The horrific terrorist attack that took place in Moscow on the evening of Friday 22 March 2024 was suddenly on the world’s agenda. As news agencies filtered the images of the atrocity as best they could, they seemed to be in a race to share the developments. While the images of four terrorists massacring civilians and innocent people on the grounds of the Crocus City Hall just outside Moscow, first the American administration and then some European countries said that Ukraine had nothing to do with this heinous attack and tried to make the public believe this claim, of course both Kiev and Western capitals became suspects.
Who carried out or ordered the massacre?
The murderers/terrorists have been caught.Therefore, the identity of the perpetrators of this brutal act is clear; however, the initial statements of the terrorists, who said that they had made a deal with someone for five hundred thousand (500,000) rubles (5000 US dollars) and that they had been asked to enter the exhibition hall at the fairground and kill as many people as possible, obviously did not satisfy anyone. It seems to be the general opinion of those who follow the issue closely that these suspicions did not diminish and even increased after ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack. As the experts who closely follow the terrorist acts of ISIS and similar jihadist groups point out, the fact that the terrorists did not make any speech during the action or when they were captured, that they made no effort to take hostages, and the US insistence that Ukraine had nothing to do with this incident, increased the suspicions. Indeed, the Russian authorities appear to be insisting that the action was directly linked to Ukraine. The fact that the terrorists travelled to Ukraine after the attack under the surveillance of Russian security forces and spoke to their contacts in both Russia and Ukraine leads Russia to draw direct links between the massacre and the Kiev regime.
To this day, Ukraine has not refrained from carrying out missile, drone and other attacks on Russian territory and has proudly claimed responsibility for each of its actions. The fact that this time it is trying to say/show that it has nothing to do with the action may be due to the enormous scale of this massacre. On the other hand, it should also be stressed that the terrorists who carried out the action were chosen from the types that would confirm the ISIS theory. In the case of ISIS, however, the link between the US and the West does not disappear. On the contrary, it strengthens the claim that the US/Western connection and the Kiev administration, which has become its direct extension, are linked to the action.
The aim of the action
What could the instigators of this action have wanted to achieve when they decided to carry out this massacre? The first thing that comes to mind is that at a time when the American and European media and pundits are openly admitting that Russia is winning the war in Ukraine, they may have wanted to spread the war within Russia.This action may have been conceived as a way to convince Western taxpayers that it is the right policy to continue to provide arms, ammunition and financial support to Ukraine, which has suffered serious losses in the battlefield war. Perhaps they wanted to say: ‘Look, Ukraine has not thrown in the towel, it can seriously hurt the Russians in Moscow’. In the last few months, European leaders, especially Macron, have been saying that Russia should not be allowed to win the war in Ukraine and have been urging their people to be prepared for a protracted war, saying that after a decisive victory in Ukraine, Putin will start conquering the Baltic states, Poland, Romania and Moldova, and it is possible to make a connection between these actions, which they think will hurt Russia. It is quite possible that they wanted to provoke Putin with such actions. Putin, who claims that the Ukrainian people and the Russian people are part of the same nation, and who summarises his war strategy as overthrowing the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev without harming the Ukrainian people as much as possible, may have wanted to use much more powerful weapons against Ukraine after this action, so that the peoples of Europe, fearing for their own future, would support more aid to Ukraine.
In this way, the American arms industry would make substantial profits in many ways. Countries in Europe that want to increase their defence spending (with the exception of France) will buy more from the United States, and the same companies may also make large sales to the American government. There is no doubt that the arms industry, which undoubtedly has a great deal of power and influence in the US decision-making mechanism, will be in favour of the continuation of this tension, and we can easily say that it is satisfied with the continuation of the crisis atmosphere with China over Taiwan.
Blocking Trump or leaving no alternative when he takes office
It should be stressed that the assumptions of the US and the Western world from the beginning of the war that Russia would collapse, especially economically, that it would be defeated on the battlefield due to many problems, especially logistical, and that the Ukrainian troops would regain all their territories, including Crimea, put all the governments in power in difficulties. There is no doubt that this situation has given rise to the thesis that the aid sent to Ukraine has been wasted, both in America and in Europe, and has put both the Biden administration and European governments in a difficult situation. Even if this is not the only reason, it is very likely that Biden will not be in the White House next year and will hand over his duties to the Trump administration as of 20 January.
Given Trump’s statements that he is fundamentally opposed to the strategy of the Biden administration and European governments on the war in Ukraine, that he would not have allowed this war to start if he were in office, and that he will definitely stop this war as soon as he is in the White House, it seems almost certain that the lobbies that want to keep defence spending in Europe and America high by spreading tensions and conflicts over the long term will either block Trump or will not want to leave Trump any alternative foreign policy option with the many provocations they will make until he takes office. Macron’s addition to his confusing statements on Ukraine that Trump will not take office according to the information he received from the US should also be considered in this framework. In short, it is almost certain that this deep structure, which is building scenarios of tension and conflict, wants and will want to prolong the war in Ukraine as long as possible. And there should be enough reason to believe that provoking the Putin government with the massacre in Moscow is part of this strategy.
There is no doubt that this strategy carries significant risks. First of all, it is much less likely that the European and American public will accept these analyses. Governments, especially in Germany, are weak and rapidly weakening. While the ruling parties concede that the Alternative for Germany party is surging in the polls, the chances of a pro-war candidate like Macron winning the French presidential election are dwindling. In the Netherlands and elsewhere, the same trend seems to be strengthening, while in the key country of the United States, as emphasised above, Trump’s arrival seems unstoppable unless he is prevented by an assassination attempt.
On the other hand, the strategy of taking the war to Russia’s interior and hurting Russians through such terrorist acts may lead the people to rally more around Putin. Indeed, in the election held a few days before the massacre, Putin received 87.8 per cent (87.8%) of the vote for the first time. In addition, the public had rallied around Putin as a result of earlier terrorist attacks in Chechnya.
All this suggests that the world is going through a very dangerous phase, but also that a multipolar world order is very likely to be accepted by the West if those who favour using diplomacy to end the war, in particular Trump, come to power. Such a period of high uncertainty once again underlines the fact that the best option for Turkey is to continue the balanced-cautious policy it has pursued since the beginning of the war in Ukraine.
