On the evening of March 22, a popular concert hall outside Moscow became the site of the largest terrorist attack against the Russian Federation in decades. Four terrorists opened fire at thousands of concertgoers and set fire to the Crocus City Hall, a sprawling shopping mall and entertainment venue. Around 140 people were killed and the number of dead could continue to rise. More than 200 people were injured and 80 remain hospitalized. The entire attack lasted eighteen minutes.
Considering the size of the attack and the response of the Russian government as well as its people, this assault will have a massive effect on the political situation within Russia, how the Kremlin pursues the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, and other security interests.
Who conducted this attack and why?
An Islamic State affiliate immediately claimed responsibility for the violence. U.S. intelligence reported it had obtained evidence confirming ISIS’s involvement, and French President Emmanuel Macron said France also had intelligence that an “ISIS entity” was responsible. Most experts believe it was the Islamic State Khorasan (ISIS-K) which is a Salafi jihadist group active in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia. It is believed ISIS-K conducted the attack at the Kabul International Airport during the withdrawal of American forces resulting in the deaths of 13 U.S. service members. They were also likely behind a recent terrorist attack in Iran and the 2015 Paris attack.
Russia’s Federal Security Service, or FSB, said it arrested 11 people the day after the attack. This included the four suspected gunmen who are reportedly Tajik nationals and were brought to a Moscow courtroom soon after. They all appeared to have been severely beaten and tortured. One struggled to remain conscious during the hearing.
There had been several advanced warnings of a possible terrorist attack against Russia. The U.S. advised Russia of an impending terrorist attack in Moscow on March 7, and the State Department also issued a warning to American citizens in Russia to avoid crowds for this reason. There have now been subsequent reports that Russian intelligence had circulated internal warnings of an ISIS-K attack by radicalized Tajiks. On March 9th the FSB announced it had foiled a terrorist plot to attack a synagogue that resulted in two Kazakh citizens being killed in a gun battle with Russian anti-terrorist forces. But President Putin publicly dismissed these alerts. In a speech to the FSB Board on March 19, he described Western warnings as “outright blackmail” that sought to “intimidate and destabilize society.”
In the immediate aftermath, Russia’s leadership and social media accused Ukraine of being involved. Putin waited nearly a day before speaking to the nation but alleged that a link existed between the attackers and Kyiv. Ukraine immediately denied any involvement, and an attack like this would be contrary to the country’s best interests. Killing hundreds of innocent civilians in such a callous attack would alienate Western supporters at a critical moment when additional military assistance for Ukraine is being debated in the U.S. Congress.
The Kremlin spin on a tragedy
In the days that followed, it has become increasingly clear that this attack was very likely planned and executed by ISIS-K. They publicly claimed responsibility twice and released both videos as well as photos of the terrorist and the attack. Despite these facts, the Kremlin has launched a disinformation campaign that promotes the idea that Ukraine and the West are to blame. This claim fits well with Putin’s war narrative and seeks to diminish the significance of Moscow’s security failure.
The Russian president has now said repeatedly that Kyiv and Washington had a role in the attack. He claimed that the attackers were planning to escape to Ukraine, and that the Ukrainian military had opened a “window” for them to escape. There is no evidence to support these assertions. The escape route appears to show that the attackers were headed for Belarus, and their car had Belarusian plates. Recent comments by Belarusian President Lukashenko reinforce this view. But the FSB has continued the narrative. Aleksandr Bortnikov, FSB Chief, even claimed that the assault “was prepared by both radical Islamists themselves and, naturally, facilitated by Western special services.”
Putin even expressed surprise that Muslim extremists would attack given Moscow’s stand for a “fair solution to escalation in the Middle East.” This clearly ignores the Kremlin’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and brutal wars in both Chechnya and later Dagestan. These conflicts have long made Russia a target of Islamic terrorist groups. This was further compounded by the Russian intervention in the Syrian civil war where Russian soldiers and mercenaries supported the Assad regime against the Islamic State and other rebel groups. Furthermore, several Tajik’s hold prominent roles in the Islamic State, which has continued to target both Russia and Europe despite the collapse of its caliphate in Syria and Iraq in 2019.
But disinformation has long been a favored tool of Putin and his Kremlin allies. Consequently, there is rampant speculation that the attack could be a “false flag” perpetrated by the Russian FSB to galvanize support for the Ukraine war and opposition to the West. Many will recall that in 1999 there was clear evidence that Putin (then serving as Russian Prime Minister) orchestrated a series of bombings against four apartment buildings in Moscow and two other cities. More than 300 people were killed, and Russian officials blamed Chechen militants. Soon after, Putin used this narrative to rouse support for the Second Chechen War, which led to the destruction of Grozny and may have resulted in 200,000 civilian deaths.
Still, the Crocus attack is unlikely to have been a “false flag,” as it comes shortly after Putin’s recent success at the ballot box and underscores the vulnerabilities and mistakes of his wartime regime. He had clearly believed the so-called “special military technical operation” against Ukraine would be over in a few days. The war is now in its third year. The Kremlin was also visibly unsettled by the brief mutiny led by Putin confidant Yevgeniy Prigozhin and his Wagner mercenaries in June. Now the Kremlin appears shockingly unprepared to protect the Russian people from a terrorist attack. These are indicators that can lead to a regime being challenged.
Consequently, Putin will continue to “spin” and cling to a narrative of Ukrainian and Western involvement. Accepting that Islamic militants were alone responsible for the worst terror attack in Russia in decades would dilute his message that Russians must unify around the war with Ukraine – and the West. The Kremlin cannot afford to divert attention from this existential battle that they have now created. It is now the raison d’etre for the Putin regime.
And this effort to obfuscate is already showing results. Several members of the Russian Duma were quick to condemn Ukraine for the attack and called for even more missile and drone attacks in response. Expanded attacks on Ukrainian cities have followed, and the voices blaming Ukraine and its Western partners are only growing louder. Even the social media accounts of Russian embassies are now promoting claims the Moscow attack was either not conducted by ISIS or it was ISIS under the direction of U.S., UK, and Ukrainian intelligence.
This attack also exposes weakness and vulnerability in Russian internal security. It occurred even though Russia boasts more police and internal security forces than almost any country (except perhaps China). Furthermore, Putin had already instituted widespread policies of repression as demonstrated by the arrest of thousands of Russians for any form of peaceful protest against the war, elimination of any opposition during the presidential elections, and even recent efforts to stop crowds from attending the funeral of Russian dissident Alexi Navalny.
What are the implications?
Putin had made support for the Ukraine war a centerpiece of his reelection “campaign” and will undoubtedly use this narrative to build additional domestic support. The Kremlin will continue to portray Russia as under threat from the West and may use this attack to justify a second round of reserve mobilization in preparation for a likely summer offensive. Putin could also expand the number of draftees that are conscripted during the spring and continue ongoing efforts to move the Russian economy to a “wartime footing.”
This narrative has also resulted in more bellicose rhetoric throughout the country. Russian oligarch Konstantin Malofeev, for example, called for a nuclear strike against Ukraine. Other Kremlin allies have also pushed for increasingly devastating strikes that they believe would end the war. This effort should not be discounted.
Putin will certainly use this attack to redouble his attacks on Ukrainian cities. He as well as his press spokesman have now begun to refer to the Ukraine conflict as a “war” and no longer a “special military technical operation,” indicating an important shift in their narrative. But it will not only be used to galvanize Russian support, it will also be a central part of Russian propaganda campaigns across the global south to justify expanded strikes against Ukrainian cities and the country’s civilians. Putin may also believe that an expanded effort coupled with a continuous messaging of Ukrainian duplicity may further discourage Western support for Ukraine, particularly as the U.S. Congress begins its deliberation of additional military aid for Kyiv. This could further serve to divide and weaken NATO while encouraging Europeans to believe that the United States is backing away from its leadership role in the alliance.
But as lawmakers in Washington squabble, two conclusions can be drawn from the terrorist attack on the Crocus City Hall. First, Kremlin propaganda will continue to focus on the U.S., Ukraine, and its allies as the main culprits of all nefarious acts that Russia suffers. This will serve to discourage all sides from any possibility of a negotiated peace settlement. Second, senior American military leaders have warned that ISIS-K is estimated to have 6,000 fighters overall and may be able to strike the US soon. Consequently, this attack on Moscow should also serve as a warning to the West. Still, many Americans believe our Islamist terrorist problem is largely behind us. That is sadly untrue. No matter whether what happened in Moscow is an Islamic terror attack or an FSB conspiracy, it augurs badly for us.
