By Carlos González Penalva on April 11, 2024
Crocus City Hall after the terrorist attack last March 22, Photo: RT.
In an unexpected turn of events, the recent massacre at Moscow’s Crocus Concert Hall has unleashed a wave of speculation and propaganda in the media, and one that is impossible to dissociate from the global war context and, in particular, the U.S.-NATO operation in Ukraine. What at first pointed to the Islamic State-ISIS as solely responsible, a more detailed analysis and the revelation of evidence in the ensuing days has shown serious inconsistencies and hidden international agendas that deserve close scrutiny.
What happened? The terrorist attack occurred at the Crocus Concert Hall in Moscow, with several perpetrators involved. The methods and execution of the attack generated debate about the real perpetrators and the motivations behind the attacks. Surprisingly, and with statements that were out of place at the time a U.S. spokesman quickly dismissed Ukrainian involvement, focusing attention exclusively on ISIS.
It is unusual for intelligence services to speak out so quickly. As little as 55 minutes after the attack, Ukraine’s involvement was already ruled out. What did they know that we didn’t? The immediate post-attack U.S. reaction, in particular the request made by John Kirby, spokesman for the U.S. National Security Council, is intriguing. Kirby urged that no links be established between the Kiev regime and the attack.
This unusually swift statement by Western intelligence agencies raised, with incredible clumsiness, significant doubts about the motivations and certainties underlying the attack. Why the urgency to disassociate Kiev? What implications did this request have for the global narrative of the incident and international relations? What is striking is the warning issued by the US a few weeks before the attack, where they alerted their citizens about the possibility of a terrorist event in the region. But what did they really know and what was the basis for such a warning?
The Islamic State, or ISIS, is known to operate on an axis from Turkey to Iran, and to date had never shown particular interest in Russia, focusing primarily on the Taliban and operations in Iran. ISIS has spread like a ‘mousetrap’ from Afghanistan. The absence of a clear and distinct interest in Russia on the part of ISIS suggests that the facts are murkier than first, or some posts on social network X, might suggest.
Speaking to the nation after the attacks, Vladimir Putin revealed that 11 individuals had been detained, including four of the attackers who were attempting to flee to Ukraine. According to preliminary information, there appears to have been a “window” planned at the Ukrainian border to facilitate their escape. This undoubtedly opens a new chapter in the investigation of these heinous acts.
Most intriguing is the profile of the detained perpetrators. The details suggest that they are mercenaries and not ideologues. Unlike the ideological followers of ISIS, who seek martyrdom, these individuals seemed more interested in escaping than in continuing the killing, an atypical pattern for ISIS operations, where attackers usually continue until they are shot down .
This reinforces the hypothesis that these could be mercenaries, driven more by financial incentives than ideological convictions. In addressing the complexities of international terrorism, it is crucial to examine the interplay between various geopolitical groups and actors and, in particular, the connection between ISIS and Ukraine.
Several leaked Reports and cables point solidly to ISIS members having participated in the war in Ukraine vis-à-vis Russia. A prominent example is Abdulkhakim Shishani (Abdulkakim Sisani), of Georgian origin, who has been in Ukraine and is credited with being the link between the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense and radical Islamist groups he led in Syria.
There is extensive documentation collected over the years detailing that, in certain contexts, ISIS has acted more like a mercenary group than a traditional jihadist army.
This perspective suggests that their actions may be more aligned with the interests of external intelligence agencies, such as the CIA, than with the religious precepts of Allah and Muhammad. It is worth remembering those statements by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama’s Secretary of State, in which she acknowledged that the US was responsible for the creation of Al Quaeda.
Those statements are the basis of that famous speech of Donald Trump in 2016 in which he directly accused Obama and Clinton of being behind the creation of ISIS.
Thus, a new scenario opens up, we know who executed the attack, but the key question remains: who is behind the terrorist attack in Moscow in which more than 140 citizens were killed?
Here geopolitics comes into play. The West’s insistence on attributing the attack solely to ISIS, even before the Russian investigation made progress, suggests a possible operation aimed at deflecting attention and controlling the narrative before the evidence has surfaced and the materiality of the events has been revealed.
Beijing’s Global Times surgically points to the geopolitical implications of such an accusation, suggesting that acknowledging Ukraine’s involvement could diminish support for Kiev, which would be a significant blow to the ambitions of the United States and NATO in the region, and their lackeys in the European Union, which as the Global Times rightly points out has lost strategic autonomy and made it dependent on the U.S. foreign agenda.
Regardless of the degree of involvement, the participation of Ukrainian nationalist elements, such as the Nazi-fascist Azov battalion, as well as ISIS militants or the simple hiring of mercenaries, in all these scenarios there is a common nexus or common thread that points to the participation, direct or indirect, of Ukraine and, by extension, certain Western intelligence agencies, such as the CIA and MI6.
This terrorist attack comes at a critical moment for Ukraine, which literally finds itself without any possibility of confronting Russia, and all the more so since the beginning of Israel’s tacit genocide of the Palestinian people, which implies the redirection of arms shipments to Israel that were previously destined for Ukraine, and a few days after Vladimir Putin’s landslide electoral victory that puts an end to Western hopes of a fraction in the social unity of the Russian people.
‘Operation Ukraine’ has become a centerpiece for the EU, representing their values against what they veiledly consider Russia’s ‘barbaric horde’. But this attack challenges the Western narrative and has serious implications, both in terms of international relations and internal security. The Crocus Concert Hall case highlights the vulnerabilities of the European Union and calls into question its sovereignty in terms of security and foreign policy. This attack should be a catalyst to re-examine and redefine Europe’s strategic autonomy.
As investigations continue, the Moscow attack is not only a tragic reminder of the fragility of peace, in a context of rapidly escalating warfare by European governments, but also a complex geopolitical puzzle.
What appears to be a clear attribution to a known terrorist group becomes, under closer scrutiny, a labyrinth of political intrigues and increasingly hidden agendas. In the last few days, the US has coincidentally re-floated the alleged sonic attacks against the United States in Havana, accusing, of course, Russia and, by extension, that Cuba is at the service of Vladimir Putin.
As Johana Tablada rightly pointed out, there is no such attack or so-called “Havana syndrome”, what really exists is the Washington syndrome, a syndrome that should be looked for in the office of Senator Marco Rubio.
It is essential, in the current context of the cognitive and narrative wars of our present, to question the facile narratives, and to move from being patient subjects of information to engaging with information and the multi-layered analysis that contemporary geopolitics entails. We live on a chessboard, and once again, we seem to be the pawns.
Source: Cubadebate, translation Resumen Latinoamericano – English