Two versions of the escalation of the confrontation

In the wake of the horrific terrorist attack on Crocus Hall City, a disturbing story of espionage and accusations is unfolding, highlighting the deepening rift between the United States and Russia. The White House and the Kremlin are putting forward their own version of events, backed up by what they consider irrefutable evidence, thereby fueling an atmosphere of mutual distrust and tension.

Contrasting narratives and the search for truth

After the tragedy on March 22, the United States was firm in its assertion that the roots of the attack go back to the well-known terrorist organization Islamic State of Khorasan (IG-K), which is based in Afghanistan. This position is confirmed by anonymous videos and photographs in which terrorists make symbolic gestures with their index finger up (Allah is Great), indicating their responsibility for the attack. The motivation of the terrorists, according to the narrative, is not financial, but ideological - retaliation for Russia's actions in Muslim-majority regions such as Afghanistan, Syria and Chechnya.

Conversely, the Kremlin has been putting forward an alternative theory from the very beginning, suggesting that the traces of the attack lead to Ukraine. This version was reinforced on Saturday after the terrorist attack, when Russian authorities released short video clips purportedly showing captured suspected terrorists in the Bryansk forests, reciting their participation in a mass murder for a meager sum.

Warnings and responses

The unfolding events shed light on the critical weeks leading up to the attack. On March 7, the U.S. Embassy in Moscow publicly warned of potential extremist actions against large gatherings of people, a warning that now seems prophetic. Despite these warnings and even evidence of pre-emptive actions by Russian security forces, Moscow's subsequent inaction raises questions.  Although the United States stated that it had warned Moscow through its channels about the upcoming terrorist attacks, however, it did not name the time when such information was transmitted. However, from the actions of the Russian security forces, it is suggested that the information was transmitted much earlier than the public statement of the US Embassy. The state-run RIA Novosti reported on March 3 that six ISIS members were killed during a counter-terrorism operation in the Ingush Karabulak; on March 7, it reported that security services had discovered and "neutralized" a cell of the banned Vilayat Khorasan organization in the Kaluga Region, whose members were planning an attack on a synagogue in Moscow; and on March 20, it reported that that the commander of the ISIS militant group was detained. The repeated public warning followed two days before the Crocus tragedy.  However, it remains unclear why Moscow did not develop preventive measures further. Three days before the terrorist attack in Crocus, President Vladimir Putin accused the West of whipping up terrorist hysteria. According to TASS, the Russian president said on March 19 that the purpose of "recent provocative statements by a number of official Western structures about the possibility of terrorist attacks in Russia" is to harm Russian society. The fact that Putin, just a few days before the terrorist attack, did not accept warnings about the terrorist threat for the hysteria of the West complicates Russia's response strategy.

Consequences and escalation

The prompt statements by Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council, following the Crocus attack, to take tough retaliatory measures if any links between terrorists and Ukrainian officials are revealed, paint a gloomy picture of Russia's position in the fight against terrorism, suggesting an uncompromising approach that rejects lawsuits in favor of force.

"Terrorists understand only retaliatory terror. No courts and investigations will help if force is not opposed to force, and total executions of terrorists and repressions against their families are deaths," Medvedev wrote in his Telegram channel.

This rhetoric, along with the constant focus of the Russian media on ties with Ukraine, not only distracts attention from potential mistakes in preventing an attack, but also serves as a justification for further military aggression against Ukraine and repression in Russia itself.

The previous terrorist attack on Crocus and the subsequent actions of the Russian military, including the renewed massive missile strikes on Kiev, Lviv, and life support facilities, signal an escalation of the ongoing conflict, suggesting that the attack in Crocus can be used to bring Russian society into a state of heightened alert.

Analysis and consequences

The contradictory versions associated with the attack on Crocus Hall City embody the complexity of modern geopolitical conflicts, where the truth becomes a victim of broader strategic goals. They serve as a catalyst for further aggression and deepen the gap between the West and Russia. In this situation, when the battle for Ukraine between  them  is developing in an upward spiral, the two versions of events in Crocus will continue to compete with each other, adding oil to the fire of the Ukrainian war.