ECHOES OF BARBARISM

What will be the consequences for those responsible for the attack on the theatre at Crocus City Hall shopping centre?

 

By Sidney Hey

It may be too early to speculate, but there are many elements informing who was behind the attack on the CROCUS CITY HALL shopping centre outside Moscow. To be sure, the Russian authorities are not yet certain about the planners of the attack but there is no doubt that their intelligence is very clear about where this came from.

This terrorist attack cannot be disconnected from what is happening in Ukraine, even if some are trying to deny it. It should not be overlooked that there is a hybrid war in progress and in it, terrorism is one more tactic in its development. The managers, who coincidentally have nothing to do with ordinary Ukrainian citizens, have already been dropping hints of their already blatant interference. Only a few days earlier, a large number of French, German and Polish troops arrived by train in Cherkassy, south of Kiev, and Moscow had been following this landing closely.

This not only confirms that NATO was definitely involved, but also confirms the desperation in the face of an expected outcome on the whole front.

But as far as the cowardly attack on civilians in Moscow is concerned, some media have been quick (and clumsy) to try to shift the blame elsewhere (citing threats to a mosque inside Russia). Perhaps the one who has taken most notice of this is Washington, which immediately came out and proclaimed that it “does not believe Ukraine was behind the attack”.

Without realising it, the US government stepped on its own tail and in the face of this unwitting demonstration that it knows more than it is saying, it is trying to stage an alleged condolence and commitment to counter-terrorism. But we all know who have been the instigators and promoters of this tactic of war over the last 24 years. Have you forgotten where “Al Qaeda”, “ISIS” (and its subsidiaries such as the “ISIS-Khorasan” afghan farce) and the dozen groups that attacked Libya and then Syria came from? The answer is simple: from the brains of US intelligence, especially the CIA. Of course, later, their colleagues in MI6 and Mossad made their own “know how” of this nefarious enterprise their own and for their own interests.

It is quite possible that the architects of this attack have sought to mimic the actions of these pseudo-Islamist hoaxes, seeking to make them a scapegoat to mask the real perpetrators, or perhaps they have used them to give Kiev a helping hand. We should be suspicious of the veracity of possible “ISIS” claims that might be aired in the media. The attack on the Moscow theatre in 2002 and Beslan in 2004 are still fresh in the memory of Russians. The questions to deduce this would be who would be interested in using these traumas linked to these pseudo-jihadists as scapegoats and their connections to these assets, who can provide these assets to the SBU, and who can provide these assets to the SBU?

Again, looking back over the last 25 years, you will see clearly what the answer is.

But going back to the particularities of the Moscow attack, there is something about it that also reminds me of a similar operation executed in 2008 in Mumbai, India. A group of armed men, carrying backpacks loaded with ammunition and explosives, landed in the city at night and, as they went along, shot civilians who crossed their path. Only one of the attackers was captured alive and was later tried and sentenced to death in 2012. What was the aim of this suicide attack? To further alienate India and Pakistan.

But who was behind such an instigation? An American citizen named David C. Headley, who had been recruited by the CIA to work in Pakistan, confessed to being the organiser.

In both the Mumbai and Moscow attacks, the perpetrators managed to shock and terrify the public, so that in view of these precedents (which Moscow is well aware of) they can already intuit who the real masterminds are. The question here is who has sufficient financial resources (many of them stolen from Russian banks) to rent out assets of all nationalities and ethnicities? 

Returning to Washington's swift defence that Ukraine had nothing to do with the attack, it raises many questions as to how much the White House, or Secretary of State Anthony Blinken or rather CIA chief Williams Burns, knows about what happened. The same questions also apply to MI6 chief Richard Moore and his boys in the cryptic building at Vauxhall Cross who are heavily involved in all the operations taking place in Ukraine and Russia, especially those involved in training mercenary groups such as those who during the Russian elections carried out another massacre in Belgorod and others who tried unsuccessfully to sneak in via Kursk and Bryansk.

It is also important not to lose sight of and keep in mind the caliber of Kiev's political officials, military and intelligence leaders. On several occasions they have made no secret of their satisfaction with the massacres and terrorist attacks committed against Russian-speaking civilians in Donbass, as well as those carried out on Russian territory in Belgorod and the previous ones in Moscow.

Likewise, and seeing that it is the Atlanticist intelligence agencies that dictate the movements of the Ukrainian SBU, the conclusion is that its chief is the main asset at the service of those agencies.

If we consider all these elements and arrange them on an imaginary blackboard we will see that the execution of the massacre in CROCUS CITY HALL has many similarities with the ways in which the assets that the CIA and its partners have at their disposal operate, so the crocodile tears of White House spokesman John Kirby may serve in Hollywood but not Russia.