Cables From Diplomatic Frontlines - ISIS attack in Moscow: facts, propaganda and incentives behind this attack.

Russia stoops to a new low in attempting to implicate Ukraine in the Moscow terror act.

• At least 137 people have been killed as a result of this weekend’s terror attack in Moscow.

• Four gunmen (there is a presumption that the whole group is much larger than that) have now been detained for their role in shootings and explosions at the Crocus City Hall - just outside Moscow.

• This makes it the deadliest terror attack in Russia since the Beslan hostage crisis in 2004 - where terrorists captured a school (and took 1,100 hostages) in North Ossetia: more than 334 people, and 186 of them being children, died in the ensuing firefight with Russia’s special forces.

• What adds to the tragedy, is the fact that this was possibly a preventable attack: On March 7th, the US warned Russia to expect an ISIS-K-organized terrorist attack "in the next 48 hours".

• A photo has now emerged of one of the arrested terrorists, randomly photographed in Crocus Hall, on 7 March - perhaps this was a practice visit to ensure familiarity with the setting?

• And how did the Kremlin react?

• They dismissed the threat as ‘‘not specific enough” and astonishingly, Putin later claimed that this was a western psyop to “intimidate and destabilize” Russia by causing a widespread panic in the general population.

• Putin of course was quick to promise retribution for this attack.

• But more than that, by claiming that terrorists were detained on their way to the border with Ukraine, he was also eager to pin this on Ukraine - accusing Kyiv of willingness to provide a safe passage to said terrorists.

• The escaping terrorists were captured in the village of Katsun in Bryansk region - which is a four hour drive from Moscow.

• At least three things to note here:

• 1) The time it took for Russian security officers to intercept escaping terrorists - four hours is a very long time: especially when the perpetrators did not swap cars or take any extraordinary precautions. This undermines FSB’s competence in going after terrorists;

• 2) Bryansk is closer to the border with Belarus, and crossing that border makes a lot more sense (given that Belarus-Russia border is in effect an open border) than heading towards a fortified and militarized Russian-Ukraine border.

• 3) Indeed, the Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko ended up undermining Putin’s narrative by claiming that the only reason terrorists redirected away from Belarus (and towards the border with Ukraine) was due to Belarusian security forces doing such an excellent job in protecting the border:

• “We placed our units on high alert to prepare for a combat situation. As a result they were unable to enter Belarus by any means. Recognizing this, they diverted their course and headed toward the Ukrainian-Russian border.”

• It is important to note that Putin’s accusations are of indirect complicity (in facilitating their escape) vs direct coordination and planning: in other words, they are more plausible than outright brazen (and far more implausible) allegations that Ukraine was directly behind this attack.

• But this caveat notwithstanding, all of this is of course a bunch of nonsense, and realizing the danger of such a smear, Ukraine was also quick to deny any role whatsoever (and their policy is to provide ‘‘no comment’’ when their military intel/HUR is indeed involved), and no matter how you look at it, the idea that Kyiv was behind such an act is beyond implausible.

• First off, if there was one guaranteed way for Ukraine to turn the whole world against itself, it would be by sponsoring acts of terrorism that target innocent civilians attending a concert.

• This isn’t some legitimate military or infrastructure target (like an oil refinery) for Ukraine to go after, and also to be clear, there is no evidence of their involvement in this whatsoever.

• In addition, the suggestion that terrorists were on their way to Ukraine is also quite illogical in its own right: Ukraine - Russia border is currently one of the most guarded and heavily militarized regions of the world, and the idea that terrorists wanted to run into Russian troops is pretty ridiculous.

• A more plausible version of events would be that (prior to being apprehended) the terrorists were on their way to some safe house in a small/remote town within Russia.

• But it is unlikely that we would ever get any accurate facts around this attack.

• There are now a number of gruesome videos of captured terrorists being tortured by the agents of Russia’s FSB.

• One of the terrorists had his ear cut off prior to the ‘‘interrogation’’.

• It should not surprise anyone that under such a barbaric treatment, these gunmen would likely admit to anything to stop the torture.

• It is also quite astonishing that Russian security services are proud to advertise their lack of basic human civility…

• Imagine if this was done by any other security service - if Ukrainian or American or Israeli agents were publishing videos of them cutting ears of captured terrorists - in such a case, the global outrage would come without much delay.

• (side note: Russians do of course have a proud track record of barbarism. From massacre of civilians in Bucha (the regiment in question was awarded by Putin), to thousands of Ukrainian soldiers that had their genitals cut off)

• But facts and logic do not hold much weight for the Kremlin - opportunistic use of any misfortune is their forte.

• Putin is happy to make things up out of thin air.

• Never mind that there is no evidence to back his claims (or if there is one in future, it would most likely be the result of extreme torture inflicted upon gunmen), or that the US did warn Russia of possible acts of terrorism mere three weeks prior to the attack, or even that ISIS-K already took responsibility for this attack and that ISIS-K affiliated websites released an actual body cam footage of the attack.

• (side note: Washington did also alert Iran of a possible terrorist plot that did in fact materialize in January of this year. Part of this is the ‘‘duty to warn’’ policy of the US government, part of it is also a show of great global leadership: it bestows global prestige on the US for its competence and show of goodwill (even towards its adversaries). In edge cases, it could also help reduce tensions with an adversary. Recently revealed secret talks between Washington and Tehran in Oman (to ostensibly, rein in Houthis) were probably much smoother after US warning of the terrorist attack in January)

• For Putin, there is still mostly all upside of finding a way to blame this on Ukraine for at least three reasons:

• 1) Redirect anger and utilize it for war aims.

• A lot of Russians are uninformed and/or get their news from ‘‘official sources’’ only.

• In addition (and according to various credible polls), at least 15-18% of Russians are fervently pro-war: these are the nationalists who support Putin’s revisionist and imperialist campaign.

• For them, Putin is not going far enough and a lot of them have been supporting other ‘‘genuine’’ pro-war actors like the nationalist Igor Girkin (who became a serious enough challenge to Putin to be imprisoned and denied an opportunity to run in the recent presidential elections).

• And this particular demographic will lap it all up: they will ‘‘believe’’ Putin’s claims that Ukraine was somehow involved and use this incident to intensify their feelings of rage against Ukraine - and that is a great outcome for Putin.

• And when this ultra-fervent nationalist group is combined with a larger, apathetic majority of Russians feeding on a state-approved propaganda, you get the desired outcome of most of the population at least tacitly accepting the narrative that Ukraine was complicit in these attacks.

• And this sentiment is useful if you need an excuse to mobilize additional 300k men.

• In fact, one can already predict Russian propaganda talking points: look at our adversaries! They are crossing all lines and even helping terrorists get away with mass murder of Russian civilians. We need to scale our efforts to deal with this uniquely evil Nazi-led country backed by the entire NATO.

• 2) Sabotage conspiracy vs straightforward terrorism.

• There was no doubt a major security failure - especially when the US provided a clear warning to Russian security services.

• Perhaps resources redirected towards Ukraine have drained the FSB from their most basic tasks?

• Maybe if Russia’s law-enforcement agencies spent less time arresting ordinary citizens for anti-war placards and used those resources to target terrorists this would have been a preventable attack?

• Regardless of the root causes of this security failure however, one thing is clear: it is much easier for Putin to excuse this failure by blaming it on well-organized Russia-hating/western-backed conspiracy of NATO+Ukraine organizing sabotage than admitting a more banal reality: a group of Tajik terrorists walked into a major Moscow venue (10 minutes away from Russia’s National Guard base), organized a bloodbath without an intervention, and thereafter, almost managed to escape unscathed.

• 3) Stain on Ukraine and the West.

• One would (very reasonably) assume that surely there won’t be anyone buying this blatant absurd Russian propaganda that the West/US/Ukraine were in on it?

• That they somehow assisted ISIS-K terrorists?

• Surely that would be too absurd to have any chance of penetrating public discourse?

• That even the usual suspects - the famous Putin-appeasing crowd in the US would not stoop that low?

• Well don’t rush into such reasonable conclusions just yet.

• Within days of the attack, Russia is already arming Putin-appeasing conspiracy-minded westerners with talking points.

• Indeed, Russia’s foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova was quick to spread absurd claims aimed at undermining America:

• “ISIS generally attacks enemies of the United States; this is a strange coincidence.”

• Never mind that Russia is increasingly one of the main targets for ISIS (more on that later below), the statement is also clearly untrue.

• Even if we were to take the implications of this claim at a face value, the claim itself is clearly wrong.

• Someone need to tell Zakharova that Belgium, Denmark, France, Canada, UK, Spain (other notable victim states) are not in fact enemies of the US.

• But this will not deter a certain demographic of usual suspects from spreading Russian disinformation and propaganda talking points.

• Here is for example David Sachs - a prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalist with millions of followers in the US, claiming (with absolutely zero evidence) that it was “increasingly likely” that Ukraine was behind this attack..

• And social media is naturally full of pro-Putin trolls questioning America’s capability to uncover planned Moscow attacks - how could Washington really know if it wasn’t behind it?

• As if America hasn’t spoiled countless terrorist attacks.. and warned even nations like Iran.

• Perhaps those questioning America’s capabilities and basic ability to maintain a functional intel apparatus and capture valuable SIGINT, should instead ask why Russia failed to prevent this attack even after this warning.

• Perhaps they should ask Putin why his FSB is devoting so much resources into capabilities to assassinate political opponents by poisoning their underwear (Navalny assassination attempt in 2020) instead of anti-terrorism resources that could have prevented this tragedy…

Why ISIS chose to target Russia.