terrorists had they made it to Ukraine. Would it have enabled them to evade the clutches of the Russians or would they have been murdered upon arrival to silence them and show good faith to the international community on the part of Kiev?
I did not hear among the Solovyov panelists mention of Washington as the overall director of the attack.
Otherwise, discussion of the atrocity moved on to the questions of whether the death penalty should now be reintroduced in Russia and what to do to fix the obviously failed controls on immigration from Central Asia, a failure that is in large part blamed on corruption among the Russian law enforcers.
But let us not dwell on what Mr. Solovyov’s talk show promoted. Yesterday I read an essay by Dmitry Trenin on what the ongoing investigation into the perpetrators and paymasters of the Crocus City Hall atrocity may lead to. Considering who Trenin is and what he says, this article, which was published on RT, is worth our time.
See “The American explanation for the Moscow terror attack doesn’t add up. Russian foreign policy could change significantly, depending on the results of the investigation into the atrocity.”
For those who are not familiar with Trenin, allow me to explain that he is a leading Russian analyst and commentator, a member of all the most authoritative security and foreign affairs institutions in Moscow, with a background of high service in the Russian military going back to the 1990s and with more than a decade at the helm of the Carnegie Center Moscow, a U.S. sponsored think tank. Trenin left the Carnegie shortly after the start of the Special Military Operation and, in short order, the Carnegie Center was closed down. He has since then been making amends for his past coddling of anti-Putin Liberals, but always within the bounds of solid academic reasoning. In this respect, Trenin’s evolution since 24 February 2022 is very similar to that of the former director of The National Interest foundation (formerly The Nixon Center) in Washington, Dmitry Simes, who moved back to Moscow from the United States after the start of the SMO to defend Russian national interests as opposed to U.S. interests.
From the very title, it is clear that Trenin is directing attention to possible United States involvement in the atrocity. The fact that Washington was publicly identifying the terrorist group within minutes of the attack in damning. However, he holds open the possibility that Kiev ‘conceived, planned and organized’ the attack.
Trenin acknowledges that at this point ‘nothing is firmly established,’ but he insists that the conclusions ultimately reached can greatly impact on Russia’s conduct of the war with Ukraine. If it becomes clear, for example, that Kiev did it all, then it is assumed that President Zelensky gave it his approval. In this case, all prior guaranties by President Putin not to touch the Kiev leadership are withdrawn.
Kiev will be identified than as a terrorist state, which constitutes an inadmissible neighbor.
Moreover, establishing Kiev’s responsibility would necessarily implicate the United States as having had at a minimum advance knowledge and hence been complicity. Under these circumstances, says Trenin, we may now expect Russia to carry out strikes against airfields in NATO countries if they are used by the Ukrainian air force. We may expect Russia to annihilate any French expeditionary force. Andwe may expect a ‘head-on collision’ between Russia and NATO.
This is food for thought from a restrained and knowledgeable source. Is anyone in Washington, London or Brussels paying attention?
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024