US-Ukraine's Hidden Hand in Moscow Attack Unmasked

It’s been fascinating to witness the media analysis in the aftermath of the devastatingly tragic terrorist attack on Moscow’s crocus concert hall last week.

The narrative media has been running with - and their predictability hasn’t disappointed.

Headlines like “US has intelligence confirming Islamic State responsibility for attack” or the WSJ’s “Don’t believe the Kremlin” – give a reinforcing insight to just how ill-informed or brainwashed the media are believing what is pedalled around the realities of history and how the US has been a destablising force globally to enforce its hegemonistic rule.

What becomes impossible are the “experts’ who through arrogance, ignorance, lack historical perspective or a deliberate intent to exclude the factual reporting of realities to follow a narrative, demonstrate their dishonesty.

Either way, what’s pedalled is a deliberate campaign to deny people the reality around what governments globally, are engaging in.

Blind faith has ostensibly led to an apathy of acceptance, but that’s all beginning to change even though the burn may be slow.

COVID and the lie perpetrated globally is an example of what collusion by all Governments have manifested.

History is critical in establishing perspectives of truth matched against deception for political purpose.

Simply, Americans have allowed their governments to consistently hoodwink them in believing their actions are in the interests of “National Security.”

Last week, I wrote about how in early March, the US Embassy in Moscow issued a cryptic warning about extremist threats targeting large gatherings, specifically concerts – routine caution, exercised in the world of diplomacy and the US and Ukraine were suspected to be behind the attack.

However, for the media, it was a false flag narrative - an attack orchestrated by Russian President Vladimer Putin, or ISIS-K – again highlighting a demonising of, and anti-Russian/Putin sentiment, the other to apportion blame as a smoke screen and paint a picture of a carefully planned operation that blurs the lines between extremist acts and state-sponsored espionage.

The US embassy's warnings were specific enough to discourage Americans from attending concert venues in Moscow, because of the threat of terrorist attacks, but never officially alerted Moscow as is the normal course of diplomatic relations.

The Russians were warned, but, not through diplomatic channels but outside the appropriate course or relations.

What’s evident is the media’s failure to accept who was behind the attack – to do contradict the narrative of Russia being the evil empire and Putin a dictator and madman.

The specificity of the attack suggests the CIA had credible information about an imminent threat, but the timing of the attack didn’t align, raising questions about the nature of the intelligence and its sources.

Since then, Russia has learned the attackers travelled from Turkey on March 4, undertook reconnaissance of the Crocus venue but postponed their attack because of heightened security due to the upcoming Russian election and who would be in attendance.

Not all Islamists are radicalised fundamentalists hell bent on martyrdom – the two can be mutually exclusive, and in the concert hall attack in Moscow they were – terrorists used by the CIA as they have done in many insurgencies and wars the US has created around the world.

The decision to delay, the attack outside the embassy's 48-hour caution window, indicates a level of tactical flexibility not typically associated with ideologically driven extremists like ISIS-K.

There’s no doubt the allegiance of the attackers were motivated by money and not religious or ideological purposes.

A photograph circulated by ISIS media channels showed the terrorists pledging allegiance with blurred faces which is a departure from its usual practice of showing their martyrs' identities.

But the real breakthrough in understanding who orchestrated the attack came from their seized mobile phones.

Photographic evidence was discovered when Russian authorities, were sifting through the phones, of the 11 captured within Moscow, linking them to the terrorists.

Acting on information shared by Russia, Turkish intelligence, arrested a further 40 people, revealing a network spanning across both countries.

Part of a more intricate scheme, the terrorists portrayed the attack as an ISIS-motivated while masking the involvement of state actors.

The connection to Ukraine, hinted at by communications detailing an escape route, and the involvement of Turkish nationals, opens a Pandora's box of international intrigue.

Weapons used in the attack, including at least one AK-12 rifle—a weapon primarily associated with the Russian military and known to have been captured by Ukrainian forces—further complicates the narrative.

It suggests a deliberate attempt was made to confound the attack's origins and implicate various actors.

The real architects behind the operation lay in the shadows of Ukrainian intelligence, with indirect support from the CIA and a Victoria Nuland driven operation. The former Under Secretary of Political Affairs for the State Department, is also very much responsible for sanctioning the attack and the “President Putin can expect some nasty surprises on the battlefield” remarks. Comments which would inevitably cost her her job.

Revelations surrounding the attack challenge conventional understandings of terrorism, espionage, and the relationships between state and non-state actors.

The involvement of the US and Ukraine and the sophisticated nature of the operation highlight the interconnectedness of global security issues and the difficulty of addressing them through traditional means of diplomacy and international law.

Post the Cold War, US foreign policy has consistently placed global diplomacy and stability at jeopardy.

The US’s need to be top dog, highlights decades of an agenda to undermine Russia and compromise international relations.

America’s approach to Russia traces back to the Cold War's strategic imperatives. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, rather than ending the rivalry, morphed it into a new phase where the U.S. sought not just to out manoeuvre the Soviet Union but ensure the geopolitical neutering of its successor state, Russia.

The strategy was aimed at preventing any resurgence of Russia as a counterweight to US global dominance.

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, there has been a significant absence of diplomatic engagement between the US and Russia.

The 78-day NATO bombing of Belgrade under former President Bill Clinton was a significant departure from diplomatic relations - conducted without sanctioning by the UN.

The US bombing of Belgrade symbolised a broader US disposition towards unilateral military actions over diplomatic resolutions.

There have been a series of unilateral decisions by the US that have escalated tensions with Russia, with the most notable being the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, the expansion of NATO in 2004 despite previous assurances to Russia, and the support for Ukraine and Georgia's NATO membership.

All evidence of the US's disregard for the principles of negotiation and mutual respect in international relations.

The direct role the US has played in the 2014 Ukrainian crisis exacerbated the conflict.

Since 2014, the US has systematically undermined peace efforts, like the Minsk agreements, by failing to engage in genuine diplomacy with Russia.

This stance adopted by the US has framed a broader pattern of using conflicts, like those in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya, as instruments of foreign policy without any consideration for diplomatic solutions.

The US needs to recalibrate its foreign policy towards one that prioritises diplomacy over unilateral actions and military intervention.

Since the end of the Cold War, America has engaged in a persistent effort to diminish Russian influence, neglect diplomatic engagement, and pursue unilateral actions – contributing to strained international relations and global instability and the CIA backed Ukrainian attack last week reinforce that.