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.