The terrorist attack on March 22 in Moscow, at the Crocus shopping center, which claimed the lives of 137 individuals, has become the most extensive tragedy of its kind in Russia since 2004. At that time, in North Ossetia, terrorists seized a school in the town of Beslan. During the operation to liberate the hostages, 334 individuals perished, including 186 children. Previously, in 2002, a concert hall in Moscow was captured during the «Nord-Ost» performance, resulting in the death of 130 hostages. This time, the attackers did not take hostages or make demands; they killed people with the intent to terrorize and shock the public. Moreover, this attack, unlike previous tragedies, occurred almost live, given the ubiquity of mobile phones.

This has been a severe shock for everyone. In the modern world, the vulnerability of people, especially at mass events, has become too high. Anyone can imagine themselves in the situation that occurred at the Crocus shopping center in Moscow, which intensifies the shock of the events. Especially when one can empathize through hundreds of videos filmed at the site of the tragedy.

Many similar events with terrorist attacks in Europe can be recalled, for example, in Nice, Berlin, and Paris. In some European cities during the tourist season, it is common to see military personnel with weapons in the city center in case something happens and to avoid waiting for special forces to arrive.

In such situations, preventive actions by special services are always of great importance. Preventing such an attack is more effective, albeit less noticeable. In Europe, after similar incidents, it was said that terrorists must not be allowed to intimidate society, to abandon the usual way of life and establish a police state regime. Therefore, the preventive work of special services is so significant.

In the case of the tragedy that occurred on March 22, a particular difficulty lies in the fact that on March 8, the United States issued a warning about the high likelihood of a terrorist attack in Russia and recommended its citizens not to attend mass events. American media reported, citing official sources, that the United States also warned Russian authorities.

However, in Russia, for quite understandable reasons, there is a lack of trust in the United States today. The relationship between the countries is very complicated, and it is for this reason that official Moscow reacted to Washington’s warning with some skepticism. On March 19, President Vladimir Putin called the statements about the possibility of terrorist attacks in Russia «provocation» and «blackmail.» According to him, «all this resembles blatant blackmail and an intention to intimidate, destabilize our society.»

On March 23, the Russian news agency «Interfax» reported that Russian special services confirmed that the Americans had informed them of the impending terrorist attack, but the information was not specific. But this is understandable, as there probably could not be any specifics. However, it was still worth heeding the warning. In this sense, the publication in «Interfax» looks like an apology, as much as possible in such a situation.

Obviously, after the tragic events of March 22, a so-called «debriefing» is now to be expected. In Moscow, details of what happened will be clarified, how it was possible, and what it means. But already now, many different interpretations are emerging. Given the overall tension of the political situation, it is natural that they differ greatly from each other.

According to the official Russian position, the attack mainly involved citizens of Tajikistan. One of them was killed in Crocus itself, another died during detention in the Bryansk region when a Renault Symbol car, declared wanted in Moscow, was stopped. Several other suspects were arrested, including in the same Bryansk region. The terrorists apparently came to this region from Moscow intending to go to Ukraine, where they allegedly «had contacts.» In total, 11 people were arrested. One of them stated that he was hired by phone and paid 500,000 rubles.

There are several questions about this version. The most obvious one is related to the fact that the terrorists left Moscow in the same car they used in the city during the attack and then drove 350 kilometers to the Bryansk region. Any interception plan that should have been announced immediately would not have allowed them to do this. Especially since it would have been logical for them to change the car, given the clearly professional preparation of the terrorists who acted in Crocus.

Why go to the border of Russia with Ukraine at all, given that crossing it would have been impossible? Especially against the backdrop of all the security measures both sides have been applying in the last two years, including mining and the presence of a large number of armed guards. Even if we assume that there are some contacts, they can only be with one of the warring sides, but not with both. How can one practically cross the front line, even if it is not too active, although not on all sections?

Nevertheless, Russian propaganda is quite actively using the «Ukrainian trace». Although it seems that there is already a statement from the radical Islamist organization «Wilayat Khorasan» – a division of the «Islamic State» based in Afghanistan. On March 24, their news resource «Amaq» posted a video from Crocus, where militants walk through the shopping center’s hall and kill people.

In the official Russian version, emphasis is also placed on the participation of radical Islamists in the terrorist attack. Therefore, it does not actually contradict the statement of the radicals from «Wilayat Khorasan». Although there are opinions that this organization takes responsibility for all such actions, so their statements should be treated with a degree of skepticism. However, the video of the attack on Crocus looks very plausible.

It is worth noting that President Putin’s speech on March 23 stated, «We know what the threat of terrorism is. We count on cooperation with all states that sincerely share our pain and are ready to actually unite efforts in the fight against the common enemy — international terrorism in all its manifestations.» In this case, it looks like a gesture towards the West.

Since the tragic events of September 2001 in the USA, the concept of fighting international terrorism has often been used by various states and is usually associated with radical Islamist organizations. For example, when the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria was underway, the USA, Iran, Russia, and some Persian Gulf countries opposed this organization. Although there have always been serious contradictions between them.

In this case, President Putin, so to speak, is not exactly proposing to return to cooperation with the West in the face of the threat of international terrorism, but rather reminds of the past experience of such interaction. If we assume that this is the case, then it is clear that the parties must first come to a common denominator in assessing the tragic events in Crocus and their perpetrators. Especially since all Western leaders condemned what happened. So why do both President Putin and Russian propaganda still emphasize the «Ukrainian trace»? It is clear that such a version looks not entirely logical, and the West will never agree with it.

Perhaps this is related to propaganda and is primarily addressed to the domestic audience. While the emotional background and shock from what happened are high in society, various versions can be used for propaganda purposes. As events develop, some of them will become unnecessary, but the trail and sediment will remain. So, most likely, this is precisely the result of the needs of propaganda, which, in turn, is determined by the logic of the two-year confrontation with Ukraine and its supporting West.

For real politics, at least demonstrating gestures is important for now. In this context, Putin’s words about international terrorism and the unequivocal condemnation of what happened by Western leaders should be considered. And the «Ukrainian trace» is an attempt, so to speak, to somewhat hurt the opponent, as the war continues.

It is also worth mentioning the versions offered by critics of the official authorities in Russia. According to them, there is a direct analogy with the events around the explosions of buildings in Moscow and Volgodonsk in 1999. Critics claim that the Russian special services themselves blew them up to provide a pretext for the second Chechen war and gain public support for it. The story with the so-called «Ryazan sugar» is often recalled. Then hexogen explosive was found in a basement in Ryazan, confirmed by bomb technicians. The Minister of Internal Affairs said that a terrorist attack was prevented, and then it was announced that it was actually sugar and there was a check on the vigilance of the relevant structures.

In such complex and ambiguous situations, conspiracy theories usually appear. Such conspiratorial versions were also in relation to many other loud events of the last two decades, for example, regarding the events of 2001 or the circumstances of the emergence of ISIS or Hamas. But there is usually no evidence, so conspiracy theories are often met with criticism. For example, in 2002, the book «FSB Blows Up Russia» by Yuri Felshtinsky and Alexander Litvinenko was published. The «Observer» magazine wrote that «due to the lack of transparency, it is difficult to read it as anything more than just a conspiracy theory.»

In this case, the events in Crocus were clearly disadvantageous to the Russian official authorities. At least because three days before that, President Putin called the Americans’ warnings blackmail. But more importantly, the authorities in Russia are making a lot of efforts today to present the situation in the country as generally normal against the backdrop of the ongoing war.

Of course, against the backdrop of shock, society can react quite emotionally to the situation. Especially since the terrorists were from Tajikistan. Although the authorities clearly need to take measures to ensure that emotions do not go beyond the limits within which order is violated. One can recall the shocking case of the interrogation of a Tajik detained on suspicion of committing this terrorist attack.

Today, Russia has a large number of migrants from Central Asia, with Uzbeks, Tajiks, and Kyrgyz being the most numerous. Additionally, Russia is experiencing a shortage of labor. Therefore, it is logical to recall the words of European politicians after attacks by radical Islamists, stating that one should not abandon the usual way of life. Doing so would be a gift to terrorists. However, it is necessary to improve preventive work to prevent such tragedies.

This is also true for us in the Central Asian states. For example, we have already experienced similar situations in Taraz in 2011, in Aktobe and Almaty in 2016. Periodically, special services report on the prevention of new similar attempts. But currently, the situation in the world has become too tense, and there is increasingly more room for various conspiracy theories, which is always not very good.

This also relates to neighboring Afghanistan, where the «Wilayat Khorasan» organization, associated with ISIS, is located. Although there are many questions regarding it, the fact remains that in Afghanistan, there are some groups of radical Islamists, ideologically close to Salafists. This is not typical for Afghanistan, where the Hanafi school of thought is traditionally prevalent, as in the entire region. The ruling Taliban in Afghanistan, whose ideology is linked to the Deobandi movement in Islam, also belong to the Hanafis.

At the same time, there are contradictions between the Taliban and the «Islamic State,» which are precisely related to ideological aspects. Moreover, ISIS adheres to jihadist ideology. In contrast, the Taliban are more interested in implementing their project specifically in Afghanistan. Therefore, the Taliban do not call for the external expansion of their ideological model. This, in turn, opens up opportunities for real politics.

In fact, based on this, there is currently active interaction between the Taliban and Central Asia and other neighbors. For example, for the Taliban, despite all the rhetoric and periodic escalations in relations with Iran, stability here is critically important. This is because the Taliban remember how, in the late 1990s, Iran supported numerous pro-Iranian and anti-Taliban groups in Afghanistan that fought against the Taliban. These were the Hazaras, Charaimakis, Tajiks, and some others.

It is important that the stability of the Taliban in Afghanistan today largely depends on the absence of external competition around the country, as it was in the 1990s. Today, no one is interested in resuming such practices. Conditionally speaking, everyone wants to give the Taliban a chance, especially China. Stability is of great importance for all economic projects planned in and around Afghanistan.

In this sense, the terrorist attack in Moscow, for which an organization somehow related to Afghanistan took responsibility, once again attracts the interest of external forces to this country. In this case, it cannot be said, of course, that this could have the same impact on Russian politics as it did after the terrorist attacks in the USA in 2001. But undoubtedly, Russia must somehow respond to such a challenge. It cannot be said that it will start pursuing a more active policy, at least for now, but theoretically, this is possible, especially in the medium term.

Here it is worth recalling that Russian politics concerning Afghanistan had several levels. On one level, Russian representatives spoke about threats from Afghanistan. While at another level, they asserted that it is important to interact with the Taliban and, among other things, implement transport corridor projects through Afghanistan.

This certain duality of policy towards Afghanistan was related to different tasks and different addressees. In the first case, it was about the security system in Central Asia. For the conditional conservation of this system in its previous format, which was formed in the 1990s, conversations about the threat are essential. But for a more global level, where great powers and major regional players interact, such as China, the USA, Iran, India, Pakistan, a different rhetoric is needed.

It is clear that Moscow will not interfere in politics in Afghanistan, as there are no opportunities for that. Moreover, there is a larger player here today — China. But the activation of discussions in the field of security with the states of Central Asia is more than likely. Afghanistan will attract more and more attention from all sides in the near future.

One way or another, but it seems that a new stage of turbulence in regional politics is beginning, which also reflects the growing tension in global politics. Unstable and difficult times are coming. The economic situation is deteriorating. All this is fertile ground for radically minded elements and those who might want to use them.