Why IS attacked Russia – and why Russia blames Ukraine
The terrorist attack on the Crocus City Hall concert venue in a Moscow suburb was no bolt from the blue. The Kremlin dismissed US intelligence warnings of an imminent attack by “extremists,” possibly to shift the blame to a convenient scapegoat when the attack came.
The murder of 137 concert-goers is but the latest atrocity in a decade-long struggle between the IS and Russia.
The die was cast on September 30, 2015, when Russia intervened in Syria to support the collapsing regime of Bashar al Assad.
IS operatives responded a month later by infiltrating Egypt’s Sharm Elsheikh airport and planting a bomb on a Russian Airbus, killing all 224 passengers and crew.
In retribution, in September 2017, Russia is alleged to have killed IS’S former “war minister,” Gulmurod Khalimov, who had once been the commander of the police special forces of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Tajikistan and who had fought beside the Russian forces during the Tajik Civil War. All of the alleged Crocus City Hall attackers are from Tajikistan.
Between 2015 and 2024, Russia has supported many of IS’S avowed enemies. That includes military and intelligence coordination with Hezbollah, political support for Hamas, and political, intelligence, and possibly military support for the Taliban.
Isis-khorasan (ISIS-K), the branch whose operatives are suspected to have committed the Crocus City Hall attack, is active primarily in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
IS’S way of waging war skilfully combines conventional, guerrilla, and terrorist tactics. Thus, despite being widely hated, massively outnumbered, and overwhelmingly outgunned, IS managed at one time to occupy over 120 cities, towns, and villages from the southern Philippines to western Africa, and has survived war mounted by nearly 80 states.
But IS leaders are poor strategists, with no viable military approach, as their targets range from al-qaeda and
The author is Professor of Security and Military Studies and Founder of the Security Studies Programs at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies. He is also the w, is the author of How ISIS Fights: Military Tactics in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Egypt
the Taliban to the United States and its allies. Iran and Russia are included as well. But Russia under Putin has a history of false-flag operations, the Ryazan attack in September 1999 being perhaps the best-known.
That incident, unfolding against the backdrop of a series of deadly bombings in Moscow and other Russian cities, raised profound questions about Putin’s involvement in acts of state terrorism, ostensibly to justify escalating military actions in Chechnya and therefore consolidate power. Fast forward to March 2024.
Although a Russian National Guard (Rosgvardiya) base is only two milesfrom the Crocus City Hall venue, it took over 90 minutes for the security forces to mobilise despite the warnings of possible attacks that the Kremlin had received.
Whether this is incompetence or conspiracy, Putin seems to have already made up his mind about where the blame lies: in Ukraine.
Dead bodies and a burned entertainment complex in the Russian capital just a few days after Putin’s “reelection” are not just terrible optics.
They are the result of security breaches, intelligence failures, political complacency, and possibly worse. But the Kremlin seems determined to use its massive propaganda apparatus to deflect public anger toward Ukraine.
Despite regaining the operational initiative during winter, Russia remains far from achieving its strategic objectives in Ukraine.
Indeed, 18 months, hundreds of thousands of Russian casualties, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, Russia still does not control the entire territories of the “annexed” oblasts.
For large-scale offensive manoeuvres, Russia needs more manpower, more domestic resources and less local resistance – civil or armed.
Putin, an exemplary cynic, may well have allowed the attack on the Crocus City Hall venue to take place so that he could use it to push mass mobilisation, strengthen support for the war, and make opposition to his rule even more difficult. Like ISIS, Putin’s war on Ukraine seems to be enduring and expanding.
PUTIN, AN EXEMPLARY CYNIC, MAY WELL HAVE ALLOWED THE ATTACK ON THE CROCUS CITY HALL VENUE TO TAKE PLACE SO THAT HE COULD USE IT TO PUSH MASS MOBILISATION, STRENGTHEN DOMESTIC SUPPORT FOR THE WAR