When Russia tested IS terrorism

As the ruler of post-Soviet Russia for almost quarter-a-century now, Putin’s totalitarianism tolerates sportsmen, artistes or any kind of mass entertainer only if they endorse (or at least do not overtly question) the way he uses his power.

On Saturday evening, March 23, hundreds of Russians with the money and time for leisure were settling down in a Moscow suburb to enjoy themselves at a concert by Piknik.

Then hell broke loose. A lightning attack with gunfire, small bombs and whatever else sent the concert hall in flames. The shock, terror, confusion and stampede to get out of the smoke-filled building through the emergency exits had people screaming and desperately climbing over one another’s heads.  The living organism almost always instinctively seeks self-preservation. Death was suddenly disrupting the pleasure, not of the concert, but the ultimate pleasure of being alive. By the count on Tuesday, 139 victims were dead.

Denunciation of the terrorist attack by Russian officialdom was unequivocal. The foreign ministry spokeswoman said, “The whole international community must condemn this odious crime.”
Every normal person should pause and ponder how shameless Russia was. Under Mr Putin’s rule, Russia has virtually no right to appeal to the conscience of the international community.

Without any provocation that sane people could understand as a cause for war, Russia methodically prepared for the occupation of a peaceful independent country and executed the invasion of Ukraine in February, 2022.

Russia had already invaded and occupied the Crimea, a territory of Ukraine, in 2014.

Rained thousands of missiles
For two years now since the second (2022) onslaught, Russia has rained tens of thousands of missiles on Ukrainian cities, hospitals, schools and residential apartments with abandon.

Russia’s weapons are modern, the barbarism utterly primitive. Tens of thousands are dead and maimed. Russia has become a terrorist state in every respect except by official description.

It is only by dint of her patriotism and dogged courage, and the help of Western allies, that Ukraine still exists, resists and refuses to surrender.

The aggressor is the same Russia that has the audacity to beseech the international community to condemn the terrorist attack on her concert hall.

But the blood of the Ukrainians haunts Mr Putin. Although all the evidence – including verified admission – shows that a branch of the Islamic State (IS) was responsible for the attack, Putin has cynically and strenuously tried to link the terrorist attack to Ukraine to justify his own crimes against that country.

As for the Russians more broadly, they bear some responsibility for Putin’s rise and entrenchment. Freedom of association and expression in Russia is almost dead, and the recent election which gave Putin 87 percent of the vote was certainly a sham. 

However, Putin still commands substantial support from Russians addicted to strong-man rule; Russians with a paradoxical and almost sadomasochistic attitude towards the uglier attributes of power; a degree of ambivalence towards the ruler’s capacity to oppress and kill.

Beside his opponents who have been silenced, imprisoned or murdered, and the millions of their sympathisers, Mr Putin has millions of unforced supporters and admirers.

Is it possible, after all, that the Islamic State attack on a Moscow concert hall will move some of these souls to reflect differently on the terror unleashed by Russia against Ukraine?

Mr Alan Tacca is a novelist, socio-political commentator.
[email protected]