People lay flowers to mourn victims of a terrorist attack at the Crocus City Hall in Moscow, Russia, on March 22, 2024.
People lay flowers to mourn victims of a terrorist attack at the Crocus City Hall in Moscow, Russia, on March 22, 2024. Alexander Zemlianichenko Jr/Xinhua/ZUMA

-Analysis-

In front of any event of the magnitude of Friday’s terrorist attack in Moscow, which left at least 137 people dead, there are facts, grey areas and manipulations of every kind.

Undisputed fact: gunmen burst into a large concert hall in the Russian capital and opened fire. It was reminiscent of the Bataclan attack in 2015, but unlike Paris, the police arrived after the killers had left. Four individuals from Tajikistan, a former Soviet republic in Central Asia, were arrested later, far from Moscow. Their quick confessions were posted on social media.

For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.

Second fact: the Crocus City Hall attack has been claimed by the Islamic State (ISIS), and more specifically its so-called Khorasan branch, that mostly operates in Afghanistan. Experts have authenticated the claim, pointing out that ISIS does not usually take responsibility for attacks it has not carried out. Yesterday, ISIS released new videos that support that scenario.

But now we leave the realm of facts, and enter the grey areas and all the possible manipulations.

All the slippery facts

Take Vladimir Putin, who, after a long silence, took the floor on Saturday to accuse… Ukraine. Or, more precisely, that the terrorists were fleeing in the direction of Ukraine, where they were expected. The Russian president never mentioned ISIS by name, even though it had already claimed responsibility for the massacre.

Putin’s accusation against Ukraine came as no surprise: it was obvious that the Kremlin’s communications would try to blame its adversary in a conflict that is escalating once again. Moreover, the word “war” is starting to be used officially in Moscow, not a good sign.

It’s one of the great weaknesses of states that they can only manage one crisis at a time.

But Putin has provided no proof of his accusations of collusion between terrorists and Ukraine, so we need to be careful about the Russian “narrative,” which would serve primarily to justify war against Ukraine, rather than shed light on Friday’s attack.

Emergency services workers clear debris at the Crocus City Hall in the town of Krasnogorsk after a fire.
Emergency services workers clear debris at the Crocus City Hall. – Russian Emergencies Ministry/TASS/ZUMA

The first lesson of this tragic attack is that there are good reasons to be wary of Russian accusations. Firstly, because Putin needs to justify the March 22 security breach to his people, especially after the American warning three weeks ago, which he dismissed out of hand. By placing it within the well-established framework of his war with Ukraine and the West, the Russian president offers a simple explanation — too simple.

The second lesson is that Russia has put all its military, industrial and human resources into Ukraine, to the point of neglecting the fight against terrorism. It’s one of the great weaknesses of states that they can only manage one crisis at a time, and Russia is once again demonstrating this.

Russia has a long history of confrontation with jihadist terrorism, dating back to the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and then, under Putin, in Chechnya, Syria and the Sahel.

We’re moving away from Ukraine, which doesn’t sit well with Vladimir Putin right after his big re-election — and he now must face a challenge he hadn’t anticipated.