The United States is trying to seize the initiative in the media interpretation of the tragic terrorist attack that occurred in Russia. In the Western media space, Washington is forming the opinion that should, by all means, remove their protégé, Ukraine, from the focus of attention. At certain points in time, ISIS (banned in Russia) has been a convenient tool for the United States in Syria. Data have been published that indicate the United States took action against the Syrian government in tandem with ISIS. The fact that Washington, from the first minutes after the Moscow terrorist attack, offered a coherent version of events is extremely paradoxical in itself.
It takes the United States decades to establish the cause of crimes within its own country, such as the assassinations of leading American political figures. They lack the resources, attention and enthusiasm to establish, even several years after the fact, who was behind the sabotage of Russian-European energy infrastructure, Nord Stream 2, but within 15 minutes they provide “accurate” information about who organised a terrorist attack in Moscow. I am convinced that the Russian government has no intention of shielding ISIS if this organisation really is behind it. Statements by the Russian President and senior officials indicate that the Russian position is based strictly on facts. They indicate that the terrorists who committed the attack were moving towards the Russian-Ukrainian border, where opportunities were provided for them to cross it.
If we continue the American line, does this mean that ISIS and the Ukrainian government are coordinating their actions? The developers of this concept must think several steps ahead about what conclusions follow from it. The United States is trying to fill the information vacuum, offers its emotional interpretation of this event in order to divert suspicion from those they need now – this is the so-called “cover operation.” When US leaders are caught off guard, and such episodes do occur, intelligence leaders often and directly admit in congressional hearings that the agencies failed to foresee a particular event. However, in the situation with the terrorist attack in Moscow, the Americans suddenly put forward a coherent version of events in 15 minutes. This reminds us how, within 24 hours after Hillary Clinton’s defeat in the 2016 American elections, charges were fabricated against Russia for involvement in the election of Donald Trump as US President.
Ukraine is not a fully autonomous actor; it offers itself as a convenient tool for the United States. Ukrainian leaders do not hide this fact in interviews with foreign media, describing their country as the best security investment for Washington, as if adopting the “investment language” of American leaders. The White House, in turn, is trying to convince Congress of the need to continue supporting Ukraine, describes the Ukrainian operation as a successful investment: “big returns for low costs.” Ukraine recognises that its own room for manoeuvre is shrinking and its resources are depleted. The so-called country, in fact, is waging this fight “on a IV drip”: if the flow of resources dries up, then the confrontation will stop at that very moment. All that remains is gradual radicalisation, towards both its opponents and its own population. The Ukrainian line of dehumanising the opponent at different levels leads to thinking that it is becoming more and more radical, and from here it is one step to the justification of terrorist acts.
I believe that the verified, rational, fact-finding line that the Russian government is now taking will inevitably lead us to the point where we will know exactly who ordered this crime. We see a significant distance between how calmly and rationally (as much as is possible in this situation), the investigators of our country conducted themselves, and how our Western opponents are trying to present us with their pseudo-reality. The goals set by the organisers of the terrorist attack will not be achieved: one of them is a blow to the sore points of our society. However, one can notice how Russian society itself responded to this crime, as it was involved in saving people and eliminating the consequences. It is uplifting, empowering and demonstrates that our spirit cannot be broken.
Russia will achieve the stated goals of the special military operation: Ukraine will be deprived of its dangerous military potential. Russia needs to create conditions that will not allow, in possible immediate historical circumstances, a return to the balancing system where Ukraine can be used as an instrument against Russia. The open question is whether its foreign policy subjectivity remains. We cannot predict this now, but it is obvious that Kiev is playing the role of a destructive actor throughout the Eurasian space. Ukraine does not have its own constructive goals; it does not want to prosper and survive in order to develop. Its only task in the current format is to defeat Russia, and in the event of failure, to cause as much trouble as possible.
The Valdai Discussion Club was established in 2004. It is named after Lake Valdai, which is located close to Veliky Novgorod, where the Club’s first meeting took place.
