March 24, 2024 - 6:00pm
Some events bring a new sense of perspective. Friday’s horrific terror attack in Moscow, which at the time of writing has claimed at least 137 lives, may be one of them. Almost halfway through our current decade of tumultuous geopolitical rivalry, the grisly spectacle of terrorists gunning down innocent civilians in a concert hall seemed suddenly to transport us back to Europe’s bloody 2010s. Exactly five years after the defeat of Islamic State as a territorial entity in eastern Syria, the group had returned to smear its mark on European soil once more.
Yet the broader backdrop of the Ukraine war also shows how much our continent has changed since then. The timing of the attack — just as Russia’s government formally upgrades the Ukraine conflict from a “special military operation” to a war, and Moscow apparently plans a vast new wave of mobilisation to seize Kharkiv — provided fertile ground for conspiracising. It was only natural, in these circumstances, that more excitable pro-Ukrainian commentators would claim the atrocity was an inside job. After all, Vladimir Putin first took power in the shadow of the 1999 Moscow apartment bombings, whose interpretation as a false flag has waxed and waned in intervening years depending on Western attitudes to Moscow.
Equally, within the context of the Ukrainian GUR intelligence agency’s increasingly bold — and in Washington’s eyes counterproductive — strikes within Russia, including the ongoing incursions into Russian territory by exiled militias such as the neo-Nazi Russian Volunteer Corps, it is unsurprising that Moscow has now linked Friday’s horror to Kyiv. Russian state media has been instructed to amplify any possible links to Ukraine, including the dubious discovery of an assault rifle with Russian Volunteer Corps slogans at the scene, and Putin’s claim that the terrorists had negotiated safe passage across the Ukrainian border.
Both the Syria and Ukraine wars have been characterised by conspiratorial commentary from deranged online fandoms, and their conjunction at the Islamic State’s hands was predestined to lead down rabbit holes. Even as the Islamic State, following its familiar template, claimed responsibility via its Amaq news agency and then released conclusive proof of its role through grisly GoPro footage, the event’s horror was swallowed up by the Ukraine war’s mad logic, leaving IS almost desperately seeking credit for its own brutality.
But the most significant aspect of how far Europe has changed since the 2010s has perhaps been overlooked. The United States warned Russia that a terror attack was looming (a warning spurned by Putin as “blackmail”), and in its wake Western nations have expressed condolences towards Moscow at the loss of innocent life. In so doing, the West has seemingly recalibrated its rhetoric: the Ukraine war is placed within the bounds of diplomacy and a shared state-system, with Russia no longer a civilisational enemy but a parallel victim of jihadist terror. Rather than a war between civilisations, it is a dispute within civilisation, sharing the external threat of jihadist barbarism.
Yet Putin’s Russia, turning eastward and increasingly hostile to the West as a whole, seemingly rejects this framing. In the Kremlin’s view, Islamic State, Ukraine and the West are one and the same threat. Back in 2022, the White House expressed horror that the invasion of Ukraine would drag us back to the 19th century, when border disputes could reasonably be settled by force. In the changed circumstances of 2024, a return to a period when wars were mere territorial conflicts which could be concluded with diplomacy now seems an attractive prospect. For Islamic State, crowing at its murder of “Christians” in Moscow, Russia and the West are one undifferentiated enemy. For Putin, these shared civilisational bonds have already been dissolved.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAs the author suggests, Putin’s ongoing strategy is to build the rhetoric that much of the world is against Russia and it is only he that can deliver them to salvation. This is an Orwellian forever war however and the enemy will always be out there in one form or another.
Are we Oceania? Or is China?
But it even more depressing in real life, in 1984, Ingsoc make their lies believable through numbing the senses of the people through constant lies to gaslight them to accept falsehoods. In Russia, people believe the lies because the propaganda is effective on technical level, but also because they like what the regime is offering them, that it is restoring Russia to its former greatness and appealing to Russia age old hatred and fear of the west, saying that west is trying take away their birth right to an empire as well as trying to hurt them in the process, a birth right that was unjustly stolen taken from them. It also works because the Russians are in denial about what is happening in Ukraine because its to psychological horrifying to accept that their country is doing terrible things doing other people. People do denial on a personal, and also do on collective level. The result you have a society that is pretending its not happening, downplaying the act itself if not outright justifying the atrocities. All this is made more easy by the one-sided, exploitative and abusive relationship Russians and their government have had for much of its history and has effected their society. Russian society is like a child that suffered abuse and grew up to become a maladjusted adult, he may dislike and even hate their parent for what he did to them. But at the same time they tend to develop same awful values and behavior of the parent who did awful things to them, they dislike them less for the fact they were abused but for the reasons why the abuse happened to them, yet thy have this odd mix of feelings in the form of fear, love and respect toward them.
It’s a case study in cognitive dissonance.
I heard a radio program over the weekend which explained Putin’s remaining popularity roughly like this: he presents himself as the blameless, never-failing, never wrong leader who is constantly let down by his incompetent subordinates (yes, he’s the innocent victim here). The mistakes and blunders are actually recognised – but it’s never the top man’s fault. Apparently there’s a long Russian tradition that this feeds on.
If they only stopped and thought – hold on, but he hand picks all these incompetent subordinates … but no, he’s still infallible … it’s all too difficult and confusing, so I’ll stop thinking about it …
The myth of the good Tsar, Its always struck me that despite how cynical, fatalistic, distrusting Russians can be, they have this paradoxically naïve and almost childlike faith in the goodness of their leaders. Despite all the bad stuff happening all around them. I think its do to the personalistic and paternalistic nature of Russian politics and society, personalities are more important then institutions, and relationships are more important then rules. The idea of that you should put trust in any kind of impersonal, unbias authority dose not occur them or seem just to alien them, it just goes against their cultural mindset. We see this pattern recurring in low trust societies in places like Latin America, despite the fact this style of governance has been a proven disaster time and again, they keep falling for authoritarian personality cults and that style of governing.
Thank you – you said it better than me.
It is astonishing that anyone in the West things that the “rule of men” is better than the “rule of law”.
I’ll bank “low trust society” for future use. Russia’s pretty much the benchmark here too – it’s why the oligarchs keep all their assets abroad.
The author is right to call out at least some conspiracy theorists, but it must also be acknowledged we live in an age when some conspiracy theories, once roundly disparaged by Western governments, have been proven correct.
Is it so hard to believe the Ukrainians did not at least indirectly facilitate this attack? They are, after all, becoming increasingly desperate as Western support for the war falters.
Whilst it’s not impossible for there to be Ukrainian involvement, it’s perfectly possible for this attack to have happened without it because
IS is capable of it by themselves, and because there’s several obvious reasons why Putin would want to blame Ukraine.
Why look for a complex reason when the simplest answer – IS attacked Russia – is entirely plausible?
Cui bono?
These were not holy warriors, who would have died on the scene of the crime. These were hired thugs that tried to escape afterwards. Which makes a real IS involvement rather implausible.
The men were fleeing to Ukraine, which may be the closest border, but also an extremely heavily guarded one. Were they ethnic separatists or the like, they would have chosen to flee to the east.
Anyway, at his point, the truth doesn’t really matter anymore. What matters is what figures with power believe to be the truth and we cannot count on the legacy media to cross check the narrative.
Maybe it has always been like this and the power checking media was just an illusion and that what has changed is that there are now many more independent commentators. Interesting times…
Indeed. War makes for strange bedfellows.
I feel pretty sorry for the Russians who were killed. May Peace prevail. May Justice prevail. May Truth prevail.
The ISIS-Ukraine link is not a conspiracy theory – at least it wasn’t in 2019 when the Ukrainians & CIA arrested one of their leaders there. Strangely there wasn’t much follow-up action despite plenty of reports of other links by some Ukrainian journalists. See here for details.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/isis-leaders-ukraine-tukey-syria-caliphate-al-bara-shishani-a9211676.html
Likewise there’s plenty of evidence of Western complicity with ISIS and other jihadis in Syria that belie the lame conspiracist labelling from the relentlessly on-message Roussinos. There’s the rather strange fact that they’ve never attacked any Israeli targets for starters and the numerous occasions they travelled hundreds of miles across Syria to attack Palmeira and other targets without the allegedly at-war-with-them US noticing.
It’s also more than a touch strange that the ISIS responses to the Israel-Gaza war have so far been perpetrated against ‘official enemies’ of the US – Iran & Russia – both with apparent US fore-knowledge of attacks being planned. Tis a mystery an no mistake.
And back to Ukraine, there are links with the sainted Zelensky that like that can quite easily be found online:
https://x.com/DD_Geopolitics/status/1771999483741540783?s=20
Absurd nonsense.
If you want to see a conspiracy theorist, I suggest you look in the mirror.
We’ll see – I’m not the one dismissing speculation as conspiracy theories – I’m responding to an article that does.
I could also have speculated about the role of the Tajiks in all of this – that the Ukrainian embassy there has been actively recruiting Tajik mercenaries there for a year or so.
If you want a conspiracy though, my favourite currently involves MI6 and some Tajik terror groups. The kind of thing the US might get wind of, not want to scupper, but sill wish to protect their citizens from when they hear what their allies are up to.
Yes, I think MI6 involvement is very likely. And running the project through MI6 would provide cover for the CIA in the aftermath (“we had no idea…”).
Anyone with a serious interest in the facts will discover that the US is the imperial power behind the the civil war in Syria, chronic aggression against Iran, promotion of Shia-Sunni conflict, and the proxy war of Ukraine against Russia.
It’s not about Russia attempting to build an empire. It’s about the US trying desperately to hold on to one.
A good starting point is to read the Wolfowitz Doctrine memo, which is available here: https://www.archives.gov/files/declassification/iscap/pdf/2008-003-docs1-12.pdf
Diana Johnstone is a good source for analysis, along with John Mearsheimer and Gilbert Doctorow. And Indian Punchline for an Asian perspective.
I would also add Alexander Mercouris and the Duran to the list you give.
And you know this how? Care to reveal your sources?
Read enough of ADK’s comments to recognise some patterns.
If you’re consistently 3 sigma off the middle of the distribution on enough subjects, it’s a fair guess. It’s possible to hold a correct outlier opinion on a small number of issues where mainstream thinking can currently mistaken. Basic statistics tell us you can’t do that in general and expect to be correct.
Beyond that, I notice that ADK only checks for conspiracies amongst the Ukraine and Western nations. Suspicious. An authentic sceptic would be checking across the board.
Having a “favourite conspiracy theory” is also a clue …
If only there were some recent UK news story that showed the stupidity of endless online speculation by people who actually have no first hand experience of what they’re talking about …
I suspect when the dust settles we’ll find out the US did with ISIS what it almost always does with these conflicts when it gives up on fixing the situation and idealistic nation building and gets down to the real business of protecting American interests. They just support whichever local gang, militia, or warlord is friendly, or at least neutral toward the US against local rivals and when that person rises in power, the US continues to bribe whoever to prefer some targets over others and leave American personnel alone. If they later become a problem, the US can just replace them. There’s always another greedy thug looking to climb the ladder of violent thuggery and willing to stab the current boss in the back tThey heavily support the Kurds in northern Iraq to keep ISIS in check across the regions they control, but in return, the Kurds can’t agitate for independence or their own state, because Turkey, which has its own Kurd majority areas, is an ally the US has been pandering to since the Cold War. Some of the drug lords in Central and South America were undoubtedly put there by the US government in the first place because they were better than the alternative, or because they supported whoever the US wanted in control of that country politically. There’s no telling how many hands the USA has in how many cookie jars globally, but I’d wager its a lot, and I’m sure for every one we know about, there’s two or three we don’t.
One commentator who is neither ‘conspiratorial or deranged’ is Catherine Elizabeth Belton MBE, a journalist and writer who from 2007 to 2013, was the Moscow correspondent for the Financial Times. She is also the author of ‘Putin’s People: How the KGB Took Back Russia and Then Took On the West’.
Perceiving him as a politician who would employ whatever means necessary to stay in power, members of the former KGB leadership identified him (Putin} as the key to maintaining their control over Russia. Putin built an intricate network involving politicians, members of ruthless organized crime organizations, sympathetic journalists, and the ever hungry nouveau riche that are the oligarchs of today, which he successfully leveraged when it served his interests as well as pitted factions against each other when required.
Most shocking in this regard is Belton’s assertion that Putin’s regime staged the now infamous 2002 Dubrovka Theater terror attack. Resulting in the deaths of close to 200 civilians, the aim of this, according to the book, was to sway public opinion towards the government taking a firmer hand on the Chechen issue, whose separatists were accused of perpetrating the ruthless attack.
Sounds familiar and the full review is here:
https://manaramagazine.org/2021/03/book-review-putins-people/
“Putin’s People” is essential reading to understand Putin and Putin’s Russia. Can’t recommend it enough.
Putin would do well to remember Denis Healey’s “First Law of Holes” (when you’re in a hole, stop digging). As it is, he refuses to listen to warnings about Moscow terror attacks passed on by the US. Listening would, of course, mean admitting that US intelligence is better than his own. Better that innocent Russian civilians die than admit that. That’s the sort of man wer’e dealing with here.
Russia will observe a national day of mourning on Sunday (March 24) after a massacre in a Moscow concert hall that killed more than 130 people. The attack has been claimed by the Islamic State group. Three days earlier, Putin had publicly dismissed a US warning of an “imminent” attack in Moscow as propaganda designed to scare Russian citizens. The US embassy in Russia had warned on March 7 that “extremists have imminent plans to target large gatherings in Moscow, to include concerts”.
https://www.france24.com/en/video/20240324-us-had-warned-russia-of-possible-terror-attack-on-large-gatherings
Russia would be extremely foolish to believe anything the West said.
Russia helped the USA after 9/11 and sought friendship. That was taken by the West as weakness and expanded NATO eastwards contrary to previous pledges.
The West then organised a coup against the elected President of Ukraine and sought to incorporate it in NATO.
It is unsurprising that Russia, in any event paranoid, doesn’t trust the West.
Unfortunately for the West, China and the Global South aren’t on board with the Western aganda, and are now more important as a bloc.
The West has overreached as all empires do.
No one in the West wants to be part of Russia’s empire again just for them to “secure” their borders against the rise of “Nazis.” Their borders are indefensible no matter how big the buffer.
Invasions of Russia have been from the West…and those borders are readily defensible. And it isn’t N**is which are the problem for Russia, it’s Neocons.
I doubt that Russia wants to extend into Eastern Europe…too much trouble to take, even more to hold. It’s the dying US empire which is the problem…dying empires usually are, although Russia just folded its tents and left, much to Western surprise.
Typical Russian victim mentality, nothing is ever Russia’s fault, it’s never the instigator, it responds to being instigated against, Russian never acts, it is acted upon. Russia’s demands respect or recognition, despite doing nothing worthy of respect or recognition.
Russia withdrew from Eastern Europe..NATO expanded into it despite saying it wouldn’t…and you blame Russia for being an instigator…
France and Germany confirmed they used the Minsk Agreements to gain a military advantage…but Russia is to blame…
Please do tell us all exactly what this “military advantage” the French and Germans established is. It’ll be news to most of us !