By James Horncastle, Simon Fraser University
A music concert in suburban Moscow became the scene of a bloody terrorist attack on March 22 as gunmen with automatic weapons and Molotov cocktails killed more than 130 people and injured dozens more.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
Immediately after the attack, speculation emerged about who was responsible.
Although Ukraine was quick to deny any involvement, Russian President Vladimir Putin used a short televised statement to his nation to suggest, without evidence, that Ukraine was prepared to help the terrorists escape.
However, ISIS — and specifically its Afghanistan subsidiary ISIS-K — later claimed credit.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
Russia has yet to acknowledge ISIS was responsible. But regardless of who the terrorists were representing the Moscow attack demonstrates two key concerns.
First, terrorist organizations — meaning those who use violence for political purposes without the specific backing of a government — can use pre-existing conflicts and the resulting media attention to advance their interests. Second, the actions of these organizations have the potential to further exasperate ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflicts.
The use of sub-state paramilitaries
Many countries find it useful to employ sub-state entities and paramilitaries to achieve their objectives. Both Russia and Ukraine have used and continue to employ such groups to conduct acts their soldiers are ill-suited to carry out or where plausible deniability is needed.
While using these forces has certain advantages for a country, it’s simultaneously problematic because it leads to questions over who is actually behind the actions.
Attacks earlier this year by Yemen-based Houthi groups on ships in the Red Sea are an example of this issue. The Houthis are commonly seen as an Iranian proxy group. Even though there are close ties between the Houthi and the Iranian state, the Houthi are not controlled by Iran. Assuming Iran is directly behind the attack on Red Sea shipping is at best questionable and at worst outright false.
While assessing the role that a state has in directing its proxies and paramilitaries is difficult, this pales in comparison to the difficulty in linking states to international terrorist organizations. It is an ambiguity that terrorist groups can exploit.
Media attention: Oxygen for terrorists
Defining terrorism is an exercise fraught with peril. The politicization of the term since the post-9/11 war on terror has given new meaning to the expression that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
Typically, however, policymakers and academics define terrorist groups as non-state organizations that seek to use violence or the threat of violence against civilians to achieve political objectives, with some ambiguity on which entities can perform it.
In the 21st century, the diffusion of communication technologies and the 24-hour news cycle have provided terrorist groups with newfound means to capture international attention.
Video can be uploaded in real-time by terrorist groups, and international attention can soon follow. The news media, however, is highly selective in what it covers.
Due to media selectivity, terrorist organizations seek to maximize their audience. One way to do so is by linking their activities to ongoing events. ISIS-K’s attack in Moscow demonstrates this trend.
ISIS-K’s decision to attack the Moscow music venue was not purely opportunistic. ISIS and its subsidiary organizations blame Russia for its role in destroying ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
ISIS-K’s strike against Moscow therefore fits its agenda, while also advancing its goals. The problem is the potential for escalation.
Escalating the Russia-Ukraine conflict
There is still much that is unknown about the attack. One can, however, draw out some of the potential consequences.
American authorities had previously warned Russia that an attack was imminent. The Russian authorities dismissed the warning.
Putin even stated before the attack that American warnings to that effect were a form of blackmail. So even a genuine warning from the United States was seen by Russian authorities in the light of the broader Russia-Ukraine conflict.
The aftermath of the attack has the potential to magnify these concerns. Putin claimed that four people involved in the conflict were captured attempting to flee to Ukraine.
That seems questionable: the Russia-Ukraine border is one of the most militarized locations in the country due to the war. The result, however, is that the alleged escape attempt has allowed Russian politicians to link the attack to Ukrainian authorities, despite Ukrainian protests to the contrary.
Russian authorities will have to act; any state would in the aftermath of such an assault. But retaliation is all the more likely given Putin’s consistent messaging as a protector of the Russian people.
Eliminating terrorism, however, is an incredibly difficult if not impossible task, as demonstrated by the American experience. The Russia-Ukraine war, however, is providing a convenient arena for Russian authorities to redirect the grief and outrage in the aftermath of the tragic attack.
James Horncastle, Assistant Professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney Professor in International Relations, Simon Fraser University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.