The reappointment of Vladimir Putin for a fifth presidential term on March 17, at the end of a parody of an election, aimed to present an image of omnipotence. It was swept away less than a week later by the fracas of the deadly attack perpetrated on March 22 at Crocus City Hall, a concert hall located in Krasnogorsk, northwest of the Russian capital, and in which civilians paid a bloody price.
Read also | Article reserved for our subscribers Attack near Moscow: fault lines at the top, a scapegoat outside
Add to your selections
A still provisional report showed 144 deaths on the morning of March 25, the deadliest terrorist operation in Russia in twenty years. It sparked almost unanimous and unequivocal international condemnation, including from Western adversaries of the Russian regime.
The claim of responsibility for the attack by the Islamic State jihadist organization in Khorasan, referring to the geographical area which in the past included parts of Iran, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan, was judged to be convincing stage by those familiar with the terrorist movement. This group claimed responsibility in 2021 for the deadly attack committed at Kabul airport which bloodied the chaotic withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan.
Counterproductive blindness
Vladimir Putin, however, refrained from referring to it when he finally spoke after long hours of silence. On the other hand, he tried to establish a tortuous link with Ukraine, the country he has been trying to break up for more than two years, without going so far as to question kyiv's responsibility. The absence of incriminating evidence makes this attempt at manipulation appalling, especially for the bereaved families who have the right to the truth, a challenge in the land of lies.
Also read the decryption | Article reserved for our subscribers Attack near Moscow: Central Asia, a new bridgehead for the Islamic State organization
Add to your selections
And for good reason. This attack, which reminds us how the jihadist threat remains present, including on European soil, goes against the grand narrative developed for years by the master of the Kremlin. This narrative makes the confrontation with a fantasized West, both decadent and aggressive, the only existential issue that Russia would face.
This blindness is particularly counterproductive. It is enough to look at the regions of the world where jihadism continues to sow death after the eradication of its Middle Eastern sanctuary, such as in Sahelian Africa, to see how the obsessive highlighting of the opposition between Moscow and Washington, or Paris, serves this terrorist organization.
Also read the column | Article reserved for our subscribers “By sponsoring the putschists in Sahelian Africa, Russia is gaining new control over Europe: emigration”
Add to your selections
The attack of March 22 is all the more humiliating for Vladimir Putin because the United States had ignored the current conflict to warn Moscow of the imminence of a terrorist attack. The warning was treated with disdain by the Russian authorities, to the misfortune of the victims of March 22.
For years, freedoms in Russia have suffered incessant assaults from a repressive apparatus led by an expert who has built his popularity on the promise of the return of order. Tirelessly, dissenting voices, such as recently criticism of Ukraine's aggression, have been stifled by all means. The Russians could hope that these abandonments would at least be accompanied by protection against clearly identified and long-standing dangers. The lesson of March 22 is, alas, that this is not the case.
Reuse this content
Source link